If you don’t know “for what reasons” you’re “listening to his words”, you’re lost and no one can help you. It’s up to you to find out what you’re up to and why.
Howard, hmmm…
When I asked before: “who decided that the “I” was just an idea/concept, etc.”, you answered that it was by “observation”. The problem I have is the following, best expressed by K:
“Also, there is the art of seeing, to see things as they are, not as you wish to see them. To see things without any illusion, without any preconceived judgement or opinion, to see actually ‘what is’, not your conclusions about ‘what is’.”
K, Ojai, 4th Public Talk, 10th April 1977
There is an apparent contradiction between what you say and K’s understanding of what the art of seeing is, in that you observed that the “I” was just an idea/concept. I also see this as a contradiction between what the art of seeing consists of and what you actually did to yourself. Stating that the “I” was/is an idea/concept, or illusion, etc., is definitely a conclusion, based on an intellectual usage of thought as a point of observation. I say this because it is obvious to me that you used this observation to invent a state, another pattern, which is still caught in the web of thought.
You also say:
This, to Charley, is the trap of intellectual observations. When you use the word “insight”, you are saying it is intellectual, right? It was not an insight as K talked about, as Charley experienced - the explosion and release of energy, which is the essence of mutation. There are, of course, consequences to these kinds of observations, thought continues to affect one’s understanding, and still the hold of conditioning is bypassed, right?
After each insight that Charley had, and Charley had quite a few - and these were the insights that caused the mutation in Charley, Charley would stand up and stare at the empty chair, and wave one’s hand in the air, saying “omg, none of that was real !!!”
Unless one experiences such an insight, one is still living in an illusion. It can be quite a nice illusion, but it is still an illusion. One can even imagine that one is actually now a spiritual being, which is nonsense, of course. An insight sees the truth, and it is only such a truth that liberates.
As K said,
" And, we are seeing, if we know how to read that book, which is yourself, all conflict, all noise, travail, all that comes to an end. It is only then that the truth can come then into your field. It is only such a mind that is really a religious mind, not the believing mind, not the mind that does all kinds of rituals, not the mind that puts on strange garments, but the mind that is free after having read completely all the book. And, it is only such a mind that receives the benediction of truth. It is only such a mind that can go infinitely far beyond time."
Intellectual insights do not liberate. One can move from one pattern by inventing another pattern, and that is what you have done, right?
Hello Charlie - If you look again, the response didn’t say ‘I’ observed. The statement was: ‘It was revealed in observation’. ‘I’ - the ‘conditioning’ - didn’t ‘use’ observation. The ‘observation’ revealed the limited nature of all thought.
**Absolutely not. “Howard” is a thought-label, and labels don’t “have” insights. The insight, or intelligence ‘reveals’ what’s present to the brain. A ‘thought-created’ identity (me, I, Howard) doesn’t “have” insights. It’s just thought-imagery.
**Clearly.
**Hello Sivaram - Sorry I didn’t respond earlier. Yes, K seemed to be referring to direct perception. But this direct perception isn’t occurring if there’s a ‘thought-created-thinker’ “shutting down the knowledge.” That’s a trick of thought, an illusion that the thought-created thinker is separate from the thought. The idea that “I” am shutting down thought, is the movement of thought.
**The ‘approach’ , the ‘observation’, was non-verbal. The ‘response’, was to use language to communicate what is observed, choicelessly (without the verbal judgement).
If the “approach” (the first step) is verbal, its analysis.
1 Like
Yes sir, totally agreed.
The thought of shutting down the thought is still a thought. It is a verbal statement appearing inside the head. Sometimes, there was a thoughtless state inside the head and for the rest of time it is just verbal.
Dear Howard,
That is a conclusion, as well.
The reason
That also is a conclusion, invented by thought.
I do not believe that you have really had any true insight, apart from that which is intellectual. You have invented a new religion.
There is a reason why you cannot have the true insights as K and as I have mentioned above, have you not realized that?
Earlier, you said,
The truth is only seen through true insight. It is only conditioning that can be seen in awareness. And when I say “conditioning”, I mean reading the book of oneself.
You see, once it is seen that thought is limited, that is sufficient to put thought in its place. Anything after that, such as you mentioned about the “I” being an illusion, is something else entirely, it is a conclusion. The leap from putting thought in its place to deciding that “I” isn’t real is an acrobat movement of thought.
Thought is a material process - in the same way that one’s arm is matter. That is a fact, that even science has discovered. The only material difference is that the atoms of thought are vibrating and moving much quicker than the atoms in one’s arm. As long as thought continues to move inside one’s body, one’s brain, that which is most holy will keep a far distance from someone like that. It takes a very pure mind, a mind uncontaminated by thought to have a true insight. And these insights are crucial - seeing the false as the false and the true as the true, and of course, the truth of the false.
But it has the effect of suppressing thoughts that interfere with what you’re trying to do, so it serves your intention.
**It’s a description of what awareness revealed, using language. The description is not the described. It’s not a conclusion or a belief, it’s simply a description.
**You can believe whatever you wish Charley. But it’s the ego-structure, the ‘common’ cultural conditioning, that creates the concern with “the other,” as the nature of the ego-structure is to ‘compare’ it’s stored image with the image of the “other.”
**Again, if you believe that, you can certainly hold on to the conclusion if you wish. Whether Howard sees or doesn’t see is irrelevant to whether a person is looking directly themselves. It’s a distraction away from looking to focus on the “image of another.” Comparison is a distraction. I’m merely describing what is observed. None of it is about any “me” getting anything. It’s not about some label, like “Howard” getting something. The fact that ‘me, I, and Howard’ are all thought-created images is easily revealed in awareness, unobstructed by belief.
“The approach, the observation, was non-verbal”.
Yes, we believe that Krishnamurti had this ability, but clearly, none of us here have it…we wouldn’t be here if we did.
We want this ability, and many want it desperately enough to believe they have it. “By jove, I’ve got it!”
I would say that it’s not only a distraction- where there is comparison, there is surely, automatically, separation.
**So by that analysis, K should have stopped inquiring because “he already had it?” Or, did he see that he was humanity and had a responsibility to share the insights with anyone open to inquiring?
I don’t know where you get this idea. Who knows what happens when one “gets it”? Beyond the idea, the description, we can’t imagine what “getting it” actually is and how it manifests.
Or, did he see that he was humanity and had a responsibility to share the insights with anyone open to inquiring"?
Why do you ask when, as you know, he made it clear that he felt that way and acted accordingly.
Krishnamurti made statements that are taken as absolutes. What he said about comparison, for instance. Comparison can be a distraction from what the focus of attention is, but is not always the case. One must have the discernment to tell the difference.
**Well, it comes directly from your statement: “we wouldn’t be here if we did.”
Why wouldn’t we “be here” inquiring with each other if an insight had occurred to any of us?
**Again, because you suggested: “Yes, we believe that Krishnamurti had this ability, but clearly, none of us here have it…we wouldn’t be here if we did.”
And “having this ability” didn’t stop him from “looking together with fellow humans.” So why would ‘anyone here’, stop “looking together?”
Good question. It’s possible that someone who has “got it” might participate in forums like this, but considering the urgency of the matter, wouldn’t they appeal to the widest possible audience? And wouldn’t that mean reaching them in a more direct, perhaps, non-verbal way?
The change, the transformation, is a matter of awakening from the sleep of what-should-be to the shock of what actually is, and if this awakening is impossible for the vast majority of humanity, then the few who can wake up must be reached. But who are they? Where are they? Do they exist? Is transformation real or just radically wishful thinking?
I don’t know. I can only speculate. But it seems to me that what goes on here is, for the most part, an exercise in trying to “get it” by earnest K-students, and an exercise in vanity for those few who think they’ve got it.
But how do you actually feel when you make comparisons? Can you see how you separate yourself from another? I think that’s the question we must all ask ourselves.
Comparison with others is inevitable because it’s just an observation. What matters is what use the comparison is to you. If the significance of the comparison is how it makes you feel about yourself, it’s invidious comparison, and that’s something you have to look into. It’s nonsense to think one shouldn’t compare, because comparison is inevitable, and invidious only when you’re more concerned with your social status and self-esteem than with what actually is.
If you realize you’re practicing invidious comparison, that’s what actually is, and that’s what you need to inquire into, because trying not to do what your conditioning compels you to do is a waste of energy.
I think we’ve kind of flogged to death the “trying not to do something” horse, haven’t we? Nobody is saying “you shouldn’t compare” as far as I know. Are there destructive and separating effects of constant comparison? Like most things, we need to go deeper here.
“The approach, the observation, was non-verbal”
I think approach will happen if there is motive. Motive leads to thoughts and thought will give us verbal statements.
Please share your view