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

"Selfying the whole"


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 126 in total
Sun, 09 Oct 2016 #31
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

hi all...

Peter Kesting wrote in another thread:
"When the observer is the observed what is doing the observing?"

Dan Mc Dermott wrote in another thread:
It's the 'finer energy' "that does the 'perceiving'"... The description of 'it' is not the 'thing'.

we need to use word to talk, for sure, even knowing that the word is not the thing... but there is a slipping ground behind the word, there is a séparation process which is selfying.

"When the observer is the observed what is doing the observing?"...

here, there is separation again, between observer and onserved...

"It's the 'finer energy' "that does the 'perceiving'"

here too...

no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Oct 2016 #32
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Négation/refutation is an intellectual thing as i see it...

However, where there is the seeing of the selfying process, no need to negate/refute...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Oct 2016 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
Négation/refutation is an intellectual thing as i see it.

As usual, there are two meanings (at least) to the word negation (refutation is another thing). Yes, it can be an intellectual affair, - in which case it is just part of the battle of thought against thought.

But is there not a negation which is an action without words? No one "does" this negation. It happens, meaning things just drop away, end, as a result of seeing the false as the false?

I do not know anything more important that this movement of negation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Oct 2016 #34
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It happens, meaning things just drop away, end, as a result of seeing the false as the false?

Exactly...the seeing is the acting(effortless)....the negation. Nothing intellectual about it.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Oct 2016 #35
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
as a result of seeing the false as the false?

yes but as i see it that is not a negation. and it seems that, when there is seeing, there is no seeing of a false as false, but just seeing, there is nothing which is negated... there is just seeing... as i see it

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 #36
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
there is no seeing of a false as false

If you see that religious beliefs divide, then you're through with them....they're dropped. Or seeing the falsness of authority...the danger of authority. That's what K means by seeing the false as false....or negation of the false. Sometimes he referred to it as seeing the truth(the true nature of...) in the false.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 25 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 #37
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
when there is seeing, there is no seeing of a false as false, but just seeing, there is nothing which is negated... there is just seeing..

Richard wants an end to the 'labeling'....

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 #38
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If you see that religious beliefs divide, then you're through with them.

Agreed Tom. but being 'through' with the 'self' is another 'ball of wax'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 25 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 #39
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I agree Tom. but being through with the 'self' is another 'ball of wax'.

Not a damn thing 'I' can do about that, much as I'd like to believe otherwise (I want to do away with the self so I can find the ultimate fulfillment, perhaps?)

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 #40
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I want to do away with the self so I can find the ultimate fulfillment, perhaps?

Absolutely ....,'you' want to do away with 'you'...silly isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 #41
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

What's left, watching, 'you' trying to do away with 'you'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 #42
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Richard wants an end to the 'labeling'....

hi Dan, Tom, Clive...

yes... not end but see the process which allow the labeling, which allow the selfying...

Tom Paine wrote:
beliefs divide

the division is seen, not the falseness of division

Tom Paine wrote:
danger of authority

the fear is seen, not the falseness of authority

in the moment of seeing, there is no false... i don't know if what i say is clear... it is very difficult to explain...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 #43
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

beliefs divide
the division is seen, not the falseness of division

But beliefs are false....not facts....truth. I cling to the idea of my God up in Heaven, for instance. Can one see that the idea...any idea ...is not the reality? We kill for that idea of my God...wage war to protect the idea. That the image of my wife or neighbor is not the person. We relate through the image and that leads to conflict...pain. That's what I'm meaning by seeing the falseness of the belief or the image.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 25 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 #44
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
That's what I'm meaning by seeing the falseness of the belief or the image.

of course i see what you mean Tom, but do you understand of what i mean?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 #45
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
What's left, watching, 'you' trying to do away with 'you'?

Truth? But we try and own that truth...that intelligence...make it a goal to reach for.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 #46
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
of course i see what you mean Tom, but do you understand of what i mean?

No, you've lost me, I'm afraid. Can you explain it differently?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 #47
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
beliefs

when there is seeing, the belief is seen as belief, the idea as an idea all as it is... there is no false in the seeing.. just seeing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 #48
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
when there is seeing, the belief is seen as belief.

So you're not speaking of understanding then. To see belief as it is means, to me, to see what it is and what it does ...how it acts....in the human psyche. Similar to seeing that poison is poison. It's a danger. All that is in the seeing of the nature of belief as it acts in the human psyche.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #49
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
when there is seeing, the belief is seen as belief, the idea as an idea all as it is... there is no false in the seeing.. just seeing

It seems to me, Richard, that when you say "Belief is seen as belief" then that implies the falseness of belief is seen. Seeing means to see something AS IT IS, does it not? And the 'what it is' for belief is that belief is not actual, is not true. It was thought to be true, and after seeing, that false conception has ended.

richard viillar wrote:
when there is seeing, (cut) the idea as an idea all as it is..

Again, what is being seen is that an idea that had been thought to be actual was really only an idea. That is, something false had been in place, and that falseness has been seen, and so it has been exposed, and can no longer continue.

The seeing is a light which dispels darkness - darkness being illusion, falseness. And in the light darkness cannot continue. It must 'drop away'.

If we see something that is true, then there is no dropping away. Nothing needs to change. I am thinking of simple facts, like my phone needs charging. No problem, no falseness there. But if I go to charge, and realise that I had misread the screen, it did not need charging - then that false impression drops away.

I am trying to think of an example of seeing what is true in the psychological world. But I come face to face with the question: Is there ANYTHING in the psychological world that is not false?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #50
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
It seems to me, Richard, that when you say "Belief is seen as belief" then that implies the falseness of belief is seen.

This is the view of the self that is used to look at things as black and white, high or low, left or right, true or false ... What Richard is trying to convey is that in seeing there are not such differences but only the thing seen without the division of it being true or false (which would imply the division between an observer and the thing observed).

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Wed, 26 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #51
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
not such differences

Yes thank you Juan, and then the comparison process is not activate... (image forming too ;-) )

After seeing the analysing process comes and allow to see with thought "it's false"...

When there is seeing, When there is this awareness, there is seeing of the "whole" for exemple the fact that all is "one and same thing" (if i can allow to say that) in the seeing there is no seeing of a false separation...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #52
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

richard viillar wrote:
After seeing the analysing process comes and allow to see with thought "it's false"...

In fact i would not use the word "see" but "interpret", here ... In the sense that thought do not see but is merely interpreting (or it tries to interpret) all the time what has been seen/felt ... strongly believing that has been itself who has seen/felt ... and therefore never seeing that it has had nothing to do with it.

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #53
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

richard viillar wrote:
in the seeing there is no seeing of a false separation...

... and no seeing of a true union, if you let me add this to your statement.

Anyway, what a difficult thing to see for most of us ... even intellectually!

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #54
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
not use the word "see" but "interpret", here

Juan E. wrote:
and no seeing of a true union, if you let me add this to your statement.

Yes that's it of course!!! :-)

Juan E. wrote:
what a difficult thing to see for most of us ... even intellectually!

Really??? ;-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #55
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 86 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So you're not speaking of understanding then.

This is a crucial observation. There is understanding and therefore something which prevents the recurrence of the same event. There is no pure seeing, the confusion is between the two statements, one is that 'the observer is the observed' and the other that 'there is no separate observer apart from observation'. As I see, the second is more representative of K's position and includes as you say an understanding from which the truth of the first statement will continually evolve. This however doesn't mean an accumulation or a psychological evolution.

This post was last updated by natarajan shivan Wed, 26 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #56
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
richard viillar wrote:

in the seeing there is no seeing of a false separation...
... and no seeing of a true union, if you let me add this to your statement

But there is no separation when seeing the danger of belief. You're seeing the action of belief without division....which brings understanding of its nature. We're speaking of observation of belief as it acts in oneself....belief, ideals, authority, etc. Seeing the division that exists when there is an ideal or a belief active in consciousness.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 26 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #57
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:
You're seeing the action of belief without division....which brings understanding of its nature.

It's difficult to grasp, but in seeing there's no understanding but just seeing ... As Richard has said, understanding comes later when though intervenes in what has been seen ... Or we may say it in a different way, in understanding there's no seeing ... Seeing has no need to understand what is seen.

So, we are talking about the main problem we all have ...
... That is, misunderstand "understanding" by "seeing".

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #58
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

richard viillar wrote:
Really??? ;-)

No, i was only joking!
Non, je ne faisais que plaisanter! ;-))

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Wed, 26 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #59
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
Seeing has no need to understand what is seen.

But the seeing and the understanding are one, Juan. I'm discussing seeing oneself as one is....seeing/understanding the divisions in consciousness. Understanding the falseness of an ideal doesn’t involve thought at all as I see it. It's an insight into what ideals do. It involves seeing the ideal acting in consciousness. But then one talks about what's seen. Why did K talk for over 50 years?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 26 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #60
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
in seeing there's no understanding but just seeing

yes...

Tom Paine wrote:
Understanding the falseness of an ideal doesn’t involve thought at all as I see it

i understand what you say Tom but as i see it, yes, understanding involves thought's mechanism (i don't say 'self')... seeing is ( as Clive said) a "light" which "make appear" things which weren't not seen before just that..., after with memory and thought the "things" which are seen then, composes a base for understanding, and that for all the fields it seems...

maybe i'm wrong...

natarajan shivan wrote:
two statements, one is that 'the observer is the observed' and the other that 'there is no separate observer apart from observation'

those two statements sustains an observer... there is no observer in seeing

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