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

The reality of a tree.


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 74 in total
Thu, 05 Nov 2015 #1
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Maybe someone can help me. In a conversation with a friend regarding the nature of physical reality they said physical reality is an illusion. My thoughts are the meaning of physical reality is a projection but its fact of existence that of it being not of thought is also a reality. The word is not the thing yet the thing still is.
Can anyone point out text where Krishnamurti spoke about this topic directly?

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Nov 2015 #2
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Welcome back, George.

Sorry I can't help you with citations and research, but as I see it, the physical world is a reality in the unfolding present moment -- evolution is a reality. That remark is for your friend.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 06 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Nov 2015 #3
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

I don't know if this will help, but I recall reading a conversation K. had with a friend or associate one day when the friend had his little dog with him/her. The friend asked K. something like "what is reality?" or something similar, like "is the physical world real?", and K. said, and I paraphrase, 'Certainly your little dog is real.' So that was K's views on the reality of the physical world, as I best as I can recall it.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 05 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #4
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Hello George,

Is the world real or unreal ?

It seems to me that what is unreal is the idea of a world of separate objects and people, this very idea of separation between a 'me' and 'others' is illusional ... and this very idea is called 'self' (or 'ego') ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #5
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 886 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
The word is not the thing yet the thing still is.

Hello George. I hope this helps:

Krishnamurti - "We never see anything completely, for various reasons, because we are so concerned with our own problems, or we are so conditioned, so heavily burdened with belief, with tradition, with the past, that this actually prevents us from seeing or listening. We never see a tree, we see the tree through the image that we have of it, the concept of that tree; but the concept, the knowledge, the experience, is entirely different from the actual tree. Here one is surrounded by a great many trees, fortunately, and if you look around you, as the speaker is going on with the subject of seeing, if you actually look at it, you will find how extraordinary difficult it is to see it all, so that no image, no screen, comes between the seeing and the actual fact."

THE AWAKENING OF INTELLIGENCE PART V CHAPTER 1 1ST PUBLIC TALK MADRAS 3RD JANUARY 1968 'THE ART OF SEEING'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #6
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

From "Truth and Actuality" 7th Public Talk Saanen 25th July, 1976

"Everything that thought has put together is reality. This tent has been put together by thought, it is a reality. The tree has not been put together by thought, but it is a reality. Illusions are reality - the illusions that one has, imagination, all that is reality. And the action from those illusions is neurotic, which is also reality. So when you ask this question, ``What is the right livelihood'', you must understand what reality is. Reality is not truth.

"Now what is correct action in this reality? And how will you discover what is right in this reality? - discover for yourself, not be told. So we have to find out what is the accurate, correct, right action, or right livelihood in the world of reality, and reality includes illusion. Don't escape, don't move away, belief is an illusion, and the activities of belief are neurotic, nationalism and all the rest of it is another form of reality, but an illusion. So taking all that as reality, what is the right action there?

"Who is going to tell you? Nobody, obviously. But when you see reality without illusion, the very perception of that reality is your intelligence, isn't it? in which there is no mixture of reality and illusion. So when there is observation of reality, the reality of the tree, the reality of the tent, reality which thought has put together, including visions, illusions, when you see all that reality, the very perception of that is your intelligence - isn't it? So your intelligence says what you are going to do. I wonder if you understand this? Intelligence is to perceive what is and what is not - to perceive "what is'' and see the reality of"what is'', which means you don't have any psychological involvement, any psychological demands, which are all forms of illusion. To see all that is intelligence; and that intelligence will operate wherever you are. Therefore that will tell you what to do.

"Then what is truth? What is the link between reality and truth? The link is this intelligence. Intelligence that sees the totality of reality and therefore doesn't carry it over to truth. And the truth then operates on reality through intelligence."

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #7
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Welcome back, George.

Sorry I can't help you with citations and research, but as I see it, the physical world is a reality in the unfolding present moment -- evolution is a reality. That remark is for your friend.

Hi Max

Thanks for the welcome back and your insights. I am spending more time in the shadows of the forum stopping in almost everyday to read the many postings. Recently I have notice a quite approach where I may spend a week in reflection of an enquiry pays off more for this normally projecting mind :)

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #8
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The friend asked K. something like "what is reality?" or something similar, like "is the physical world real?", and K. said, and I paraphrase, 'Certainly your little dog is real.

Hi Tom

Yes, my/your dog is real. I read in a book somewhere that to be enlightened or awakened all one must do is to imagine that one has just died. In one's death allow to drop away all that thought has put together in its roll of artificially manufacturing meaning upon the unknown. I must agree with Krishnamurti that the little dog remains after the curtain of thought falls down and before me I am left with a living mystery. When the mystery of anything becomes obscured by the rise of thoughts only attention I sense will preserve the truth of the observed, truth? Yes, I really don't know what it is but my projection of meaning to it is the reason my world and myself are not two separate things. :)

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #9
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
It seems to me that what is unreal is the idea of a world of separate objects and people, this very idea of separation between a 'me' and 'others' is illusional ... and this very idea is called 'self' (or 'ego') ...

Hi Jean

Yes this was the discussion between myself and my friend who has studies Krishnamurti and other teaching for many years. I wanted to be careful in my conversation with her and not begin from a position of accumulated unconscious psychological time. What I have been discovering is meaning is coming from myself as the source whether by conditioned authority or conscious or unconscious projection. Objects and in some cases objects which host sentient presence of being are all real not dependent on thought. It is their meaning and the lifting them out of the unknown through conceptualization that points to illusion.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #10
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
We never see a tree, we see the tree through the image that we have of it, the concept of that tree; but the concept, the knowledge, the experience, is entirely different from the actual tree. Here one is surrounded by a great many trees, fortunately, and if you look around you, as the speaker is going on with the subject of seeing, if you actually look at it, you will find how extraordinary difficult it is to see it all, so that no image, no screen, comes between the seeing and the actual fact."

Hi Sean

Thanks for the reply, all the replies have been helpful in my own self enquiry into the nature of the real and the unreal. The screen being lifted or the curtain being opened is a most difficult task because we so habitually fill the void of the unknown with conceptualization. But it is here where the veil falls across our face and the rubber meets the road. And its here where my enquiry continues as I watch thought paint meaning to an unknown world.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #11
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
>Yes, I really don't know what it is but my projection of meaning to it is the reason my world and myself are not two separate things. :)

Are you sure you worded this right George? Isn't "meaning"/idea(s) what makes my world separate from myself? As K so often pointed out, "thought divides"....and "meaning" comes from thinking about what you are observing....a dog, a tree, an apple, your neighbor, etc. Hope I've understood correctly how you are using the word 'meaning'.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #12
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
The tree has not been put together by thought, but it is a reality.

Hi Pavil

Yes, " The tree has not been put together by thought, but it is a reality." "An illusion is a reality". Both are reality yet an illusion is an intangible where as the tree remains when stripped of any image applied to it.

Pavil, your quote and the many other replies have lead me to some deep reflection upon the neutrality of all things and my own place in manufacturing a world and self image which does not exist separate from me. I have to laugh at myself because in writing a response to you I had a wish to be awake more then I am asleep. In reflection now I see the wish as a goodnight kiss with me on the way of dreaming I am a person who is sleeping most of the time when really I am no one at all. Being awake is to be no-one/no-thing. Did I hear holy ghost? Ok everyone let me have it! :)

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #13
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

George Lanroh wrote:
Did I hear holy ghost?

May have been the holy goat, gnawing at the bedclothes :-)

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #14
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Are you sure you worded this right George? Isn't "meaning"/idea(s) what makes my world separate from myself?

Hi Tom

My sense is: It is separate only because we do not realize we are the source of the projected meaning of our world view and the meaning of every item that comes before the observer. We are even the projector of the image of the observer/ourselves. Hence the reason the observer is the observed, we are projecting our own self image. I could be missing something just my sense on this topic.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #15
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

I think I get your meaning in #14, George, yet I'm asking if it's possible to see the tree free from any and all projection of meaning? Or see 'myself' free from the self image? See my fear, anger, greed, etc? That one is a bit more tricky, since we've got such a huge self image....most of us anyway. When I see the tree or flower free from any and all imagery/meaning, then it's not separate from what I am.observer is observed. Inner is not divided from outer. Or am I deluding myself?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #16
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

George Lanroh wrote:
Both are reality yet an illusion is an intangible where as the tree remains when stripped of any image applied to it.

Intangible means unable to be touched (tangere - to touch).

Illusion is something that tricks the eye, that is not as it appears.

I find it interesting that with an illusion, the object is there, it is actual, but something about the relation between that object (a tree, for example) and the mind that perceives it, skews the perception. It is interesting because it shows just how much appearance is not to be taken as a given but seen as an aspect of relationship, between the object and the mind that perceives it.

Actuality is 'tangible.' It can be 'touched.' But the nature of 'touching' is superficial. Through our various senses we only ever touch the surfaces of things. It is up to the deeper levels of mind to find meaning through that touching. And it is in the movement of finding meaning that illusion is formed. Therefore, to verify the trueness of any meaning, we have to touch and touch again and keep on touching.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #17
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

If we assume matter to be real then we are asuming the brain is real. Then there are things about the brain that we have discovered that are real. The brain is a mass of interconected neurons (real) There are sense receptors that send input to the brain (real) The eye for example converts impinging photons into nerve impulses which travel inward only as nerve impulses. Everything that is seemingly out there is really only representational, completely and only activity that is going on in nerves in the brain...inside the skull. The world that we see as outside including the body and the skull and the assumed brain in it is only in the brain.

If we assume matter to be real.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 06 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #18
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
When I see the tree or flower free from any and all imagery/meaning, then it's not separate from what I am.observer is observed. Inner is not divided from outer. Or am I deluding myself?

Hi Tom

I don't feel your duding yourself at all. The observer as seen here when pristine is a perfect unblemished reflection of "what is". Could one say the blemishes, the smudges in which accumulate on the mirror represent the accumulated self, the image of the observer separate from the actual true and pristine isolated image/actuality.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #19
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
. . . to verify the trueness of any meaning, we have to touch and touch again and keep on touching.

Yes. Awareness (touching, sensing) is movement. As soon as movement ends, we are limited to knowledge as far as we have gone. Intelligence is in the endless movement of awareness.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 06 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #20
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
Could one say the blemishes, the smudges in which accumulate on the mirror represent the accumulated self, the image of the observer separate from the actual true and pristine isolated image/actuality.

Yes, for sure, George....the blemishes = the separate observer...'me'...thought/idea/concept/belief(I may believe that the sun is the god, Apollo, as the ancient Greeks did...or believe the tree is a just an ordered bunch of molecules and atoms, as the scientist may believe)/'me'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 06 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #21
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
If we assume matter to be real.

Hi Peter

I agree that everything is made up of atoms and all that, mostly space with the movement of atoms giving the illusion of a more solid reality.

But I am also saying the ground of that reality, the one of objects before touched by thought has an existence unrelated with thought. I say this because even a baby taken out momentary in the rain to go from one building to another when struck by a rain drop for the first time has just encountered the unknown. The baby knows that an event happened but to what just happened the baby doesn't know, it will be education that that will bring the authority of meaning to the rain. My point is that there is an unknowable ground where atoms operate giving shape and form to physical object before being touched and conceptualized by thought. When this particular brain comes to an end like before it came into existence the tree, rivers and mountains will continue whither one human on earth is left or there is no human beings on earth. I was and am very interested in the nature of reality coming down to the quantum level yet also see a dimension earlier then thought yet also could be responsible for thought.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #22
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Yes, for sure, George....the blemishes = the separate observer...'me'...thought/idea/concept/belief(I may believe that the sun is the god, Apollo, as the ancient Greeks did...or believe the tree is a just an ordered bunch of molecules and atoms, as the scientist may believe)/'me'.

This has turned out to be a most intriguing thread :)

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #23
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
I find it interesting that with an illusion, the object is there, it is actual, but something about the relation between that object (a tree, for example) and the mind that perceives it, skews the perception. It is interesting because it shows just how much appearance is not to be taken as a given but seen as an aspect of relationship, between the object and the mind that perceives it.

Yes, seeing this with you Pavil. Interesting on this thread is how deep do we allow the influence of the observer to go. Krishnamurti use to say that we must keep doubt on a leash. This leash does it also lend its self to the nature of physical reality? Do we upon investigation say that there is no place thought has not infected/touched? Or do we keep thought on a leash and say it does not create physical reality it only applies an artificial meaning to it?

A thought comes to mind, where else :) The thought is if the observer is only the past, accumulated blemishes on the mirror of reflection, then what is responsible for the existence of the mirror? :)

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #24
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

George Lanroh wrote:
Krishnamurti use to say that we must keep doubt on a leash.

Yes . . . but I wonder what he meant by that, George. For example:

"So please observe yourself, your environment, your society, and your own thoughts with considerable doubt. And also listen to the speaker with doubt, with question, demanding of yourself. You are doubting all that you have thought, observed, learnt, so that a mind, the brain is free to observe. And also doubt must be kept on a leash, like a dog. If you keep a dog on the leash all the time the poor animal withers, you must know when to let it go, run, chase, jump. Similarly one must hold doubt on a leash, and also one must learn the subtlety when to let it go." Fourth Public Talk in Ojai May 1981

"And we ought also to consider the necessity of scepticism and doubt. Doubt not what others are saying only, but doubt one's own experiences, one's own thoughts, one's own attitudes and values, why we do certain things in life, why we believe. We should have a rational doubt, scepticism, because doubt cleanses the mind, it freshens the mind, it breaks down the old habits, the old conclusions, the arcane concepts. So doubt, scepticism, are necessary, not only what the speaker is saying but also doubt your behaviour, your attitudes and so on. So please, during these talks having a rational doubt. You know it is like having a dog on a leash, if you keep him all the time on the leash you break the spirit of the dog, but you must let the leash go and let him run because then he becomes alive. So similarly if you doubt all the time then it doesn't lead anywhere, but know when to release and when to hold it in check. That requires intelligence. But to doubt when you release, why you release the dog - your dog, your acceptance and so on. That alerts the mind, quickens the thought, awareness." Third Public Talk in Bombay January 1982

"We are questioning, as you must question everything in life, doubt everything. But if you doubt everything you will have nothing left. But doubt must be kept on a leash; as you keep a dog on a rope or a leash, so doubt must be kept on a leash. And you must know when to let it go and when to hold it back. That is the art of doubt." Fourth Public Talk in Saanen July 1977

"Apparently we don't have that quality of scepticism - you understand? To be sceptical about one's own demands, to question, doubt these innumerable gurus. And doubt also becomes rather dangerous, because if you don't hold it then you doubt everything and then there's no end. It is like having a dog on a leash, you must let it go occasionally, or often, so that the dog enjoys himself, runs about. In the same way doubt must be kept on a leash and also allowed, take away the leash, so the mind is - you know, the mind being your heart, your brain, your emotions, everything active, not just directed in one direction which is sex, sex, sex." Second Question & Answer Meeting at Brockwood Park 30 August 1979

This one is lovely:

"If you are so inclined, if you have so perceived the truth or the falseness that exists in mythology, and most religions are myths, which have held together people for a certain period, because that is the function of all myths to hold society together for as long as it is possible, and when that myth is exploded society begins to break up, which is what is happening now. We have lived on myths of various kinds, and they have held man in a particular culture and when that myth ceases to exist there is no raison d'?tre to continue, except along our own particular tendency, characteristic, pleasures and so on, which is exactly what is happening in the world now. Nobody believes in anything anymore - thank the Lord! Which has its misfortune because doubt is a good thing - to doubt, but it must be kept on a leash. And to hold it intelligently on a leash is to enquire, but to doubt everything has no meaning." Fourth Public Talk at Brockwood Park September 1972

So, in the metaphor, which K used numerous times, what does the dog represent; what does the leash represent and what does 'letting go' represent?

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #25
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

For example: when light of a certain frequency enters the eye it excites certain receptors actually nerve cells, it then becomes a signal, a nerve impulse traveling on a nerve fiber. We ultimately experience the color red but there is no color red in the brain, inside the brain there is no light at all, just impulses traveling along and between nerve cells. There is no red in the world either only light waves or photons with a certain frequency.

Isn't the redness of red more real than matter?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 06 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #26
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
There is no red in the world either only light waves or photons with a certain frequency.

Hello peter, glad to hear from you :-)

But then peter, if there is no red color in the material world (and I agree with this) ... where does the red color come from ?

??

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #27
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

It is a mystery. Just as being itself is a mystery. That there is something rather than nothing at all is a mystery.

Do any of us fully appreciate this mystery?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 06 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #28
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Is it possible to bring about that appreciation?

I think it's just there or it's not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #29
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
It is a mystery. Just as being itself is a mystery.

Come now . . . it is no mystery. Just tie the ends together you've already given us and the mystery clears away completely. And they fit so well.

Recall what you said: Light falls on an object. Some wavelengths are absorbed and others reflected. The reflected portion travels on to the eye where it excites the retina. The excitement travels as a signal to the brain where that excitement, that PARTICULAR type of excitement is registered. Having experienced the particular excitement many times and having already given it a name, thought says, "red."

So, where is the mystery now?

Or, now you and Jean want to find something called "red" that is outside the material world? Dream on.

So, where lies your error? How do you make a pig's ear of it? Simple: You have taken the word "red" and made an external object of it. Next you say this object is not the thing itself, the light-waves and signals and so on. You then want to impose this objectified word onto the world and, as the world rejects it, (as an objectified object) you speculate on where 'beyond the world' it comes from.

Then you put the icing on the cake by suggesting it is the same with "being." And yes, you are right. You make the same mistake with "being" as you do with "red." You objectify the word, find the objectified thing nowhere in actuality and suppose it must come from beyond.

No, being IS the world. Or, to put it more clearly, the world IS.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Fri, 06 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Nov 2015 #30
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
So, in the metaphor, which K used numerous times, what does the dog represent; what does the leash represent and what does 'letting go' represent?

First let me say thank you for all the good text.

The dog to me is imagination and the leash represents keeping in mind ones self as the source of imagination. Letting go represents to me ones ability to remain anew even in the face of temporary accumulations of conceptual realities. As Krishnamurti in your quotes pointed out in my own words: Maintaining sanity when the walls of illusions are falling down around us ( We stop believing in our currant dream ) and we know the up and coming dream is no more then a redecoration. Can society hold together without a projected template ? :)

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 74 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.)