Yes, it can. That’s what I am saying. That’s the insight, the discovery.
I’m changing both my life and the chipmunk’s life (in that I’ll pay more attention to it, feed it, try to tame it perhaps). But the special-ness I might ascribe to both my life and its life … that’s me doing it, yes. The chipmunk might be happy to get treats, but ‘feeling special’ is I think beyond its affective ability.
So - at least verbally - what you are saying is: “the observer can end the observer by a deliberate choice to end the observer”. Does this sound right to you?
You call this an insight. In which case you are implying (at least verbally) that insight affirms this act of choice, will, desire, control. But is insight a deliberate choice?
You are calling this an insight, but it doesn’t sound correct to me. Maybe it’s a problem in the way you’ve articulated it, but - as far as I understand what we’ve been discussing all this time - the observer can do whatever it likes: control, switch-off, run away, choose. Yet it is still the observer.
Any deliberate act implies choice, will, desire, control. And all this is what we have been calling the observer.
According to Krishnamurti insight is a flash of total perception that arises out of choiceless awareness and attention to what is. It has nothing to do with will, conscious deliberation, choice or control.
So either you are using language in a way that is radically different to Krishnamurti (to express what you are calling “insight”), or it is not an insight at all, and you may be fooling yourself.
The observer arises in relation to an emotion. It may be before the full blown expression or immediately after. It is a reaction to what is going or has gone on. The ‘new’ brain has this possibility of reflecting on whatever is taking place. It can be remorse, approval, condemnation, sorrow etc. all in relation to the primal feeling. “Switching off” then is the result of ‘intelligence’ isn’t it? The understanding that judging is a source of conflict and has no place here. Whatever has occurred is ‘natural’ and repression, suppression is learned behavior, is thought’s way of prolonging, intensifying a natural event which will dissipate when left alone. This is another way of describing ‘choice less awareness’?
I wonder, can we get away from all this idea of motivation, or non-motivation? Maybe the question changes to, “What is the nature of seeing?”. Watching, effortlessly, without any motive, what is happening? I think the wonder, beauty, interest, mystery, whatever to say, all of that, without a self center, and there is a quiet clarity of watching, it is in the nature of learning. Not accumulating or cultivating knowledge, just the sensitivity of careful watching and listening and sharing and living.
@James @anon78228991 @nobody
Does the below observation, makes more clarity in your discussion friends?
Here, the ‘past’ (in your discussion - the observer) does not ‘choose’ to deliberately ‘switch off’ - but ‘observer’ itself becomes choicelessly aware that “Nothing can be done on the anger” - and so switch off itself. Then the anger flowers.
But whether it flowers and attack/kill the other person?. Not so. It seriously observes itself - “why I am angry” - and ‘sees’ it’s whole form including the root. In this very seeing ‘anger’ calms down. No control,suppress,let go,etc…
Now, it has ‘seen’ it’s whole form. Hereafter anytime ‘anger’ arises - it becomes choice-lessly aware of itself (not as a knowledge of past anger - but as an insight to it’s whole form and root). So, at the very second of it’s arousal - it ends.
In this way, seriously observe the whole ‘I’ & every emotion (whether thoughts or sensual). Then there is total choice-less awareness. So, emotions/past (thoughts/‘I’) in it’s very arousal - it is aware and it ends. There is ‘death’ every moment.
But - if you see that - you couldn’t be choice-lessly aware - instead dragged to the instant pleasure of thoughts and senses - No problem. There is another ‘way’.
Surrender totally yourself to the truth and the truth will protect you - as the truth is compassionate towards every living being - and loves without any boundary. 
Thanks and take care
Regards
Viswa 
To see, hear, sense, aware things as they are. The I relinquishes control and the organism remains attentive. Awake, alert, free of divisive self-driven thought. Sometimes called the natural state, but for many feels anything but natural.
In paying more attention to something in which you have invested your interest and energy, what happens to your relationship with the rest of the world that was boring and flat? Has that also changed?
Yes, that’s exactly right. It is not just a verbal statement. It is so. What else would put an end to it? There is no other entity involved. The observer can remain active or it can be silent. That’s the choice. And there are many times when the observer must be active, thinking, feeling. A domestic crisis demands an immediate response from memory, knowledge, from being aware of the feelings of others. Here the observer has a place.
Anger has shown the observer the limits of its powers. This insight is from anger, not from the observer. It has shown the observer that when it interferes in any psychological crisis, seeking to control the outcome of that crisis, instead of bringing immediate resolution the observer has only the capacity to cause further damage. So it switches off, which is the immediate resolution. Then the energy of the psychological crisis is free to flower in its own way, not as directed by thought.
Wait. Let’s look at it. We said there has been insight into the very nature of awareness. The observer has seen into itself, seen what it can and what it cannot do. Or, thought is aware of itself. We can put it both ways.
I may get angry with you over an idea, an image, an opinion, which is basically all that any argument is ever about. It is one image clashing with another. You may have trodden on my psychological toe and so I react instantly, angrily. The observer who starts to interfere in this will interfere with exactly those same elements that brought about the crisis, namely more ideas and images. That is all it can bring to the party.
As we are looking at all of this quite calmly and dispassionately in our dialogue it seems to make perfect sense. But we are still dealing with images even now in our discussion of it. In the heat of anger, everything else gets lost. So anger is the best teacher, not what we are saying now. The observer cannot speak to anger; but anger can speak directly to the observer.
For years I have been wondering, what is this that some people continue to ignore? Their insistence on pursuing the verbal statement, and the verbal context, completely missing the point of a different way of seeing. Different mentally, but actually a natural discovery of the eternal. It occurred to me from my own experience, it is called a mental block. Meditating, look into the chattering mind, the tension, stress, or unrest, and see it is a mental block.
2 Likes
The observer is nothing more than a movement of habit. It is the movement of choice as will and desire built up over time. The observer is time, the observer is thought, the observer is bound to the past. So when the observer makes a deliberate choice, that choice is also coming out of the past.
Anger takes place in the present. So whatever the observer does to meet or affect that anger - whether by avoidance, withdrawal, decision or will - it is always inadequate to the task because it comes too late. It’s place is in the past and it cannot meet the present.
So is it the observer who says “Oh yes, I see that anger is taking place in the present and I can’t operate upon it”? Or is it intelligence that sees the inappropriateness of the observer and “puts it aside”.
This is not then a deliberate act; it is an act of seeing: seeing the fact that in the resolution or meeting of present anger, the observer (as the past) has no place.
There is no will, no desire, no deliberate anything involved in this.
Unprocessed, raw anger is not insight, right? But the question we were asking before is can this unprocessed movement of energy we call “anger” (or sorrow or greed, etc) flower completely so that it shows its whole content? The flowering itself involves insight - right? - but the unprocessed eruption of raw grief, rage or lust, etc does not.
Can they not be the same thing? The observer acting intelligently. Otherwise, the observer is never going to change.
It may be. That’s the point. Thought wants to get in on the act. As a polished, cultured entity, it will resist anything that is so raw.
Hi James.
I attached K’s words here - please check this out.
In my view, the ‘observer’(past) when meets the ‘anger’(present) - will end if it is aware (but not on choice). If it doesn’t aware/end - then whole circus of acting upon the ‘present’ by the ‘past’ - starts and creates a ‘future’ (what-should-be) and runs for that. Then no perception of ‘what-is’ takes place.
This is where K mentioned - “Can thought aware of itself?”. See, if something like ‘the other/intelligence’ acts upon the ‘observer’ - then we require the support of ‘the other’. But it is not. No ‘agent’ can act upon this ‘observer’. The ‘observer’ sees itself. This seeing requires seriousness. Absolutely. But this seeing is not intelligence. The ‘observer’ (past) itself sees the whole of it’s effects and steps back to it’s graveyard. Then the ‘anger’ ‘observes/sees’ itself - the whole movement of ‘anger’ (what-is) and calms down. Only then, after going beyond ‘what-is/present’, there is ‘now’ which is ‘love’.
Love is Intelligence.
Only after ‘me’ sees itself - it’s whole movement and ends - there ‘Love/Intelligence/whatever name’ flows.
But there are many confusions in ‘the teachings’ as “‘Intelligence,attention,observation,awareness,perception,etc…’ are same”.
What I said above, upto my knowledge - is all K’s words. I may be wrong too.
But for me, personally, I agree with you. Even if there is ‘Intelligence’ acting - this ‘observer’ and ‘senses’ keeps on poking it’s nose - distracts us from ‘now’ by creating ‘time’ in our life. If we totally surrender to the ‘Intelligence/Love’ - then in his grace - he will act upon the ‘observer/past/thoughts/me/I/sensual pleasures’ by throwing away our ignorance - and will secure us from those once and for all, and always keeps us merged in him (Love). He is compassionate and will inhale/consume us within him (‘truth’) - if we are devoted to him - even if we were sinful.
Wish you and everyone - Good Friday. 
But Paul - please - this is where we get so lost in these discussions. The observer is just habit. It is not intelligent. It is merely the blind motility of thought constantly and habitually occluding our relationship to everything! If you want to call this movement “intelligent” then fine, but it makes no sense at all to me.
To me, it is like calling a spade “intelligent”. It has no meaning. A spade is a spade: good for digging, made of wood and metal. It can never be “intelligent”!
The observer can do what it wants: pretend to be enlightened, run away into pleasure, flee into memory or nostalgia, manage expectations, suppress or control, act or not act, decide one thing and then another: it is still habit, still the past. It is blind to what actually is going on, both within and without.
So either this is a fact, a truth of perception. - Or the observer is godlike and “intelligent”, and can regally and “deliberately” decide to abnegate itself for the greater cause.
Somehow I doubt it.
Congrats. This is the right step of ‘Inquiry’ towards the ‘Truth’
Luke 6:40 (GNT)
No pupils(observer/I) are greater than their teacher(Intelligence); but all pupils(observer), when they have completed their training(Inquiry-right knowledge-Practice or Devotion), will be like their teacher(Truth). 
Viswa - if I can put this kindly: maybe you ought to begin by doubting religious tradition first. That seems to be your biggest block. You are really not interested in Krishnamurti, because you are attached to devotion and belief in god or what have you.
What you say is absolute fact James. Only when I started to doubt these religions – I end up with ‘the teachings’. I went through those – got a ‘clear mind’ – but found something is missing.
I started to doubt K too (not accept/reject). Only then I found that – I was accepting K and rejecting the scriptures.
I also found what was missing in ‘the teachings’. One is ‘Chastity’ and other is ‘Practice’.
Then with a clear mind – I again started to read the ‘scriptures’ without accepting/rejecting it. Every scriptures speaks about ‘senses’ - to be away from sensual pleasures - because turning of ‘semens’ into ‘ojas’ is the most important thing. And after ‘right knowledge’ - don’t get distracted that “this is truth. I am it”. But ‘practice’ until you are totally merged with it. To not get distracted from senses/body - devoted myself totally to the ‘truth’ and I can see even more beauty/bliss.
Then here I am. I won’t believe/accept/reject scriptures and K too. But inquireand try everything 
Doubt should not be partial/one sided – Isn’t it?
Please don’t reply this. But – Inquire this deeply and seriously.
Take care
Best Wishes
Viswa
I think your recollection is very aptly describing: anger without naming it as anger. The difference between animals and us may simply be that they don’t preserve moments like this in memory to create personal history.
The observer is you. Can the habit that is you be aware of itself? Then it is intelligence; it is no longer habit.
If you are seeking a resolution to all of this in terms of what K has already said about it then if what I say fits with that you will be happy because it will then make sense. But K has no ready answers; he offers no formulae to which we can align ourselves. Can thought find its right place and behave with perfect order? That is what we are asking ourselves; that is what we have been looking at over these last few hours or days. Thought, the observer, the self, the ego, the ‘me’, the past, the habits, the knowledge – that’s our bundle. Can this bundle function in life with perfect order, operating only when necessary? Then any psychological disturbance will act as a warning sign; and thought as the observer will keep well away. But this can only happen if the observer, me, has learnt what it means both to interfere and to keep away.