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

Resistance to 'what is' feeds the observer


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 69 in total
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 #31
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Is freedom from the self the same as realizing there is no self?

Yes, seeing that the self is an illusion ... which does not contradict that this illusion has a tremendous power in this world ... the 'power of illusion'

However when an illusion is seen, it loses its power ... when you see that the oasis in the desert is merely a mirage, you don't run for water any more ... and you look with compassion to those who still run, and realize the futility of their frenetic agitation ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 #32
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
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

Do you see Jean when you make conclusions like this you are not seeing the whole? You are not, in spite of the fact that you think you are, seeing what is.

Someone could be perfectly satisfied with their lives or present condition and still have a craving for a bowl of ice cream or any number of other things. Your definitions are too narrow, too restricted just as your understanding appears to be. Which, I guess, makes sense when you think about it. You seem to want to go from reading or hearing something straight to a conclusion instead of staying with what craving is, what it feels like, how it moves.

Like watching a child; see how he is and what he is doing instead of telling him what he should be doing instead. When you jump to conclusions you are letting your thinking, your conditioning, interfere with your observing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 #33
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
However when an illusion is seen, it loses its power ... when you see that the oasis in the desert is merely a mirage, you don't run for water any more ... and you look with compassion to those who still run, and realize the futility of their frenetic agitation ...

Or maybe you look at others with a patronizing sense of superiority, arrogance, pride, egotistical self-satisfaction, and ultimately the illusory belief in your own infallibility.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 #34
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
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.

Yes , that's true. Proclaming that the self is an illusion doesn't mean nothing. Proclaming I am free is a lie, is the self. Even if one have been free for an instant, it is the past, and so it is the past that is proclaiming, which is, at the psyche level, the self. There is the individual and the general, the universel. Personnal salvation is a petty little thing. Happiness can come as a result of the end of conflict, but is not the result of craving for happiness. It can't be sue after. Understanding ourselves is understanding the rest of humanity. The book of life, of humanity, is in everyone of us. Freedom may comes out of this undertsanding.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Thu, 23 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 #35
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
seeing that the self is an illusion ...

So if self is an illusion, why are there posts here with Jean Gatti as the writer? Who is this Jean Gatti? And why, if there is no Jean Gatti does he interact with other non-existent entities in this forum? Why bother with such illusions?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sat, 25 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 #36
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
And why, if there is no Jean Gatti does he interact with other non-existent entities in this forum? Why bother with such illusions?

It is not forbidden to experience and even sometimes enjoy this world ... when you watch a movie, you know it is an illusion, unreal, yet you can enjoy the movie, no ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Sat, 25 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 #37
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
It is not forbidden to experience and even sometimes enjoy this world

Ahh, spoken like a true Catholic. The Church is excellent at making the true believers feel guilty about living. After all one does have to be careful not to piss-off one's psychotic, sadistic god and end up burning to death for all of eternity. Whatever you do don't enjoy your life too much if you know what's good for you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 #38
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

"If you understand that where there is a search for pleasure there must be pain, live that way if you want to, but don't just slip into it. If you want to end pleasure, though, which is to end pain, you must be totally attentive to the whole structure of pleasure- not cut it out as monks and sannyasis do, never looking at a woman because they think it is sin and thereby destroying the vitality of their understanding- but seeing the whole meaning and significance of pleasure."

Freedom from the Known,38

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 #39
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Jean do you have a point to make or some reason for posting the above? It's not obvious that there is one.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 #40
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Not only the Catholic Church considers the search for pleasure to be harmful ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 #41
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Not only the Catholic Church considers the search for pleasure to be harmful ...

Jean it should be of deep concern to you that you see what K is saying about pleasure being equivant to what the Catholic Church is saying. But I know it doesn't concern you because you don't have a clue.

Look at K's quote you put on this thread. Read it below. What K is talking about is how the Church reacts to pleasure and he is saying don't do what the church wants you to do which is just to reject pleasure without understanding why. Jean you don't even understand the quotes you are using to prove your point. Instead your quote proved what I was saying.

Jean Gatti wrote:
If you want to end pleasure, though, which is to end pain, you must be totally attentive to the whole structure of pleasure- not cut it out as monks and sannyasis do, never looking at a woman because they think it is sin and thereby destroying the vitality of their understanding-

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #42
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Pleasure is not a problem, there is no problem to enjoy 'what is' ... the search for pleasure is the problem ... because it creates psychological time and projects us outside 'presence' ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #43
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Pleasure is not a problem, there is no problem to enjoy 'what is' ... the search for pleasure is the problem ... because it creates psychological time and projects us outside 'presence' ...

This is not what we were talking about. Don't just repeat things.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 27 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Mar 2017 #44
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
So if self is an illusion, why are there posts here with Jean Gatti as the writer?

Because the only permanency is the name ... all the rest is impermanence, movement ... you (as body/mind) change every second ... and you never bathe twice in the same river ...

Therefore the name (the word) creates the illusion of permanence and identity ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #45
Thumb_photo saurab marjara India 61 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti wrote:
'The observer is also the image, only he has separated himself and observes.

But if the observer observes non-judgmentally, the observer is not the image, but pure consciousness / awareness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #46
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

saurab: "If the observer observes non-judgmentally, the observer is not the image, but pure consciousness / awareness."

Yes, this non-judgmentally means from emptyness. Not being person.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 26 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #47
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 68 posts in this forum Offline

if there is no observed, there is no observer, just observation...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #48
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Richard, "if there is no observed, there is no observer, just observation..."

This doesn't seem to make sense.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #49
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 68 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
This doesn't seem to make sense

Yes it seems there is.. to say that "not being person" doesn't significate that there is an observer. There is no observer if there is no observed and vice versa even non-judgmentally... there is Just observation, This doesn't make sense peter?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #50
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Richard,

As seen here we are talking about two kinds of observation. When one takes oneself to be a person (Peter) who observes the world there is also an observing of that persons self observing itself. There is a division there within that self. In that division there is conflict. ("I must change"). ("I am doing") ("I will do") ("this is right") ("that is wrong") (I am this").....

But if one sees that one is the seer only, which is nowness, presence itself, and sees that that seer is empty, (it has no attributes, no history, it is unidentified, not the person, not human) that self(not self at all) can observe the person which was previously thought to be the self. (What it was that was thought to be the observer). So that self with attributes...the observer... becomes the observed. That observer and the rest of the world are one external undivided movement, (matter energy. But observation takes place, there is still observation and something that is observed.

Correct me if you see any mistake.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Thu, 27 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #51
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

That (this) seer is universal same one here as there. Having no attributes the one cannot be distinguished from the other. So i am... you are... we each are all sentient beings at once. No division. No division in the "inner" and no division in the outer. No division in the "real" (things in time) (matter, energy, time, space, (the things science somewhat explains) and no division in the "truth". And what is the relation between these two? K points out it only goes one way.

only affection for you...for you all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #52
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

saurab marjara wrote:
if the observer observes non-judgmentally

How does thought/observer/judgement, observe/act, non-judgementally?

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #53
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
This doesn't seem to make sense.

It makes sense to one who is simply repeating or, using English as a second language.

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #54
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 68 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
if one sees that one is the seer only

Peter Kesting wrote:
That (this) seer is universal

Well peter, the seeing pure awreness is a disappearing total disappearing, here is the real death not only on the "richard" step because when this step disappear there is another self step which you mean empty but it is not. Because there is a différent perception of world, without thought judgment etc. . We say this is it! But there is a self prior thought which is in the field of sensation. And there is a sensing of a seer... but this seer is also taken by brain as observer it is the level of self prior self level of thought...

This post was last updated by richard viillar Thu, 27 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #55
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 68 posts in this forum Offline

Now, it seems that human being have to functions like that in the field of this first level of self. But we don't have to think that this self level is empty, is absolute because it is already a brain elaboration prior than thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #56
Thumb_photo saurab marjara India 61 posts in this forum Offline

randall merryman wrote:
How does thought/observer/judgement, observe/act, non-judgementally?

Obviously judgment does not observe non-judgmentally. But the observer is not always judgment. When the observer is free from judgment it is as if the observer vanishes, and is replaced by pure awareness / consciousness.

That is another way of saying that the observer observes non-judgmentally.

Also, the pure observer is not thought. Thought comes in later as a commentary on what has been observed.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #57
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

saurab marjara wrote:
Also, the pure observer is not thought.

What is this phenomenon "pure observer" you speak of? Who (which person or persons) has this "observer/observation" which you claim is unbiased and unaffected by the thinking aspect of mind?

Stuff happens

This post was last updated by randall merryman (account deleted) Thu, 27 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #58
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

saurab marjara wrote:
When the observer is free from judgment it is as if the observer vanishes, and is replaced by pure awareness / consciousness.

But again, the observer/observed is thought, which is judgement. How can something be free of its own existence/function?

It seems you are suggesting the presence of some capacity which lay beneath thought/judgement, waiting for an opportunity to emerge?

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #59
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Randall,

If you and i were to change places so that what is seeing out of those eyes there were suddenly seeing out of these eyes and visa versa, we would be unaware that that had happened because memory and thought are in the matter that is the brain. The seer is empty, it sees only.

Here's an interesting way to think about it. Suppose the seer is only there intermitently, that it moves from one being to another incredably rapidly. So rapidly that it makes a trip visiting every sentient being in the universe and returns to again repeat that same trip... the whole circuit taking some extreamly short time, a nanno of a nanno.... of a second. We are that seer, not only in one of those beings but all of them.

A simpler way to see this. If we were to change places as suggested above could we really say there were two of these seers. How are these seers... which are empty of any thing distinguishing them from one another... how are they two at all? What one is is that "light" that empty seer. All of us that same one.

We ought to try to be kind to one another.

Good to talk with you again.

Peter

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Thu, 27 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #60
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 68 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
there is a self prior thought which is in the field of sensation. And there is a sensing of a seer...

priorly thought, there is already duality between this seer who observe without judgment and what is observed without judgment

This post was last updated by richard viillar Thu, 27 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 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.)