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

Resistance to 'what is' feeds the observer


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 69 in total
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #1
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day

Commentaries On Living Series II | Chapter 50 'Convictions--Dreams'

"One image, as the observer, observes dozens of other images around himself and inside himself, and he says, 'I like this image, I'm going to keep it' or 'I don't like that image so I'll get rid of it', but the observer himself has been put together by the various images which have come into being through reaction to various other images. So we come to a point where we can say, 'The observer is also the image, only he has separated himself and observes.' This observer who has come into being through various other images thinks himself permanent and between himself and the images he has created there is a division, a time interval. This creates conflict between himself and the images he believes to be the cause of his troubles. So then he says, "I must get rid of this conflict", but the very desire to get rid of the conflict creates another image."

So we clearly see here that this conflict, this rejection of images I don't like, this resistance to 'what is', is the core mechanism that feeds the separation between the observer and the observed ... which creates a central 'controller' (the 'me') who enters in conflict with his periphery (the 'non-me') ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #2
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1398 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
So we clearly see here that this conflict, this rejection of images I don't like, this resistance to 'what is', is the core mechanism that feeds the separation between the observer and the observed ... which creates a central 'controller' (the 'me') who enters in conflict with his periphery (the 'non-me') ...

Jean, I don't mind you're making wrong conclusions but let me out of it !! !!!

first of all "so we see clearly" is already loaded with a huge amount of images
because it's not seeing.

secondly Krisnaji makes clear that already in the process of likes or dislikes images are involved and no conscious resistance to 'what is' is taken place but one is not aware of the 'what is' because of this images.

It's just images talking over images and like or dislike eachother !!

Only seeing without observer observed is clear, all the rest is thinking that it's clear.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #3
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Jean, I don't mind you're making wrong conclusions but let me out of it !! !!!

The problem is that a wrong conclusion invariably seems to lead to fruitless and confused discussions. If one starts with conclusions then what is left to do? Agree or disagree and then what? What about the discovery, the observing, the understanding? Can we start there?

Also, there is something particularly disturbing about someone frequently feeling compelled to interpret what K is saying for the rest of us. If we accept this interpretation what have we learned? We have to see for ourselves don't we?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Feb 2017 #4
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Only seeing without observer observed is clear, all the rest is thinking that it's clear.

This is not very clear :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Feb 2017 #5
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
So we clearly see here that this conflict, this rejection of images I don't like, this resistance to 'what is', is the core mechanism that feeds the separation between the observer and the observed ... which creates a central 'controller' (the 'me') who enters in conflict with his periphery (the 'non-me') ...

Why call it the non-me ? Isn't the center and the periphery here the same thing ? The center and the periphery are the same: the me, or the observer and the images, the observed which is also the me , the self. So the center, the observer , which is a result of other images the mind have create, observe the image he have create about himself , or anything else, which you call now the periphery. It is understood. The center, the observer separate himself from the images he have himself create. The observer being himself an image, is not different from what it observe. So, the observer is the observed, and so both disapear. Then, there is only observation, whitout the observer or images about anything. I wonder if one see how beautiful is that .

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Tue, 21 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Feb 2017 #6
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Why call it the non-me ? Isn't the center and the periphery here the same thing ?

Because the thinker, who is the center, the 'me', has separated himself from the 'observed' which is the 'periphery' (as such considered to be 'non-me') ... but of course this separation is a product of thought, a conceptual vision, and is therefore illusional ... therefore the reality is that the observer IS the observed, and that there is actually no separation, no duality ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Feb 2017 #7
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Yes the center, the observer have separate himself from the images he himself have create which result in a conflict within himself. Yes , the observer can see his image as non-me, though it is an illusion. The observer and the observed are the same. It is the dog chasing his tail.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Tue, 21 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Feb 2017 #8
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
... but of course this separation is a product of thought, a conceptual vision, and is therefore illusional ...

If I may ask you, why to you call it conceptual vision ? I don't see that the mind have create a concept of duality before being caught in it. Isn't it rather what is ? And then we can ask: can the mind goes beyond what is ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Tue, 21 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Feb 2017 #9
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
If I may ask you, why to you call it conceptual vision ?

It is conceptual because the self is a concept, an idea, without substantial reality ... iow. an illusion

I don't see that the mind have create a concept of duality before being caught in it.

No, the mind has not created the 'concept of duality', it has created a self separated from the rest of the world (ie. 'non-me'), and this very separation means 'duality' (me vs non-me)

Isn't it rather what is ?

By definition an illusion (ie the 'me') cannot be real, therefore cannot be 'what is'

And then we can ask: can the mind goes beyond what is ?

Well, an illusion can be 'seen' ... and when the illusion is seen it loses its power ... when you see that the oasis in the desert is merely a mirage (illusion) you don't run for water any more ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Feb 2017 #10
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
So we clearly see here that this conflict, this rejection of images I don't like, this resistance to 'what is', is the core mechanism that feeds the separation between the observer and the observed ... which creates a central 'controller' (the 'me') who enters in conflict with his periphery (the 'non-me') ...

No Jean. The above is you expounding on something that you don't understand but clearly think you do. The observer is the observed because both are the product of thinking. Of thought creating images of both the me and the images of things being observed. Just stick with the "observer" is the "observed" and don't add your own interpretation and examples. All that is is your own thought over-thinking what has been pointed out. The quiet mind stays with the fact.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 21 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Feb 2017 #11
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti said:
This observer who has come into being through various other images thinks himself permanent...

I want to zero in on this part of the quote that Jean posted at the beginning of this thread. (I realize that the main point that a lot of people want to make is that there is no self. But perhaps you will explore this side issue with me.)

Here K seems to be saying that the average Joe, who has a self, thinks of that self as permanent. And I've heard Buddhists say similar things, that ignorance is belief in a fixed, permanent self. But it seems to me that the average person with a self DOES NOT think that it is permanent.

I mean, you die and the self ends. True, a lot of folks believe in an afterlife, which means something continues and does not end. But even for them, death is a change, and however the continuation follows it is not the same. It is changed.

And barring an afterlife, you certainly think you will die and not be permanent.

It's actually the religious people who think the self is permanent. If you are in truth the Self, meaning your true self is God, then you are permanent.

But the average person realizes that they will die and parts of them are dying all the time. Moods fall away quickly. Memories fade. Knowledge grows dim. They are not the same person they were years ago.

So I think the average person does not feel a permanent self. But they do feel continuity. They wake up and think they are the same person they were yesterday. They know to go home to the same house where they lived yesterday. So this sense of continuity is practical and useful. But it does limit possibility. If I think I have a certain trait and that's just who I am, then I don't open to the possibility of going beyond it. If I think I am a procrastinator, for example, I don't consider that I don't have to be, that if I like I can start right in on a project and not avoid it.

So to me the self of the average person is not permanent but continuous. It is emergent from a thinking brain with memory and has practicality as well as limitation.

Even if the (not) you does (not) think that there is no self, it is important to be clear about the self, how it emerges and functions, yes? So what do you say about a permanent self? Does anyone really feel that their self is permanent?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 23 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Feb 2017 #12
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
No, the mind has not created the 'concept of duality', it has created a self separated from the rest of the world (ie. 'non-me'), and this very separation means 'duality' (me vs non-me)

Then duality is not a concept, a conceptual vision, it is a result. The result of this fragmentation.

Jean Gatti wrote:
By definition an illusion (ie the 'me') cannot be real, therefore cannot be 'what is'

Well, we see things differently here. When the observer separate itself from the observed, when the mind is fragmented and in conflict, then it is what is. What is, the meaning I give to those words, is the same as the meaning Krishnamurti was giving to those words, which is the actual. It is so simple.

K.: The what is is yourself, not at any particular period or in any given mood, but yourself as you are from moment to moment.

Commentaries on Living: First Series
J. Krishnamurti Chapter 87 `Security'

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Tue, 21 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Feb 2017 #13
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
So what do you say about a permanent self?

Well the answer is very simple: there is no self ... self is a conceptual entity created by thought ... as such an illusion ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Feb 2017 #14
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Well the answer is very simple: there is no self.

To simply assert that there is no self, as a formula, has very little meaning.

Let's say there is a self that asserts there is no self. I'm not saying it's you! Let's actually talk about a hypothetical person. This non-self self states there is no self. And yet conflict seems to swirl around this person. That is, many people interacting with this person feel in conflict with him and what he says. Of course, to him there is no self and no conflict. So he remains blind to the conflictual relationship that he creates, in denial. Does this help the world? Does this set man free?

Now, K worked differently than this. He rarely flat out said, "There is no self." Instead he encouraged self-knowledge, following the self in all its relationships, as the beginning of meditation. He encouraged friendly investigation together into the workings of the self, how it functions in time, through memory, through relationship, and so on.

I'm not saying you should copy K. God knows we get enough of that, too. But just to deny self can be fooling yourself. And it is interesting that some of the most eager to assert themselves are so insistent that there is no self.

What really matters is not whether one says there is or is not self. What really matters is loving and caring that acts from silent attentiveness. That is really what helps the world and sets people free.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Feb 2017 #15
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
What really matters is not whether one says there is or is not self. What really matters is loving and caring that acts from silent attentiveness. That is really what helps the world and sets people free.

Of course it is. All the rest is but futile argumentation and assertiveness of the self.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Feb 2017 #16
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But the average person realizes that they will die and parts of them are dying all the time. Moods fall away quickly. Memories fade. Knowledge grows dim. They are not the same person they were years ago.

I can certainly relate to this paragraph. At this point in your life the only thing you can't loose easily is weight.

idiot ? wrote:
So I think the average person does not feel a permanent self.

I think you have a point on the one hand. We do know we are going to die and end on some level. The religiously inclined believe in eternal life while most of the rest of us are maybe thinking why worry about it.

Then on the other hand maybe K was referring to our day to day lives in which we instinctively, or habitually, accept that there is an entity in control of our life, making decisions, enjoying entertainments, suffering with loss and disappointment but that is separate from all of these things and that we call Jack or Idiot. On a day to day basis this entity doesn't seem to end. This entity stares at us in the mirror in the morning when we are brushing our teeth. It seems real.

How many of us are perpetually aware that this person we think is real, unique and separate from our conditioning is actually an illusion? We have always thought of our self as this entity that is permanent until our body, "our self", finally dies.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Feb 2017 #17
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
How many of us are perpetually aware that this person we think is real, unique and separate from our conditioning is actually an illusion?

I think very few Jack. But maybe numbers don't matter.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 22 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Feb 2017 #18
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Dan you have a very good point. We are conditioned to think in term of time. But isn't it rather a matter of moment to moment. I think there is a continuity as the kids, the house , our traits ( though our traits deteriorate fast with the passing time :)).
But permanency is something thought is looking after, since it find security in it. But there is no permanency, life is ever changing. So we have one moment, and another one.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Wed, 22 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Feb 2017 #19
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Jack Pine wrote:
How many of us are perpetually aware that this person we think is real, unique and separate from our conditioning is actually an illusion?

I think very few Jack.

Well thanks for your response but it was pretty much a rhetorical question.

Dan McDermott wrote:
.(And "perpetually" is a 'time' demand.)

Just about everything we are talking about here refers to time in one form or another.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 22 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Feb 2017 #20
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Of course, to him there is no self and no conflict. So he remains blind to the conflictual relationship that he creates, in denial.

Why would he be "blind" to conflicts ? He SEES those conflicts ... and he SEES that those conflicts are rooted in illusions (the self) ... but he does not himself participate in it, he is not implied in those conflicts ...

Does this help the world? Does this set man free?

The main factor for setting man free is the suffering engendered by the conflicts themselves.

So here's the strange paradox: the illusion of self contains its own seed of self destruction ... in other words: truth always needs to come out ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Feb 2017 #21
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
What really matters is not whether one says there is or is not self. What really matters is loving and caring that acts from silent attentiveness. That is really what helps the world and sets people free.

There is no incompatibility between seeing (and saying) "there is no self" and "loving and caring from silent attentiveness" ... I would even say that the first implies the latter ... it is impossible to really love before realizing the illusion of the self ... unless you SEE the illusion, this illusion will direct your life ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Feb 2017 #22
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
There is no incompatibility between seeing (and saying) "there is no self" and "loving and caring from silent attentiveness" ... I would even say that the first implies the latter ... it is impossible to really love before realizing the illusion of the self ... unless you SEE the illusion, this illusion will direct your life ...

Oh thank you Father! Thank you so much for laying out the canon of the Church of Jean. The Venerated one has explain to the lay people on this forum, once again, what it is that we should see and get from the teachings of Krishnamurti.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Feb 2017 #23
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To simply assert that there is no self, as a formula, has very little meaning.

Yes. To simply assert anything as a formula has very little meaning. It is just opinion based on a partial or faulty understanding of what someone else has said and then filtered it through one's personal experience and knowledge (conditioning).

When one arrives at a conclusion without showing the premises involved then the conclusion is just conjecture. Instead of sharing one's understanding of how the conclusion was arrived at we are being asked to simply accept the conclusions. We are being asked to accept someone else's authority that this is a fact. How can there be a open discussion with understanding and discovery when one just issues authoritative proclamations?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 22 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Feb 2017 #24
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Ken, nice picture of K but buddy that nun needs a makeover.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 #25
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Ken, I think you and I have been on kinfonet longer than just about anyone. I'm glad you still have your sense of humor. Did you hear that a long lost novel by Walt Whitman has been found and will soon be published?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 #26
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
The main factor for setting man free is the suffering engendered by the conflicts themselves.

"Freedom must be sought out; freedom from saviours, teachers, leaders; freedom from the self-enclosing walls of good and bad; freedom from authority and imitation; freedom from self, the cause of conflict and pain."

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day | Feb 23, 2017

So seeking the root cause of conflicts and suffering leads us to freedom from the self ... freedom from the illusion ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Thu, 23 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Online

Jean Gatti wrote:
So seeking the root cause of conflicts and suffering leads us to freedom from the self ... freedom from the illusion ...

Here's the rest of the excerpt from the QOTD: "Just as long as craving in its different forms is not understood there will be conflict and pain. Conflict is not to be ended through superficial restatement of values nor by change of teachers and leaders. The ultimate solution lies in freedom from craving; not in another but in yourself is the way. The incessant battle within us all which we call existence cannot be brought to an end save through understanding and so transcending craving."

Here K is saying that craving is the root cause. Perhaps a new thread might be in order. What does K mean here by craving? Desire? Desire for more 'stuff', more experiences, fulfillments? Craving for a smoke...a drink...sex....excitement? How might one approach the subject? One who is full of various cravings and attachments?

OK, I just started a new thread on this subject in case anyone is interested.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 23 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 #28
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

I just downloaded the new Walt Whitman novel for free. You should be able to search the internet and find the free download which is part of the magazine Walt Whitman Review.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 #29
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Jean,

Is freedom from the self the same as realizing there is no self? Because without a self, there is tremendous awareness, and into that awareness comes all these people very much caught up in themselves: humanity. And seeing the enormous suffering and violence of humanity, there is compassion. Therefore in losing the self, one gains the selves of all humanity! The need for understanding the working of the self is multiplied by several billion fold.

Freedom from the self is not merely denying it. On the contrary, it is deep understanding of all its workings, all its tricks, including denial, because ultimately we are responsible for the selfish activity of the entire world. The world's liberation can come about only through love/caring and through a complete understanding of the activity of the self.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 23 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 #30
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
What does K mean here by craving? Desire? Desire for more 'stuff', more experiences, fulfillments? Craving for a smoke...a drink...sex....excitement? How might one approach the subject? One who is full of various cravings and attachments?

Craving means indeed that one looks for something to obtain, to gain, to attain ... which of course means that one is not satisfied with things as they are (ie 'what is') and constantly looking for things as they 'should' or 'could' be ... all this movement of craving also projects one into the 'doing' and psychological time, which is the distance between 'what is' and 'what should be' ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 69 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.)