Suffering, violence, cruelty, greed etc all make us ask if things could be different, better, saner. As I read K and from my experience, I have an understanding of what he is saying when he says “Freedom is born from the perception that freedom is essential.” Without such a perception the essentialness is not seen for this freedom from the known, the self, the past, the ‘me and mine’. This ‘perception’ that he points to is an awakening through insight into the ‘prison’ that the brain has been living in. It is not ordinary observation, it is an actual revolution in the brain! It may or may not occur but efforts to observe oneself can set the stage for it. They may somehow, but not through accumulation.
I would say that it is the moment (for this brain) when it is ‘seen’ clearly, that the ‘thinker’ me IS the thought.
How does one talk about doing something one does not consciously intend to do?
I either find myself doing this thing I haven’t decided to do, don’t choose to do, but are simply doing it, or I’m faking it to make it.
Which means I is thought; I is not “nothing”.
You see Dan, this then just becomes theoretical. Rather than remaining with actualities you want to invite the mind to wander off into speculative insights and revolutions - and in so doing you invite people who lack seriousness to get caught up in mental knots over how to be free from suffering without having a perception born of freedom from suffering, etc.
It all just becomes so juvenile. Is everyone on Kinfonet as superficial as this? Why don’t we drop these stupefying ideals and concepts and face ourselves as we are?
Apparently the reasons are:
- We can’t face ourselves because we are psychologically conditioned (this is @Inquiry ‘s dogma)
- We can’t do this because the self is always active, or we need to die, or because neuroscience tells us that all perception is mediated, etc (@macdougdoug ‘s approach)
- We can’t do this because Krishnamurti had an affair with an American woman 80 years ago or so, and he had rich friends, covered his bald spot with a comb-over, etc (@DeNiro ’s general approach)
- We can’t do this because first of all we must realise that the self doesn’t exist, there is only the sacred, and freedom is at the beginning, etc (your own approach, as far as I can make it out).
So we never actually face up to anything except abstract questions about conditioning, thought, the ‘self’, innocence, freedom, love, the sacred, etc.
Aren’t you aware of this game that’s been going on for years now on Kinfonet?
Is it not going on at Brockwood and Ojai?
Don’t shove it off onto other people. It’s going on here, and it’s completely ridiculous (imo). Everyone is a philosopher apparently, and none are interested in actually observing, being aware, seeing, looking, listening.
Ask yourself why? Don’t blame psychological conditioning - that’s just an escape. Is it because honest to god we don’t actually care about observing ourselves? We don’t spend any time looking, watching, paying attention to anything because we are addicted to thinking, speculating, projecting our thoughts in every direction?
Is it laziness, stupidity, egotism, insensitivity, a lack of leisure, a lack of good health?
That’s not true. I’m serious about “actually observing” and I’m doing it. My problem is that two seconds only allows for a glimpse of actuality, and I need more. Call me greedy, but don’t accuse me of saying I don’t have the freedom we all have to know how free we are not.
I thought I started my remarks with that I was speaking from experience.
Nothing “theoretical” about it for me.
Forgive me Dan, but the present thread is to do with self-knowledge and observation, moment by moment, without accumulation.
You have brought in the words freedom, love, innocence, etc, despite being asked not to do so as these words will be distractions - which they have been, as one can see from what Inquiry and Douglas have written.
When you say that you are writing from your own experience, are you then saying that you are speaking presently from “insight”, from a brain that has undergone a “revolution”, meaning that you no longer need to observe yourself in the “ordinary” sense?
You see, it is very easy to make such claims. There is a new poster doing the same thing right now. But I don’t feel that this is true in the deepest sense of that word, and I don’t think you are seriously claiming to be transformed. I don’t think anyone on Kinfonet has undergone the revolutionary transformation that K talked about.
The fact is that revolutionary insight and total freedom from suffering, etc, are not the topics of this thread. And by dwelling on them I feel you are only giving other people an opportunity to get distracted by pseudo concerns and side issues. Which they are only too willing to be, because they are not (apparently) concerned with actual observation in daily life.
If you are really serious about observing yourself in daily life then this is what you would be talking about on Kinfonet. But I have never heard you talk about it at all.
Do you ever spend time in nature? I have asked this of you repeatedly, but you always brush it off. Yet unless you spend time looking at nature, listening to nature, or paying attention to the people around you in the office or the market place, or the supermarket - then when are you going to spend more than two seconds being aware of yourself?
You can see what Douglas does day after day here, intellectualising about side issues: are we not doing the same, you and I? Are we not, like Douglas, pushing off onto other people the responsibility of being aware?
Are we all mediocre philosophers here? And if we are not then we are just pseudo mystics who believe themselves to be enlightened already (like the new person who is posting here recently)?
Why can’t we just observe ourselves without accumulation?
I think it’s very positive that you ask such a challenging question here James.
I got the feeling, probably years ago, that talking about observation in everyday life was somehow a bit taboo here. I’m not sure if it’s seen as having much importance and there might also be an element of “you’re doing something wrong” if you just go for a walk, look at a tree and pay attention to what you’re seeing and what is going on inside your head. It’s all a bit of a mystery to me as to why talking about simple observation in everyday life should get so little attention here.
If “we can’t do this” means “we cannot be aware of ourselves” then the first argument “because the self is always active”, fails - ie. awareness of the self actually depends on the activity of the self : no self = impossible to observe self.
The argument “we need to die” is not meant as an argument against the possibility of awareness - rather its usually a question I have about the possible necessity of some strong experience of non-self - how this experience could help confirm the teachings, make it less theoretical for us.
As for the 3rd bit about the science of sense perception, I’m not sure how this works against our capacity for noticing what mental state we’re in.
Therefore macdougdoug’s arguments are useless in upholding the claim : “we cannot be aware of ourselves”.
So why do I feel there is an immediate push back whenever this topic of awareness, or observation, or seeing, arises?
Why is there a culture on Kinfonet of ignoring the significance of simple observation of one’s consciousness?
As someone who has been participating here for a while now, I’ve seen these things taking place, and I feel it is important to speak up about it.
As someone with a tendency to be intellectual myself, I feel particularly responsible for having helped to create a culture like this.
Observation is central to what we purport to be doing here on this website. Yet it tends to get short shrift due to the overall intellectual tendency we have created here.
While I am not countenancing the approach of some people who are wholly dismissive of the intellect - i.e. the various proto-gurus who regularly drop in to talk about whatever they talk about - I am of the view that the intellect, in the field of enquiry, has very limited value, and is wholly worthless when it comes to the immediate business of observation, awareness, attention, etc.
I feel our conversations here ought to reflect this fact. Over-emphasis on intellectual side issues is not worth our time, I feel.
What you feel is a jewel. Because it is confusion.
Also, this is a discussion forum, we discuss details, ask questions, give opinions. Doing this to the best of our ability is the goal. Each to their abilities. How are you faring?
And during this time, are you aware of yourself? Your desires? Your emotions? Are they getting in the way of dialogue?
What I’m aware of is that I am finished with the pseudo intellectual philosophising of the kind you dish out here daily. I am not defending myself for being impatient with you, but I’m done with this kind of discussion Douglas.
If you want to split hairs until you die, then split hairs. But not with me.
Well I hope that whatever you have to offer is helpful.
“I think this is an over-simplification 07007.” J-
What makes self -awareness complicated is thought .
Thought approaches the problem positively with projections. And projections prevent self- awareness. That is not difficult to see.
Does self-knowledge talk about itself? Self-knowledge is the same for every self-centered brain. Must one describe what it is to look at a tree without the intrusion of thought, or is it enough to do it? The details of ones awareness are beside the point. Observation speaks for itself.
then when are you going to spend more than two seconds being aware of yourself?
You said we all have two seconds of freedom before conditioned response kicks in, and now you’re asking me when I’ll have more? This implies you have more than a two second long window of opportunity to see yourself for what you are, which means you’re more self-aware than any of us. So why chide us for not having the freedom you have? Why are you expressing exasperation? Have you never been where we are? If not, you may be in over your head and we may be hopeless.
Of course it is enough to do it Inquiry. But if one has done it frequently then naturally one talks about it - and doesn’t block or complicate the investigation - when the topic of observation arises.
I apologise for being exasperated, but I feel as though we go round and round (not just our conversations), never breaking any new ground.
I don’t think one can measure self awareness in this way. But I do feel that the level of emotional intelligence on the forum is lacking. Intellectual nit-picking, intellectual doubts, intellectual knots, are given way too much prominence here. And just as I have no time for people who believe themselves to be enlightened, I have no patience for purely intellectual approaches to life. Particularly from those who should know better (I am not talking about you here).
What can we do?
Maybe it is enough to just admit to being annoyed and frustrated by the dead-ends we always run into on Kinfonet.
I agree.
Yes. Projections like God for instance.