u/Melodic_Telephone461

The “you” appears in the description: perception happens, then interpretation, memory, and language say, “I saw,” “I felt,” “I did.” The describer is part of the description

The ego cannot exist without the future. It lives through becoming, there is no separate "this" that must become "that." The self comes into being in that very movement of becoming. When becoming ends, the division between "what is" and "what should be" is no longer sustained

The self comes into being in that very movement of becoming. When becoming ends, the division between "what is" and "what should be" is no longer sustained

If there is such perception, then the hurt is fully met in the present instead of being carried forward as psychological continuity. That is why he links the ending of the observer with the ending of conflict.

Does the observer exist prior to observation, or is the observer itself a movement of thought that appears within observation?

The seeker imagines itself separate from what it seeks. That very division breeds fear, because whatever is gained can be lost. When the illusion of separation is seen, the search itself loses its foundation.

The example of the cat is really important because the cat is not trying to pay attention. The cat does not make an effort to stay aware. The cat is just completely attentive.

When he talks about the burden of the past he is not saying we should forget things that really happened. We still need to remember things so we can talk, drive a car or recognize our friends. The problem is whether we are always looking at the present through the memories of our experiences and the pictures we have of ourselves.

That is why he often said the thing: the past is useful when we need to know something but when it comes to our feelings the past gets in the way. It becomes the way we look at things. Then we are not really meeting what is happening now we are just meeting our old ideas.

Being awake to him is not something we can achieve by trying. It is just not being asleep, in our minds. Not looking at things through the past. The moment we ask ourselves "How can I stay awake?" we start thinking about how to get and that is the old way of thinking.

When he asks, "Can time have a stop?" He is not asking for a method. If there were a method, it would require time to practice it, and therefore continue the very movement being questioned.

The question is left open. It is not, "How do I stop time?" but whether the whole movement of psychological time can end when it is seen for what it is.

"I will inquire into whether the observer is the observed,"

the grammar has already introduced an inquirer separate from what is being investigated. In that sense, the inquiry can recreate the very split it hopes to dissolve. This is one reason Krishnamurti's dialogues are so difficult. He used language because there is no alternative, yet the language itself continually suggests a subject examining an object.

Is there awareness without a watcher?