Hi Sean, I think I jumped the gun by saying “Can we have a total insight”? Firstly, maybe we need to ask ‘who’ or ‘what’ is having ‘insight’? Usually there always is this sense of ‘me’ as the ‘centre’ having the ‘insight’ …maybe that is where the problem of knowledge is continually ‘owning’ the ‘insight’? Could we say that when we say “I am having the insight” that, that is what is getting in the way of having a much ‘deeper insight’ ?? Does this make sense? There is no ‘owner’ of the ‘insight’. Why does ‘thought’ come in and want to ‘own’ this ‘insight’?
Is thought deriving some kind of power and position and continuity by naming the ‘insight’ MY INSIGHT ? It seems that ‘thought’ gets its tentacles into everything 
It cannot stay in the background when it is not needed but keeps re-imposing itself on anything that is ‘new’ and immediately making that ‘new’ thing ‘old’ by naming it, controlling it, shaping it, condemning it, or justifying it …so there is no room for the ‘new’, that is what I meant when I said the cup is so full, so full of itself, its own knowlege, its arrogance, its self-centredness. Now is is possible to begin to SEE all this without ‘thought’ coming in? Is it possible just to be aware of all the gross and subtle movements of thought as it tries to come in with its knowledge, its expertise…laughter !!! ???Is it possible for the mind to be ‘quiet’ enough to see all the subtle movements of what thought is up to? I feel that it is possible but only if there is no motive in the watching …you follow? If there is a motive to get ‘somewhere’ then the ‘centre’ as ‘thought’ is still up to its ‘old’ tricks ha ha …you know, I AM really seeing all this …ha ha …do you see what I am getting at ? Always this sense of I, I, I, in the picture. Can one see how persistent this movement of ‘I’ is ??
1 Like
Yes, it does indeed seem very simple. However, when thought appears the complications begin.
**It seems that in the observation of thought, as K suggested, and as Bohm suggested we develop a ‘proprioception of thought’, each time a thought arises, it’s an opportunity to observe, choicelessly, what thought is doing. In this case ‘thought’ is saying, “when thought appears the complications begin.” Observing this thought arising seems rather simple. And it looks like it may or may not get complicated. It appears to depend on whether the ‘observer’ complicates it. Analysis or reacting seems to complicate it. But simply listening or observing doesn’t seem to complicate it. How does it look to you?
A big “If”. As the unknown unfolds and presents itself, we familiarize it and make it our reality because we believe we know what’s best.
The problem with living by this lie (or any lie) is that we have lost contact with the unknown, and cannot restore contact until, or if, the entire edifice of our certainty and confidence collapses, leaving us naked and vulnerable to what we’ve spent a lifetime shielding ourselves from.
Hello again Howard. It’s true that each time a thought arises it’s an opportunity to observe and I find that interesting. I have no idea if others have generally silent minds or not but it strikes me that there are so many thoughts arising during the day that it is probably impossible to observe them all. Of course, I could be wrong about this. The previous sentences were a product of my thought. Is this in itself problematic? Well, we have to use thought to engage in dialogue here so accepting that and not getting too worked up about it seems sensible. However, as the unknown unfolds in the form of a car coming round the corner and thought arises to say, “Oh, that’s a Nissan, I learned to drive in a Nissan”, there is surely an opportunity to observe how my experience of the present is being distorted by the filter of my thought. Is that problematic? It is if we are to really be in contact with the present moment. What do others say about all this?
It depends on how mindful you want to be. A lot of people use music or talk-radio to distract them from their own stream of consciousness because self-knowledge doesn’t interest them.
If you’d rather be aware of what the mind is doing than ignore it, you’ll learn about your conditioning and how it is sustained by self-ignorance.
Hello Sean - Well, taking a fresh look at what you’re pointing to, many of the thoughts that arise, like, I need to be at the doctor’s by 11, or I’m almost out of coffee, don’t seem to require any additional observation. The ‘practical’ thought seems, well, ‘practical’. It’s the psychological opinions of should’s and shouldn’ts that are frequently flawed. And Krishnamurti is asking why do we need to form beliefs about facts, rather than simply observe them? I’m not suggesting that observing thought means subjecting every thought to some deep investigation, it’s just an effortless observation. A choiceless awareness of thought. Generally it’s the thought creating a reaction or emotional response that warrants closer observation. The thoughts that trigger fear, anger, frustration, etc… Unless one is serious about a question like, Can one live without beliefs? Then there would be an interest to observe this whole movement, and how the beliefs always move away from what is, and how they lead to conflict in relationship. I find observing thought rather fascinating. It’s a simple as just being curious about what it’s doing. And as one becomes more familiar with this effortless observation, it begins to happen automatically, and the seeing seems to be even faster…as per this K quote:
K: Self-awareness creates the mirror in which all things are reflected without distortion. Every thought-feeling is thrown, as it were, on the screen of awareness to be observed, studied and understood; but this flow of understanding is blocked when there is condemnation or acceptance, judgment or identification. The more the screen is watched and understood, not as a duty or enforced practice, but because pain and sorrow have created the insatiable interest that brings its own discipline, the greater the intensity of awareness, and this in turn brings heightened understanding. You can follow a thing if it moves slowly; a rapid machine must be made to slow down if one is to study its movements, but once it has awakened this capacity, it can move at a high velocity, which makes it extremely calm. When revolving at high speed the several blades of a fan appear to be a solid sheet of metal. Our difficulty is to make the mind revolve slowly so that each thought-feeling can be followed and understood. What is deeply and thoroughly understood will not repeat itself. - Krishnamurti, The Book of Life
**It’s not a “problem,” it’s simply what’s arising. It’s analytical thought, that judges it as a problem. The thought may be coherent or incoherent. And if we act according to incoherent thought, the action is incoherent.
Conflict is problematic, and the conditioned mind is conflicted, so the problem is that the mental conflict isn’t resolved until the mind sees what it’s doing.
Awareness of what the mind is doing. Is this an awreness of how the mind is constantly separating the “me” from everything else that is going on around us? Does this awareness bring about a different way of seeing and a different way of relating to the people around us?
Are you saying that the sentences I previously wrote were conflictive? Is what you wrote above a product of the conditioned, conflicted mind? Or are you saying that you have resolved mental conflict because your mind sees what it’s doing so your sentences are ok? These are genuine questions and I’m not trying to be, er, conflictive.
Hello Howard, thaks for the reply and for posting this very interesting quote - it’s a fascinating look into how K discovered how to understand his thoughts by observing them on “the screen of awareness”.
Do you care enough to find out, or will you be satisfied with someone’s answer to your question?
The conflicted mind that is aware of its condition knows it is dividing what-is by what-should-be, and that this is a dysfunctional mode of operation, but this awareness doesn’t resolve the conflict. It just brings enough illumination to expose the mechanics of the matter.
It’s like opening the hood of your automobile to see if you can tell why the engine is running so rough, but, lacking the mechanical knowledge and understanding to locate and correct the problem, all you can do is observe the malfunctioning engine until, or if, there is more illumination.
I care enough to ask. You seem to have a bit of a thing for people not caring enough.
Well, it’s a start. Not sure who you are talking about here. Me? You? All of us?
How do you feel about people who don’t care enough?
I’m talking about the mind and what happens when it has an unresolved conflict. It’s nothing personal.
Maybe we learn to care. I mean, you might not care about the environment but then you meet someone who helps you become more aware of it and you end up caring more or even a lot. So maybe here on this forum that process can happen too. How do you see this?
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Good analogy.