K has referred to this situation as the “state of observation “ or the “watcher” a state of not- “choosing “, just watching…I think the point is and it’s quite radical, that the ‘self’, IS the immersion, You are the memory stream.
If I am the memory stream, what is aware of the stream? Am I, the stream, aware of I, the stream? Isn’t that the same as an eye seeing itself?
Have you considered joining in with the online dialogues that we hold on Wednesday and Saturday?
It makes sense that jealousy only exists because of dependence. Jealousy is the result of our dependence being threatened. Why is the mind dependent? K suggests a deeper reason for the mind’s dependence and attachment: loneliness, fear of being alone. Unless that fear is seen through, understood, “dissolved”, the mind can never be free and the killing will go on.
Good idea, thanks. 
But would your real name come out? Or would you stick with ‘nobody’?
I was there on Saturday, as nobody.
But your name is R, isn’t it? Would you object to being called R? You may be actually nobody, like the rest of us are nobodies, but this is surely something we have to discover in relationship together. If we already think of ourselves as nobody, are we not then just another ordinary somebody trying to be slightly different from the crowd?
My name is not R. Nor is it nobody, except here. Again, please respect my privacy. A rose (or dandelion) by any other name …
Possibly. But I don’t think of myself as nobody. I’m very much a somebody!
That’s easy enough. It is the desire for privacy that remains the issue.
Sure, let’s explore it. Another thread?
Yes, shall I start it or you?
You start and I’ll join in.
No. 301
When K used the word “watcher” or in another place in a response to a questioner who had asked, who or what was it that “stepped out of the stream”, I think he said that it was not a who but a “state of observation”. This is interesting to look into. As I see it, it’s not a separate ‘fragment’ looking choicelessly at the other fragments flowing by. This would create an observer apart from what is being observed. It’s a shock to realize that it is simply ‘what is’. It is Thought that creates an image of an entity who is apart from the stream of thought / memory and is then the ‘watcher’ who attempts to see the thought ‘go by’ and not “choose” it in order to free the mind from being “occupied”. Which means effort, motive, goal etc. Thought has done a similar thing with ‘freedom’. It has created an image of it as something to be discovered, attained in some ‘future’ moment. But if we inquire into the possibility that “freedom is at the beginning”, we can see the irony in the ‘search’ for it.
2 Likes
Privacy is very different from anonymity. So we shall have to look at both these aspects in order to work out what we are talking about. Probably now it shall not be until April, if you can wait a while,
Dan,
Indeed, and that is why “what is” is consider holy, and the key that opens the door.
The whole question of what steps out of the stream is discussed in:
This is the core of K’s teachings. Not only does K clearly speak of this, but also - in this discussion, really clarifies what an enquiry consists of:
-
“* Free investigation, not the scientific investigation - the thinking tank, you know; but investigation into this whole myself, which is me, that stream, myself is that stream. Enquire into that, so that there isn’t a shadow of the stream left.”
-
" So, he examines it, both logically, sanely and also non-verbally. Looks into it. And the very looking into it is the insight.
-
" And he realizes he can only explore if he’s free to look. Right? Free from fear, free from reward and punishment, free from any kind of motive, otherwise he can’t enquire. The moment he’s in that state of examination, there is insight."
So, insofar as Charley understands the above, enquiry cannot take place when one is afraid. So, always, freedom is always at the beginning, Also, this negates the sole action of thought as a tool of enquiry, because thought is part of the stream.
2 Likes
Any month beginning with a “Fool’s Day” is fine with me.
That’s like saying: There is no observer/observed, there is only observation. My problem with this is that it makes no conventional sense! Observation always requires an observer and an observed. Same for awareness, it always requires an awarer and awared. The notion of pure subject/object free observation or awareness, though fun to think about, does not compute.
Charley put up this link re the ‘stream’ and ‘stepping out of it’. A long dialogue but essential for anyone wanting to understand what K was pointing out.
3 Likes
I read it and tbh came away even more confused about what Krishnamurti means when he talks about stepping out of the stream. The kinds of questions Walpola was asking were the kinds of questions I would have been asking (even though I’m not a Buddhist), and I don’t feel Jiddu managed to answer them very clearly or consistently.