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

"Selfying the whole"


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 126 in total
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #91
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

natarajan shivan wrote:

Juan E. wrote:

understanding is impossible ...

No

Then please tell us, who understands?

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #92
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
'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...

i don't think so.

richard viillar wrote:
there is no observer in seeing
those two statements sustains an observer...

natarajan shivan wrote:
No, it does away with the observer in the ground of reality

then in seeing there is no observer.

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

...

natarajan shivan wrote:
No, I don't

? you lost me...

This post was last updated by richard viillar Wed, 26 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #93
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am not implying the existence of some separate entity, analyser, who decides what is false and what is not false.

Also not Richard nor I are we talking about that

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am suggesting that it is the seeing itself that ...well, sees, discerns the falseness.

What we are saying is simply that there's neither falseness nor truthfulness in seeing, but only seeing ... Despite that, if the one who sees wants to convey that to another who inhabits in the field of thought and concepts will have to use words to convey it ... But this doesn't necessarily mean that the words talk about existing things ... And this is the main problem we have to actually see what they are pointing out ... Because we convert that which doesn't exist into something existent ... In other words, despite we have listen many times K saying that the word is not the thing, we have made the word be the thing.

"“Arising,” “enduring,” and “disintegrating;”
“existing” and “non-existing;”
“inferior,” “middling,” and “superior” do not have true existence.
These terms are used by the Buddha in accordance with worldy conventions.


Nagarjuna - Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness.

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #94
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
One could use the word "Understanding" as something thought puts together, or use it more in the sense of "insight"

ok, then... have the words insight and seeing the same sense?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #95
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
despite we have listen many times K saying that the word is not the thing, we have made the word be the thing.

yes and the process (the selfying) which is behind the word (beeing/becoming the thing) is this which need to be seen...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 #96
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

richard viillar wrote:
yes and the process (the selfying) which is behind the word (beeing/becoming the thing) is this which need to be seen...

... without understanding it - if you let me add this to your statement.

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #97
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
without understanding it

yes, in seeing there just seeing, that is all what i can say as i see...

however, is it possible that seeing doesn't generate understanding?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #98
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2499 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
natarajan shivan wrote:
Juan E. wrote:
understanding is impossible ...

Nat.: No

Juan: Then please tell us, who understands?

Tom: I don't know if this excerpt will help clarify or not. There seems to be some confusion about how seeing is related to understanding. Here's K:

"Only right meditation can bring about right understanding. It is essential for the meditator to understand himself, not the objects of his meditation, for the meditator and his meditation are one, not separate. Without understanding oneself meditation becomes a process of self-hypnosis inducing experiences according to one's conditioning, one's belief. The dreamer must understand himself, not his dreams; he must awaken and put an end to them." 10th public talk 1945

"Action born out of some superficial reaction inevitably makes the mind shallow and limited. Take jealousy. By dealing superficially with it we hope to end it, be free of it. We try to control, sublimate or forget it. This action is only dealing with a superficial symptom, without understanding the fundamental cause from which the reaction of jealousy is born. The cause is possessiveness. Action born of a reaction, of a symptom, without understanding the cause, must lead to greater conflict and suffering." July 1935, 3rd public talk.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 27 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #99
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 84 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
Could you please explain what do you mean by "objective reality"?

That which exists independent of our subjective notions about it.

Juan E. wrote:
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?

It is a coincidence, K has got nothing to do with Buddhism.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #100
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 84 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
Then please tell us, who understands?

The whole human being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #101
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
It is a coincidence, K has got nothing to do with Buddhism

Hello Natarajan,

That is not what Juan is talking about. He mean That even the strong ressemblence whith buddha's teaching (not buddhist's teaching), K didn't try to explain what he saw with buddha's template...

natarajan shivan wrote:
It is a coincidence,

A strange coïncidence... i was thinking this morning reading what Juan put, if is there something which K talk about which buddha doesn't talked about..? But that has no importance...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #102
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 84 posts in this forum Offline

Juan/Richard,

As I see, the views entertained by Madhyamika school (Sunyavada) of Nagarjuna, which denies substance to external reality outside us is not something which K agreed to. Similarities in ideas could be drawn and comparisons made, but essentially they diverge at very important points of understanding and recognizing the reality of external world. I prefer to quit this discussion and you people may carry on.

This post was last updated by natarajan shivan Thu, 27 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #103
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

richard viillar wrote:
however, is it possible that seeing doesn't generate understanding?

Of course! ... But this understanding is only necessary for the thinker, which appears again when the seeing has gone ... In other words: in seeing there is no self, and therefore understanding is not necessary at all ... It is the moment after, when the thinker appears again, that the seeing is transformed in understanding and therefore in "dead" knowledge ... Someone that is able to remain constantly in a state of seeing does not understand a thing, he or she simply moves with the seen without a gap for thought to enter and therefore no space for understanding ...

Because we are not able to remain in a state of constant seeing is that the self transforms the seeing into understanding thinking that this will help itself to see further next time ... But it doesn't know that seeing has nothing to do with itself ... Therefore, that understanding of the self is what has created all the chaos in this world, thinking that it has seen ("I understand, therefore i've seen") when in fact it cannot see anything, much less through that supposed understanding that appears when seeing is not.

So, if you let me i will say that the understanding of what K says IS NOT the same as to see what K is saying ... Mainly because in seeing what K, or Buddha, or anyone else says there's neither a speaker nor a listener, and therefore also not understanding but just a living seeing.

I know, difficult to see for a self who thinks that it understands the teaching and equates that understanding to the seeing of what the teaching is saying ... not being aware that when one understands, the seeing is no longer there.

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Thu, 27 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #104
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

natarajan shivan wrote:
It is a coincidence, K has got nothing to do with Buddhism.

How wonderful!! ... Then, according to you, when K uses a language similar to that used by Buddha it is a coincidence, but when Richard uses the same language he is interpreting with the Buddhist template ... C'mon Natarajan, you are not serious at all!

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #105
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2499 posts in this forum Offline

That's a big word salad, Juan! Perhaps you or someone else could say it in simple terms, so the average man on the street, who is interested in learning about himself and the suffering he lives with, might understand your point. He wants to free himself from suffering. How will your post help him...or not?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #106
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

natarajan shivan wrote:

Juan E. wrote:

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

That which exists independent of our subjective notions about it.

Could you please put an actual example of anything that exists independently of our subjective notions about it?

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #107
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

natarajan shivan wrote:
As I see, the views entertained by Madhyamika school (Sunyavada) of Nagarjuna, which denies substance to external reality outside us is not something which K agreed to.

I think this is not exactly true, Natarajan ... What would you say of that?

K: That's it, that's it. But, Pupulji, especially in the Indian tradition, from the Buddha to Nagarjuna, and the ancient Hindus, have said there is that state of nothingness, which, they said, you must deny the whole thing. Nagarjuna says, he came to that point, as far as I understand, I may be mistaken, what I have been told, that he denied everything, every movement of the psyche.

PJ: Every movement of the brain cell as becoming.

K: Yes. It is there in the books, or it is there in tradition. Why haven't they pursued that? Even the most intelligent of them, even the most religious devotee, not to some structure, but to the feeling of the divine, the sense of something sacred, why haven't they pursued denying, not the world -- you can't deny the world, they have denied the world, and made a mess of their own lives -- but the total negation of the 'me'.


Krishnamurti - Brockwood Park 2nd Conversation with Pupul Jayakar, 25th June 1983.

I can't see any disagreement between K and Nagarjuna, can you?

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Thu, 27 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #108
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:
Perhaps you or someone else could say it in simple terms, so the average man on the street, who is interested in learning about himself and the suffering he lives with, might understand your point.

This is fairly simple, Tom ...
... Just tell him or her "Do not try to understand, just look at it and see".

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Thu, 27 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #109
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1199 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
K: Why haven't they pursued that? Even the most intelligent of them, even the most religious devotee, not to some structure, but to the feeling of the divine, the sense of something sacred, why haven't they pursued denying, not the world -- you can't deny the world, they have denied the world, and made a mess of their own lives -- but the total negation of the 'me'.

Because they 'missed' it.? It wasn't 'understood' that total negation of the 'me' is the 'sacred', is the 'divine'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 27 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #110
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
Because they 'missed' it.?

Because WE 'missed' it, you mean? ... It is obvious that K is not talking about Buddha or Nagarjuna, but about those who listened to them as well as to K himself too.

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Thu, 27 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 #111
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1199 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K: Why haven't they pursued that?

Because they 'missed' it.? It wasn't 'understood' that total negation of the 'me' is the 'sacred', is the 'divine'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 #112
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It wasn't 'understood' that total negation of the 'me' is the 'sacred', is the 'divine'?

Nagarjuna made an intellectual system named "tetralema" which refuted all possibility to selfying, not only y the Me but the selfying process... a way, a strong tool for the calm of the mental and then.. to the seeing.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Because they 'missed' it.?

Yes...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 #113
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2499 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
This is fairly simple, Tom ...
... Just tell him or her "Do not try to understand, just look at it and see".

Of course when we make an effort to understand, the intellect immediately takes over. But you are saying that the average man on the street can put aside the intellect and it's conditioning and just look at his fear, his alcohol craving, his violent temper or chronic depression and 'see'? Are you actually saying this is simple? That he/me/you can simply put aside a lifetime of conditioning....what Nat. was calling the 'observer', if I understood him correctly....and look at himself free of said observer/conditioning/bias? What K said is arduous you are saying is simple? Simple to say, of course, but not so simple to do. K said it's a bit like trying to lift oneself by one's bootstraps.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 28 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 #114
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1199 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Are you actually saying this is simple? That he/me/you can simply put aside a lifetime of conditioning....what Nat. was calling the 'observer', if I understood him correctly....and look at himself free of said observer/conditioning/bias? What K said is arduous you are saying is simple? Simple to say, of course, but not so simple to do. K said it's a bit like trying to lift oneself by one's bootstraps.

You're right Tom. Words are easy. We're talking 'miracles' here...as one of the posters from India said: "Baba said..."keep the doors and the windows open"."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 28 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 #115
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2499 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
We're talking 'miracles' here...

It seems so since this 'seeing' is something I cannot do through my own efforts. It seems that any and all effort by me prevents seeing/understanding myself as I am. I use the words seeing/understanding interchangeably, though I know richard and Juan disagree here.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 28 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 #116
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4957 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It seems so since this 'seeing' is something I cannot do through my own efforts. It seems that any and all effort by me prevents seeing/understanding myself as I am.

But Tom, What you say here IS seeing is it not? Seeing of the highest order.

If what you say is seen (I am not commenting on whether you see it or not, I wouldn't know) then all effort ceases, does it not? And this represents a fundamental change.

As for communicating with the 'average man on the street', did not K see that as impossible? “He just wants the pub”, he says to Bohm in The Ending of Time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 #117
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 84 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
What would you say of that?

The agreement is limited to the aspect of negating the 'me/I' which is the movement as the psychological. Nagarjuna, extends it to the denial of external reality which for sure K is not in accordance with. K would have a dialogue with the Buddhist's but I doubt he will ever be in agreement with them beyond the aspect of negation of me/I.

This post was last updated by natarajan shivan Fri, 28 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 #118
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
Nagarjuna, extends it to the denial of external reality

That is not the teaching of Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna show, through his method, that it is impossible to define the ultimate nature of reality inner or outer.

Many buddhists missed what Buddha said... as many Krishnamurtians miss what k said...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 #119
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 84 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
That is not the teaching of Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna show, through his method, that it is impossible to define the ultimate nature of reality inner or outer.

Richard, Nagarjuna and his version of Buddhism was to a large degree wiped out from the country of it's origin through fair process of dialogue. I suggest you don't mix K with Buddhism and confuse people here.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 #120
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I use the words seeing/understanding interchangeably, though I know richard and Juan disagree here.

No problem Tom... ;-)

To understand what k said is not easy... when we talk about it it seems very simple and and sometimes, i have the feeling that there is a lot of Krishnamurti!! ;-) i'm joking...

Here i Just tryed to say that in seeing there is just seeing..

but again, maybe i'm wrong.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 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.)