u/Common-Chapter8033

I am a student pursuing a PhD in Theoretical Physics. I remember Krishnamurti saying that it takes a lot of courage for a person to admit that he has never loved anyone. I can now relate to what he said.

I've been studying with concentration, which is effortful and easily disrupted by distractions. I want to explore a different quality of mind that Krishnamurti called attention.

For a long time, I used to get absorbed in physics textbooks. I now wonder whether I truly loved it or only used it as an escape.

Is it possible to study physics without becoming absorbed in the textbook? Can I write equations while remaining aware of my surroundings and the movement of thought?

I'll try this today.

I woke up in the morning and was sitting on my bed, watching my thoughts. I was curious about which thought would move my body. A thought occurred to me to ask this on Reddit, and I got up and started typing on my laptop.

Only after I had typed a few words did I realise that I had acted upon this thought and remembered my original experiment: to observe which thought would move my body.

I wonder whether this act was an impulsive or choiceless action that Krishnamurti talks about. I wonder if there is even a difference between the two.

Krishnamurti talks about giving thought its right place. I wonder if some actions naturally require less thought and therefore feel impulsive, and whether pondering over them too much might be unnatural.

A stark difference between Krishnamurti and other religions is that religions describe a method or a path to becoming a better person or, in some cases, becoming enlightened.

Krishnamurti, however, suggests that there is no inner work to be done. He calls this inner work "movement." Now, paraphrasing him in my own words, I would say that our brain states are binary: either one is attentive to the present moment or inattentive. He also offers the insight that awareness of inattention is attention.

That is it. Anything more than that is an illusion created by the unaware, inattentive state. It is the mind playing games with itself.

This sustained state of inattention creates all the mischief in this world. We all have countless random thoughts, but sometimes the brain seeks comfort in a particular set of them. However, this is like trying to make a bed out of clouds.

I wonder if this is the reason many self-proclaimed saints become sexually corrupt.

From listening to Krishnamurti and reflecting on my own experience, I think there are three ways one can act:

1. Impulsive action: Acting on first thoughts. For example, I get a craving to eat ice cream, and I just do it. Society often views this as inferior and teaches us to think before we act.
2. Thinking before acting: I get a craving to eat ice cream, but I analyze the situation, realize I am on a diet, and understand that I should not indulge.
3. K's approach (Pure Observation): My understanding is that he urges us to carefully observe our cravings without letting thought interfere by labeling them as "good" or "bad." This means observing without intellectual analysis or judgment. He claims that through this pure observation, a completely different kind of action takes place.

However, in my personal experience, I find that I end up using thought to stop myself from acting simply because I am trying to remember and apply what K said.

I guess there are three ways of witnessing life:

1. The observer is the observed.
2. There is an observer who is constantly analyzing.
3. We distract ourselves by mindlessly scrolling.

Case 2 is easy to identify because it involves deliberate mental effort. In both Cases 1 and 3, however, there seems to be no effort and almost no memory formation.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only difference I feel between Cases 1 and 3 is that, in Case 1, the object of observation is not fixed. For a few seconds, one might be reading this article, then the mind shifts to something else. Instead of forcing attention back—which would itself involve effort—one simply allows the thought to arise and pass, and perhaps naturally returns to the task.

At the same time, I feel that the amount of time the brain spends on something depends heavily on the object itself. If I’m looking at something boring, my mind wanders, and I simply observe that wandering without interfering.

But if I’m scrolling through reels and my mind isn’t wandering at all, am I still observing effortlessly?