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 391 - 420 of 743 in total
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #391
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
Whether you touch your nose from left or right it means the same thing.

It is true Ravi. But if you incessantly touch something from only one side only you introduce an unnecessay pattern or bias to your perception. Therefore it is necessary to touch from all sides, including the inside. Each touch is equal, but also, equally indispensible.

Move to a practicality. To see one's mind, is it only necessary to touch it from one side?

The two phrases emphasise two aspects of the whole.

'Actual seeing' emphasises the actuality of seeing.

'Seeing actuality' emphasises the object of one's gaze.

But, what is required for this whole action to occur?

What is the state of mind that sees?

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 #392
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

With folded hands I beseech you kindly do not butcher the inquiry.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #393
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Butchery is in the eye of the beholder, surely Ravi. Let us not pass judgement on the enquiry or the enquirer but each go into it in his or her own way and allow for the other fellow to do the same, without objecting. Objection generates its own unhappiness.

And I have asked: What is the state of mind that sees?

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 #394
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
And I have asked: What is the state of mind that sees?

You are a plagiarist. It is the same question clothed differently : 'what is actual seeing?'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #395
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
what is actual seeing?

Conventional seeing is the supremacy of my point of view. Actual seeing is seeing my point of view for what it is.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #396
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
You are a plagiarist. It is the same question clothed differently : 'what is actual seeing?'

Ravi, I already asked in post 373, "Who and what is doing the seeing?" Your question, "What is actual seeing?" (which you say I have plagiarised) came after mine in post 388. A number of similar questions have been asked by other posters. We post similar questions, worded differently, as part of a joint-enquiry, which is natural. It is not an issue of ownership or plagiarism.

But I for one would be interested to read your response to either question.

With your permission, "What is actual seeing?"

And part of the answer may or may not address the question of the nature and the state of the entity that is doing the 'actual seeing.' You are right, it is all one issue, addressed in different words. Each puts it his/her preferred way.

We are investigating the questions, changing them and advancing into them. In this way the meaning of the questions may be revealed.

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 #397
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
Let us not pass judgement on the enquiry or the enquirer but each go into it in his or her own way and allow for the other fellow to do the same, without objecting.

But you don't inquire, Paul. You make declarative guru-ish statements. Clearly, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, so why not ask questions instead of being so quick to provide answers?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #398
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1218 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
I hope I have added something here, rather than simply criticising.

No need for any concern.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 #399
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1218 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
Each field contains the lesser fields. That must be correct I think.

I need to explain this much more in detail. But later.

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.

We all mostly live in division. Divisions everywhere of all kinds. If there is one who is completely free of division that one should ignore what I am saying here completely. And no concern, that one will do so without our help.

What I am interested in here is simplifying the division. And this is only a looking at things. One critical final division so that perhaps one can resolve all division.

You should understand that looking at dimension this way is conjecture. Tentative only. Saying "suppose it's like this."

I see that almost everything we live by is assumption only. This seeing the whole as dimensional seems to be a good assumption for now.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 01 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #400
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1218 posts in this forum Offline

We were talking about seeing the necessity of ending self. There is also simply the seeing of the truth of something.

One can see directly that attacking or defending ones self with words is the action of the identified self. Certainly one should defend the physical self from avoidable injury. This other entity, identified with its history is not even what one is. What one actually is is something tremendous. Not something with a past at all. If you see what you actually are there is no necessity involved. You simply discard concerns of the self with history. Not even that. They simply have no significance in being present.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 01 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #401
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
We were talking about seeing the necessity of ending self. There is also simply the seeing of the truth of something.

First let me tell you that the posting stands out.It is better if we say ending of time/thought .It wil take care of ending all others such as past/self.The focus on understanding of the self is I think is better endeavour.

nothing

This post was last updated by kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao Sun, 01 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #402
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
What one actually is is something tremendous. Not something with a past at all. If you see what you actually are there is no necessity involved. You simply discard concerns of the self with history.

Thankyou brother, for this fine expression of your abiding faith and scrupulous adherence to the K-scriptures. You will reap your reward in K-heaven.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #403
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
Conventional seeing is the supremacy of my point of view. Actual seeing is seeing my point of view for what it is.

Does it not sound duality?How did you distinguish the both?Did it without any aid?

All the same let me wish you happy new year.( we have all ready arrived into 2012).

nothing

This post was last updated by kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao Sun, 01 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #404
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I don't understand your question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #405
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1913 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
Peter Kesting wrote:
What one actually is is something tremendous. Not something with a past at all. If you see what you actually are there is no necessity involved. You simply discard concerns of the self with history. And Lidlo Nick replied: Thankyou brother, for this fine expression of your abiding faith and scrupulous adherence to the K-scriptures. You will reap your reward in K-heaven.

Peter K's comment is in no way 'scrupulous adherence to the K-scriptures' Lidlo Nick.

Clearly you have not understood the truth that K pointed towards any better than Peter has. K NEVER accoladed 'what one actually is'.

K was not speaking of a better self at all, and this he constantly made absolutely clear. But of course the 'self' will never get this, will it?

It isn't in the interest of 'self' to understand the truth of K. So one either re-interprets it to suit the 'self' - like Peter who accolades what it could be if only (becoming).... or one - like you - denigrates the man who pointed. Neither of which changes the truth.

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Sun, 01 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #406
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
With folded hands I beseech you kindly do not butcher the inquiry.

WAH!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #407
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
It isn't in the interest of 'self' to understand the truth of K. So one either re-interprets it to suit the 'self' - like Peter who accolades what it could be if only (becoming).... or one - like you - denigrates the man who pointed. Neither of which changes the truth.

Bingo!:) Thanks Patricia!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #408
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
I don't understand your question.

Your conventional seeing and actual seeing appear to be in duality.Isn't that so?

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #409
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
It isn't in the interest of 'self' to understand the truth of K. So one either re-interprets it to suit the 'self' - like Peter who accolades what it could be if only (becoming).... or one - like you - denigrates the man who pointed

Thankyou, sister Patricia, for your vigorous defense of the faith. You too will reap your reward in K-heaven.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #410
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
Your conventional seeing and actual seeing appear to be in duality.Isn't that so?

I am duality, the limited process of knowledge operating in the unknown.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #411
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
I am duality, the limited process of knowledge operating in the unknown.

It is great to hear that.I wonder if it is original statement?If not please state the source from which you had this notion?

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #412
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1218 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Peng Shu Tse wrote:

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

I need to explain this much more in detail.

A line is a one dimensional field. There are relationships to things in this field. Points, lengths can be compared. There can be counting. I think all of arithmetic is relationship of things on a line.

But a line has no real existence because it has no thickness. Not really there. An imagined thing.

There is a two dimensional field: A plane. When one moves from a one dimensional field to a two dimensional field some thing radically new comes into being. We are interested in this novelty. We can draw something on a plane. There are angles. These would not be conceivable to a one dimensional being, to mind confined to a line. Things in a plane have relationship. Plane geometry is the "mathematics" of the plane. Confined to a line a being could not even imagine angles or a drawing.

A plane can contain a line. The greater field contains the lessor. But a plane also has no reality. It has no thickness.

When one moves from a two dimensional to a three dimensional field again something totally new comes into existence. Something inconceivable in the lesser field. Now there can be knots. There are relationships to things in this greater field. There is topology. These new relationships are the "mathematics" of three dimensions. The novelty of this jump I suspect is under appreciated because we are so used to living in three space.

Three space can contain a plane. The greater field contains the lessor. But three space also has no reality. It has no thickness in the next field.

When we move to four space we easily see how remarkably novel this step is. Now we have time/space. Time is the inconceivable new element that is added. Time would be unimaginable to something confined to three space. Time/space contains three space. The greater contains the lesser. There are relationships to things in four space. The relationship is cause and effect. The relationship of things in four space is the whole study we call science. This is the "mathematics" of time space.

Each of these "mathematics" is applicable in it's field. Correct there. But the lesser cannot capture what is in the larger.

We see the radical novelty of each step to a next dimension. The question arises: is there anything that is this novel that it might represent a step to another still greater dimension?

The thing that qualifies is sentience which I see as also nowness. I see these as one.

There is nowhere in science that now is found. Science deals with t1, t2, t3, times in sequence. What follows what. There is nothing in it anywhere that considers, touches on, the now. If there were no now, there would be nothing. space/time without now would have no reality. The lesser field is contained in the larger. It has no reality except that it is contained in the larger.

As I see it there are actually no divisions here as dimension. We once thought that space and time were separate. We simply don't see yet how sentience and time/space are actually one. Sentience and nowness are outside of time. Cause and effect don't apply.

Another question: what would be the next step? Is there something as far beyond sentience as time is beyond volume or as sentience is beyond science? That would be something great enough perhaps to be the origin. We cannot conceive of it. What is our relationship to that? Probably also inconceivable. But isn't it all one?

I go to bed now.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 01 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #413
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
Conventional seeing is the supremacy of my point of view. Actual seeing is seeing my point of view for what it is.

In first you feel there is no challenge & you reign , in second you cower below when thrashed.Is it?

This post was last updated by Ravi Seth Sun, 01 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #414
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
I am duality, the limited process of knowledge operating in the unknown.

Max, you got a student.Take her/him into your fold.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #415
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Of all the reactions/emotions the maximum dammage that is done to the state of consciousness is the self-pettiness.It is the seed that breeds the sorrow. Once the sorrw comes into force, thhe time/thought process are not far off.Then it is not the self-pettiness that we are going to deal with but the sorrow.The sorrow will not go unless the process of time(psychological time) and thought end In the process what gets consolidated is the self and its centre, which first started the self-pettiness.Poster has been reflecting on the self these days, he had to worry about its off shoots time/thought.To end the thought process one needs to know the nature of the self.One of the weaknesses of the individual is the self -pettiness.How is he to do it?

nothing

This post was last updated by kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao Sun, 01 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #416
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
To end the thought process one needs to know the nature of the self.One of the weaknesses of the individual is the self -pettiness.How is he to do it?

Are you not inviting authority by asking the above question? What else the mind can do except watching/observing its own activities? Can one understand the trap (of observer coming in to existence) if these actions are being done to achieve a result? Are contents of consciousness more significant or the movement of watching/observing/looking?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #417
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Are you not inviting authority by asking the above question?

Well this is one of the reflections of the day of the poster.The issue of authority is your response to it.The poster is keen to pursue the same.It is just an input.What actually you mean by authority? What is the harm it is going to do while pursueing trueth?

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #418
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
But three space also has no reality. It has no thickness in the next field.

This is the key point I feel Peter. If we assume only four dimnensions then the fouth, time, will include the other three of space and will be the sum of everything. Science tends to have assumed such a posture.

But if our enquiry is open to the possibility of dimensions higher than time/space, then it would appear logical to say that within the fifth dimension, time (time/space) itself has no 'thickness' and no independent reality. The fourth is a function of the fifth and an abstract notion.

As you say, the fouth dimension is not time but time/space, including all the lower dimensions. In fact it would be equally correct to say that time is the fourth dimension of space.

But may I ask, what leads you to suggest sentience may be the fifth dimension?

To me it seems that sentience is present at every level. A snail is sentient. So, what is your understanding, your meaning?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #419
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
It is great to hear that.I wonder if it is original statement?If not please state the source from which you had this notion?

If it isn't obvious to you that you are thought, what can I say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #420
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

With regard to time: Time is movement, right? And without movement/time there would be no manifestation, no objects or events and no space. The lower dimensions depend upon the higher.

The three dimensions a measure of relationships between and within objects and events.

Events and objects do not move through space but through time/space. It is one inseperable fabric.

But time itself, the fourth dimension (time/space) must contain not only the now but also everything that has happened and everything yet to happen. It is all 'NOW' within the fourth dimension. The whole of time is there, now.

The fact that we do not experience 'now' in that way shows that our consciousness is of three-dimensions, not four.

As you rightly say, this is conjecture, but logically we could proceed to say, if consciousness became four-dimensional time would appear to end (as flow) and all time would appear in the now. My body would remain in the flow but my mind would transcend it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 391 - 420 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.)