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

"Selfying the whole"


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 126 in total
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #1
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

hi all,

i just star this topic in the continuity of the two previous ("the feathered turtle" and this sensation called 'me' " ).

just to say that this process of seizure in brain, "selfs" the whole, the "which is indescribable".

the things are taken as existent as they appears, a tree, a mountain, a rock etc a person...

all that is "selfied", even when it is say that all is linked, the notion of link is made because before there is a "selfyication" (an exixtence as it appear) of the things, which "they" are supposed to be linked...

the brain give existence to a subject and to an object etc...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #2
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

richard villlar wrote:
the things are taken as existent as they appears, a tree, a mountain, a rock etc a person...

... the eyes, the nose, the tongue etc..., the sensations, the thoughts...etc

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #3
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1124 posts in this forum Online

richard villlar wrote:
just to say that this process of seizure in brain, "selfs" the whole, the "which is indescribable".

But if the image in the brain is of a 'tree', what does it matter if its 'only' an 'image' if I can walk to it, climb up it or chop it down...for our purposes, the 'reality' that the brain produces may not be the 'whole story' but its all 'that there is'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #4
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
if I can walk to it

hi Dan,

walk to what? the perception?

because at every "moment" there is perception

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #5
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dizzying...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #6
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1124 posts in this forum Online

richard villlar wrote:
because at every "moment" there is perception

'Who' or 'what' is 'realizing' that 'all' is a perception? The brain? But its fooled itself into believing that its the 'self' it created.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 04 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #7
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

"Who" is a question "selfied", and "what"... it is not possible to know, to answer... all answer will be the production of perception...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #8
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1124 posts in this forum Online

But 'you' are making the assertion that all is perception..how do you know?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #9
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

It will be possible to put an scientist question but not. When It be lived various insight or enlightment, It is seen that all what appear is perception/translation... If there is Just one which lived that we can say that he is mentally ill, but there are several.

Dan McDermott wrote:
But 'you' are making the assertion that all is perception..how do you know?

:-)..... Dan i do not ask you to believe..

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #10
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1124 posts in this forum Online

richard villlar wrote:
It is seen that all what appear is perception/translation...

Does this 'vision' of things, create an 'escape' from the situation mankind is in? The "self-created bondage" that the brain is in etc. In this way of seeing things, is the idea that the "house is on fire" just another sensation among the rest...does this vision that all is 'just' perception, make all things 'equal'? Which may be the truth at some level, like the 'fact' that 'all' is made up of 'atoms' colliding etc. but how does it 'help' in the transformation of human consciousness which I think is what this is all about? How do you see that?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 04 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #11
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

The suffering in this planet comes from what is named self. This vision dissolves... cause of suffering cease..

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #12
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I come back later

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4852 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But if the image in the brain is of a 'tree', what does it matter if its 'only' an 'image' if I can walk to it, climb up it or chop it down...for our purposes, the 'reality' that the brain produces may not be the 'whole story' but its all 'that there is'

Very interesting. Perhaps the brain is only concerned with the utilitarian aspects of the world, and so deliberately limits its perception to those things.

Science has revealed that matter is actually very very different from what may be called our “common sense” view of things. The keyboard under my fingers is overwhelmingly empty space, yet feels solid because of elementary forces. Come to that I am mostly empty space, as are the very atoms, the building blocks of our world. And quantum theory reveals yet another dimension to the world, one totally contrary to what is conceivable to the brain.

So is this exceedingly limited perception of the world by the brain somehow deliberate? It is only interested in what is 'useful' – is that its basic function?

It comes to add that as long as we are interested in using the world as a means of achievement, this limited 'extract' of the world is all that we will see.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #14
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1124 posts in this forum Online

Clive Elwell wrote:
It is only interested in what is 'useful' – is that its basic function?

Safety, survival, achievement , becoming etc. But we are in a gigantic 'mess' as a result of this 'self-centered' way of 'my' (the brain's?) way of seeing the world and 'my' place in it. And from this point of view of regarding 'all as perception' we can see how the 'mis-take' has taken hold and has been strengthened over time. By locating (describing) the image, ("notion") of a 'self' in a 'brain picture',as being the 'center' around which all the 'sensations' are received (translated), it is 'easier' to see that the distance between the 'center'(me) and the sensations being received is actually, nonexistent. ( It is not 'me' in here and the world 'out there'...it is ALL 'in' here!). That is a duality construct created by the brain.(The psychological 'outside' and 'inside'). So the 'seeming' duality between 'experiencer' and 'experience' is a result of the brain's (thought's?) quest for a ''permanence', and 'security' and the notion of a permanent 'self'(with it's 'attributes', possessions and memories: the "feathered turtle"), was created (invented?) to achieve this.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 04 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #15
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2445 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
( It is not 'me' in here and the world 'out there'...it is ALL 'in' here!).

And here is there!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Aug 2016 #16
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
It is not 'me' in here and the world 'out there'...it is ALL 'in' here!

yes, into the same scene.

for example with the sense of vision (it takes up a lot of space), an example to understand this fact of "same scene":

if you look a photo taked by yourself, where there is a piece of your body (a feet, a leg), and the rest (floor, a table etc...), we have the tendancy to see in the photo, "me" and the rest (table), but this photo, on the screen or the the paper, is the same scene, the same screen, the same paper... it is the same process without photo, in daily life...

look at your hand on the keyboard, look at this scene... this is the "same screen... there is no a you separate of the keyboard and what appear is not outside the perception..

it is just an example...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

This post was last updated by richard villlar (account deleted) Fri, 05 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Aug 2016 #17
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
how does it 'help' in the transformation of human consciousness which I think is what this is all about? How do you see that?

Yes... to respond also to Clive's question (can the self end) this vision allows to dissolve, but to dissolve what? The self? There is no self, can a mirage in the désert end? No.

What can ends, is the non awareness of seizure of mirage as water...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Aug 2016 #18
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 84 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
What can ends, is the non awareness of seizure of mirage as water...

Are you suggesting a non-participatory awareness of an ongoing perception. Is it not the path of traditional meditation technique?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Aug 2016 #19
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

natarajan shivan wrote:
Is it not the path of traditional meditation technique?

Well, we have to be careful with words because saying "traditionnal méditation" could mean that méditation is something traditional... which is not. But méditation allows conditions and cause for emergence of awareness.

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Aug 2016 #20
Thumb_avatar P Sylvan United Kingdom 17 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

It is not 'me' in here and the world 'out there'...it is ALL 'in' here!

richard villlar wrote:
yes, into the same scene.

for example with the sense of vision (it takes up a lot of space), an example to understand this fact of "same scene":

if you look a photo taked by yourself, where there is a piece of your body (a feet, a leg), and the rest (floor, a table etc...), we have the tendancy to see in the photo, "me" and the rest (table), but this photo, on the screen or the the paper, is the same scene, the same screen, the same paper... it is the same process without photo, in daily life...

look at your hand on the keyboard, look at this scene... this is the "same screen... there is no a you separate of the keyboard and what appear is not outside the perception..

it is just an example...

Hi Richard / Dan / all,

Could we consider whether or not the image, or the ‘same scene’, consists of an amalgam of three basic impressions that are all wrapped up or contained within the same image / picture? In other words that the image or picture has within it:

1)
The object in/of the image as the main focus as the observed.

2)
 The space surrounding the thing being observed.

3)
The position of the viewer (thinker, observer, subject) of the thing being observed.

The important point being, that the position of the viewer as the observer is assumed or inferred to reside entirely outside of the image itself and is therefore considered as different from the image when in reality it is part of that image. 

So could it be that thought’s ability to imitate the actual, has developed to such a degree that it has replicated within each and every image 1) an object, 2) a space surrounding that object and 3) the position of the viewer of that object which we refer to as the observer and which we experience as different from the observed?

Paul

In the spirit of dialogue

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Aug 2016 #21
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1124 posts in this forum Online

Hi Paul,

That seems to be the situation.

Could that be reduced to 'two':

The object and its surroundings and the 'observer' (me) outside the frame?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 05 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Aug 2016 #22
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Hi Paul,

The surrounding is object also. ..

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Aug 2016 #23
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1124 posts in this forum Online

Having an 'entity' 'outside' of the 'frame' creates a 'permanent' figure (me) 'apart' from the ever-changing scene?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 05 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Aug 2016 #24
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
Having an 'entity' 'outside' of the 'frame' creates a 'permanent' figure (me) 'apart' from the ever-changing scene?

yes that, and the constant flow of senses...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Aug 2016 #25
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

i put the example of sense of vision to show the fact of the "same scene".

we can do it for all senses.

one of them is the "inside" touch/feel of 'body'... the feel of body, the weight of shoulders etc.. there is an "I" which feels body (an observer and an observed), but subject and object IS the same scene...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Aug 2016 #26
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1124 posts in this forum Online

richard villlar wrote:
one of them is the "inside" touch/feel of 'body'... the feel of body, the weight of shoulders etc.. there is an "I" which feels body (an observer and an observed), but subject and object IS the same scene...

The 'I', 'me', ego, persona, etc. represents the past, it is the 'repository' of all recorded past experiences...all preferences, likes and dislikes, hurts, pleasures etc., this is the 'entity' that 'meets' the incoming information from the senses. It is the 'past' meeting and transforming the 'present' through recognition, labeling, 'refining' the 'new' by the 'old'. It may in fact not exist as such, but it nevertheless 'acts' as if it does?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Aug 2016 #27
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
But if the image in the brain is of a 'tree', what does it matter if its 'only' an 'image' if I can walk to it, climb up it or chop it down

Of course it does matter!! ...

Climb up it, walk to it, or chop it down is not what is discussed here, but that:

There is perception, sensation, contact and desire [, aversion, or indifference], and the mind becomes the mechanical instrument of this process, in which symbols, words, objects are the center round which all desire, all pursuits, all ambitions [, all rejections, all indifferences] are built; that center is the 'me'.


Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom (chapter 13) [square brackets are mine]

Despite something which we called 'a tree' appears before our eyes it lacks true existence (i.e.: as being utterly independent from other things) and therefore has no self-characteristics ... But not being aware of that we start to project self-characteristics on the object which brings about sensations, wanting to have contact with it, and finally desire to possess it, aversion to it, or indifference ... Therefore we never see things as they are because we are always divided from them without being aware that in fact we create such division.

Our eyes see a person, our ears listen to him or her, then our brain projects some characteristics on that person and at that very moment we are absolutely certain that that person possesses those characteristics without us having nothing to do with it (when in fact those characteristics were merely projected on him or her by our thought only few seconds ago (or years after we've stored them in memory)) ... And then we relate to him or her through that projection ... So we never relate with him or her, but with our projections of him or her.

So, the 'image' it does matter, because depending on that image we relate to the thing on which we projected that image!

"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, 06 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Aug 2016 #28
Thumb_avatar P Sylvan United Kingdom 17 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Hi Paul,

That seems to be the situation.

Could that be reduced to 'two':

The object and its surroundings and the 'observer' (me) outside the frame?

Hi Dan,

Yes, and it would also seem possible for this to be further reduced down to one in which there is then only the image and no observer of that image as different from the image.

“Do you see the image of yourself which you have built up through centuries - see it as a fact? Do you understand? Are you looking at it choicelessly, and not according to your pleasure and pain? If you look at it without choice, then it is a fact, isn't it? The image is a fact, it is so. Now, are you looking at it as an outsider who is observing it - or are you the image?

Krishnamurti Third Talk in Saanen, 1965

It seems to me that the sense of the observer and the space surrounding the observer is felt to be outside of the image / frame being looked at. But perhaps this ‘outside', is actually part of the image itself and so not outside of it at all.

Paul

In the spirit of dialogue

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Aug 2016 #29
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2445 posts in this forum Offline

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
And then we relate to him or her through that projection ... So we never relate with him or her, but with our projections of him or her.

So, the 'image' it does matter, because depending on that image we relate to the thing on which we projected that image!

Just read your interesting post here this AM, Juan, and now I see you have decided to leave us. This is a good post....and relevant to the discussion so far. Why leave in the middle of an interesting discussion? I suppose I know the answer. You have an image of us as being full of blah, blah, blah, as you say? You talk in the above post about the 'falseness' of the image...of all images, yet you are full of images yourself I see. Images of Clive, or Tom, perhaps. K. talked to the likes of us here(an image) for his whole life without feeling it was worthless....without forming images. Well occasionally he'd say in a talk something like, "Oh, you people are so dull!" I guess he wasn't totally beyond image forming himself ;) But he kept at it, didn't he?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Aug 2016 #30
Thumb_avatar P Sylvan United Kingdom 17 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
Hi Paul,

The surrounding is object also. ..

Hi Richard,

Yes, it would seem that the feeling of space between the sense of the observer and the observed is also part of the image created by thought.

Paul

In the spirit of dialogue

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 126 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.)