Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

What can thought do?


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 167 in total
Sat, 14 May 2016 #61
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Mike, peter can I participate to your dialog?

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #62
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
The universe seems to "know" where everything is all of the time.

May i ask why you create the duality between the universe and everything is in it?
Is there an universe divided from the things in it?

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #63
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
Mike, peter can I participate to your dialog?

Richard, you don't need to ask...

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #64
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
But there is this other... the seer

m christani wrote:
there's not a subtle 'being' in such observation

Peter Kesting wrote:
there is a seeing

peter, mike,

yes... there is a seeing but that don't mean that there is a seer... would we say that there is just a seeing?

here the point I think, because even if we say that there is no attribute to the "seer", the "other", this "no attribute" adheres on a "fragment", an idea... the seer or the other

I think that there is no attribute but this sentence stop here... there is no attribute.

no?

regards

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

This post was last updated by richard villlar (account deleted) Sat, 14 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #65
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

"I'm still not certain there's not a subtle 'being' in such observation."

What can one be certain of? Is there any thing one can be certain of? Even K uses the word fact. A fact is a known. What facts are there? It is possible to question almost any fact. I see only one thing that cannot be questioned: Being. Can you say that you are not there? Even not knowing just what it is that one is. Put it without any content, no you no word being and negatively

It is not the case that there is nothing

Seen here every thing else every other fact every known is actually only assumption.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #66
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

You are very wellcome Richard.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #67
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

Jaun: "Is there an universe divided from the things in it?"

No, there is no division

see #40 above.Also #44

What was written in #51 was just a way to say that nothing in the field of matter/energy ever gets lost, there is perfect order there. No flaw. See it as poetic.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 14 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #68
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
Is there any thing one can be certain of?

no of course..

Peter Kesting wrote:
Even K uses the word fact. A fact is a known.

indeed!!

Peter Kesting wrote:
Can you say that you are not there?

you mean in the sense: "can you say that there is nothing?" ?

Peter Kesting wrote:
Seen here every thing else every other fact every known is actually only assumption.

all I can say, is really that I don't know what appears but " ? " appears..

and I really can't put an attribute on what can't be known... on what can't be seized... then, nothing can take place, there is nothing to reify...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #69
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
See it as poetic.

Thanks for clarification

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #70
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
there is perfect order there.

Would you say that that order is an uninterrupted chain of cause and effect?

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #71
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

Juan:"yes... there is a seeing but that don't mean that there is a seer... would we say that there is just a seeing?

here the point I think, because even if we say that there is no attribute to the "seer", the "other", this "no attribute" adheres on a "fragment", an idea... the seer or the other"

I will have to consider this a bit.

Would you be saying that there is seeing, that seeing has nothing "behind" it?

Are you saying we cannot say it has no attributes?

I have considered, put it, in the past that it has a nature. Do you dissagree?

It can be seen as being of another dimension. Qualia arise in it, also meaning, also intelligence. The now is in it or of it or it is with or in or of nowness. All of these are one

To have attributes is to be seperable into this one and that one. I notice it has no attributes so I can say there is no two. It is one same her as there. I see it is what we are, what one is, one is only that

So thats a beginning. What do you say? What do you see? No you.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 14 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #72
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

Juan:"yes... there is a seeing but that don't mean that there is a seer... would we say that there is just a seeing?

here the point I think, because even if we say that there is no attribute to the "seer", the "other", this "no attribute" adheres on a "fragment", an idea... the seer or the other"

I will have to consider this a bit.

Would you be saying that there is seeing, that seeing has nothing "behind" it?

Are you saying we cannot say it has no attributes?

I have considered, put it, in the past that it has a nature. Do you dissagree?

It can be seen as being of another dimension. Qualia arise in it, also meaning, also intelligence. The now is in it or of it or it is with or in or of nowness. All of these are one

To have attributes is to be seperable into this one and that one. I notice it has no attributes so I can say there is no two. It is one same her as there. I see it is what we are, we are, what one is, only that

So thats a beginning. What do you say? What do you see? No you.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 14 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #73
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

Jaun:"Would you say that that order is an uninterrupted chain of cause and effect?"

One cannot know. Limiting it to the field of matter/energy it's a
good place to start. But you will find that there is something else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #74
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
Juan:"yes... there is a seeing but that don't mean that there is a seer... would we say that there is just a seeing?

I'm afraid that was not me who said that, but Richard in #64 ;-)

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #75
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
But you will find that there is something else.

God?, a Creator? ... ¿?

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #76
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
So thats a beginning. What do you say? What do you see? No you.

When we think, we 'see' a something. But thats not really seeing, is it? Without thought is there a something....something to see? Isn't it like the eye trying to see itself? Can the subject see itself? If it does it's only making an object out of what in reality is not objectifyable.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #77
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
that seeing has nothing "behind" it?

I would say that if there is just seeing, there is no behind, what is called "behind" is not different...

Peter Kesting wrote:
I have considered, put it, in the past that it has a nature. Do you dissagree?

I remember perfectly peter, as the notion of cause and effect, I would say that maybe it is a step in inquiry... maybe...

Peter Kesting wrote:
Are you saying we cannot say it has no attributes?

no, I say that we can't say anything from a seer if there is no seer, we can't say even that there is no attributes because then, this "no attribute" become an attribute which requires an support...

and what can't be known, can't be a support...

do you agree...?

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #78
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

richard villlar wrote:
I say that we can't say anything from a seer if there is no seer,

Doesn't lead this to the question 'From where arises the teaching?'

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #79
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:
Without thought is there a something....something to see?

There is seeing, but nothing who owns that seeing.

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #80
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
There is seeing, but nothing who owns that seeing.

nothing = no thing. No thing meaning no object = not objectifyable. If it's not objectifyable then thought can't know it. Don't know if this clarifies anything.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 14 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #81
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
'From where arises the teaching?'

from seeing maybe...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #82
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:
no object = not objectifyable.

here is the point maybe...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #83
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

richard villlar wrote:

Juan Eyegaray wrote:

'From where arises the teaching?'

from seeing maybe...

But if, as we've said, there's no actor (the seer), but only the act of seeing, that seeing has no need to go again into duality to express itself in a teaching form ... and if it does (out of compassion for his fellow beings or whatever), it will always be necessarily dualist (i.e.: it will have to use names, definitions and so on to express itself to others that supposedly still live in the duality of the seer and the thing seen).

Now the danger always has been the same: that while the former uses duality merely as a tool to express itself (knowing that the name is not the thing), the later run the risk to convert such a tool (words) in the thing itself.

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #84
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
that seeing has no need to go again into duality to express itself in a teaching form ..

in this way we could ask also: is there a need for duality?

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #85
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

or does "what is" need duality?

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #86
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:
If it's not objectifyable then thought can't know it.

Well, maybe the question then would be: why thought wants to know it?

Elsewhere in this forum (if i remember well), someone said that there are some scientists that say that the brain will be able to function the same without consciousness.

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #87
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

richard villlar wrote:
in this way we could ask also: is there a need for duality?

I would say that only as a tool for those who supposedly live in non-duality and just to show others the illusion of all of it ... Running the risk, of course, that others can take that tool as the fact itself and so continue in duality while they thinking that are out of it (which in my opinion is what happens all the time someone comes to this world to tell us that we live in an illusion).

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

This post was last updated by Juan Eyegaray (account deleted) Sat, 14 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #88
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

Juan: "God?, a Creator? ... ¿?"

I can be making a mistake here in asking.

What is the intent of your question?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #89
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

richard villlar wrote:
or does "what is" need duality?

As i've said above only as a tool for those who supposedly live in the non-duality to show others the illusion in which we all live ...

It's interesting that Buddhists created the figure of the 'Bodhisattva' to designate someone that doesn't want to remain in 'what is' but to go back to duality, out of compassion for others, to show them the root cause of their suffering - that is: the duality of me/you, good/bad, and so on.

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

This post was last updated by Juan Eyegaray (account deleted) Sat, 14 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #90
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
I can be making a mistake here in asking.

Nay, nay, nay! ;-)

What is the intent of your question?

It's simply that in the observation of what you said (#73) i couldn't find that 'something else' besides matter/energy you've said we would find out ... So, i was merely inquiring if that (God, creator) was what you were referring to or on the contrary something else beyond matter/energy which we may find out (or not) if we pursue our investigation.

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 167 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.)