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

Can you look...


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 53 in total
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #1
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

Can one look at one's thoughts, without being able to look at a tree, a cloud, without the observer? I don't think it's chance that K began many pieces-the Commentaries, eg., - with descriptions of nature. I think nature is a great way to learn how to look.

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #2
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
I think nature is a great way to learn how to look.

Yes nature is not a creation of mind ... when you look at a tree it does not suggest some 'use', some mind created purpose etc ... nature just suggest an immense beauty without a 'purpose' ... but soon thought comes in and a tree becomes 'wood' and a cow becomes a hamburger ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #3
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

Jean, no, no- I meant, can you look at a tree without the observer?

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #4
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
Jean, no, no- I meant, can you look at a tree without the observer?

Yes Mike, as the tree has not been created by mind it is easier to look at a tree without the observer (ie. thought) than at a PC or a car ... nature suggests beauty and silence, not thought ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #5
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1430 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
I think nature is a great way to learn how to look.

K.: "Meditation is really very simple. We complicate it. We weave a web of ideas around it, what it is and what it is not. But it is none of these things. Because it is so very simple, it escapes us, because our minds are so complicated, so timeworn and time-based. And this mind dictates the activity of the heart, and then the trouble begins. But meditation comes naturally, with extraordinary ease, when you walk on the sand or look out of your window or see those marvelous hills burnt by last summer's sun. Why are we such tortured human beings, with tears in our eyes and false laughter on our lips? If you could walk alone among those hills or in the woods or along the long, white, bleached sands, in that solitude you would know what meditation is. The ecstasy of solitude comes when you are not frightened to be alone, no longer belonging to the world or attached to anything. Then, like that dawn that came up this morning, it comes silently, and makes a golden path in the very stillness, which was at the beginning, which is now, and which will be always there."

From Freedom, Love and Nature

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #6
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
Jean, no, no- I meant, can you look at a tree without the observer?

What do you mean by observer?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #7
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

Voco . wrote:
What do you mean by observer?

I mean the image of you in between the seeing of it, or an image of the tree or cloud, the word.

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #8
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:

Voco . wrote:

What do you mean by observer?

I mean the image of you in between the seeing of it, or an image of the tree or cloud, the word.

So what is it that creates the 'separation' between the observer and the tree ?

??

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #9
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
So what is it that creates the 'separation' between the observer and the tree ?

Isn't it, "'I' looking?"

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #10
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:

Jean Gatti wrote:

So what is it that creates the 'separation' between the observer and the tree ?

Isn't it, "'I' looking?"

Yes Mike, "I" is the 'observer, but why does he show up ? Why does separation step in ?

I think it might be some kind of fear, some possible 'danger' which constantly 'wakes up' this "I" ... kind of defense against possible threat, no ? We are always on our 'guard', never accepting 'vulnerability' as K often suggested ... this wall of separation might well be a defense wall, so that any possible threat cannot touch the 'me' (or 'ego') ... there is no openness, no vulnerability ...

This 'defense system' is the core of ego as I see it ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #11
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
I think it might be some kind of fear, some possible 'danger' which constantly 'wakes up' this "I" ... kind of defense against possible threat, no ? We are always on our 'guard', never accepting 'vulnerability' as K often suggested ... this wall of separation might well be a defense wall, so that any possible threat cannot touch the 'me' (or 'ego') ... there is no openness, no vulnerability ...

Well, maybe, but is that helpful? Or can one just Do it? Just look at a tree, a plant, without the observer. I don't think it's that hard. The self-image may creep in, but I don't see any other way but to do it- go out, look at the sky, trees. You begin to be aware of the self. Then, you can tackle that, observe That without the observer. That is harder. Possible though.

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #12
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
I mean the image of you in between the seeing of it, or an image of the tree or cloud, the word.

How is an image an observer? There is nothing in between of observer and observed. Either you think there is some kind of separation or not, that doesn't makes any difference at all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #13
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Voco . wrote:
There is nothing in between of observer and observed.

Right Voco, factually there is nothing in between, however thought 'believes' that the observed is separate from the observer (the 'thinker'), and this belief creates the division, which is also the 'sense of self'.

Either you think there is some kind of separation or not, that doesn't makes any difference at all.

It makes the difference between self and no-self ... but this is only a 'psychological' difference ... in reality it changes nothing at all, there is factually no such entity as a separate self, self is merely a belief, an idea ... a mind-created illusion ...

Still the illusion of self is there and makes you do very strange things :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #14
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Right Voco, factually there is nothing in between, however thought 'believes' that the observed is separate from the observer (the 'thinker'), and this belief creates the division, which is also the 'sense of self'.

Does it? It's not clear to me how one arrives to such a conclusion. If one is saying there is a separation between observer and observed, then first he must see that separate observer from observed by himself, however an observer cannot see himself, in a sense that observation cannot observe itself, so that imaginary separation is born out of thinking, because there cannot be any separation in observation. That is, the notion that there is any separation is wrong from the very beginning.

Then, to say that there is no observer at all is an extreme. There is observer and there is observed, but there is no separation in observation.

This post was last updated by Voco . Fri, 26 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #15
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
Or can one just Do it? Just look at a tree, a plant, without the observer. I don't think it's that hard. The self-image may creep in, but I don't see any other way but to do it- go out, look at the sky, trees. You begin to be aware of the self. Then, you can tackle that, observe That without the observer. That is harder. Possible though.

It is a very interesting discussion Mike, I think it might be hard to do as long as fear feeds the observer, and this insecurity immediately (and unconsciously) builds a 'protection wall' between you (the observer) and the observed ... it is an automatic (and compulsive) protection, a self defense ... and you cannot drop those defenses as long as you feel unsecure ... therefore some kind of 'confidence' is needed ... but how are we going to increase this 'confidence' which would allow us to really accept to become 'vulnerable' ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #16
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
but how are we going to increase this 'confidence' which would allow us to really accept to become 'vulnerable' ?

One of the factors I see is our attachments ... when we are attached to things or people, then of course we might fear to lose them and this reinforces the insecurity ... finally the one who has nothing to lose becomes in some way 'invulnerable' because nothing can hurt him ...

Reminds me Jesus words about the rich men who could not leave his possessions and Jesus said (from memory) "it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for the rich to reach the Kingdom of Heaven" ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #17
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
It is a very interesting discussion Mike, I think it might be hard to do as long as fear feeds the observer, and this insecurity immediately (and unconsciously) builds a 'protection wall' between you (the observer) and the observed ... it is an automatic (and compulsive) protection, a self defense ... and you cannot drop those defenses as long as you feel unsecure ... therefore some kind of 'confidence' is needed ... but how are we going to increase this 'confidence' which would allow us to really accept to become 'vulnerable' ?

First stop any conceptualization.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #18
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

Voco . wrote:
Then, to say that there is no observer at all is an extreme. There is observer and there is observed, but there is no separation in observation.

Be simple: there is the self-image, right? That is the screen in observation.

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #19
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
Be simple: there is the self-image, right? That is the screen in observation.

There is self-image, but what it has to do with observation? Observation is just a perceiving done by body, by brain, by retina. Then, what is observed can be interpreted, but that interpretation is not observer.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #20
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

Voco . wrote:
There is self-image, but what it has to do with observation? Observation is just a perceiving done by body, by brain, by retina. Then, what is observed can be interpreted, but that interpretation is not observer.

If you observe, are aware of yourself, you will see that there is this self-image. You will also see that it clouds perception. You are partly seeing the self-image, partly the object of perception.

mike

This post was last updated by m christani Sat, 27 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #21
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
If you observe, are aware of yourself, you will see that there is this self-image. You will also see that it clouds perception. You are partly seeing the self-image, partly the object of perception.

And where is that observer which is an image?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #22
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

The observer is the image- "I" observing. No?

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #23
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
The observer is the image- "I" observing. No?

It's an image, how an image can observe? As it seems to me there can be two kinds of observation, one which is conditioned by the past, the other is not. But observation without attention is superficial, therefore even if it's not conditioned and if there is no attention it will become conditioned.

This post was last updated by Voco . Sat, 27 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #24
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Voco . wrote:

m christani wrote:

The observer is the image- "I" observing. No?

It's an image, how an image can observe? As it seems to me there can be two kinds of observation, one which is conditioned by the past, the other is not.

Clear Voco, it is obvious that an image cannot observe ...

So saying 'the observer is the image' is a nonsense ... what would make more sense is this: when we observe and 'label' things that we observe, then this observation is immediately 'corrupted' (or 'distorted') by the image we have of things (or people), our 'knowledge', our memory from our past experiences; thought when 'labelling' things immediately 'superimposes' our 'image' onto the reality which is observed, and therefore we don't see reality anymore, but just the image we made of this reality, iow. OUR reality ... which is not 'reality' at all ... just a distortion ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Sat, 27 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #25
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

Voco . wrote:
It's an image, how an image can observe?

That's the whole point, isn't it? We think the observer is watching- the "I", which is the self-image, but we never realize the observer is the observed. The observer of the image is the image itself, right? Or am I wrong on this?

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #26
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
The observer of the image is the image itself, right? Or am I wrong on this?

Well it would be more correct to say that the observer's mind has created the image ... therefore the image is not separate from the observer (like the dream is not separate from the dreamer) ... and the observer has also created a self image, which is NOT what the observer really IS ... we are simply NOT what we think we are ... full stop.

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #27
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Well it would be more correct to say that the observer's mind has created the image ... therefore the image is not separate from the observer (like the dream is not separate from the dreamer) ... and the observer has also created a self image, which is NOT what the observer really IS ... we are simply NOT what we think we are ... full stop.

Then you create a duality between "the observer" and his creation, "the image". The observer is the image. The observer of the image is the image itself. We separate them, which is a fallacy. Saying "the observer has also created a self image" implies an actual entity- the observer, the self. The perceiver is the perceived.

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #28
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
So saying 'the observer is the image' is a nonsense ... what would make more sense is this: when we observe and 'label' things that we observe, then this observation is immediately 'corrupted' (or 'distorted') by the image we have of things (or people), our 'knowledge', our memory from our past experiences; thought when 'labelling' things immediately 'superimposes' our 'image' onto the reality which is observed, and therefore we don't see reality anymore, but just the image we made of this reality, iow. OUR reality ... which is not 'reality' at all ... just a distortion ...

Yes, so to speak the reality becomes of thought.

m christani wrote:
That's the whole point, isn't it? We think the observer is watching- the "I", which is the self-image, but we never realize the observer is the observed. The observer of the image is the image itself, right? Or am I wrong on this?

There is physical observer which is conditioned, that's all I'm saying and I think Jean is saying the same too. There is no another observer inside of you which observes, it is just the very observation is conditioned which might imply thinking "I'm observing it like that" or "I will observe it in that way".

This post was last updated by Voco . Sat, 27 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #29
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1430 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
The observer of the image is the image itself, right? Or am I wrong on this?

When K suggested observing thought, he said don't do it as 'you' the observer looking at your thought, but to look in such a way to see if the thought "can be aware of itself, awaken to itself?".Which I think also translates into can the 'self' be aware, awaken to itself...can 'I' become aware of myself? He says that that is the beginning of 'meditation'. It is "difficult". The other (normal) way is me watching my thought which he said is "easy".

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 27 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #30
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Kindly do not interpret what the master said,Dan.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 53 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.)