Right. If that takes place, then it is no longer habit. Which means the observer is absent. - If it has taken place…
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.
So the question is now:
Can there be a choiceless awareness of this habit of myself?
Not “me” being aware of myself; but just this movement of myself in action - per se.
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.
1 Like
And I find (“I” here is a façon de parler) that in this movement of myself - which is my whole conditioning, the whole background movement of habit, thought, desire, will, choice, etc. - there is anger, or hurt, or greed.
And the question I am interested in is: can there be an observation of this anger, hurt or greed, without any interference from the past; but just pure observation of the thing (as anger, hurt, greed, etc)?
And then what happens? What happens when there is only anger, only hurt, only greed?
This is the question that interests me.
That dread is the real you; everything else that you call ‘you’ is just that dread covered over. Can that dread come into full flower?
What is the essence of this thing? The past is calling it anger, hurt, greed, fear. Does it have a reality or an actuality separate from these labels?
I’ll see. It’s tricky because it’s so … dreadful, hard to endure. But it’s clearly an important aspect of my being, it shows up pretty much whenever I ‘practice’ observing what-is without thought. (Interestingly, not if I observe say my breath without thought.) It’s as primal as it gets, but I’ve never stayed with it long enough to know if there’s something even more fundamental ‘beneath’ it.
James, hi. I read an article by Pema Chodron a while back in which she said that if you feel an emotion, anger hurt greed, without egging it on by thinking about it, if you feel just the pure emotion with your whole being … it will dissipate within a couple of minutes. It kind of burns itself out, again as long as you don’t rekindle the fire by thinking about it. I’m a skeptic by nature, but I was pleasantly surprised by how well this works. Try it!
Yes - this is what was being discussed yesterday or whenever it was - what is this thing when we don’t give it a name, or call it “anger” or “hurt” or “fear” etc? (as was said before, these are merely façons de parler to indicate what is being discussed).
What is this nameless energy in consciousness when it is not acted upon in any way?
I’m not seeking an answer from anyone - I am only holding this “thing” in my attention - which is not separate from myself as an observer. I’m letting this “thing” show me its contents without seeking to add or subtract anything - I’m not verbalising it to myself or describing it (this is also obviously a façon de parler).
So what happens then? Krishnamurti or Pema Chodron or someone else may have described what happens, but if there is only that “thing”, nameless and without interpretation or description taking place, then other people’s descriptions are kind of meaningless. I’m not looking for someone else’s description or answer.
This may be the case, but as soon as it is a description from the past, and I attempt to apply this inwardly, it becomes conceptual knowledge that betrays the present challenge of “pure feeling/emotion” (through intellectual comparison, authority, etc).
That’s why I feel best posing it as a question (to myself), because then it is a fresh opportunity to observe, to watch, and to learn through observation - if you get my meaning.
There is no ‘what is’ without thought. There is only thought. And what is thought doing? In what way is it moving away from the present moment?
And is there any other energy?
Yes! You are rigorously exploring the present moment, the past as knowledge is an intrusion.
1 Like
Why “and”? In the way the question was put, isn’t it implied that there is only that movement of X? - If you don’t mind me saying so Paul, I feel you always seek to complicate things unnecessarily, which makes me feel as though you never really share the question. Friends share.
Is the energy of the observer separate from what he is observing? So when I put the question, ‘What is this energy?’ who is putting the question?
I could argue this point … but where would that get me/us? For the record, I see this differently than you. But I’ll let it slide to minimize derailing. 
After that initial grace period, in which it recedes into the background, thought starts bugging me with things like “It’s stupid to just look at the tree!” or “Wow, look, you’re being so spiritual!” or "What would Krishnamurti say? or “God this is soooooooooooo boring and such a waste of time!” If I don’t give in to the frenzy of thought (similar to the frenzy of a bunch of sugar-saturated five-year olds), but seek to ‘hang on’ to the looking, I start feeling very annoyed and anxious. At this point I almost always give up.
That’s because you are looking for something beyond thought; you are waiting for something special to happen. You are expecting a result from your looking. Isn’t this so?
Not expecting so much, more: I’m hoping for something to happen. A flood of beauty, or a still pond of peacefulness, the Answer, the Question, understanding, emptiness. Something! Anything but drab ho-hum ‘reality.’ If I wanted that, I wouldn’t bother meditating … I’d just LIVE.