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

Resistance to 'what is' feeds the observer


Displaying posts 61 - 69 of 69 in total
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #61
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 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

Hello again Richard,

Perhaps it is language differences that are the cause of some confusion between us. The subjects we are discussing are also difficult to discuss. I am not sure whether we are exploring together or we are agreeing or we are disagreeing. :)

Do you know the word qualia? It refers to things like the redness of red. There is no red in the brain. Just neurons and other cells and activity that is material, signals traveling along nerves and across synapses. And every experience, as it is being experienced is like the redness of red, unexplainable, all of it qualia. Is this your "field of sensation"? Are you saying there is matter and there is this field and there is the seer? But that makes three.
There is also the false self. Is that actually in the field of qualia, something sensed? Then there is the empty seer which seems to be makeing its existance aparent as this "light" that is not light.

Regarding diality, K and Bohm discuss reality (or actuality) and truth a seeming duality.

But i belive it can be seen that there can be no actual division anywhere.

I may not actually know what it is that is always meant by the word duality.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Apr 2017 #62
Thumb_photo saurab marjara India 61 posts in this forum Offline

randall merryman wrote:
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?

I should have written : the observer is not thought. I am not saying that the observation is not affected by thought. It is obviously affected by thought, but thought comes after the perception. First there is perception/observation, then thought comes in.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Apr 2017 #63
Thumb_photo saurab marjara India 61 posts in this forum Offline

randall merryman wrote:
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?

The observer is not thought. First there is observation, then thought comes in. When you observe a sunset, there is no thought. Afterwards, thought comes in and says what a nice sunset.

BUt at the moment of perception, there is no thought/judgment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Apr 2017 #64
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

saurab marjara wrote:
at the moment of perception, there is no thought/judgment.

But that interval is imperceptible for most. I would suggest that the vast majority of human minds and the vast majority of experiences, has a biased interpretation of the experience memorized. Therefore inadequate to be any kind of real authority.

Maybe in a tranquil few moments here or there this interval can be appreciated, but what about in relationship? What about in the "dog eat dog" real world of modern civilization?

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Apr 2017 #65
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

saurab marjara wrote:
First there is perception/observation, then thought comes in.

What real difference does that make then, if thought bedazzles/distorts the perception? Isn't unbiased perception the "end game" in all this?

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Apr 2017 #66
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 68 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
I may not actually know what it is that is always meant by the word duality.

Hello peter :-)

Well here duality means that what is unknowable (qualia) can be observed by an observer

This post was last updated by richard viillar Sat, 29 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Apr 2017 #67
Thumb_photo saurab marjara India 61 posts in this forum Offline

randall merryman wrote:
What real difference does that make then, if thought bedazzles/distorts the perception? Isn't unbiased perception the "end game" in all this?

Yes, that is true. I was merely refering to the technical distinction between perception and thought. But in the end it hardly makes a difference, as the perception becomes biased.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Apr 2017 #68
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
whether we are exploring together or we are agreeing or we are disagreeing.

An important distinction that should be held in mind during any discussion, don't you think my friend?

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Apr 2017 #69
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

saurab marjara wrote:
Yes, that is true. I was merely refering to the technical distinction between perception and thought. But in the end it hardly makes a difference, as the perception becomes biased.

Always best to look at the "nuts and bolts" of the thing tho, eh what? And but the central point may be, that we look to find the same phenomenon at the same level of understanding at the same time. Rather than simply looking to connect the logic and agree and/or disagree on it, no?

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 69 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.)