Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

A stroll in a day..... a reflection of the mind....past, present,&future.


Displaying posts 361 - 390 of 743 in total
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 #361
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
the conscience of the consciousness

That is what actually toughest part of day to day affairs of the indiviuals.The cravings over take the the sanity of the individuals.A nice pointer.I happy to discuss with you.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 #362
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
If one can follow the argument without objections and resistance I believe one can see this is so. There are assumptions about what matter is, but they are our common assumptions, and we can throw them out at the end. If you are interested we can go into this together, and I always need to see it afresh. Not me telling you something, you have to see it for yourself, like a proof in mathematics. There are other ways to come to this I am sure.

The first sentance of the para holds out on its own.Rest assured we shall explore.I am in search of finding the way to my self knowldge which is, I undestand is unique for an individual and for understanding the known finally.Basic nature of each of us is dictated by the contents of our consciousness.We shall keep exchanging the notes.

nothing

This post was last updated by kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao Fri, 30 Dec 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 #363
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
Please excuse my few words on this matter.

You have fair knowldge of JK's teachings.We are into the practicals.The focuss is on self knowldge from moment to moment.Help us.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 #364
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
But the illusion is very strong so that the action of the separate self arrises again and again. Can we end that?

Yes, that is what required.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 #365
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
But the illusion is very strong so that the action of the separate self arrises again and again. Can we end that?

Dear Peter K and ArjunaRao,

Before asking the question,'can we end that?', it is necessary to see the necessity of ending. If the necessity is not seen, then all enquiry would become intellectual. Do we actually see the dangers of actions of separative self?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 #366
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
it is necessary to see the necessity of ending. If the necessity is not seen, then all enquiry would become intellectual. Do we actually see the dangers of actions of separative self?

There's no seeing anything before the ending of illusion, so No, we don't "actually see the dangers of actions of separative self" until we actually see.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 #367
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Before asking the question,'can we end that?', it is necessary to see the necessity of ending.

It seemed to me that the question of ending self arose necessarily from the seeing of danger of self. This is how the enquiry has progressed.

We have seen the danger. There is something we wish to move away from but . . . we are that.

Whilst we are the thing we wish to move from there can be no movement.

I think it means we have not seen it clearly. Because in this formulation there is first seeing and then action.

The sort of seeing that actually sees self is already a movement away from self. The perception, "I must move away from self" is still self.

The seeing of self, the recognition of danger, the movement away, are one step, not three.

If it is as ArjunaRao said, from moment to moment, what is required for that?

This post was last updated by Peng Shu Tse (account deleted) Fri, 30 Dec 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 #368
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
it is necessary to see the necessity of ending. If the necessity is not seen, then all enquiry would become intellectual. Do we actually see the dangers of actions of separative self?

sudhir and arjuna,

Can we go very carefully, not hurrying, into this together? No one is dominating.

Perhaps thinking together is more than thinking alone. I will stay with this

untill it is resolved.

My assumption seems to be that self will come up unavoidably because there are unnoticed programs in the brain. That these programs are hidden untill situations arise, even including simply inattention, that cause or allow them to surface. Do we need to go into specific cases? Some one recently mentioned loosing everything, loosing a milloon dollars. I recently pondered giving someone something. Decided against it. Phone rep asked how I was doing today. Computer malfunction, I said I was grouchy . I often don't treat strangers on the phone with consideration. Selfish moment over a treat. More.

I seem to feel aparently certain that whatever movement of self arises it will end. There will shortly come again the selfless state. The transition has seemed to be a mistery. I recently suspect attention often plays a part in this, have not watched this closely enough yet. Sometimes it seems mearly passage of time ends the self. I seem to fundimentally believe that nothing is actually my doing. Is it harmefull to be in this allowing state?

Is every state of self concern hurtfull? Well it is hurtfull to onesself for its uglyness. It seems then therefor hurtfull to the world. Can we find even one example of a short duration self centered state that is not hurtfull?

But in the presentness, in the selfless state, the past is wiped away completely in terms of credit and fault.

Do we see the nessesity and possibility of ending the arising of the self?

Enough for the moment. What do you say?

peter

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 #369
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

peng,

sorry, I have not yet read your most recent posting.

peter

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 30 Dec 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 #370
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
It seemed to me that the question of ending self arose necessarily from the seeing of danger of self. This is how the enquiry has progressed.

We have seen the danger. There is something we wish to move away from but . . . we are that.

Whilst we are the thing we wish to move from there can be no movement.

I think it means we have not seen it clearly. Because in this formulation there is first seeing and then action.

The sort of seeing that actually sees self is already a movement away from self. The perception, "I must move away from self" is still self.

The seeing of self, the recognition of danger, the movement away, are one step, not three.

If it is as ArjunaRao said, from moment to moment, what is required for that?

just a quick response,

I see danger here only in the moment of the action of self. Otherwise no danger.

So it seems.

peter

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 #371
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
Each greater field not touched by but containing the lesser field. . . . I suspect that sentience is five space. There are relationships between things in this "space". . . . I don't see yet exactly how mater/energy and sentience touch so that they are one. But one can tease out sentience and kind of make it stand alone, see directly what it is separately. From this I think that we can see that we actually are also the other person. But the illusion is very strong so that the action of the separate self arrises again and again.

Each field contains the lesser fields. That must be correct I think.

Take the human being as a metaphor. Each cell has its own field, its own reality and its own consciousness. It is not that the cell does not touch the micro-organisms it contains, but that it is a world above. The cells in turn have a functional relationship with the higher world of the organ, as the organ does with the body system, and the system with the body. Each world operates with its own set of laws but those law-sets are subervient to the lawfulness of the higher world.

Can we say that the world of the cell does not touch the world of the micro-organism? Or might it be better to say that the touching is one of lawful governance rather than equality. The micro-organism is not equal to the cell. It is the relationship of the containing worldto that of the functional part. They are only 'one' at the level of the cell. The micro-organism cannot be faulted for not automatically perceiving that relationship but of seeing itself in solipsismic(?) terms. The micro-organism cannot 'touch' the cell as the part cannot (automatically) perceive the whole.

That being the case (if you will accept it) I do not think it a proper course to 'tease out' the higher domension from the lower. The higher only exists in so far as it contains the lower. Teasing out may be a process of abstraction.

I also feel that the separation has already taken place where any seeing (or teasing) takes place abstracted from the action it is supposed to serve. Andit is the gap, the separation between perception and action which allows the self to come back in. It is not so much a separate self but a separating self.

I hope I have added something here, rather than simply criticising.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 #372
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I am not sure that sentience is a higher dimension, but if it is, it must contain matter, space and time (the lower). It may be that sentience is implicit in all manifestation at every level, rather than being either higher or lower.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 #373
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
I see danger here only in the moment of the action of self. Otherwise no danger.

Yes, but who or what is seeing it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #374
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Who or what is asking?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #375
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
it is necessary to see the necessity of ending.

Do you see the necessity of ending your need for a title in this forum? Why present yourself as a doctor? Do we need to know? Are you trying to impress us? Why not just call yourself "sudhir" and drop the title? If I started calling myself "Colonel" or "General" or "Her Majesty", wouldn't you wonder why? No one here needs to know you're a doctor (assuming you are, which I don't), so why must you present yourself as such? Why not end it now? Do you not see the necessity?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #376
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
There's no seeing anything before the ending of illusion, so No, we don't "actually see the dangers of actions of separative self" until we actually see.

I don't go after the self, unless it shows up its ugly face by putting me on contridictory situation where I am humbled, otherwise I sail with it with all the energy it provides.Even then reflecting on the self is most remote thing to happen, except I becoming self pitte.At some stage one must feel that oneself who is responsible for this situation.Then the illusion is out in active consciousness,which would make the self projection of the thought receede to its origin.At that situation it is that is the position.It changes with next bout of sensations that arose.

When shall one realise that one is really responsible for all its contridictions,after all the self is no more than oneself? It is for this reason one looks out for people like JK.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #377
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

The illusions are nothing but falses.Our acadamics provide for eliminating them, because they are provided on the sheet of the paper and ready made logic,but a false that is brewing at the level of brain/mind,it is not ease.The only tool we have is attention.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #378
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
I am not sure that sentience is a higher dimension, but if it is, it must contain matter, space and time (the lower).

I do not have the technical` details of these (sentience) perceptions, but by my natural feel , I think I must agree with you.May be it is false.The experts must resolve it.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #379
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
If it is asit is said, from moment to moment, what is required for that?

Mr Peng Shu Tse , I think it covered to great extent in the posting above#376.It(your postng) is of lot information.Thanks.

nothing

This post was last updated by kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao Sat, 31 Dec 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #380
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
I see danger here only in the moment of the action of self

Yes, you are right.The danger is created by one on one's own doing.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #381
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
I seem to feel aparently certain that whatever movement of self arises it will end.

Sir, ending of the present concern/interest of the self is not changing the basic nature and structure of the self.

Peter Kesting wrote:
I recently suspect attention often plays a part in this, have not watched this closely enough yet.

There are two possibilities here. First attention and then transition (ending) OR first transition and then attention flowering out of that. Do you see the difference?

Peter Kesting wrote:
Do we see the nessesity and possibility of ending the arising of the self?

This will depend on how serious one is in this regard. Is one sensitive/intelligent enough or has enough energy to go to the root of the problem?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #382
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
The only tool we have is attention.

Or are they observation/watching/being aware of and not attention?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #383
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
There is something we wish to move away from...

Here in lies the major flaw in one's understanding, P. There is no question of 'wish' when danger is actually seen, is there?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #384
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
The seeing of self, the recognition of danger, the movement away, are one step, not three.

This needs a clarification, P. Are you saying that "seeing" instead of permitting the activity of self to flower fully would bring "movement away" and end it in the moment?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #385
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Are you saying that "seeing" instead of permitting the activity of self to flower fully would bring "movement away" and end it in the moment?

The seeing is the flowering. It is one movement.

Inner-seeing implies drawing oneself into one's own field of attention. It is a pulling of oneself out of one's own shadows. This has also been called 'flowering' as the word implies 'revealing to the fullest extent.'

Flowering does not mean 'to produce a thing of beauty' as it may do in the ordinary sense. The self cannot become a flower.

Flowering is a metaphor. It means 'to come to fruition.' It means to see the whole thing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #386
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Whatever is truly seen, in its fullness, is already ended. And conversely, if it did not end, it was not seen, or not seen to its roots.

And who/what is doing the seeing?

Surely if the whole does not face the whole (itself) then seeing will be partial and therefore ineffective.

This post was last updated by Peng Shu Tse (account deleted) Sat, 31 Dec 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #387
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
There are two possibilities here. First attention and then transition (ending) OR first transition and then attention flowering out of that. Do you see the difference?

First this, then that. Whichever way round you pose it, is still a process of time. Between the this and the that, self takes charge.

As they say on the London Underground, "Mind the gap."

The attention IS the seeing IS the recognition of danger IS the moving away IS the ending.

Anything else is a process of time. 'Many a slip b'twixt cup and lip' (English proverb).

In K's discussions with Anderson, Anderson mentions an experiment with students where he asked them to touch the table and say if there was a gap between touching and feeling - action and reaction. They were shocked that he had asked them to undertake a practical experiment to prove/disprove a philosophical underpinning but they did it and reluctantly agreed that the gap between action and reaction could not be experienced.

It is only thought that projects the idea of such a gap, due to misunderstanding its own experiential reality. The gap is an abstraction. It does not exist outside of the idea.

This post was last updated by Peng Shu Tse (account deleted) Sat, 31 Dec 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #388
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
until we actually see.

what is actual seeing?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #389
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Actual seeing is seeing actuality.

What is required for that?

This post was last updated by Peng Shu Tse (account deleted) Sat, 31 Dec 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #390
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
Actual seeing is seeing actuality.

Whether you touch your nose from left or right it means the same thing.

What is seeing actuality means?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 361 - 390 of 743 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)