Sounds like you’re saying that thought cannot “get it”, but that the brain can?
Say I manage to understand, by reading and listening to K, what the “observer is the observed” means : That my brain is projecting its conditioned image of reality.
What have I gained? Surely this understanding has not transformed me? No more than my understanding of a Neurology textbook.
I keep coming back to the question : is something missing? Why is intellectual understanding insufficient?
Maybe we can add the idea that “tremendous energy” is also necessary? Is that so? What does it mean?
PS @BobHearns Intellectual Understanding (IU) is IU irrespective of where the ideas come from (agreed).
That’s the self’s, thought’s ‘understanding’. That’s not understanding, that’s knowledge. You can theorize about it write books give speeches… it may be brilliant, scholarly but it’s not ‘it’
‘Understanding’, that the observer is the observed is not in the past, not in memory. “Gain”, accumulation is the self’s MO. When the observer is the observed, who could there be to psychologically gain anything? There is a gulf between IU and the real ‘living’ thing. IU resides in the past, U is only in the living moment. Seems to me.
What about - is there something there that needs to be ‘not there’? In the process of understanding, all that is needed is the brain. If thought is active, then something from the past will be accessed as part of the process of understanding.
In this discussion, there seem to be at least 2 questions :
a)What is thought or what is intellectual understanding? And
b)Is IU sufficient for transformation (Transformation being Freedom from the Known).
Regarding a)
If we say that thought is detrimental to understanding (ie. comprehending the ideas that we are hearing), do we mean thought = all mentation, or do we mean thought = discrimination, as in I agree/disagree, due to comparison with other theories held as true?
I think we said earlier that we are no longer listening when we are in conflict with whats being said - not necessarily because the brain recognises the language and concepts (all of which are based on the past).
If I am told that Communists want the good of all humankind, I may understand what is being said, but may enter into conflict/have difficulty listening to any arguments for the proposition because of strongly held beliefs.
Now, I’m not sure if this is important, or merely about semantics.
The main question b) might be pursued thusly :
If I understand that I am constantly dependant on thought, even when it causes conflict and suffering, have I been transformed? For example, I might notice that I am having useless/detrimental thoughts about myself or my neighbour, and get into the habit of dropping those thoughts whenever I do notice them. Have I been transformed?
If ‘understanding’ means ‘being with’ what is happening and ‘moving with’ what is happening, thought, being the past, has no place there except as a distortion, a distraction.
If someone tells me that Trump was sent by god and is humanity’s savior, my reaction would be swift and sharp but if there is an awareness that looks at both equally with no judgement or condemnation for either side, that would be ‘transformation’ or what I think K calls attention.
If you’re calling K’s teaching “theories” because we can’t imagine or comprehend what he’s referring to when he spoke of love, compassion, direct perception, observation, emptiness, etc. I would say that “theories” is the wrong word.
If he was speaking from freedom to brains that are isolated, self-centered, limited to thought, he wasn’t theorizing, regardless of how theoretical his teaching seems to us.
Obviously understanding the words and the meaning the other is conveying is essential. This is not ever part of the problem. The words selected to describe the meaning may not be clear but the back and forth of communication can clear up those kinds of misunderstandings. So that’s out. It is not part of what we are addressing.
We are looking at thought that is beliefs, concepts, ideas, philosophies and the like, which is, as you put it, thought=discrimination. Is that what you meant?
When thought is triggered in that way, it is the conditioned mind that is active. What has instantly happened? Is it not division between one and the other? Isn’t there now a fragmented internal conversation? One fragment has a memory related to what was heard which we might call the reaction, then another fragment compares the memory to what was heard, then another fragment makes a judgment, then another fragment puts a response together and expresses it (or not, it doesn’t matter).
When thought isn’t triggered, is there division? This is not semantics.
When I notice this and develop a habit of doing something else that dissipates the energy of the reaction, which I have just described in part a), is this not just a coping skill? a way to try to avoid the effects of the reaction? to develop an escape pattern?
Yes but the seeing has to be very ‘deep’, it seems to me. (And prolonged?) Thought has many ways to find a reason for moving in the mind when there is no call for it to do so. Perhaps there is a point where it stops but isn’t that its decision? What have you found?
Is this a thought? An idea? a concept? not a fact for you? is the thought, doesn’t matter what the specific content is, is the thought moving away from the reaction? is this an example of an escape? do you see it as an escape? what do you see it as? do you only see it as using thought to transform? isn’t this where we can stay with the reaction, observe the reaction and possibly end it, and not have another thought which is just an escape and which in no way can possibly transform? Is an insight required to see this?
If an insight is required, does that mean that further thinking is wasted energy?
No, following thought itself seems like a good approach. Do it when you can. Don’t identify with what’s being thought. Give it up but go back to it and pick it up again, and again etc.
What do you follow thought with? Surely, it can’t be another thought. That is just moving away from the initial thought, the first thought which is the reaction, isn’t it? Are you suggesting observation, not by the self, which may reveal something? may reveal where the reaction is coming from? the background?
The state of observation, awareness. If we are to talk about this it would have to be from the perspective of awareness. Two brains using thought to communicate the ‘problem’ of a willful thought being in the wrong place and creating great difficulties.
Thought is constantly operating, whether followed or not, so why not follow it for a change, one thinks. Well, says Thought, following my every movement means putting a mirror on me so you never forget that you are following you, the follower who judges itself as if it was not the judge.
When I am talking about thought, I’m referring only to ‘psychological thought’ Yes, we need to think to communicate. But that is not the thought I am referring to as there is no problem with thought that is generally referred to as ‘practical thought’. It’s thought that is a reaction that is the problem. And that can be observed without further psychological thought to see the falseness of it.