“Can we contemplate the possibility that “I can be aware of being nothing” may not be awareness at all but thought once again – more so when one adds after saying that, that he is some-thing?”
The I (observer) and awareness can never co-exist from K’s standpoint.
When you say the ‘actual question’ is about willingness to walk a solitary path, isn’t that itself a form of attachment to an idea? Can we stay with the movement of conflict itself without trying to solve it, but to see its nature without imposing ideas about what listening or awareness should be?
If There is sorrow, I hear the sorrow in myself and I hear the bird’s song. but If it is big sorrow, then it’s rarely able to listen to things outwardly and inwardly at that time and the right listening often fails. So it needs to have an availably still and illuminate mind which has energy and the sorrow can’t come?
I don’t try to inquire into the beauty of listening, because on my level , I only focus on practice the right way. Because I think, If one is on the right way, one will perceive the beauty.
Anyway, if you could talk about it, I would listen to you. Yes, one can perceive the same beauty in two cases, with attention?
When I get older, I will lost the track of what I were talking about if I’m interrupted by someone or something. But it’s not the problem for attention because in which one doesn’t active to remember . And I imagine that if memory arise, it’s just an image in mirror, it can’t affect true nature.
What is the most effective way to get what K teaches?
That’s very simple, isn’t it? First, not to get it, to be confused, to be suspicious, to resist, to hope, and all the other things that go on. The ‘getting it’ is impossible without first ‘not getting it’ - so they are the very same thing. You start out enlightened then, not blindly looking for something which does not exist. Then you have only that confusion to look at, which, - without a goal, without ambition, without a motive, - is the life of every other human being. Why on earth do you want to be any different from your neighbour who has never heard of K? You have got to face what life gives you, not what someone else promises.
Sorry for replying so late, @Nhung!
Now, what’s the difference between “sorrow” and “big sorrow” (if any), that apparently the former would allow us to hear the bird’s song while the latter would not?
The sorrow will always come, because the thought wants it to, since it is its sustenance, where it feels comfortable with the hope of finding a solution to it, although it always fails, even if it believes that it has succeeded. But you ask if it is necessary to have an available still and illuminate mind which has energy and the sorrow can’t come.
Well, I would say that it only needs a mind that asks itself deeply and seriously the reason for that sorrow without the imperiousness of finding a solution to it. Obviously this implies solitude and a lot of energy that we generally waste in the search for a (quick) solution that will never fully satisfy us.
After all, sorrow is nothing more than the manifestation of our ignorance incapable of seeing things (including ourselves) as they are and hence the attachment, rejection or indifference to them, which is at the very base of sorrow and the search for a solution to it by our ignorance.
True
Yes, to the extent that the beauty of a distant bird’s song and the forest around us can make us weep in the same way that K’s (or anyone else’s) words can also make us weep as we see their beauty through attention after they have made us see directly our ignorance and thus the actual cause of our sorrow.
Maybe if we paid enough attention we would be able to see that we are already old, as old as the human brain, even if we look in the mirror and see a young person. Maybe if we paid enough attention we would be able to see how easy it is for us right now to lose track of what we are looking at/saying if someone or something interrupts us, without any need to get older.
I would say that if memory were to emerge, it would not be an image in a mirror, but an image reflected in the still water of a lake, where a simple gust of wind can distort it, or even erase it from the very surface of the lake. But as you rightly say, the image reflected in the still water of the lake is not that of which it is only the reflection. So even if the reflection is distorted by a gust of wind, that which is the cause of the reflection can remain unaltered.
Well, time to go to bed. Good night (or good morning) 
Sorrow, like fear, anger, joy, and suffering, is a shared movement within the consciousness of all humanity. These emotions are not personal but arise from the collective field of thought and conditioning. To observe sorrow without separation (the idea of “my” sorrow or “your” sorrow) is the foundation for the awakening of virtues such as truth, compassion, and love.
Ignorance is the inability or unwillingness to see “what is” clearly. It is the act of turning away from direct perception and relying instead on past knowledge, beliefs, or avoidance.
Sorrow is not born of ignorance alone but from seeing the weakness and refusal to take responsibility or act with clarity and courage. To meet sorrow fully, without resistance or justification, is to allow insight and the awakening of compassion and intelligence as living realities.
There is no such thing as an observation of sorrow without separation, except as a creation of thought.
There is only the observation of sorrow, and since the only sorrow one really knows is one’s own, the sorrow that is observed is one’s own. It is only through that personal and profound observation of one’s own particular sorrow that one finally discovers that the root of sorrow is shared with the rest of our fellows, not as an imagination but as a fact… not before.
Trying to observe global sorrow without first observing deeply our own particular sorrow leads us to the fantasy of thinking that we know what the sorrow of humanity is, when in reality it is only something imagined by thought that has nothing to do with the actual thing.
Nice definition, but nothing more. First, because such ignorance is not evident to the so-called “ignorant person” who considers everything he perceives as real. So there being no awareness (even intellectually) of that ignorance, there can also be no inability, let alone unwillingness, to see clearly “what is”. It is only when one hears another speak of an ignorance that has nothing to do with knowledge, that such a mind can have the possibility to begin to question the reality of its own reality.
On the other hand, to question one’s own reality after hearing another speak of an ignorance totally unknown up to that moment, requires tremendous energy to see “what is” without panicking and fleeing desperately.
But if the latter were to happen, that does not translate into inability or unwillingness to address it, but as only fear before the collapse of a reality that until that moment was factual and did not generate any problem beyond the usual ones, and that somehow I knew how to deal with.
No one is guilty of being weak, and such weakness does not translate into refusing to take responsibility. If we judge others in this way, we have not yet seen anything. We are human beings, and as such full of fear, a fear that needs understanding and love on our part if it is true that we have seen what human sorrow is, beyond a mere intellectual understanding of it.
The first thing one realizes when one sees directly one’s own sorrow (thus the sorrow of all humanity) and its causes, is that one cannot judge others as weak human beings who refuse to take responsibility.
Is it so that we are ‘human beings’ simply because we carry the label, or does this identity itself arise from the patterns of thought, including fear?
Rather than moving outward into explanations and descriptions, can we pause and look directly at ourselves as we are? To observe without judgment or definitions, such clarity is not something external, but immediate.
Why this interest of the mind in complicating things unnecessarily?
You see @jmsaario , you are the one who is constantly proposing if we can stay with the conflict and let go of any concept, memory, experience and so on, but then you seem to do just the opposite. Why?
We cannot discover what it means to be a fearful human being through prior knowledge of what this means acquired through any discussion on the subject or the words of another. You know K’s words, “don’t entertain the question “how”, just do it and see what happens for yourself”.
Looking at what fear is without any definition, without any concept, memory, or experience (one’s own or another’s) is the only thing that will bring about the change that we believe is necessary.
Of course, that requires tremendous energy, which we should not waste on intellectual entertainments of any kind, even if we try to justify them by saying that it is to understand it better before taking the final step.
Since that definitive step may never come, being as we are almost always comfortably immersed in the field of intellectual understanding prior to the direct vision of what is.
As if we think that it is necessary to have a map in order not to get lost the day we decide to undertake the crossing of the desert that is the knowledge of oneself. Which is completely absurd.
I don’t understand it. Could you explain it?
The belief in the necessity for change already implies a direction, doesn’t it? It presupposes an outcome, a future state, and so thought is again projecting its own movement.
When we say we ‘should not waste energy’, isn’t that still rooted in a conceptual ‘should’? The moment we impose such abstractions, we move away from simply observing what is.
And as for a ‘definitive step’, can we see that this idea itself creates time, an imagined future to which we are already attached?
The inquiry begins now, not in some step to be taken later. Can we look without the need for any conclusion or direction, or intention to describe or theorize about it here?
The work is the negation of thought as it arises. There are two dualities One is the illusory psychological division between the observer and the observed and the second is the psychological phenomenon itself, that space that is consciousness, what we are. The first is impossible to understand unless it is the manifest reality so don’t waste your time trying to understand an illusion.
I am very sorry @jmsaario , but I am not at all interested in starting to to go round and round in the field of definitions, interpretations and so on that arise when thought gets stuck on certain words that trigger the usual springs, causing it to start rambling about them. I am sure you will find many here willing to entertain such ramblings, but I will not. What I wanted to say has already been said, and it is not worth wasting our time analyzing single words taken out of context that would only take us away from the subject at hand.
Once again, I am very sorry