Since the subject is awareness, I’m guessing that this parable illustrates how awareness of what I’m doing can be undermined/overtaken by awareness of what is being done to me, i.e., none of my doing.
Under the influence of my master, I go to fetch him a glass of water, but a siren* I encounter on the way exerts greater influence, and I forget my master and attend to the siren.
So what’s your point?
The point is that there are obviously consequences to not being aware; so perhaps it is through becoming aware of the consequences of our lack of awareness that we become aware (again). Do you see what I mean?
The example - presented as a story - is obviously an extreme case. But it is no different in principle from any other moment of acting without awareness, getting lost in a reaction, and then realising that we are acting unconsciously, without full awareness of what we are doing.
So in becoming aware that we are lost in a reaction (of anger or irritation, for instance), there is a possibility of becoming aware (again).
Becoming aware ‘that we are lost’ IS awareness. But then we want to change ‘what is’ and get back to the ‘awareness’ we remember.
Right. The question Inquiry was asking though is how does this awareness that one is lost come about if one lacks awareness? The answer - I think - is that we become aware through the consequences of our lack of awareness.
For example, the consequence of getting strongly attached (to a person, place or thing) is that when we are parted from the thing to which we are attached there is pain. This pain is the consequence of a lack of awareness (because the attachment which caused it grew up through a lack of awareness). In becoming aware of the pain there is an opportunity to become aware of the whole psychological movement that created the pain - i.e. our attachment. But the awareness of pain is sufficient even without this broader awareness of what caused it. So the awareness of pain is already awareness.
Wanting to change the fact that we are in pain is a movement way from the pain; that’s all. Wanting to change the fact that we are lost in a wood is a movement away from the fact that we are lost in a wood. The awareness of the pain, or of being lost, is already sufficient.
Sorry, but this doesn´t make any sense. Having seen the functioning of thought and that its purpose is to appropriate the insight which is direct perception and, therefore, beyond itself, in order to give continuity to it which is impossible, why to wait for the next thought to arise and then to end it? As Ramana Maharshi would say, this is the thief playing policeman. A mind or thought´s trick. And as Krishnamurti would say, by awaiting you are bringing time about which is thought. See the trap? It is a very good insight, though.
Thank you. What is the difference between the awareness of the leaves dropping, the bird flying by, the butterfly on the flower and the awareness of these thoughts as I write them. Is it as I said somewhere that my ‘relationship’ to the bird,leaves, butterfly etc is different than to these thoughts? And the difference is what, identification? The thoughts are ‘mine’ but the others are not? Is it the sense of ‘control’? But when it’s seen that there is no controller, no ‘owner’, no ‘thinker’ etc then the relationship is the same as with the others.
So can there be an awareness of this factor of identification with thought, with the body but not with nature?
Without condemning it…that this is what is,in the same sense as the leaves falling? That No ‘change’ is necessary in the same way that the way the bird flies does not need to be changed, adjusted, improved, etc? Just watched.
As I see it, there’s the awareness of a leaf falling and the awareness as thought rushes in to label by saying “that’s an oak leaf” or something similar. So there is sometimes an awareness of the movement of thought, if there is attention.
Not quite, there is another factor in here we are not taking into account. As being attentive either to thoughts or to leaves dropping, just watching, brain experiences relief, kind of peace, or whatever you want to call it, in spite of thought´s movement going on because there is not effort, no identification nor any attempt to interfere or change anything neither. This relief and relax is what the brain registers, “gets”, and what it wants to continue, to what we get attached. The very attention is out its reach and control but by then a “goal” has been added to attention. It is not just attention for the sake of it anymore and it doesn´t work so we say, ok, next time, but next time it is the same thing because we haven´t seen our attachment to this sensation and that it is this sensation what we are pursuing because we want to experience it again. Don´t know if I´m explaining myself.
The sensation of being able to follow thoughts and the ‘satisfaction’ that that brings? As a sort of accomplishment that has been done? Whereas with the leaves and birds there is not a sense of accomplishment?
Yes, this too, absolutely. We are so used to the mechanical, self-centered functioning.
In here it is the sensation of peace and relax what fits , that´s why we like to go to nature from time to time but we needn´t depend on anything, not really. But again, we are so used to this state of struggle, tension and so on.
Yes. Am I aware of how, why, and when, my devotion to my master becomes my devotion to the siren.
Don’t beat the analogy to death Inquiry. Take it as a whole.
The glass of water is awareness.
The forgetting about the glass of water is the lack of awareness.
The getting caught in a dire flood is the consequence of one’s lack of awareness.
The realisation that the young man is completely lost - along with the teacher’s timely reminder that he is still waiting for a glass of water - is the return of awareness.
I summarize the point of the parable in nineteen words, and you say I’ve beat it to death. Then you break it down in 62 words and call it “the whole”.
I think your lengthy break-down is better than my succinct summary, but calling it murder is plethoric.
Thanks. I think for now I’ll just stay with following Thought when possible.
Yes, but make sure that psychological thought sounds and looks different than practical thought, otherwise you’re not following but being jerked around.
No. No qualifications. If you’re interested follow each thought. Never mind the content. Never mind the ‘rules’.
I was being facetious.
If I could always discern between practical and psychological thought, there would be no psychological thought.
Ah, apologies. I think I misunderstood your summary - although, as I mentioned, I don’t think that it was about being devoted to the master and then the siren, but about holding in attention (or awareness) the teacher’s request for a glass of water.
Anyway, no harm intended!
I was being facetious.
When/if the brain can discern the difference between practical and psychological thought, it never thinks psychologically again, but it is no less aware of the psychological thinking others are doing.