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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Great question, Paul. To some extent the energy I put into one tiny exemplar of nature, a chipmunk for example, opens me up to nature itself: other animals, trees, etc. But for the most part, not: Seeing the world without somehow interacting with it is fine for a short while, but soon it leaves me baffled and anxious. The interaction can be physical (trimming trees rather than just looking at them) or mental (thinking about a flower rather than just looking at it). But without any interaction, simply looking, passively, gets to feel kind of creepy. Not sure if you understand what I mean?
“Researchers at the Centre for the Study of Cultural Evolution at Stockholm University and Brooklyn College have conducted the study, a meta-analysis of nearly 100 memory experiments on 25 different species. The study shows that animals have different memory systems. Simply put, animals have short term memory and specialised memories. In short-term memory, animals store information about almost anything but the information disappears quickly. Animals also have a variety of specialised memories that, on the one hand, can only store a certain type of information, but on the other hand, the information is stored for a very long time.”
I think that that is so and to me this ‘new’ brain addition in us separates us further from the animals. We have a brain that can ‘reflect’ and ‘ponder’. When something occurs, ‘anger’ say, we don’t just have it and move on, over and done like the tiger. We can question why and how it came about, approve or disapprove of our reaction to it. Vow to keep it from happening again, join an anger management class, etc, etc. We have evolved from the pure instantaneous actions of the animal with this ability to assess, judge what we do. Was this what Shakespeare meant when he wrote: “Conscience doth make cowards of us all”?
The ‘additions’ to our brain that go beyond that of the animal brain, the ability to use memory much more sophisticatedly and reflect and analyze and ponder and imagine and create … these things are often grouped together as ‘thought’ and declared to be the enemy in non-dual circles. No question that the additions can result in suffering, particularly if they are misunderstood or not understood at all. (Krishnamurti can help tremendously with this!) But equally clearly, to me in any case, is that these same additions, their essential abilities can enrich our lives immensely. I hope it’s not taboo to say this here?
One day in the future you won’t be there to look at this beautiful world. If this was your last day on earth, you would look at everything with totally different eyes. There would be significance in every leaf, every blade of grass, every shadow across the lawn. Or, if you had never been here before, that also is how you would look; just to see the clouds in the sky would be an amazing experience. But thought has broken up the whole world into a trillion separate fragments, assigning significance to each fragment out of its myriad past associations. So every experience is caught in an old pattern even before you start to look. You are then just looking at yourself over and over again. So when you look at the world without that filter of interactions it feels creepy because you are suddenly very much alone, exposed.
I suspect this is at the heart of it. What I feel when I observe the world without thinking or commenting or ornamenting, after the ‘grace’ period of a few seconds or minutes during which I enjoy the clarity and peace of simply looking … is something like pure existential dread.
