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

"Selfying the whole"


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 126 in total
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #61
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:
Why did K talk for over 50 years?

Very easy, Tom ... K talked for over 50 years for us TO see, NOT TO understand!
Do you see the difference?

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 #62
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Why did K talk for over 50 years?

K as other "teachers" try to explain what he seen and he was forced to used expedient...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #63
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 86 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
those two statements sustains an observer...

No, it does away with the observer in the ground of reality, not in empty speculations.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #64
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
Very easy, Tom ... K talked for over 50 for us TO see, NOT TO understand!

To see/understand violence and end it. There's no end to violence without understanding, right?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #65
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
, it does away with the observer in the ground of reality, not in empty speculations.

Oh sorry natarajan, it seems that you agree the fact that there is no observer.

All is fine..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #66
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
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.

But the insight into what is seen is instantaneous. Will have to return to this later. Got to head out to work soon.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #67
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 86 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
it seems that you agree the fact that there is no observer.

No, I don't, so long as observation does not reveal the observer, there indeed is an observer; doubtlessly so. Richard, you need to stop interpreting K with the Buddhist template.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #68
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:
There's no end to violence without understanding, right?

I'm afraid that understanding violence does not end violence ...
Could you tell me please, who is understanding violence?

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #69
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1393 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
who is understanding violence?

It would have to be the 'brain/mind' revealing itself to itself as K. put it I think. Otherwise the 'duality' continues and the possibility for conflict and violence?

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #70
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:
To see/understand violence and end it.

Look carefully at this words and tell me what this "and" between "see/understand violence" and "end it", really implies ... You seem to join the two words (see/understanding) together as if they where the same thing, but they are not ... One has the implication this "and" implies in that statement, while the other not.

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #71
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
Otherwise the 'duality' continues and the possibility for conflict and violence?

Yes, that's what i mean.

Dan McDermott wrote:
It would have to be the 'brain/mind' revealing itself to itself as K. put it I think.

Let's say that it is so ... Then the question is: when 'brain/mind' reveals itself to itself is there understanding, or understanding have nothing to do with that revelation? ... What would you say?

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 #72
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1393 posts in this forum Offline

And perhaps this is applicable somehow to the conversation...our lives are based on 'belief', that the sun will 'rise', tomorrow, (that 'I' will rise tomorrow!), that the world will continue, etc. all based on the belief that will be a continuity of existence allowing us to plan for the future. The other animals don't seem to have this belief system, the squirrel starts burying nuts at a certain time because it 'seems' the right thing to do. (instinct). So do we question all 'belief' or just the ones that have shown themselves to be 'destructive'?

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #73
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
So do we question all 'belief' or just the ones that have shown themselves to be 'destructive'?

This is a very interesting question, because to me questioning just the ones that have shown themselves to be 'destructive', may be the cause for more conflict ... Because those that may appear as 'destructive' to you, may not be so for me (a Christian does not consider his believing destructive, for example, while K does) ... Which simply means that in fact we are not questioning "belief" but just opinions.

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 #74
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1393 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
if when 'brain/mind' reveals itself to itself there's understanding, or understanding have nothing to do with that revelation?

I would speculate that if the brain/mind 'saw'/'understood' that the 'direction' it was going was based on its 'search'(need) for psychological security as well as continuity, and in the seeing/understanding that its search was based on a 'mis-understanding', it would no longer continue in that 'direction'.( As in the example of the mirage of the oasis.)

So for me the words 'seeing' and true 'understanding' (as in standing under) are interchangeable. I agree with your word "interpret" as being thought's input as in the case of 'condemnation', 'justification' etc.

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #75
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1393 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
Which simply means that in fact we are not questioning "belief" but just opinions.

The quick answer that comes up is that we can't function if we didn't believe that there will be a tomorrow or all the other beliefs that we have in a 'future'...what is important is being 'attached' to the idea of tomorrow. Not seeing the life/death in each moment. Psychological attachment.

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #76
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
I would speculate

Yes, we are speculating (hope nobody will jump over us for doing that! :-)

Dan McDermott wrote:
that if the brain/mind 'saw'/'understood' that the 'direction' it was going was based on its 'search'(need) for psychological security as well as continuity, and in the seeing/understanding that its search was based on a 'mis-understanding', it would no longer continue in that 'direction'.

I understand what you mean ... But i would like to go a little bit further with our speculation, in that seeing does the brain/mind understands that it was going in a wrong 'direction', or it simply sees the right direction and goes along without any need to understand it was going in the wrong 'direction' and therefore "take the decision" of no longer continue in that 'direction'? ...

Do you get what i mean?
Simply put, the question would be: is there time (understanding implying time) in that seeing or not?
What's your speculation about it?

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #77
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1393 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
does the brain/mind understands that it was going in a wrong 'direction', or it simply sees the right direction and goes along without any need to understand it was going in the wrong 'direction' and therefore "take the decision" of no longer continue in that 'direction'? ...

If a donkey that is day after day toiling away, going in circles, buoyed on by the prospect that today will be the day that that he will 'catch up' and eat that delicious looking carrot dangling in front of his nose...if he were to see/understand the impossibility of such a thing happening, because he sees/understands the way the situation is 'structured', would he continue to chase it, or would he just stop?

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #78
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
Richard, you need to stop interpreting K with the Buddhist template

well Natarajan, you seems to cling on this... i could try to convince you of the contrary, but i realize that here is not the problem... where is it really Natarajan?

if you want, look just at what i say and see if what i'm saying has no sense ok... look if you want without:

natarajan shivan wrote:
K

or B or etc... and if you are not agree, no problem Natarajan... i will not consider your view as an empty speculation...

regards

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #79
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
would he continue to chase it, or would he just stop?

I think that if he actually sees it, he will stop and forget the carrot ... But if he understands it, he may start thinking that in doing something else perhaps it will end catching up that delicious looking carrot ... Do you get what I mean?

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #80
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

natarajan shivan wrote:
so long as observation does not reveal the observer, there indeed is an observer;

No, there is only a (strong) believing that the observer actually exists ... But there's no observer no matter if observation reveals it or not ... An observer divided from the thing observed is an illusion no matter if it is seen or not.

natarajan shivan wrote:
Richard, you need to stop interpreting K with the Buddhist template.

May i ask what makes you think that Richard is doing so?

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #81
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
Paine wrote:

There's no end to violence without understanding, right?
I'm afraid that understanding violence does not end violence ...
Could you tell me please, who is understanding violence?

Let's see ...

Insight...intelligence....no who involved.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #82
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:
Insight...intelligence....no who involved.

Therefore there being no-who involved, understanding is impossible ...
... only the unending movement of seeing where there's no-who who sees.

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 #83
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Insight...intelligence....no who involved.
Therefore there being no-who involved, understanding is impossible ...
... only the unending movement of seeing where there's no-who who sees.

Man is violent, confused, angry, selfish, greedy, lonely. Are you saying one sees all this in oneself without understanding? Or can man understand...have insight into... the cause of his misery and violence?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #84
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 86 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
An observer divided from the thing observed is an illusion no matter if it is seen or not.

No, it isn't an illusion, the objective reality is non-negotiable.

Juan E. wrote:
May i ask what makes you think that Richard is doing so?

The pattern of thinking is too easy to be seen through, no pretenses please.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #85
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 86 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
understanding is impossible ...

No

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #86
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
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).

I think you are misunderstanding me, Juan, and perhaps Richard is also.

I am not implying the existence of some separate entity, analyser, who decides what is false and what is not false. I am suggesting that it is the seeing itself that ...well, sees, discerns the falseness. This is contained in the act of seeing. Otherwise what does inward seeing mean? It is one unitary process – the seeing, the discernment of the false, and the falling away of the false.

And in no way is the self involved in this process.

So it seems to me we are describing the same process – except that you and Richard are reluctant to use the word “false”. I am using the word in the sense “not true”, not actual”, illusory.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #87
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
but as i see it, yes, understanding involves thought's mechanism

Once again, I think it is just a matter of words and their meaning. One could use the word "Understanding" as something thought puts together, or use it more in the sense of "insight"

richard viillar wrote:
maybe i'm wrong...

There is a saying in English:

six of one and half a dozen of the other

:-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #88
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
Then the question is: when 'brain/mind' reveals itself to itself is there understanding, or understanding have nothing to do with that revelation? ... What would you say?

If I may comment, the revealing IS the understanding. There is no separation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #89
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It is one unitary process – the seeing, the discernment of the false, and the falling away of the false.

You put it succinctly....thanks. Seeing/understanding....one process which ends the false.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #90
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

natarajan shivan wrote:
No, it isn't an illusion, the objective reality is non-negotiable.

Could you please explain what do you mean by "objective reality"?

natarajan shivan wrote:
The pattern of thinking is too easy to be seen through, no pretenses please.

How can you know? ... Just because he uses certain language to express himself?

Would you say also that when K says "The cup is not only the shape, the colour, the design but also that emptiness inside the cup. The cup is the emptiness held within a form; without that emptiness there would be no cup nor form." (which resembles too much to what Buddha said that "emptiness is form, form is emptiness") he is interpreting reality with Buddhist template?

Let's see ...

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 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.)