I thought this thirteen minute video was relevant to what was being discussed on some recent threads.
At the end of the video, Krishnamurti says “After these weeks of talking, you must have tried one of these things”. I suppose we have all experimented with all this but I’m never very sure if this is the case.
Hopefully we all are experimenting with this daily. Hopefully none of us are depending entirely on the flow of thought.
Hopefully we’re not just thinking about all this (attention, intelligence, self, etc)
Attention can only function freely when it is allowed to.
Awareness implies giving space for awareness. Meaning that the movement of self is not taking up all the space - in the form of knowledge, motive and intent (which is conditioning, fear and desire)
Me consciously doing something (focussing, or observing something in particular) is the movement of self.
Me instinctively doing something or unconsciously reacting (recognising, knowing, discriminating) is the movement of self.
Because all that I recognise is me - there is no division between the interpretation and the conditioning - no division between the interpretation and the interpretor.
Just sit, and see that all that you know will arise. Its just you arising. (Silence is non dependance on the noise/knowledge - silence is seeing the conditioning as conditioning)
“After these weeks of talking, you must have tried one of these things”
lol
Can I ask you this Douglas? - Have you ever become aware of greed or anger in the moment it was present? If so, was there this instant action which K talked about?
I had an insight into fear once - and I’ve told the story here a couple of times - but I don’t think people like the story, because it doesn’t play out the way we want it to : It wasn’t like I suddenly had an understanding about fear and was thus free from the self. But rather the other way around : more like a momentary acceptance of death, resulting in the immediate dissapearance of the fear and physical pain I was in - thus in the insight/experience of the self being a lie.
But this was a rather special set of circumstances leading to what felt like an extraordinary experience - not the sort of thing that can be conjured up at will - and certainly not the daily experimentation with awareness I was alluding to - which would be a much calmer, less spectacular acceptance of non-discrimination, which is meditation.
Even though I am under the impression that the self has been revealed, still in my daily life I am sometimes caught in moments of inattention that may result in anger or greed, and even find myself in conflict with my own greed and anger, unable to escape the emotional turmoil.
I find daily meditation essential. The self cannot be wiped away forever.
PS - The more space there is for awareness, the less likely anger will take hold, thus the instant action takes place without our even noticing.
To be clear, the action is not the result of a connection with something, with any sense of cause and effect. Of course there may be some incident, but this is within our fragmented perception, and our fragmented lives. The action, to call it that, is a shift to the whole integrated self, where there is completely living, and dying. It is wholly a mindful awareness, and attention, and not any particular experience as we might think it is. It is action where there is no actor.
Thanks for sharing this interesting story Douglas.
My question was more to do with the greed or anger that we experience on a regular basis. Perhaps anger is a clearer example. I think that we all experience anger on a regular basis. Do we get angry every day? Some people certainly do. My question was that when you get angry, are you aware of this anger as it arises? If so, does the anger change immediately?
As far as I can see, nobody has suggested this.
The anger is changed before it arises - this is the silly kind of sentence we have to say because of our cause and effect thinking.
Awareness, sensing the anger arising, uses a time machine in order to go back and stop your grandma from meeting your grandpa - thus acting against the anger before it arises - unfortunately since the anger ends up not arising, awareness does not use its time machine etc… 
Awareness acts on regular anger by making the entity that might get angry dissapear. It is difficult to be aware of my anger arising if I am not holding on to what I hold as real.
Existence is relationship - identity is the reification/grasping of a moment in that relationship - conflict (anger) arises from that delusion. Neither delusion (the entity nor its need) can observe the other and act on it - the freedom/immediate action happens prior to the delusion.
Glad we cleared that up.
But did you actually watch the video Douglas?
I sure did thank you very much, but the stuff about the time machine is my own subjective interpretation 
as is most of the other stuff - I tried to communicate as best I can, but might have veered off a bit at times sorry.
How about if I put it this way : I give some space everyday to the mystery of meditation - but in general during the day I am not really watching myself nor second guessing myself, because that strikes me as worse than a waste of time - I certainly wouldn’t trust myself to be the boss of me. (Although I do recommend periods dedicated to full time meditation like at a retreat)
Why don’t you give us your take on freedom from anger/greed? - don’t worry if someone shoots you down, tis the school of hard knocks 
Anger is a side effect of the discriminatory self/non-self world model. When intelligence is allowed to flow freely (thanks to awareness/absence of delusion) the interdependance of all existences is embraced, and anger has no cause to arise.
When the self is seen as conflict and suffering, all opposition to non-self falls away. The disintegration of self is also the disintegration of non-self/other.
However when the Hulk is in full rampage, delusion/intent and tunnel vision is dominant and peripheral vision is clouded
Ordinarily we are thinking action is what I do. Nobody has to suggest it. Then we think about what we are doing and think there are aspects of this, anger, fear, sadness, etc, and are things to be seen. But the seeing and the action are not different. It is a fragmented way of looking at life.
Hello Sean,
As i see it the emphasis here (K words) is not on change but on seeing, which takes us to the context of my older topic, reading the book in one glance. Without right seeing, no change.
Hello United 78,
I don’t really know about “right seeing”. I understand that K is talking about seeing/awareness and makes the point that it is crucial that there is no time interval between the seeing and the resulting action. It’s not like when we become aware that we were angry after the event but rather we see the anger/greed in the moment that it occurs. In the video I posted, Krishnamurti says:
Minute 2:20: “Just to observe this greed movement. And that very observation … sees the whole movement … not just one particular form of greed … but the whole movement of greed. And that movement, that perceptoion, that seeing, that observation ends the movement. That’s what is called action. There is no interval …(inaudible)…There is no interval in seeing and acting. One must be careful of that."
By just looking at Krishnamurti when he speaks I think you can tell that he seems extremely alert in his manner and body language. This alertness means that he was very quickly aware of any flicker of the movement of thought, greed, anger etc. That is my understanding.
No need to be sorry Douglas - we all understand what we understand and it’s good to communicate this.
I don’t really get this. Doesn’t self-awareness and self-knowledge involve “watching ourselves”, at least to some degree? I mean, if I am being rude and upsetting people, surely it’s a good thing to be aware of this, isn’t it? How can I be aware of this if I don’t “watch myself”? To me, “watching ourselves” is a vital part of self-awareness.
Dear Sean, I think we’re having the same conversation again.
Before we can discuss observation, we must first understand what self is - this is where “reading the book in one glance” or seeing the whole movement of self, comes in.
When a Republican, conservative, evangelical christian observes themself what do they see?
When a Hippy progressive observes what do they see?
Do they see the same thing? If I was one of them, should I trust my eyes/brain/interpretation?
I too am a me - me being all that I know and feel - can I see without the me? Is awareness, non dependance on the known, possible?
The emptiness is in constant flux. Fear (aka identity) is the need to hold on to what has aready ended, thus being conflict (with what is).
When I am not grasping at my own existence, awareness of all the other selves grasping for their own existences may become clear.
We need only be aware of this : Every morning I wake up as me.
And as me, I contribute to the continuation of fear and suffering in myself, in my family, and in the world.
Meditation is the ending of this identity (death of the known) - and thus the ending of the stream of conflict and suffering (As myself and thus as an entity in conflict with others).
So everyday we just need to see that we have arisen again - and thus give awareness a chance also to shine through everyday - may we all forgive all selves and give silence a chance everyday.
But unless they have come into contact with the idea that their ‘consciousness’ is the same as everyone else’s they will take the ‘contents’ of theirs as being what they are. That is generally what is the case, no?
In our case, there is the understanding that the consciousness of Dan and Douglas and Sean is the same consciousness but with different names and different contents. And ‘interpretation’ will be derived from the contents and must be a distortion. ‘Emptying’ of the Dan, Douglas and Sean contents are what is necessary for there to be ‘freedom from the known’ which are these contents. (or “stream” as K calls it). Personally I think this freeing through emptying is so ‘difficult’ because as has been mentioned, the brain has been “damaged”… by being in this ‘rut’ of the ‘self’ for so many years. (?) I may be wrong but it seems that way.