Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Paul David son's Forum Activity | 43 posts in 1 forum


Forum: Experimenter's Corner Thu, 02 Mar 2017
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Jan Kasol wrote: Memory and thought are mechanical.

Are we to take that as fact without further investigation, inquiry?

Certainly, one can point to many mechanical aspects of thought and memory but does the word "mechanical" convey the whole?

Firstly, what is meant by the word "mechanical?"

(Should this be taken to a new thread rather than a deviation from this one??)

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sun, 26 Mar 2017
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

John Raica wrote: Suddenly a change takes place in K; he negates salvation, eternity as a fixed point and so destroys the horizontal movement of time as such. Now what exactly took place? If we could understand and see as if through a microscope what happened to Krishnamurti, if we could examine what happened to his brain cells which contained this horizontal movement of time, it might be possible for us to understand time and mutation in relation to the brain cells.

What an incredible passage. Almost very word an unsupported assumption. How would P know that a "sudden change" took place in K. Where is there any evidence at all of that? She has taken it on faith.

Did he negate salvation? Had he believed in salvation and then suddenly negated that belief? Where is there any evidence that K ever believed in salvation. He himself said he didn't, that everything taught in theosophy had no effect on him. Yet he said in his famous speech that his aim was to set everyone free of all conditions. That sounds like salvation to me, though I wasn't there.

Do the brain cells contain the "horizontal movement of time? How does she know that? All the conclusions that follow about what "might be possible" rest on that unsupported claim.

What I am interested in is looking at what in me is acceptance of things other people have said but which I have not found out or affirmed independently. I think that was K's concern too. Personally, rather than negate 'salvation,' which I have never believed in and do not have to negate, I would prefer to negate the 'salivation' that occurs when I, you or anyone hears what they want to hear and thinks no further about it. Those who bring us juicy morsels to confirm our own prejudices do us a disservice. The servile attitude of P in that piece should be understood for what it is, fawning.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 26 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

QOTD 26 July

"It would be foolish - would it not? - to deny evolution."

Okay, how do we approach that rhetorical question?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 26 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

John Raica wrote: If not, well...it doesn't represent more than ...a rhetorical question

I am not judging the question, John, but asking how the mind approaches it. The fact that the statement was posed as a rhetorical question is secondary, I think. Let's start with the proposition stated firmly: "It would be foolish to deny evolution."

Why would it be foolish?

John Raica wrote: biologically speaking the evolution of species is a proven fact

This is a repetition of what K said, which is fine in itself, but doesn't get us any further. I think most people (bar Christian fundamentalists) will have accepted that evolution is a proven fact, but at that same time most of those same people will not have proven the fact for themselves. We simply accept that someone else has proven it, that it has been established elsewhere. And I gasp at how much of our so-called knowledge is actually second hand. Try asking someone why they believe in evolution and see if they can give a coherent answer, other than that it is an accepted fact and it would be 'foolish' to deny it.

For clarification's sake I should add that I am not seeking to disprove anything, let alone evolution. I am just attempting to shed some light with regard our belief systems and how we approach things generally. You see, in the same way, many would see it as proven fact that women are this and men are that, that you need a policemen to keep order, that money makes the world go round etc etc. What I want to know in this case is on what basis we accept evolution as fact.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 26 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

Dan McDermott wrote: the physical body is made up of individual cells

Have you seen them?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 26 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

Jess S wrote: I seem to remember that he gave a justification to say it would be foolish to deny it. Maybe the example he gave as justification can be questioned rather!

Yes, but I am not questioning K's view on evolution Jess. Neither am I questioning the theory of evolution itself. I am inquiring into the relationship of the mind that approves that theory to the theory itself. I am writing of you and I, not K or Darwin. But we could look at what K said and the wider context in which he said it. Here is the passage:

"Krishnamurti: It would be foolish - would it not? - to deny evolution. There is the bullock cart and the jet plane, that is evolution. There is an evolution of the primate to the so-called man. There is evolution from not-knowing to knowing, Evolution implies time; but psychologically, inwardly, is there evolution? Are you following the question? Outwardly one can see how architecture has advanced from the primitive hut to the modern building, mechanics from the two wheel cart to the motor, the jet plane, going to the moon and all the rest of it - it is there, obviously there is no question whether these things have evolved or not. But is there evolution inwardly, at all?"

Okay, what I am asking about is this: If it is foolish to 'deny' evolution, which it may or may not be, is it also foolish to accept evolution? On what basis are we saying it? On what basis are we judging it? I am asking about the movement of our judgement and the quality of our judgement.

But I will take a moment from this to ask about K here. K takes the example of the cart 'evolving' into the jet plane. Is that 'evolution?' Is that what evolution is? Personally I have never seen a cart evolve into a plane.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 26 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

Peter Kesting wrote: Every thing else that we "know" is assumption only.

Maybe everything contains assumption, Peter, but some assumptions are more weighty than others. The fact that all knowledge is relative does not dissuade me from the weighty assumption that the elephant is real and the unicorn and the jackolope or not.

So, what makes the difference? Is it not that the seeing is the believing? I have seen plenty of elephants. I have ridden one. I have fed one. I have chased several around a Keralan rice paddy on the elephant festival day. Yest I have never had the pleasure with a unicorn. I don't believe in unicorns. I have every reason to believe they are a fable, like a dragon.

So, in the end, it doesn't signify much to say that all knowledge is assumptive. And to say that all knowledge "is assumption only" is clearly ridiculous because it dismisses entirely the realm of sensory proof.

Getting back to evolution, how do we know it for a fact? Can even one person here explain?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 26 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

Peter Kesting wrote: IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THERE IS NOTHING

Tell that to Old Mother Hubbard :-)

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 26 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

Jess S wrote: Change doesn't mean evolution and what I see in those examples is change, not evolution.

That's it. But okay, K's examples may not be the best. He points out that technology develops. He says it 'evolves.' Well, no. What is actually developing (evolving or not) is human thought and knowledge, in other words human consciousness. Technology is an expression of that. But he says that consciousness has not evolved. So, what type of evolution is he talking about?

Whatever K is saying is one thing but I wanted to keep track of the original question: What do you or I know of 'evolution' to say it is a fact and it would be foolish to deny it?

Yes, the cart has been replaced by the modern transportation systems. But carts and cars do not give birth to offspring that carry their mutated genes. If we relate the question to life forms and ask about the theory of evolution which pertains to Darwin, adaptation and survival of the fittest through processes of mutation, would we be foolish to deny it (as the fundamentalists do) AND would we be equally foolish to accept it without having seen it for ourselves?

WE consider the theory accepted and thereby proven, as we do with regard many other things. And in that spirit of acceptance we also accept anything that carries a certain weight of social approval and consensus. This is exactly what K meant when he talked of conditioning.

It may be foolish to deny evolution but it may also be foolish to accept it as fact. How will we know? What criteria are we employing?

I ask again, on what basis to we accept or deny this theory of evolution (of life forms)? Have we ever thought about it?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 26 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

Peter Kesting wrote: But biological evolution is very weighty. Of course you will need a lot of education to really see all of the evidance

Really? Is it? It may be but if you cannot show me why you accept it or deny it we are not getting anywhere.

I don't want to hear that I need a lot of education. We are largely uneducated yet we have accepted it. I want something simple that I can deal with here and now. Can you provide it? Inquire.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 26 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

Dan McDermott wrote: Until that psychological transformation

The cart did not mutate into the plane, right? But you want the human mind to mutate?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 26 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

John Raica wrote: Then the 'successful' specimens ( like for instance the 'trumps') stick together procreating more "winners" - which in turn.... Of course, the process can go both ways- especially for species with larger brains like us- where the 'involution' is perhaps even more visible

Haha, yes. Isn't it incredible when you think about the complexity and sophistication of life: There are forty trillion cells in the human body and each one contains eight million mitochondrial DNA base pairs. That’s over thirty million, trillion base pairs in each one of us. We’re dealing with something so fundamental to life that any sort of mutation could have dramatic consequences for the ability of the body to generate power, either positively or, as in the case of mitochondrial disease (baby Charlie comes to mind), negatively. Each of the thirty-seven trillion cells in your body contains an independent powerhouse, mitochondria, an alien species having its own DNA, accidentally ingested by some ancestral bacteria aeons ago, before endosymbiosising into multicellular life. And after aeons of evolution we finally reach the era of humanity, the apogee of life itself, an animal that can self-reflect, that represents nature's ability to look back at itself, at its own processes and ponder. So, this human being, at the apex of evolution, almost a god, builds himself up, creates immense societies and after ten thousand years creates something called democracy and the greatest society of all, with the most refined forms of all, representing all of history in itself, not just human history bu the path taken by life itself, has its election and lo and behold elects . . . well, you know who. It says something of the absurdity of life, doesn't it? I think, if we are to evolve, now's about the time.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 26 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

Huguette . wrote: just as the acorn grows into the oak

Right now they're working on an acorn that grows directly into a bookcase :-)

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 28 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

Okay, there has been such an amount of spurious philosophising and supposing that the question seems to have withered on the branch so I will come back to it in a more direct way.

If I am asked how I know the world is round, not flat, I can recount that I have been up in a plane and have observed the curvature. I can describe my experience of time changing when one goes from one side of the planet to the other. I can describe how I have seen a ship disappear over the horizon when viewed from a cliff top or how a suspension bridge over a large stretch of water appears curved though it maintains the same distance above the water along its entire length. These things have I seen. Then I can give some theoretical accounts of the movements of the planets, the rotation of the Earth and so on, but that is all secondary information, valid as it may be. It simply offers a more rigorous explanation for what has been observed in fact. But most people will simply take the theoretical explanation as fact without any type of independent check or effort at refutation. That is the psychological issue I want to apply to the question of evolution.

To say it is 'foolish' to deny evolution misses the fact that it is also foolish to accept as truth something one has no independent verification for. So, is there any way, without wading through the literature and amassing an 'education' and without accepting what others say that we can escape the position of the fool in this regard? Or are we forced to admit that with regard the theory of evolution, we are fools to say a thing?

I think there are simple ways to approach evolution, such as I suggested with the flat earth thesis, ways that are based upon observation. What amazes me is that we accept other people's words without using our own senses and our own brains to check it out. So again, can we find a simple answer to the question as to how we can decide if the theory of evolution has validity or not?

Why, concretely, would we be fools to deny evolution?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 28 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

Jess S wrote: Can't we just doubt as well?

Yes, we can accept, deny or 'just doubt.' But we can also find out. To 'just doubt' without an effort to find out is quite as bad as acceptance or denial.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 28 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

Dan McDermott wrote: Maybe Paul, you could tell us what you have "found out" regarding the truth or falseness that you came from the monkeys.

That is clearly an inappropriate request since I have nowhere suggested I "came from the monkeys." Maybe if you were serious enough you could pose a relevant question rather than engage in ridicule. The fact is that I came from my parents but I observe that I am neither one of them nor the other, nor some obvious amalgam of the two, though I do bear many similarities. Maybe there is a clue there for you. Start from the observable fact.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 28 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

Peter Kesting wrote: For example there are examples of babies being accidentally switched in the hospital.

I was a home birth.

Peter Kesting wrote: But if you want to just explore evolution without listening to any experts, well this was exactly Darwin's situation.

I don't want to explore evolution and it has little to do with experts. I have heard what I have heard about evolution. I have accepted it as fact. But now I want to know why I have accepted it. I ask myself if there is anything observable, that does not rely on a secondhand opinion, that will affirm or negate my acceptance. Please don't fob off the inquiry with suggestions that I could have been swapped at birth. That is clearly ridiculous.

I have two children. I saw each being born and I know they were not switched. Okay. Unless all babies are being switched all over the place without their parents even suspecting, your point is non-valid. My children are not copies of their parents. Each has something quite unique. Have you had no experience with birth whatsoever? Do you deny the evidence of your own eyes and depend on what others say?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 28 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

Peter Kesting wrote: We would have to disect a giraffe to get personal proof of this. Which must be considered evidence that the giraffes neck length evolved.

No, you have not dissected a giraffe and your evidence is again secondhand. And you come nowhere near to answering the question as to why and under what condition it would be foolish to either accept or deny evolution.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 28 Jul 2017
Topic: Evolution

Jason Temple wrote: If K said that we evolved from primates then he was wrong- as far as proven facts go.

I think you are mistaken about what science says, Jason. Science says that humans are primates, not that we evolved from primates. But no scientist has ever said that we evolved from monkeys. That was a spurious charge made against Darwin by various religious nuts.

Yes, it is thought that both monkeys and man evolved from common ancestors. It went against the biblical teaching that God made every species unique and they have never changed since. But this is all at the theoretical level. Are there not things we have observed personally, in our own lifetimes, that show evolution in practice? Are we totally reliant on theory?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Mon, 04 Sep 2017
Topic: Evolution

Evolutionary Memes

I read Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' some months back and came across this word 'memes' that I'd often heard but never really understood what was being described by it. The idea is that there are units of culture which spread around like viruses, adapting and evolving within their environments. A modern meme might be 'freedom' or 'democracy,' for example. Certainly we can see how the idea or the practice of democracy has changed since Greek times. So at that level there is 'evolution.' But it strikes me that this is a very superficial construct. Meme, of course, is itself a meme and we are entitled to ask how it itself evolved and how it functions today. Does the concept of a world of competing 'memes' actually explain how society works, why humans act as they do, or does it function of obfuscate the facts? If there are deeper processes at work then 'memes' (insofar as they exist) are just the expressions of those deeper processes.

Behind all this is the fact that human ideas have certainly evolved and human society has certainly evolved and K asked if this type of evolution is truly significant for the future of humanity. If we move from one violence to another violence we have not dealt with violence, obviously. So K was asking a bigger question: Whether it is possible for humanity to evolve at all with respect to his nature-imposed temperament? He said that it was and offered himself as an example.

I can see the truth in that but when it is posed as 'enlightenment' I also see that we have merely invented another meme, one which is being mimicked throughout the world. Up to now I have not found anyone, not even K who has radically changed. K had never been violent in the first place so even he did not evolve or mutate from this to that. In which case, it does not seem to be a rational goal for any human being to set themselves. On the other hand, to understand one's own violence, neither to accept it or to renounce it, seems to me to be intelligent.

Meanwhile, the 'enlightenment' meme has captured a whole host of people, promising them some sort of escape. I think it only adds to the misery. I would also like to ask; is K's teaching part of that meme or is it something entirely different?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Mon, 11 Sep 2017
Topic: Evolution

"The speaker is questioning that. He says there is no such thing as psychological evolution. You have to understand the nature of that statement, what is implied - that there is no movement as the evolution of the psyche which means there is no becoming. I don't become noble, I don't achieve enlightenment if I practise, if I strive, if I deny this or control, and so on, which is gradation in achievement."

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Mon, 11 Sep 2017
Topic: Evolution

Tom Paine wrote: I can't undo me.

Yes. 'You' cannot evolve into what 'you' are not.

'Evolve' originates from the Latin, meaning 'to roll out.' That has the implication that A does not become B but that B is A plus time. It's a peculiar concept because it suggests we are constantly fooled by time into believing things are changing as if by magic from one thing into another. If however B is a continuation of A then both A and B are functions of time. A was never A, in any pure sense but only perceived at one point along a time line in which at a later point it is perceived as B.

It seems to me that there is a problem at the heart of the concept of evolution. The problem has to do with how 'time' is introduced as if it is an independent factor that determines the trajectory of all things. 'Time' has become master. By taking time as something external, something that acts upon things and changes them as if from the outside, we have fragmented the whole process. Time is not something external which somehow acts upon things in order to change them. Time is simply a word that we have coined to explain change and movement in the first place. Yet we have made something extraordinary out of it. Time, movement, distance, change are practically indistinguishable from each other. They are words pointing to the same thing. They are analytical words, not independent variables. You cannot take one element out and say 'time does this.'

The elevation of 'time' to a master of change is implicit in the concept of evolution insofar as a 'rolling out' is presumed. I don't think Darwin's use of the term implied that but we do constantly slip into it.

Then to suggest something may happen 'outside of time' is fairly much the same thing but in reverse.

Darwin suggested that gradual change through successful adaptations could only take place if accompanied by small radical changes that themselves were not governed by adaptive success but were unpredictable and non-determined by environment having more to do with internal mechanisms which he called mutations. In other words, his theory combined gradualness (through time) with radical mutations (instantaneous) but behind that was the other axis between the external dynamic concerning adaptation and the internal dynamics concerning the mechanics of reproduction.

If that is the case then how can the question be understood, whether or not psychological evolution is possible? For instance, is there this radical element or is there only slow, accumulative adaptation? And if the latter, what is psyche adapting to?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Mon, 11 Sep 2017
Topic: Evolution

Dan McDermott wrote: For that to occur there has to be a "radical psychological revolution", an "explosion" of the 'center'. And that can only occur with the realization that the "observer is the observed".

Great. this observer has observed that the observer is the observed. What next?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 12 Sep 2017
Topic: Evolution

Dan McDermott wrote: That's it, you're done! Go, and sin no more.

A pat on the head? Is that all I get for reading all those books, watching all those videos, attending all those dialogues, eating all that veggie food? I want to evolve, I want to become the next K . . . or maybe god even. So please, don't talk to me like a fluffing military barber, I'm not done till I says I'm done.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 12 Sep 2017
Topic: Evolution

Dan McDermott wrote: Sorry big guy, that's it. The observer is the observed.

Gameplayers get more recommendations. That's true, but you have totally evaded the point. You wrote:

Dan McDermott wrote: For that to occur there has to be a "radical psychological revolution", an "explosion" of the 'center'. And that can only occur with the realization that the "observer is the observed".

That's fine as a proposition. The proposition is that once one realises the observer is the observed then "a radical psychological revolution" can occur. So, as I point out, I have realised that the observer is the observed, you have realised it, many have realised it, yet the ""radical psychological revolution" is absent. This is why I asked "what next?"

You do not solve the problem by merely stating one key precondition for its solution. If you do not see that, then you are only confusing yourself with radical sounding phrases. The issue is the "radical psychological revolution," not its supposed precondition. It's like K said, you have entered the restaurant, read and understood the menu but you have not eaten. The point is to end the hunger, not to understand the menu.

To those who 'recommended' your comment: the comment was a clever riposte. Do you yourselves know why you recommended it? Did you not feel you were taking sides? Did you feel your ego being sated, set to rest, comforted by Dan's riposte? Did you think he had won match-point? Do you enjoy being spectators?

I would love to hear why you recommended it.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 13 Sep 2017
Topic: Evolution

Dan McDermott wrote: I know that I have not understood what is behind those words of his.

That's fine but look at the belief imbued in your statement. You do not understand the meaning of the key phrase but you do believe the meaning is beyond thought and that once 'realised' (whatever that means) the road to radical psychological transformation will be opened.

I think here we get to one of John Raica's 'paradoxes.' The paradox is in fact in your own mind. You believe in the transformative power of 'the observer is the observed' without understanding what 'the observer is the observed means' whilst at the same time believing that you are not believing but knowing.

Just step back and look at what you actually know and where contradictions have crept in.

For example, I say that I realise the observer is the observed but that knowing this has not led to any significant transformation in my case. I do not give my realisation any magical powers. I do not invest emotionally in the idea that knowing that the observer is the observed will be a precondition for any radical development. Therefore I am not in contradiction and there is for me no paradox.

There's nothing magic about it. When you look at yourself it is that same self which is looking at itself and that observation is necessarily limited. There is no separate 'I' that looks at its thoughts. The looking is thought, a process of thought turning back and reflecting on itself. In self-reflection, the observer and the observed are one. I have no doubt about it because I can see it very clearly and nothing else I see suggests anything other.

You probably see it clearly too only you have somehow slipped into the belief that this realisation must come with a radical bang that obliterates the 'I' and as it hasn't done so you haven't really seen it clearly at all. Can't you see the trick being played out?

Look, let's pretend I am a guru and my trademark line is "You are who you are." I tell people that everyone believes they are someone who they are not or else they are trying to be other than they are but, I say, that once you realise "you are who you are" and actually live that understanding, then you will be free of who you are not.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 13 Sep 2017
Topic: Evolution

Dan McDermott wrote: the "observer is the observed" seems to include 'everything' and do away totally with any individual thing. A "radical psychological revolution", an "explosion" of the 'center'...

The same could be said of "you are who you are."

Deepak Chopra has a line that goes like this: "What is a guru? Spell it out. G U R U . . . gee, you are you! That's all you need to know."

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 13 Sep 2017
Topic: Evolution

As a statement of fact, 'the observer is the observed' is a simple observation, an uncluttered truth. There is no need to give it transformative powers, no need to invest it in mystical fancy. It is radical in itself as it gets to the root of the nature of self-reflection and why self-reflection is always limited.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 13 Sep 2017
Topic: Evolution

Dan McDermott wrote: No , no "transformative power", they are just words that I think, attempt to convey a radically different way of seeing the world and our place in it.

What is the way of seeing the world that 'the observer is the observed" is radically different from? Could you please demonstrate what the way of seeing the world is for us now. I don't mean someone else's seeing of the world. How do you yourself see the world that is so different from what you imagine is the post-revolutionary way of seeing it? How do you see the world?

You wrote before:

Dan McDermott wrote: the "observer is the observed" seems to include 'everything' and do away totally with any individual thing. A "radical psychological revolution", an "explosion" of the 'center'...

Now I am not sure of what you are saying, Dan. Let's take it step by step. You first wrote:

Dan McDermott wrote: The duality of the experiencer apart from the experience, etc. Is the question, can time bring about an end to the 'self, to the 'ego', an end to this 'arrangement'? K. says no. For that to occur there has to be a "radical psychological revolution", an "explosion" of the 'center'. And that can only occur with the realization that the "observer is the observed".

So there you were saying that the end of "the duality of the experiencer apart from the experience . . . can only occur with the realization that the 'observer is the observed.'" It seemed to me you were saying (or you were explaining that K said) that for those two things to happen there needs to be "a radical psychological revolution, an explosion of the center." Is that a correct understanding of what you were saying?

So we need the psychological revolution before we realise that the observer is the observed. Is that it?

But here is the thing, I already realise that the observer is the observed yet there has been no psychological revolution. It's simply an observable fact. The ending of the ego was not required to see it.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 13 Sep 2017
Topic: Evolution

Here is a section from a K public dialogue from Brockwood Park, Sept 1973.

K: Yes sir, we have said that. When the observer is the observed, conflict ceases. Which is the greatest thing, isn't it? You don't see it. Conflict ceases. Has conflict ceased with you when you realise the observer is the observed? Until that conflict ceases you don't see the reality that the observer is the observed. It is just words then. The moment you see that, the reality of it, conflict has come to an end, the 'me' and not the 'me'. The 'me' is the 'you' - you follow?

So what takes place when there is no conflict, which means when the observer is the observed? Have you ever meditated? I see several of you sitting under the various trees, (Laughter) with great attention. Have you ever meditated? This is meditation - you understand sir. It is the greatest meditation, to come upon this extraordinary thing, which is to discover for oneself - for the mind to discover for itself the observer is the observed, therefore no conflict, which means not vegetation, just - you follow? - just doing nothing. On the contrary.

So I have to find the answer; what takes place when the mind realises the image and the observer of that image are the same? And it has come to that point because it has investigated - you understand? - it hasn't just said, 'That is so'. It has gone into itself. It says, the learning, observing, to observe there must be no prejudice, prejudice is an image, is that image different from the observer. All that is an enquiry. Enquiry in which there is attention, therefore that enquiry brings about the realisation that the observer is the observed, and therefore the mind is tremendously alive, it isn't a dead mind. It is an original, unspoilt mind.