Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 301 - 330 of 551 in total
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #301
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

So, the whole of consciousness is what we refer to as 'me'. This is a huge insight, isn't it?

Paul: It may be, if it is understood.

There's no understanding without insight, is there? If there is it's only an intellectual understanding. But I was talking of insight into the nature of consciousness with its seemingly separate fragments....and seeing the falseness(illusory nature?) of the fragmentation(observer separate from observed). This seeing must be from outside consciousness, since consciousness, being fragmented and divided and bound/limited by past experience, cannot see(anything new), but only perpetuate the fragmentation that is its nature...and only think that it's seeing/understanding.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 14 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #302
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
There's no understanding without insight, is there?

I don't know. You tell me.

Tom Paine wrote:
If there is it's only an intellectual understanding.

So you say, but is it so? You may notice what you have done in putting that argument. You have counterposed to possibilities while discounting any other.

You say there is either insight or intellect, only two options. I doubt it. You are putting a lot of hope on the one thing, which you are naming, 'insight.' Now I will ask you something: Is your understanding of all this intellectual or is it an insight you instantly came to?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #303
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 159 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But I was talking of insight into the nature of consciousness with its seemingly separate fragments....and seeing the falseness(illusory nature?) of the fragmentation(observer separate from observed). This seeing must be from outside consciousness, since consciousness, being fragmented and divided and bound/limited by past experience, cannot see(anything new), but only perpetuate the fragmentation that is its nature...and only think that it's seeing/understanding.

Tom:

I'd say, go with the 'insight'. What's the alternative?

When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 14 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #304
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
John, your abusive and unsolicited personal messages to me say everything there is to say about whether your brain has mutated or not.

Well, let's stick with the positives that have already come out of our two minute chat: (i) you accept the fact of brain mutation, and (ii) you (at least feel) that you know some things about the condition - ie. how a mutated brain might react or otherwise, etc..

How might this be worked into the question of whether 'we're actually mechanical', because it's a yes or no answer isn't it? But what is the status of mutation? Is it possible that a person might be 'mechanical' but then, on mutation, they become otherwise? Or might we negate K and say that the mutated brain is also 'mechanical'?

I will not pretend to have any type of discussion with you on this site or anyplace else.

Paul, please let's at least try to be honest, any pm's you have from me are historical. There aren't any later than mid March and only one in toto since you have been 'David son'. So it begs the question why you bothered to engage with me at all here if all you were going to do was close it down the moment you ran into difficulty(?).

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 14 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #305
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

maybe we could make a special thread called "Battle Arena" where all those who have lost their egos can lock horns :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpTcu_h1xuE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #306
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
the thoughts 'materialize' like clouds, which have a color and a shape, a form. Then they dissipate, disappear and then another appears...so when thoughts 'materialize', they are ...thoughts

I like this analogy with the clouds. The observer is also such a cloud conjured by thought within the mind. He thinks that he is permament, has a continuity, separates himself from thought and thinks about himself as "me" and "mine". This observer is a source of conflict, because he chooses, he resists, he wills, supresses, judges, condemns. His activities are self-centred and self-isolating, self-isolation creates loneliness and suffering. He is seeking fullfilment, but he can never be fulfilled for he is just an impermanent cloud. He clings, attaches, identifies himself to give himself a illusion of life. But when you have an insight that the observer is just a cloud, then you stop clinging to him. Then the observer dissolves like a cube of suger in a sea. And when the observer dissolves, there is no more conflict, no more resistance, no more struggle. And then the mind can empty itself of all clouds. And when the mind empties itself of all clouds, there is Sun. And this Sun is the sun of all suns. Freedom is the choiceless (because there is no chooser) observing of the forming and dissolution of clouds within the mind. There is no continuity, when the clouds die, there is renewal and new clouds.

"As all of us are a bundle of memories and are adding every day to that bundle more and more, what is the relationship of that bundle - which is the creator of problems - to the thing that it seeks, which is freedom? Because you must be free. That is absolutely essential; otherwise, you can never discover anything. And this freedom is not a reaction to bondage, it is not freedom from something. If it is freedom from something, then it is a reaction and therefore not freedom If I am free from pride and I know that I am free from pride, then it is not freedom from pride. Freedom is something that cannot be cultivated, that cannot be sought. It comes with an extraordinary vitality, with a fury, with an intensity, only when you begin to understand the whole psychological structure of yourself. So that is the issue."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #307
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
maybe we could make a special thread called "Battle Arena" where all those who have lost their egos can lock horns :-)

Why do you suggest, Jan, that anybody here might be purporting to have lost their ego? Paul certainly is not, quite the contrary, and neither am I.

Is it because you make the automatic assumption that a brain's mutation equates to that 'lost ego' condition? In other words that either an entity is as K (the Buddha etc.) or else they belong to the commonality, there being no in-between?

What grounds might there be for such an idea? If there were any substance to it what might be the status of people we think of as 'seers' and/or 'prophets' and the like?

K himself said, for example: "I assure you, when there is complete nakedness, utter hopelessness, then in that moment of vital insecurity there is born the flame of Supreme intelligence, the bliss of truth."

Would it be rational for us to assume that anybody finding themselves in the position K describes, is automatically the same as him? It would be absurd wouldn't it? But are we to suppose, contrariwise, that they belong to what we call the commonality?

I think that all too often in these K discussion forums, because of a lack of insight, there is the idea that a human being is either as it were 'finished', or else they are a none-starter. Personally I think it is a mistaken perspective which is quite a substantial obstacle to understanding.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 14 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #308
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I think that all too often in these K discussion forums, because of a lack of insight, there is the idea that a human being is either as it were 'finished', or else they are a none-starter

The problem is when two people clash. Each one has his own "truth" (set of assuptions, beliefs, experiences) and then they try to prove to the other, that their "truth" is better. The implicit motifs behind these fights are fights for dominance (just like the deer), fights for recognition by the others, fights for self-affirmation, self-verification. This is normal. The problem is when the fights, the attacks stop being about the topic but start being personal. Then it becomes nasty. Why do we have the urge to "win" arguments? That is the question that everyone of us should pose himself because everyone of us does it sometimes. It is irrational, there is no profit in it except our own self-affirmation.

There is the ego who is asserting itself. The ego constantly talks, talks, talks, asserts, claims, has opinions, owns "truths", but it does not know how to listen. Listen without interference, listen with empty soul. The ego makes constant noise, but real truth is in silence. Isn't the discovery of that silence the real reason why we are here?

"We do not listen. There are too many noises about us; inside us, there is too much talk, too much questioning, too much demanding, too many urges, compulsions. We have so many things and we never listen to any one of them completely, totally, to the very end. And if you would kindly so listen, you will see that, in spite of yourself, the mutation, that emptiness, that transformation, the perception of what is true, comes into being. You don't have to do a thing, because what you do will interfere, because you are greedy, you are envious, you are full of hate, ambition, and all the mischief that thought can make. So if you can listen happily, effortlessly, then perhaps in the quiet, deep, silence you will know what is truth. And it is only that truth that liberates, and nothing else."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #309
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
The problem is when two people clash. Each one has his own "truth" (set of assuptions, beliefs, experiences) and then they try to prove to the other, that their "truth" is better. The implicit motifs behind these fights are fights for dominance (just like the deer), fights for recognition by the others, fights for self-affirmation, self-verification. This is normal. The problem is when the fights, the attacks stop being about the topic but start being personal. Then it becomes nasty. Why do we have the urge to "win" arguments? That is the question that everyone of us should pose himself because everyone of us does it sometimes. It is irrational, there is no profit in it except our own self-affirmation.

How or where might the likes of K fit into this? How and where the lesser 'seers'/'prophets'? Wouldn't you say we should be wary of over-generalization? There has necessarily, after all, to be the mutated, or else the 'teachings' are invalidated.

There is the ego who is asserting itself. The ego constantly talks, talks, talks, asserts, claims, has opinions, owns "truths", but it does not know how to listen. Listen without interference, listen with empty soul. The ego makes constant noise, but real truth is in silence. Isn't the discovery of that silence the real reason why we are here?

I'm not sure, Jan. K talked and talked, and he did his fair share of asserting also. And he said, for example:

"See that the drive does not drop away. In freeing yourself from aggression, don't become innocuous and soft. To be free from aggression is not to become weak or humble."

You see, I think there is a tendency, as with religious types and their scriptures, to read selectively. In other words to concentrate only on what fits with what we think we already know. In so doing we skip over many sayings and elements of the 'teachings' that fail to suit the self affirming proclivity you refer to.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 14 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #310
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
In freeing yourself from aggression, don't become innocuous and soft. To be free from aggression is not to become weak or humble

I think this refers to exerting effort within the corridor of the opposites. The observer thinks that he is agressive, he therefore decides that he will make effort to be non-violent, peaceful. This is the process of choice based on recognition, choosing to avoid the one and choosing to pursuit the other. What K teaches is to perceive the whole structure of violence, agression and then letting it drop like a dead leaf from a tree. And that is different. In the first case, you are still violent, but are pursuing nonvionce as an ideal, in the second case, you dropped the whole "me" and there is neither violence nor nonviolence. Then there is freedom, which is not the opposite of anything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #311
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 41 posts in this forum Offline

We are at once all sentient beings, but you take yourselves to be persons. So you are in contention.

Each one is actually also the other. Actually the same one.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #312
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
I think this refers to exerting effort within the corridor of the opposites. The observer thinks that he is agressive, he therefore decides that he will make effort to be non-violent, peaceful. This is the process of choice based on recognition, choosing to avoid the one and choosing to pursuit the other. What K teaches is to perceive the whole structure of violence, aggression and then letting it drop like a dead leaf from a tree. And that is different. In the first case, you are still violent, but are pursuing nonvionce as an ideal, in the second case, you dropped the whole "me" and there is neither violence nor nonviolence. Then there is freedom, which is not the opposite of anything.

Well, it makes for a pleasant narrative, Jan, but I'm afraid I see too many holes in it for it to hold water for me.

To your first point I would say that I don't think K was inclined to speak cryptically. Rather he kept his language simple and his communications straight-forward.

Concerning your view of 'what K teaches', viz. that we should '...perceive the whole structure of violence, aggression and then let it drop...': in my view this would represent just more activity of the 'I'. How could it be, for example, that the 'I' might play any part in its own demise? 'I' cannot choose to 'drop the "me"'.

And what you finish with: "...and there is neither violence nor nonviolence. Then there is freedom, which is not the opposite of anything." seems to me to be quaint and mildly emotive conjecture. Something, basically, that perhaps you've heard and like the idea of? Why might not 'freedom' consist, for example, simply in a relaxation of the conditioning (the constraints) placed upon us by our common-or-garden socialization?

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 14 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #313
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
We are at once all sentient beings, but you take yourselves to be persons. So you are in contention.

Each one is actually also the other. Actually the same one.

But Peter, when somebody would make a statement to K and he would respond, "No, no, no!", does what you say here account for the difference?

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #314
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 41 posts in this forum Offline

Hello John,

Can you make your question more clear?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #315
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Hello John,

Can you make your question more clear?

Hi Peter.

Well, you say: "We are at once all sentient beings, but you take yourselves to be persons. So you are in contention."

I'm sure I know what you mean, but I don't see how seeing ourselves as other than persons might bridge the gap between what eg. K sees and what the individual making the statement sees (ie. that K responds 'No, no, no!' to).

Is that any clearer?

I know that you also say, "Each one is actually also the other. Actually the same one." But that isn't in any sense immediately apparent. Although I would concede that if I died and you ate me we would be.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #316
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Why might not 'freedom' consist, for example, simply in a relaxation of the conditioning (the constraints) placed upon us by our common-or-garden socialization?

then find out, do it. Understanding is born out of your own experience, your own struggle, of your own self-knowledge. For me, freedom is the death of the observer. It is like a candle flame that has been blown out. The flame being self-centered activity. Only in unselfing can freedom be found. If you unself yourself, you become nothing. And nothing has no resistance, struggle. It is free and then you discover Eternal Ecstasy

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #317
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
John Perkins. wrote:

Why might not 'freedom' consist, for example, simply in a relaxation of the conditioning (the constraints) placed upon us by our common-or-garden socialization?
then find out, do it

Hope you don't mind me jumping in here, but I have to ask John if the hippies back in Haight Ashbury in the 60's were free? They dropped out of society in some regards.....the women burned their bras, the men grew their hair long, didn't shave....believed in free love/sex. Do you think they were free of fear, of jealousy, of loneliness, greed, ambitions? You can't 'relax the conditioning' when it's you. It's what 'you' are, isn't it?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 14 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #318
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 11 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Is it because you make the automatic assumption that a brain's mutation equates to that 'lost ego' condition? In other words that either an entity is as K (the Buddha etc.) or else they belong to the commonality, there being no in-between?

What grounds might there be for such an idea? If there were any substance to it what might be the status of people we think of as 'seers' and/or 'prophets' and the like?

The very idea of there being in-between's is a result of mapping too much of what K spoke of to existential mode of progressive attainment. Not that there isn't such a thing, but that is automatically included in any given situation, i.e. the history is brought into the situation as past and memory of individual's whether we like it or not. To posit an authority, whether it is that of K or of Buddha in any given situation involving active dialogue has the immediate effect of blunting inquiry.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #319
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 41 posts in this forum Offline

John,

There may be many different approaches to the discovery of the same thing. We see this in mathematics and in physics. So also there may be more than one approach to what it is that K came upon. Also when there is a fundimental discovery there follows the exploration of all of the implications of that discovery. As i see it K discovered something tremendously significant and then spent the rest of his life opening up the implications of that discovery

Human brains are diverse. There are human beings that are savants and there are those with almost no abilities. Some people are inherently gentle and loving and there are those who aparently, perhaps from birth, lack the capacity for empathy. K wondered if he was a freak. Moreover K at the end of his life said in affect that no one really understood what he was saying. But as i see it he wasn't omniscent.

I feel, rightly or wrongly, that there is a possibility to come upon an essential part of what K was seeing from a completely different direction. We can try to come to this seeing and develope it together if you would like.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 14 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #320
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
then find out, do it. Understanding is born out of your own experience, your own struggle, of your own self-knowledge. For me, freedom is the death of the observer. It is like a candle flame that has been blown out. The flame being self-centered activity. Only in unselfing can freedom be found. If you unself yourself, you become nothing. And nothing has no resistance, struggle. It is free and then you discover Eternal Ecstasy

Thanks Jan. Very interesting. I appreciate and enjoy your input on the forum.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 14 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #321
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
The very idea of there being in-between's is a result of mapping too much of what K spoke of to existential mode of progressive attainment.

Yes I know it is problematical, Natarajan. But I would hold that the condition of 'seeing', though it itself is not a state that can be progressed to, nevertheless within itself it is a progressive state. In other words whilst the switch from unseeing to seeing ('blind' to Insighted) is instant, still greater and ever greater clarity manifests in due course. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12). (I hope you have no particular objection to a Biblical reference. Apologies if so).

Not that there isn't such a thing, but that is automatically included in any given situation, i.e. the history is brought into the situation as past and memory of individual's whether we like it or not. To posit an authority, whether it is that of K or of Buddha in any given situation involving active dialogue has the immediate effect of blunting inquiry.

OK. Point taken. Thank you.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #322
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
There may be many different approaches to the discovery of the same thing. We see this in mathematics and in physics. So also there may be more than one approach to what it is that K came upon.

I'm sure you're right about that, Peter. No two 'paths' are the same, but yet 'all roads lead to Rome'.

Also when there is a fundimental discovery there follows the exploration of all of the implications of that discovery. As i see it K discovered something tremendously significant and then spent the rest of his life opening up the implications of that discovery.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree.

Human brains are diverse. There are human beings that are savants and there are those with almost no abilities. Some people are inherently gentle and loving and there are those who aparently, perhaps from birth, lack the capacity for empathy. K wondered if he was a freak. Moreover K at the end of his life said in affect that no one really understood what he was saying.

When you've been banned from K-inquiry sites as often as I have, simply for saying what you see, you can empathize. :-)

But as i see it he wasn't omniscent. No indeed. We could roll K and the Buddha and Jesus and all the rest of them together into one and 'he' would still confess that no living thing sees absolutely. There is no such thing as an entirely unconditioned physical manifestation.

I feel, rightly or wrongly, that there is a possibility to come upon an essential part of what K was seeing from a completely different direction.

K said at one time, for example, that he saw no reason why a person shouldn't 'get there' (for want of a better term) 'laughing all the way'.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #323
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Hope you don't mind me jumping in here, but I have to ask John if the hippies back in Haight Ashbury in the 60's were free? They dropped out of society in some regards.....the women burned their bras, the men grew their hair long, didn't shave....believed in free love/sex. Do you think they were free of fear, of jealousy, of loneliness, greed, ambitions?

Hi Tom. No I don't, roundly. What I'd be inclined to say is that 'stepping away from - or out of - your/our conditioning' is not something a person can choose to do. Only seeing can do it (to any degree). And with seeing, I would say there is no choice in its doing, it's just done.

You can't 'relax the conditioning' when it's you. It's what 'you' are, isn't it?

Yes, I think we're seeing eye to eye, Tom. I think that what you say here is pretty much the same as what I've just said. Would you agree?

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 14 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #324
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
You can't 'relax the conditioning' when it's you. It's what 'you' are, isn't it?
Yes, I think we're seeing eye to eye, Tom. I think that what you say here is pretty much the same as what I've just said. Would you agree?

Yes, we're on the same page, I think, John. However the illusion that there's a part of me that can act upon the conditioning...or act upon another part/fragment....a part that's separate from 'me'....is a sticky one. Like the right arm trying to win a wrestling match against the left perhaps?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 14 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #325
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
What I'd be inclined to say is that 'stepping away from - or out of - your/our conditioning' is not something a person can choose to do. Only seeing can do it (to any degree). And with seeing, I would say there is no choice in its doing, it's just done.

No, you cannot step out of your conditioning, for who is the entity who would be stepping out? The entity (the me, the observer) is the conditioning. He thinks that he is not, that he is permanent, continuous, and he thinks that he is independent of the conditioning. But that is the biggest illusion, the source of all conflict. As John said, you cannot act upon the conditioning. You can realize the illusion and then you stop fighting the conditioning. And if there is choiceless observation of the conditioning (of the movement of thought as memory), then there is the possibility that the conditioning will clear out. That is the death of the known, of the mind. And in this death there is the creation of something new, a bliss.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #326
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
No, you cannot step out of your conditioning, for who is the entity who would be stepping out? The entity (the me, the observer) is the conditioning. He thinks that he is not, that he is permanent, continuous, and he thinks that he is independent of the conditioning. But that is the biggest illusion, the source of all conflict. As John said, you cannot act upon the conditioning.

Yes, I think we're agreed on this, Jan.

You can realize the illusion and then you stop fighting the conditioning.

Yes, 'seeing' occurs we might say.

And if there is choiceless observation of the conditioning (of the movement of thought as memory), then there is the possibility that the conditioning will clear out.

I would express it that the 'seeing' brings about choiceless change. Nothing can be done about it. When a matter is seen and understood, we cannot act in ways contrary to that comprehension. It works the same with any knowledge or understanding.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #327
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 41 posts in this forum Offline

Jan: "if there is choiceless observation of the conditioning (of the movement of thought as memory), then there is the possibility that the conditioning will clear out." 

John: "Yes, 'seeing' occurs we might say."......"the 'seeing' brings about choiceless change."

A question: What is it that observes? What is it that sees?

(Please, this is is just a question not a challenge)

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 15 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #328
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Intelligence...life seeing itself? But that intelligence is unknowable in the ordinary subject/object sense. It's known by being it....living it. It's not, however, something static. You can only know something that's static, I think. The known...knowledge is static....life is not. Just exploring here.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 15 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #329
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
What is it that observes? What is it that sees?

Mind, energy. Imagine the mind is a mirror. The observer is the past, is the field of the "known" composed of a bundle of memories, experiences, fears, cravings, self-identifications. This observer recognizes, condemns, justifies, accepts this, rejects that, asserts itself, affirms itself. He alwas acts from a center. This self-centered activity of the observer (who is past) stains the mirror. When the mirror is stained, it does not perceive purely but with distortion, through a screen of conditioning, through a screen of the self-centered activity. The observer perceives through the "known", through previous experience, through memory, through what is useful and harmful, through acquisitiveness, through longing for satisfaction, fulfilment.

Now when you wipe out the observer, the center of recognition, the "known", the mirror becomes clean, undestorted and it reflects truth. When the observer, the self-centered activity, is wiped out, it is like a candle flame that has been blown out. It is a state of pure silence, of pure emptiness, in which there is not a hair of resistance, of selfness. It is a state of extreme receptiveness, sensitivity, openess, vulnerability. There is just perception, without a single reaction. Perception is silence, in emptiness. There is no perceiver, no center which is just a bundle of memories.

So who or what perceives? It is the same energy, the same mind, that perceives through self-centredness. When the energy is self-centered, its perception is warped, limited, distorted. When the energy is freed from self-centeredness, its perception is pure. Because the mirror has been wiped out, it perceives what is. The state has to be experienced because it is hard to put into words, obviously.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #330
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
A question: What is it that observes? What is it that sees?

That's a hugely interesting question isn't it Peter.I think Tom is on to something at #328 above when he says: "You can only know something that's static, I think. The known...knowledge is static....life is not."

For a long time I have thought of man's general mode of inquiry as consisting in effectively taking a snap shot of a situation, and then a second one a bit further down the line, and perhaps a third or a series, and then by studying the stills we try to discern a direction and pattern belonging to the gaps. We invariable figure out some sort of a pattern and direction and then we think we have a reasonable idea of what is happening. Ie. we think we know something about the situation. But in fact when we take a 'snap shot' - a circumstance in which we stop life and remove its essential dynamism - then we have prevented any possibility of Perception (capitol P) of the thing itself, and hence any chance of real contact with the business we're inquiring into. We seem to have to 'kill' life in order to examine it. The entomologist is rarely content to observe his 'objects' just going about their daily business. He wants to pin them to a board and put them under a microscope. Only then does he feel he knows something about them. But of course they are dead. They are not the things he was initially interested in.

That seems a bit divorced from the question you put forward, Peter, but I'm not sure it is entirely. Perception (capitol P) is what sees, and what it sees is itself. Thus, we might say, 'the observer is the observed'.

I fear that might be a bit obscure. Perhaps we can go into it.

[edit: Sorry Jan you had posted your above while I was composing this.]

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 15 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 301 - 330 of 551 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.)