Observer is the Observed | Choiceless Awareness (J Krishnamurti)
To my knowledge, the word awaring was first used by the Danish mystic Sunyata in his book Sunyata: The Life and Sayings of a Rare-Born Mystic. Using the verb form of awareness came quite naturally to me from my familiarity with the German word gewahren, which means “becoming aware of, noticing, discovering, or seeing.” The beauty of the word gewahren lies in the fact that it contains the word wahr, which means “true.”
In clearly seeing that I am about to get compulsively entangled in self-defense—for instance, protecting my self-image from getting hurt by someone’s disparaging talk, in clearly awaring defensiveness and the self-image that is being defended— can it all abate right then and there at the instant of seeing? Getting caught up in an emotional reaction may be averted by clearly seeing reactivity without any intention to do right or wrong. Just staying here, aware, is enough.
What sees this? Something sees this. That’s what is significant. I don’t mean the stuckness! Just awaring. Awaring.
Attention includes careful awaring of the many different thoughts going on in the brain.
We’re not trying to clarify whether there’s somebody who does it, because that’s clear, isn’t it? There is no doer in this thing. There’s only awaring. And awaring has this seemingly magic function that what is truly awared changes, is no longer the same.
Awaring here and now is a totally different way of being!
Watch yourself, and ask occasionally, “Is there a ‘me’ here?” Because we can quickly affirm that there’s no “me,” that we’ve left it behind, but we haven’t really. It needs sustained awaring, because it sneaks in through the back door: “me” who wants more, “me” who understands matters, “me” who knows better than the others, those poor blind people! To keep questioning oneself, not in order to blame oneself but in order to bring to light all of the subtle movements of “me” that keep us in the dark. The “me”-movement is the strongest darkener! We don’t see what we’re saying and doing because we’re darkened, blinded by this “me”-ness. I’m not talking about literal blindness. A really blind person may see a lot. This seeing is not seeing with the eyes or hearing with the ears. It perceives with the eyes and ears of the entire universe!
(Toni Packer, "The Silent Question")
What is awareness? It cannot possibly be defined. It is easier to point out what is absent in awareness. It is not self-conscious—it does not think about itself. It does not think! Only consciousness thinks. Awareness is not a product of thought or imagination. It does not have a self-center. In an unfathomable way, it sheds light on consciousness, on self-centered activity. Not judgmentally, not condemning or accepting what reveals itself. Just illuminating, making transparent what is unfolding this moment. Awareness has no inner division, no outer boundaries. No inner and no outer. It is true being, beholding everything out of the emptiness of no self. Emptiness is not a concept here. It reveals itself effortlessly when willing, wanting, resisting, grasping are in abeyance. Awareness reveals all these movements as conditioned reactions. (Toni Packer, “The Wonder of Presence”)
Just be aware of it as it happens. Not analyzing it afterwards but seeing it at the moment.
Maybe we can go on to the next question which was about whether there can be partial awareness? Or whether a lot of the awareness that we seem to experience is partial awareness? Before we get into it, let us just say that thinking about oneself, remembering what one did and then thinking about it, is not awareness, even though it often masquerades for awareness. One may think very honestly and perceptively, as we say, about oneself. Be able to analyze it very astutely. Remembering and then bringing to bear one’s knowledge about other behavior in oneself, memories, and so forth; but it is not awareness. It is thinking and analyzing.
I think it is a very worthwhile inquiry, as one feels there is awareness of something, whether the mind is really open to the whole. To the whole situation. One may be minutely occupied with a job. Maybe one is working in the kitchen. One is cutting the carrots, scrubbing them under the water, paying attention. We talked about it the other day. Feeling the water, the coldness of it and the texture of the carrot, seeing its shape and little dark ridges, slicing it and so forth. Being there, being attentive, as attentive as one can be, and all the while, not noticing that somebody else wants to get to the sink. (Laughter.)
So there can be careful minute attention but on a very small, limited stage. And very often when that kind of awareness takes place, center stage is still the me, aware that it is aware, and quite pleased with itself. (Laughter.) There is an image there of oneself being aware, paying attention. Paying attention all right to this thing but not in a broader sense in which there is no image to hold onto. The image can be seen and let go of. It goes if it’s seen because if it is seen, it is seen for its partiality, for its narrowness and stickiness – its darkness. And when the self-image goes, with its commands that you must be attentive, you must be aware, when that goes, it is seen and understood and doesn’t continue, and the world opens up. There is the sky again and all the people next to one, not so different from oneself. Much more alike than different.
So the question is really – isn’t it? – whether this constant self-centeredness or self-enclosing, this ongoing enclosing oneself with one’s self-image and its needs and fears and so forth, whether that can end, in the light of awareness? So that there is just what is. There is no duality, no owner, no sufferer, no wanter of something different. Those thoughts as they come up are seen, are spotted, and dissolve like snow on a warm blade of grass.
Can one quickly catch seeing when a judgement is coming up and not be caught up in it? So that there is no, no duality in this seeing, no owner of these behaviors, no possessor of the anger or sufferer of the pain. That’s made up by thought.
(Toni Packer, November 1987 Seven-day Retreat, “Is Thinking Necessary”)
I recognized this silence. And what I recognized as silence is the comparative mind, because it is comparing this silence with the previous silence. (UG Krishnamurti)
Attention singles out some small part of the content of the field of conscious awareness from the rest in order to analyze and interpret it. On the other hand, peripheral awareness is more holistic, open, and inclusive, and provides the overall context for conscious experience. It has more to do with the relationships of objects to one another and to the whole. (Culadasa, “The Mind Illuminated”)
Meditation is a powerful antidote to our purposeful, growth oriented, war-mongering, speed-driven, ever-productive consumer civilization, which is rapidly devouring the earth. We retreat in meditation work not from reality, but from our habitual escapes from reality. Meditation is a social and political act. Listening and not-doing are actions far more powerful than most of us have yet begun to realize. But meditation is much more (and much less) than all of this. Meditation is not knowing what meditation is. (Joan Tollifson, “Bare-bones Meditation”)
Krishnamurti: Since you will not ask any more questions. I am going to propose something. You know people talk a great deal about meditation, don't they?
Student: They do.
Krishnamurti: You know nothing about it. I am glad. Because you know nothing about it, you can learn about it. It is like not knowing French or Latin or Italian. Because you do not know, you can learn, you can learn as though for the first time. Those people who already know what meditation is, they have to unlearn and then learn. You see the difference? Since you do not know what meditation is, let us learn about it. To learn about meditation, you have to see how your mind is working. You have to watch, as you watch a lizard going by, walking across the wall. You see all its four feet, how it sticks to the wall, and as you watch, you see all the movements. In the same way, watch your thinking. Do not correct it. Do not suppress it. Do not say, "All this is too difficult". Just watch; now, this morning.
First of all sit absolutely still. Sit comfortably, cross your legs, sit absolutely still, close your eyes, and see if you can keep your eyes from moving. You understand? Your eye balls are apt to move, keep them completely quiet, for fun. Then, as you sit very quietly, find out what your thought is doing. Watch it as you watched the lizard. Watch thought, the way it runs, one thought after another. So you begin to learn, to observe.
Are you watching your thoughts - how one thought pursues another thought, thought saying, "This is a good thought, this is a bad thought"? When you go to bed at night, and when you walk, watch your thought. Just watch thought, do not correct it, and then you will learn the beginning of meditation. Now sit very quietly. Shut your eyes and see that the eyeballs do not move at all. Then watch your thoughts so that you learn. Once you begin to learn there is no end to learning.
(J Krishnamurti, "Krishnamurti on Education")
Awareness, insight, enlightenment, wholeness—whatever words one may pick to label what cannot be taught in words—is not the effect of a cause. Activity does not destroy it and sitting does not create it. (Toni Packer, “Sitting Quietly, Doing Nothing - The Work of This Moment”)
Enlightenment recognizes that there is no enlightenment without delusion, that enlightenment and delusion arise together, while delusion is at war with delusion. Delusion wants to cleanse the universe of delusion.
Words such as “awakening” or “enlightenment” or “waking up” or “liberation” are all so potentially misleading that I am always tempted not to use any of these words ever again. Why? Because the only forever is now. Because there is no light apart from the dark, and no enlightenment apart from delusion. Because there is no permanently enlightened person. The very notion of such a thing is delusion. So-called awakening isn’t personal. It doesn’t happen to me.
Even if some kind of sudden, enormous, apparently lasting transformation does seem to happen for a few rare people, it certainly doesn’t happen for everyone, and it doesn’t need to happen for anyone, and in fact, there is actually no one to whom any of this is happening—there is only this undivided totality that includes everything and everyone
But I’m always wary of those who claim to have risen to a level never before reached by anyone else. The clearest teachers I’ve met are the most ordinary. They have humility, not grandiosity. They don’t claim to possess something that the rest of us do not possess. They empower those who come to them to be their own best teachers rather than encouraging dependency or the tendency to idealize authority figures and put them up on pedestals. The best teachers throw you back on yourself.
And even the best teachers make mistakes. We are all human. Hopefully, a good teacher will recognize their mistakes and won’t stay confused for very long. They know where Truth resides. They’re not seeking it “out there” anymore. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t still learning or that they “know it all.”
Enlightenment is a word. People use this word in different ways. But as far as I’m concerned, what it points to is not a personal possession or a spiritual academy award. It’s not a finish-line that you cross or a state you reside in “forever after.”
(Joan Tollifson, “Nothing to Grasp”)
Or maybe be open to trying something new: simply attending without a known method or purpose. Attending to what is taking place from moment to moment isn’t a technique—it is what is and that is all! (Toni Packer, “The Wonder of Presence”)
Enlightenment isn’t something we march toward, and one day, somehow, we grab it. Enlightenment is the ending in yourself of that hope for something other than life being as it is. (Charlotte Joko Beck)
Maybe it’s actually useful to hang on to some conception of self for a while; maybe hanging on to it could help you get to the point where you no longer believe it exists. The scholar Peter Harvey has written, “One can, then, perhaps see the Self idea as fulfilling a role akin to a rocket which boosts a payload into space, against the force of gravity. It provides the force to drive the mind out of the ‘gravity field’ of attachment to the personality-factors [the aggregates]. Having done so, it then ‘falls away and is burnt up,’ as itself a baseless concept.” (Robert Wright, “Why Buddhism is True”)
Asking questions and then being quiet in the looking. (Toni Packer, November 1987 Seven-day Retreat, “Is Thinking Necessary”)
Freedom from the desire for an answer is essential to the understanding of a problem. (J Krishnamurti)
I maintain that no organization can lead man to spirituality.
Truth is a pathless land. It cannot be organized, you cannot approach it from any path whatsoever. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path.
(J Krishnamurti, “Dissolution Speech - Truth is a pathless land”)
If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him (Zen Koan, attributed to Linji Yixuan)
Thought, identified as “me,” may try to do this in a very heavy-handed, result-oriented way—which is how we often habitually go about things, employing effort and will-power and then judging how well or how poorly we are doing, while striving for some imagined future perfection. But that approach tends to reinforce the very delusion it is attempting to wake up from, the thought-sense of encapsulation and separation, the belief that we are fundamentally deficient and in need of something different and better to happen so we can finally be okay.
So instead of trying really hard to shift the focus of attention and then keep it shifted, all of which is a losing battle, I recommend a more relaxed and playful approach—exploration rather than practice, with no goal in mind. And if a goal should appear in the mind, simply seeing that for what it is—a habitual, conditioned thought-pattern.
So relax and enjoy the show, and if you can’t relax, be tense!
(Joan Tollifson, “Direct Experiencing”)
The important thing is to discover and after discovering to die to what has been discovered and moving on, like a river. (Adapted from J Krishnamurti by Javier Gomez Rodriguez, “Reflecting Consciousness: An Overview of Dialogue”)
It’s not a calamity to me. But a calamity for those that have an image that something marvellous is going to happen.
There is no way out. Anything you do to get out of the trap of thought, which you yourself have created, is only strengthening and fortifying it. Giving up something in the hope of getting something else is not really giving up. In fact there is nothing to give up. There is nothing you can do.
The illusion is that you can do something to be free from illusion.
(UG Krishnamurti)
Dialogue, as we are choosing to use the word, is a way of exploring the roots of the many crises that face humanity today. It enables inquiry into, and understanding of, the sorts of processes that fragment and interfere with real communication between individuals, nations and even different parts of the same organization. In our modern culture men and women are able to interact with one another in many ways: they can sing, dance or play together with little difficulty but their ability to talk together about subjects that matter deeply to them seems invariably to lead to dispute, division and often to violence. In our view this condition points to a deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought.
In Dialogue, a group of people can explore the individual and collective presuppositions, ideas, beliefs, and feelings that subtly control their interactions. It provides an opportunity to participate in a process that displays communication successes and failures. It can reveal the often puzzling patterns of incoherence that lead the group to avoid certain issues or, on the other hand, to insist, against all reason, on standing and defending opinions about particular issues.
Dialogue is a way of observing, collectively, how hidden values and intentions can control our behavior, and how unnoticed cultural differences can clash without our realizing what is occurring. It can therefore be seen as an arena in which collective learning takes place and out of which a sense of increased harmony, fellowship and creativity can arise.
Because the nature of Dialogue is exploratory, its meaning and its methods continue to unfold. No firm rules can be laid down for conducting a Dialogue because its essence is learning—not as the result of consuming a body of information or doctrine imparted by an authority, nor as a means of examining or criticizing a particular theory or programme, but rather as part of an unfolding process of creative participation between peers.
As a microcosm of the large culture, Dialogue allows a wide spectrum of possible relationships to be revealed. It can disclose the impact of society on the individual and the individual's impact on society. It can display how power is assumed or given away and how pervasive are the generally unnoticed rules of the system that constitutes our culture. But it is most deeply concerned with understanding the dynamics of how thought conceives such connections.
It is not concerned with deliberately trying to alter or change behavior nor to get the participants to move toward a predetermined goal. Any such attempt would distort and obscure the processes that the Dialogue has set out to explore. Nevertheless, changes do occur because observed thought behaves differently from unobserved thought. Dialogue can thus become an opportunity for thought and feeling to play freely in a continuously of deeper or more general meaning. Any subject can be included and no content is excluded. Such an activity is very rare in our culture.
Finally, we would like to make clear that we are not proposing Dialogue as a panacea nor as a method or technique designed to succeed all other forms of social interaction. Not everyone will find it useful nor, certainly, will it be useful in all contexts.
(David Bohm, et al., “Dialogue: a Proposal”, accessed from here)
Dialogue functions as a microcosm of the larger culture, of the relationship of individual and society. Thus personal topics will be entwined with more general issues. No content is excluded. There is no specific goal or direction, no imposed consensus or attempt to avoid conflict. As people participate in the creation of a common pool of meaning, a shared content of consciousness emerges which allows for a high level of creativity and insight. This brings about a sense of ‘koinonia’, ‘communion’ or impersonal fellowship.
There will be frustration, friction and disappointment in dialogue but if we can manage to stay with all that we will discover a new depth of friendship. We are not aiming for or demanding friendship or affection; we don’t demand anything. We are just staying with all our knowledge, thoughts, emotions and reactions together. We are participating and taking part in the whole stream of consciousness.
Dialogue is a conversation between equals. Any controlling authority will tend to hinder the free play of thought and the sharing of delicate feelings. Hierarchy and manipulation have no place in dialogue, and neither have conviction and persuasion, though some facilitation may be necessary. Dialogue is not a panacea. Not everyone will find it useful nor will it be useful in all contexts. The spirit of dialogue is one of free play, a collective dance of the mind that becomes a continuing adventure opening the way to significant and creative change.
This approach to dialogue is something new of vital importance for the future health of our culture and the very survival of mankind. [...]
It’s natural that as the group goes on some people leave and some others come in. It’s not for everybody all the time. There could be, in fact, a constantly renewing set of people taking part in this experiment.
(Javier Gomez Rodriguez, “Reflecting Consciousness: An Overview of Dialogue”)
(root) pull back
(noun) an act of moving back or withdrawing.
(noun) a quiet or secluded place in which one can rest and relax.
(Oxford Languages and Google)
I think it is essential sometimes to go into retreat, to stop everything that you have been doing, to stop your beliefs and experiences completely and look at them anew, not keep on repeating like machines whether you believe or don't believe. You would let fresh air into your minds. Wouldn't you? That means you must be insecure, must you not? If you can do so, you would be open to the mysteries of nature and to things that are whispering about us, which you would not otherwise reach; you would reach the god that is waiting to come, the truth that cannot be invited but comes itself. But we are not open to love, and other finer processes that are taking place within us, because we are all too enclosed by our own desires. Surely, it is good to retreat from all that. Stop being a member of some society. Stop being a Brahmin, a Hindu, a Christian, a Muslim. Stop your worship, rituals, take a complete retreat from all those and see what happens.
In a retreat, do not plunge into something else, do not take some book and be absorbed in new knowledge and new acquisitions. Have a complete break with the past and see what happens. Sirs, do it, and you will see delight. You will see vast expanses. When your heart is open, then reality can come. Then the whisperings of your own prejudices, your own noises are not heard. That is why it is good to take a retreat, to go away and to stop the routine, not only the routine of outward existence but the routine which the mind establishes for its own safety and convenience. Try it sirs, those who have the opportunity.
(J Krishnamurti)
Meditation should not become a monkish isolation from the throb of life. A living meditation has to be a part of life and a movement towards a better understanding and awareness of the totality of life as a whole.
Meditation is one of the greatest arts in life… When you learn about yourself, watch yourself, watch the way you walk, how you eat, what you say, the gossip, the hate, the jealousy-if you are aware of all that in yourself, without any choice, that is part of meditation.
So meditation can take place when you are sitting in a bus or walking in the woods full of light and shadows, or listening to the singing of birds or looking at the face of your wife or child.
How is one to know oneself? Oneself is a very complex structure, a very complex movement; how is one to know oneself so that one does not deceive oneself? One can only know oneself in one’s relationship to others. In one’s relationship to others one may withdraw from them because one does not want to be hurt and in relationship one may discover that one is very jealous, dependent, attached and really quite callous. So relationship acts as a mirror in which one knows oneself. It is the same thing outwardly; the outer is a reflection of oneself, because society, governments, all these things, are created by human beings fundamentally the same as oneself.
Meditation is not something different from daily life; do not go off into the corner of a room and meditate for ten minutes, then come out of it and be a butcher-both metaphorically and actually. Meditation is one of the most serious things. You can do it all day, in the office, with the family, when you say to somebody, “I love you,” when you are considering your children. And when you so meditate you will find in it an extraordinary beauty; you will act rightly at every moment; and if you do not act rightly at a given moment it does not matter, you will pick it up again-you will not waste time in regret. Meditation is part of life, not something different from life.
Meditation is not a separate thing from life; it is the very essence of life, the very essence of daily living. To listen to those bells, to hear the laughter of that peasant as he walks by with his wife, to listen to the sound of the bell on the bicycle of the little girl as she passes by: it is the whole of life, and not just a fragment of it, that meditation opens.
(J Krishnamurti)
The news in depth, documentary, the past, of the past wars, to not just watch or read what is happening out there but simultaneously be transparent to what goes on within oneself in this closest and most intimate of all laboratories that is available to us – our own thoughts and feelings and emotions and conflicts, upheavals, turmoil, and so forth. To be intimate with it; open to see what goes on in oneself. Not hesitant or fearful to discover the truth of one’s moment-to-moment thoughts and feelings and turbulence, conflicts, contradictions because they are what make up the turbulence, contradictions, and conflict in this world, and vice versa. (Toni Packer, November 1987 Seven-day Retreat, “Is Thinking Necessary”)