Thought can create the circumstances for knowing in all kinds of ways. The alertness to thought is not knowing.
Insight seems spontaneous on the surface, but itâs the culmination of a lot of unconscious awakening.
1 Like
Itâs not an either/or issue. The illusion of my self is until it is seen for what it is, and I canât see it because I am it.
1 Like
So says the self.
As Iâve said, I donât honesty know what choiceless awareness, love, observation, or meditation is, and I canât know what they are until it is obvious.
I can form plausible, reasonable ideas of what K was talking about and submit them for peer review, but this exercise only strengthens my illusory self. Better to practice not thinking, which is what meditation seems to be.
1 Like
Hello Dominic - In order to determine if the âself isâ, doesnât this require âseeingâ what this âwordâ self is actually pointing to? In observing ourselves in relationship, this word âselfâ seems to point to the idea of a âmeâ or âIâ, along with a vast collection of beliefs that thought defines as âmy belief,â versus âyour belief,â which is one of the beliefs in this vast collection of registered interpretations of âwhat happened to meâ over time. Looking for a self, all we seem to find is a collection of abstract thoughts, beliefs and opinions. So, the âselfâ that âisâ, is just a collection of psychological thoughts. This thought-programming creates the illusion of a âchooserâ or âobserverâ inside the head, but those are just ideas in thought. And a âcollectionâ of psychological thoughts doesnât âseeâ anything, itâs just patterns of thought.
Where are you âseeingâ thought creating a âsafe room?â To my observation, the content of consciousness isnât trying to create a âsafe room,â it simply has whatever limited knowledge and beliefs it has collected so far. Thanks!
1 Like
Itâs strongest power might be its existence as a feeling, the sense of self. I really feel like an entity, an agent with a choice
Well yes, self is, and I canât end it, as I am self. So any actual end to self could only be by something that is not self, which is other than self, or outside self, but that is in effect divine intervention.
It may seem divine, but itâs just what the brain does when it sees its mistake.
But there is no seeing its mistake. That is just a deus ex machina.
Yes, it is image, it is ideation, it is identification, it is accumulation, the power behind accumulation. When âseenâ as other it is a force, and a persistent one at that, and when looked at in âmyselfâ it appears elusive and inconsequential, yet it does not end. It is impersonal in nature, yet capable of being taken personally, but it extends beyond anything I may identify as âmyselfâ which would never have the persistence it has otherwise.
Hello Kimo ( wonder if I can address you by your first name )
All your posts in this thread - the subject of which happens to be no less easier but by far the toughest task of K teaching are of extraordinary nature and of incisive quality.
The posts have such rare essence of accuracy I might have given maximum likes to them while I was going through them 
â Meditation â per say ( there is no way of knowing what and how exactly k meant by the words and phrases he used ) as per ones experience is like a subtle breeze which comes and
takes over when one is too tired of sorting out issues in ones practical world ⌠giving the mind enough space for refreshing ⌠and it does have a property of its own âŚ
Speaking for ourselves, there is no seeing. But if we didnât think Krishnamurti and others could see, we wouldnât be talking about seeing.
Feel free to address me as Kimo. Thank you for your kind words.
On July 19, macdougdoug posted a a four minute video of K talking about meditation, and it seems to make it clear what meditation was to him.
Yes, when the limited nature of this thought constructed self is directly seen, it is clear that it has little or no significance. But giving the wrong significance to this thought-structure âdoes endâ, in seeing the false as false. The mind is no longer concerned with, âHow am âIâ doing?â As itâs clear that this âIâ or ego-structure is just a collection of thought-imagery, ânothing to be concerned about.â Where do you âseeâ this collection of abstract ideas about âmeâ - âextending somewhere?â
**Yes, if the concept didnât âfeelâ that way, we wouldnât pay any attention to it. But given that weâre never encouraged by the culture we grow up in to âbe aware of what thought is doingâ, we arenât aware that itâs thought thatâs creating the feeling in the body. We think, erroneously, that the âsense of selfâ is âjust there,â âwithout thought.â But if the thought wasnât there, the feeling wouldnât be there. Weâre just not aware or conscious of the thought thatâs producing the feeling. And itâs this thought of âme and otherâ thatâs at the root of human conflict. If we donât wake up to this as humanity, weâre going to continue to make ourselves miserable.
1 Like
Yes. Much of what we think is unconscious, and unless or until this content arises to the surface, we never know how our thinking is responsible for our feelings about who/what we are.
I donât know if this fits in here but I have a question about something that has come up for meâŚitâs about dreams. I had a dream recently that had these terrifying moments where I as the âdreamerâ felt quite threatened. After I awoke and thought about it, I wondered a bit about it. but the bottom line was that the threatening images and the âmeâ who was threatened by those images were the same thing though then, not seen as such There were the sometimes terrifying images threatening âmeâ and then my attempted fleeing, trying in every way to avoid what I feared might happen. When I awoke, what struck me as strange was that the images were created by âmyâ brain and the âmeâ who was running in panic from them was also created by the brain. Which seems rather âstupidâ. But the feeling of âvulnerabilityâ in the dream state is intense. In the waking state one is surrounded by âothersâ, oneâs attachments, but in the dream state, one is desperately alone⌠Is this all about an arising of the early childhood fears?
Anyone have any experience of this?
The consensus seems to be that there is always some sort of dreaming that takes place during sleep. The brain is apparently dealing with the clutter that arose during the day.
Some would claim that a brain that is attentive during the day, has less of a backlog to attend to at bedtime - and thus would get more rest.
The idea that all the characters in oneâs dream are aspects of ourself, is also an idea that I have seen bandied about - but this is probably more woo based than scientific.
A rational fear was represented as a conflict? An imagined conflict induces fear?
I donât understand your questions.Maybe you would elaborate?
What struck me about the dream state on awakening was the ârealizationâ that the âbogeymanâ that was coming after âmeâ had to be a creation of the brain, right? And the brain was also creating âmeâ who was terrified by this threatening âpersonâ who was menacing âmeâ. Probably the bodyâs metabolism changed, breath, heartbeat, eye movement etcâŚIt struck me as odd that the brain would be doing this. If you see what Iâm trying to say. Isnât this the same âdualityâ that exists now in the waking consciousness :â meâ here and âyouâ, other, there?..But in the dream state the division is much more exaggerated. There the âmeâ or âIâ is completely alone, and at the mercy of whatever âeventsâ come up, no control over things, just raw fear and attempts at avoidance of what âmightâ occur, no matter how bizarre or outlandish the scenario is.
I realized today on a walk that I grew up as a child with a lot of fear about how things would go for me. Now things go quite well and that is why this type of dream though not new, caught me by surprise. So this potential âfearâ that can arise in sleep is part of my consciousness. Part of the unconscious contents which ,in agreement with K, ultimately must be âemptiedâ if there is to be real freedom.