Sir,
Can I say observation without words as “Perception”?
“This forum is nothing without the verbal approach”
In your previous replies about “Sensations enslaving the mind”, I saw the fact in your explanation. Therefore, this forum is not full of verbal approach.
Some topics are difficult, as per my level. In such cases even I may go verbal, I think we should be free from the images created by language inside.
**Yes, words can be used in different ways, so we have to listen carefully to ‘see’ how they are being used. And K often did that. Here is an example:
Q: What do you mean by mind then?
K: Mind - the brain, my senses, my feeling, all that is the mind.
And:
K: The mind is something totally separate from the brain. The mind is outside the brain.
**In one sentence the words ‘what is’ may be used to point to ‘actuality’. And in another sentence the words ‘what is’ may refer to ‘a psychological idea’. In the absence of thought, there is no psychological idea of ‘what is’, just awareness of whatever is present. There’s no-thing in the absence of thought. All of the dualistic labels are absent in silence.
2 Likes
@Howard
Sir,
I am a researcher, while doing experiments I have to shut down the knowledge I have accumulated in my mind just to look at the result. It is very difficult for me for getting into that state. Therefore, for most of the times I may have a conclusion which is not “What it is ?”.
I think, Krishnamurthy was speaking about direct perception when he referred to “What is?”.
Good morning Howard,
You wrote,
and
The above resonates with me, as an intelligent response.
So, I am curious, do you actually do the above - that is, observation and response?
Best regards,
Charley
I think that is the radical psychological situation he was pointing at. And again the absolute necessity for thought as ‘self’ to come to an end. And since there is no entity to bring that about, it is up to thought itself to see that it is the source of our conflict and alienation and suffering and fear, and loneliness…The duality between us and the things of the world is an illusion.
Hello Charley (or the being given this label) - This is always sort of a trick question. Is there a ‘who’ that “does” this? Howard, me, I, we, etc., are all just words, conceptual labels. These words aren’t “doing” anything other than perhaps ‘pointing’ attention towards some aspect of an undivided whole. The best way, it seems, to describe it is that words are not confused for more than ink blots on a page, or on a computer screen. The “identity” has become meaningless, aside from a useful pointer. The brain is no longer wondering “how is some fictional ‘I’ doing.” There’s no interest in giving attention to a fictional image, any more than the brain is interested in thinking about Unicorns.
A couple years ago there was an infection on my right arm, and my friend mentioned it to the dialogue group, and another friend wisely said: “I don’t care about Howard (**the psychological thought-identity and it’s collection of psychological beliefs), I care about Howard’s arm (the actual being the label points to).”
If a thought of me, you, we, what is, or any other label arises in thought, it’s not confused for anything more than an abstract image.
So yes, the attention is on ‘what is actually occurring now’, and response. Thoughts occur, but they aren’t confused for the actual, as there’s an ongoing awareness of the movement of thought included in the awareness of what is occurring. The attention is on what is, not some fictional image of what ‘should be’. The brain is no longer continuously chattering about a fictional center or me. There’s no interest in thinking about an I that’s just a concept. So the mind is generally quiet. But humans are thinking/feeling beings. Thoughts occur, but there’s a ‘freedom’ from the ‘known’. The limited nature of thought is clear.
K: Yes. I think the wrong turn was taken when thought became all important.
**The insight into the limited nature of ‘all’ thought, removes this false importance of thought as ‘truth’, and puts thought in it’s proper place, subservient to awareness.
So let’s describe it this way: “I’m nobody, just like you.”
K: Do you understand what I am saying? You are all somebodies. You all want to be something, either professionally, or you have delusions of grandeur; you want to achieve something or become something, realize something, fulfill. Which is all respectability. We are saying that in total silence, there is nothing, you are nothing. - The Krishnamurti Reader
Dear Howard,
Interesting, but not exactly what I asked. For Charley’s part, there is just well… here, reading, and then the memory of words, and what they mean which are all stored in the brain; and, like words which are written out on the outside of a fridge (there are child poetry games like that - magnet words that one can stick on the fridge), intelligence puts the words into a sentence and forms a sentence, and then one writes this post. Unlike you, there is no movement of thought that is ongoing (in the background), as there was years ago. One writes this out of silence. Do you understand?
One wonders when you say:
is that a conclusion which you have reached? Also, that is wonderful in a way, since it implies that one is not wasting/dissipating energy on that matter. But, how do you know that it is just a concept? You see, even though it may be seen as just a concept, an idea, its impact may still be in effect, in a subtle way. Are you just saying that one has realized that thought is limited? Is that realization an understanding?
You see, one is trying to get a handle on what is possible through dialogue by others.
Now, what about truth? As in the word is not the thing - there has been the seeing of this? An insight, and subsequent mutation?
**That seems clear.
[quote=“charleycannuck, post:28, topic:1039”]
is that a conclusion which you have reached?
**That’s a ‘description’ arising out of observation.
**“Observation.” Because it clearly has no existence other than in thought. Can you find an I or Charlie aside from the thoughts?
**The truth is revealed in awareness. Isn’t it actually obvious that a thought projected by the brain in consciousness is only a reflection of what is, not the actuality? Isn’t it rather obvious that images are not the actual? The label Howard is not the human being, it’s just a label.
I suspect that every change in understanding is a change in being, which could be referred to as a mutation. It’s all one system, not ‘separate things’. The brain stops going into the false pattern of thinking the thought-created me is an actual thinker or observer. So, yes, an insight into the limited nature of ALL thought, has changed the pattern in the brain that was giving a wrong significance to thought. The insight revealed the falseness of the imaginary ‘duality’ projected by thought. There’s clearly only ‘what is’, not the ‘what should be’. Whenever someone says, “my truth,” that’s a fictional reality in thought, or, ‘limited abstract psychological beliefs’. It’s just a ‘virtual reality’ in the imagination.
Howard,
Oh my, I was just about to take a nap, when it occurred to me, the following, so I started up the laptop and here is my question:
Who decided that the “I” was just an idea/concept, etc.?
There is no “I” in Charley. By the way, personally, it just occurred to Charley that Charley doesn’t “think”, technically speaking, at all !!! PERIOD, FULL STOP.
Now, regarding your last paragraph. Oh my, so not an insight as Charley understands what an insight is, no explosion of energy, release… alteration of the RNA - just an intellectual insight on your part. Hmmm… well, at least that.
Okay, thank you for your full response. It was very kind of you, very decent, best wishes to you, Howard, do take care of your limbs.
c
Thanks for providing this example of how the word “mind” meant different things to Krishnamurti. Usually, when he used “mind”, he meant the cognitive faculty, thought. But here he expands it to “the brain, my senses, my feeling”, and beyond, to “something outside the brain”.
So, given K’s tendency to use words and phrases to mean very different things, it’s impossible to say exactly what he meant by the phrase, “what-is”. That is, unless someone can provide definitive evidence in this matter.
**No one. It was simply something revealed by observation.
**And thanks to you as well.
But thought cannot “see” anything. What sees the limitation of thought is the whole brain, and this insight, this awakening of intelligence, is a mystery. We don’t know why this happens, or to whom, because tt may happen to many who never speak of it, or to none at all. The only evidence we have that it’s real are those individuals who seem to embody what we can only imagine, and this evidence is just anecdotal. As much as we devoutly believe it can happen, it may be no more than wishful thinking.
**I don’t think it’s much different than any human conversation. If there’s actually listening, versus analytical assumptions, we can generally get a clear understanding of how the person is using the language. It’s never 100% or ‘completely definitive’. But I suspect you were able to discern the different ways he was using the word ‘mind’ in the examples. In other words, in listening, we generally are able to get what seems to be a pretty clear understanding. Not “perfect,” but fairly clear. Or that’s how it seems to actually work.
Howard,
The phrase which you used,
echoed in me, and I recall that K spoke of the 3 arts: listening, observing and learning, and of which he also mentioned as a result - the putting of thought in its proper place.
So, now, I completely understand the raison d’être behind K discussing the 3 arts, and so the art of putting thought in its proper place, right?
With the greatest respect to the Buddha’s 8-fold path, the Buddha never clarified as clearly as K did in his talks the central importance of these arts. What I now understand is that both of these wise guys held of utmost importance the creation of a new human being - and with a “new brain” - a human being who would no longer be participating in all the mischief and horrors that exist in this world, in other words, a good human being, and I really mean good.
Had to delete this paragraph, as laying a foundation of goodness for those who conclude would seem moot… Shame, anyways, it’s your life, not mine. I’m out !!!
Is that right? Thought can ‘see’ its own mistakes surely and correct them, can’t it. Working out complicated tasks, it can see where its gone wrong and then can correct itself…Here what we are talking about is its creation of a ‘center’ or a ‘me’, a thinker that seems to be separate, an ‘observer’. This observer, feeling itself to be autonomous, apart from what takes place in the organism, tries to act upon what it sees in various ways. Creating a perpetual conflict in itself. Surely it can come to ‘see’ this. It can see that the escaping from what it doesn’t like and the fostering of what it does is a constant friction. Thought has created the sense of emptiness and despair with the creation of the self and then attempts to ‘change’ what it has created by attaching itself to this or that in the hope that the attachment will bring it peace. Thought can ‘see’ what has happened and that any effort away from what it is, (what is), ultimately strengthens the original mistake.
If you’re satisfied with “what seems to be a pretty clear understanding” of what someone means when they say something that is neither clear in itself, nor consistent with what they’ve said on previous occasions, you’re interpreting their words to support your conclusions.
**Thanks for the very kind words Charley. And I couldn’t agree more about the potential of dialogue. I also agree that ‘commitment’ or earnestness is extremely important. And blessings to you as well for your support of the teachings.
Yes, thought can self-correct by reviewing its activity in the light of its knowledge, but thought’s limitation can only be seen by what is not limited. When or if that occurs, thought is relegated to its proper place.
Thought can ‘see’ what has happened and that any effort away from what it is, (what is), ultimately strengthens the original mistake.
But thought can’t see the futility of expending “effort away from what it is”. If it could, it would stop doing it, stop wasting energy, and with all that conserved energy, the brain might do something unprecedented.
To be honest, I started listening to Jiddu to achieve something in life.
How can I know, for what reasons I am listening to his words?
Hope someone will share some words.