Clarification would be good. Is there a ‘problem’? Or is this just the way ‘things go’? Killing each other, war, pollution, racism, classism, nationalism etc seem on a personal level to be a problem …especially if me or mine are the recipients of these activities, beliefs, structures, … But if I’m rich, respectable, reasonably happy and secure, is there really a problem? If someone says “ you are the world” and I don’t feel that, is that a problem? And if that is true and not just poetic, why can’t I see that? What is the ‘problem’ that keeps me from seeing that?
Could we clarify the ‘problem’ as we see it or don’t?
K. Said “Don’t make it a problem”…is that because then we have to ‘solve’ it?
Labeling something as a problem creates division between the issue and the self, reinforcing a fragmented way of thinking.
Viewing challenges as problems binds the mind to psychological time, postponing resolution to the future and perpetuating effort and conflict leading to non-action.
Thirdly, which might be most observable here, the ego gains identity by framing itself as the solver of problems, keeping the mind trapped in cycles of creating and resolving issues.
Instead, by observing challenges without judgment or seeking an outcome, one can access deeper clarity and intelligence. This allows situations to be met with presence and understanding giving access to right action.
Killing each other over this or that, we are taught, is not good; it is bad. That would be a judgement. Bohm introduced the words instead of bad / good : coherent and incoherent… So if it IS a fact that we ARE the world, killing another would be incoherent because we would be killing our self. Not seeing that we ARE the world then IS incoherence . A form of blindness. A mental deficiency. A source of great suffering.
Is it possible for the conditioned brain to observe anything without the observer? Or does observing without judgment or seeking an outcome occur only when there is no judging, seeking, observer?
If you are saying that the conditioned brain can suspend the observer for the sake of observation, why can’t it eliminate it or put it in its place?
If I can remove something from where it doesn’t belong, why would I let it return to that place?
Observation, in the truest sense, is not an act of doing but of being, simply seeing without interference. The conditioned brain, with its accumulated experiences and judgments, typically operates through the filter of the ‘observer,’ which is itself a product of conditioning. Observation without the observer means perceiving without projecting past conclusions or seeking future outcomes.
The question of ‘removing’ or ‘eliminating’ the observer implies action taken by thought, but thought itself is the observer. Any attempt to remove it reinforces its role. True observation arises when this process is understood, not resisted. In this understanding, the observer naturally quiets, and observation happens without effort. It is not about control but clarity.
The reader needs to know what “understanding” actually is because what you’re saying is understood, and of course there’s no way to remove the observer, but isn’t it enough to be aware of the observer?
Understanding is not an intellectual process or a conclusion reached through analysis but a direct perception of ‘what is.’ When you truly see that the observer is the observed, this insight is not the result of effort or reasoning but of a clear awareness that has no agenda.
Awareness of the observer is a significant beginning, but awareness alone is not the same as understanding. Understanding unfolds when awareness is free of judgment, resistance, or the desire to change ‘what is.’ In that space, there is no separation between the observer and the observed, and the fragmentation dissolves naturally, without any action by thought.