To See or Not to See

True. I used the word ‘I’ but was referring to ‘awareness’.
Our big brain can entertain the possibility that the ‘I factor, ‘I-ness’, ‘I’ feeling, etc doesn’t have its source there but ‘elsewhere’? It doesn’t seem to be a problem for the animals to function as a ‘center’, but for us it is?

Hello Pilgrim. I think that analysis of seeing and observation like the above certainly has it’s place. However, when this analysis takes place at the moment of observation, it seems to form some kind of filter that stops us from actually seeing the flower, cloud, or whatever. I understand that K meant by “seeing without the image” observation where thought does not rush in to name and judge, based on past knowledge.

According to K, observation with a silent mind had great meaning. He encouraged us to look at mountains, flowers, trees and clouds. I understand that in his observations of nature, he was talking about observing with no separation produced by thought. I don’t know if he saw the yellow flower or if this was a problem, but he seemed to be tuning into something very interesting and obviously thought that it was worth communicating this to others.

I don’t get what you’re saying here Inquiry. If I look at a tree and the image of previously seen trees rushes in and I start thinking “that’s an oak” and all the rest of it, then how is the image relevant here?

There’s ‘seeing’ with the eyes and there’s ‘seeing’ in the sense of ‘being aware of’…the flower is seen with the eyes, the distracting images are ‘seen’ with awareness?

What’s relevant is what my reaction tells me about me. Why do I react to a tree? Why can’t I just look? Why do I have to review my knowledge of it or hug it or rhapsodize about it?

When I behold a tree
Must I behold what it is to me
Or can I just let it be?

1 Like

Because you have past knowledge of it. If you are aware of the movement of thought and can see your past knowledge of the tree operating, I’d say you’re on to something.

I think that is what we have to find out. It seems that K was able to do this and felt that others could too.

This sounds right to me. Thought is where images operate, and thought can’t actually be seen. But yes, we can be aware of thought operating without actually seeing it. Is that how you see this?

That’s the question and we can experiment with it. K’s ‘attention’ as I hear him is an attention that includes ‘inattention’. My idea of attention is I’m either attentive or I’m not. I ‘try’ to be attentive to the tree, the flower, my thoughts as they arise, etc and then I ‘slip away’…Isn’t he saying, include the ‘slipping away’?

Yes, awareness of the interference and distorting effect of I is more significant than the actuality being distorted and interfered with.

“I” is the imposition that creates the division between observer and observed. Complete attention is impossible when the presence of I is reacting to perception.

When the movement of fear and desire is not present, can it be perceived?

I, “the movement of fear and desire”, seems to be omnipresent, so I can only assume that what isn’t present can’t be perceived.

But your question raises the question: without awareness of myself doing, thinking, observing, etc., there’s only awareness of what’s happening, my participation in it, and awareness of how it feels to be more carried along with the unfolding of events than determining and directing them.

From my understanding of K’s teaching , it is not possible to be aware what brain is doing as it is doing it. The moment there is attention / awarness, brain stops doing what it was doing as it now in state of attention / awarness. Brain can be aware that it was in a state of inattention but not its content. The moment it starts recalling what it was doing during time of inattention, it is no longer attentive as it is again caught in past.

3 Likes

Waoh - thanks I’m well chuffed he said that! Anyone got a quote with an example of this?

What “well chuffs” you about it?

This is a long running debate for me on kinfonet : the confusion between awareness and recognition. You and I have had conversations about this topic.

Phew! I was worried there!

1 Like

Images chasing images is silly. I think that’s why he stressed ‘negation’? To see the silliness of “pursuit” as well as conclusions? You can’t pursue an ‘empty’ mind. He was clear about projecting an image and pursuing it.

Isn’t the point of all this to see if it’s possible to end mental suffering? Not by adopting a belief system which is divisive or using drugs that create dependency?
But by the negation of our conditionings through seeing (awareness)?
Major of which seems to be ‘thought’ and its ability to create images and pursue the pleasant and avoid the unpleasant?

1 Like

A flower is only in one state that is what is. It is our mind that creates a state of yellow flowr when I react after seeing the flower and say " what a beautiful yellow flower". But if I just look at flower without any reaction then it is state of what is.