Unfortunately we are not dogs

I don’t think you’re quite following. I’ll try a different example:

Yesterday, during one of the zoom dialogues that kinfonet is hosting someone floated the question of, and I’m paraphrasing from memory, what place does thought have in not just disclosing reality, but in composing its actuality. It was suggested that, rather then be relegated to the category of illusion, that thought is not unreal, but in fact is just as much real as the thing supposedly pointed to out of thought. In other words, the word IS the thing. This question was quickly seized upon and capsized by the moderator on the basis that the question itself was just another manifestation of thought and what is necessary to discern the difference between the two was not more thought, but awareness. Her question was discarded and the dialogue resumed as usual.

Thought is as real as the phenomena it names and refers to, but when it’s incoherent and incorrect, it creates real confusion and misunderstanding.

These are the kinds of metaphysical questions that the participant could’ve explored yesterday, but were canceled in lieu of a need for awareness/observation.

Because the moderator seized upon and capsized it? And spoke of “a need for awareness/observation”? The moderator thwarted or blocked the movement of the inquiry?

Indeed. 1234567891011

If there is no subject there will be no subjectivity. It’s as simple as that.

“So thought has created the outer and the inner. If thought is not then there is neither the outer nor the inner. That is space. It isn’t, I’ve got inner space.”

18th conversation with dr Allan W. Anderson.

If there is no subjectivity or objectivity this question has no sense.

Why don’t we ask this question in a different way: “Can I observe my emotions unemotionally?”

I may be going loopy, but I don’t get the birdsong being subjective. I realise I may be barking up the wrong tree here.

Ah! This is just the point I wanted to tackle! :grinning: it seems that in K circles people don’t have an ego or pretend not to have it. Don’t you find this quite amazing? We cannot be something different than what we are and the only sensate enquiry must start from where we are and NOT from where we are supposed to be o should be. And this basic factor is responsible for the futility and inefficacy of most of the discussions.

That is surely a good doubt. And if we start from where we are, that is being what we are and not in some hypothetical and desirable state, then we can answer that question. While if you start using the impersonal pronoun and think of yourself as something you are not, either you will be not able to answer or your answer will be an artificial one or a second hand one.
So, again, if I ask to myself: “can I observe my emotions unemotionally?” my answer will be: no. A sincere and plain answer. As long as there is a subject all the observations will be subjective. As long as there is me observing “my” emotions, that observantion can’t be unemotional. And that is why K used to say that there must be an observation without the observer.

Now, here a lot of people draw the fake conclusion that one must wait untill there will be no ego to have a real observation or choicelss awareness. We are all waiting… and we can wait untill the end of the world! :grinning: The way out of this loop - as you call it - is given by the same nature of the ego and by the normal functioning of the mind. The ego is not something which has continuity, the mind is not thinking all the time. There are intervals, however short, when thought is absent and so is the ego. In those intervals a real objective observation can take place. This is something which happens and not something which has to be demonstrated. Your birdsong - probably - was perceived in one of those intervals and a split of second later you acknowledged that experience and so felt it to be subjective. So there was a moment in which the perception was “objective” and a more familiar moment in which you took possession of that perception. This is the experience as lived by “normal” persons equipped with an ego. While, as K pointed out, once one is definitively abided in silence, there will be no difference between the outer and the inner and so no distinction of subjective or objective.

This is for me the more or less central fact of what JK was trying to get across. We are ‘experiencing’ all the time. The ‘birdsong’ is a moment of experiencing. There is no separation in that moment of a ‘me’ apart from what is being heard. Then there is the “naming” and “terming”, the arising of the ‘me’ separate from the experience and the “recording” in memory of the ‘birdsong. This is how he was describing it all the way back in 1948. He used the example of ‘anger’. When it occurs it is intense and there is no separation. Then a moment later the "actor’ arises and names what is happening, puts it in a “frame of reference” and attempts to suppress it. So it is the appearance of the “actor” or the ‘me’ arising that is the source of conflict. With no ‘actor’ arising there is only the “experiencing” …and that is “joy”. That is “creation”.
From his talk in Bombay 1948 (posted in the thread ‘Thinking it through’ #36)

One can recognize a familiar emotion when it arises, and the recognition reduces its severity. But an unfamiliar emotion is unrecognizable and grows in intensity until it is clear what purpose it serves.

I may be wrong, but I think what he meant was that his response to the birdsong was subjective - not the birdsong.

Good contribution Dan. Your description is more accurate than mine.

I was thinking about this problem of the actor, when it arises and when it’s not there. K. talked a lot about dying every day or even every minute and I spent several days in trying to grasp what this death could mean. I could not cope with idea of “not existing”, the “idea” mind! And I think this is the core of the problem. We don’t want to die, someone here in another thread, said that the world cannot exist without me… but if we observe ourselves for a while this me is not always there. The me arises in the moment we want to do something or to get something or want to reject something, the actor exists in the moment of a deliberate action. What if we stop acting? Death in the sense K. uses this word is neither extraordinary or terrible.

The actor pops up when one needs to be reminded of who/what one is and what is expected of one. So the more one presumes to know about who/what one is and when/where one exists, the more popping up there is, and the more one identifies with the reminder than the reminded.

The upshot of all this up-popping is identification with the actor instead of the acted-upon. It’s a case of mistaken identity.

Who needs to be reminded of who/what one is? You? And why?

I think one should ask just the opposite of what you say. What is the point in making every experience yours? Do you feel your life has sense? Your experiences have sense? Is life really yours? Can you not enjoy life without attaching to experiences or wanting some more of them? Do you really think that you can hold the experiences you live? Have you not ever felt that the more you are attached to something the less you enjoy it?

Obviously if you are satisfied the way you are and live there is no sense in listening to K. especially if you find it “abstruse”.

Here above you said:

“I sometimes wonder what I am trying to understand - am I trying to understand Krishnamurti or understand myself?”

Does that mean you have not clarified that point?
On my part I have no doubt that is my life I want to understand. I can peacefully put aside K. but I cannot put aside my daily life with its turmoil and absurdities.

If the ‘actor’ doesn’t arise, the source of conflict is gone. If there is only experiencing without naming and recording in memory, isn’t that the dying K speaks of? If there is only experiencing, he calls that “joy”. He calls that “creation”. Creation is always beginning, isn’t it? It is thought as the actor, the me, that has created the terrible image of death. The terrible “idea” of not existing.

1 Like

Thought presumes itself to be somebody; it personifies its imagined self. It does this because it is conditioned to do so.

Of course perception is one thing, recognition is another one. But one does not exclude the other and both are (or can) be useful. Memory is very important and for practical purposes is a necessary complement to perception. You need to recognize an alarm when you hear it.

There is no problem in experiencing and the recognition of an experience is necessary. Experience creates problems when it’s the only criteria we have for understanding or for relationship. If we listen only to experience, we can never discover something new. So experience has no place in spiritual enquiry. In this sense you cannot experience the new because what you experience is always something you met in the past.

I wondered a lot of times whether I have ever really experienced silence. Surely not the total silence which is the consequence of a deep and fundamental perception or insight. Yet I’m not in favour of the “all or nothing” theory so popular in K circles. The possibility of a deep perception lies in our normal, day to day, functioning of our senses and brain, otherwise no real insight would be possible. We feel it’s so difficult to take place – if not impossible – only because we are not really interested in moving our focus from the allures of thought to the apparently boring ongoing perception. K defines this lack of interest as ”not being serious”. This is the most important discovery I made, and this discovery requires a great deal of honesty. 99 % of my mental energy is used in the function of thought and in the pursuing a quantity of goals, little and “great”, and in trying to get the things I like. Very few of it is left for a serious investigation and for staying with “what is”. How can I claim to get anywhere in such a condition?

If we are not aware of this waste of energy and lack of real interest in ourselves then we easily blame K for being too difficult or abstruse. At worst many people feel a deep frustration which can lead to depression. As I have stated in another thread of mine, my advice in those cases is to forget about K and the spiritual search and go and do something more enjoyable. Those of us who persist in this crazy venture are bound to become neurotic sooner or later. You can find some good specimens in this forum.

For what concerns silence and choiceless awareness I think we all have some share of them on a small scale. No healthy life would possible without a minimum amount of it. Luckily I could recognize when I was dangerously sliding towards neurosis as my moments of silence drastically decreased or were totally absent. I was giving too much importance to this bloody game. As in all practical problems there must be a good amount of common sense in tackling K.
So do enjoy your vacation and bird-listening!
:wink:

Welcome in the club! :grinning: