Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

richard viillar's Forum Activity | 265 posts in 3 forums


Forum: A Quiet Space Sat, 08 Oct 2016
Topic: the main thread is suffering...

hi all!! just back a litle...

the main thread is suffering...

richard villlar wrote: the daily life is the best support to inquiry

Tom paine in another thread wrote: the unconscious is directing the inquiry

here is an important point i think... maybe that, to inquire, is not a real inquiry, in the sense that, if it is the unconcious (the suffering) which generate the inquiry, the inquiry seems to be "selfied"... but when, in meditation for exemple, after "receiving impultion" of suffering (ME conscious or unconscous) there is seeing...

is the seeing an inquiry?

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 09 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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?

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 09 Oct 2016
Topic: the main thread is suffering...

hola Juan gracias... !

Juan E. wrote: which not depends on the will.

so if there is no will, is it an inquiry..?

Juan E. wrote: How is Paul D.?

Dan seems to be fine on the last news i had from him... :-)

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 10 Oct 2016
Topic: the main thread is suffering...

Juan E. wrote: salutations en mon nom la prochaine fois que vous parlez avec lui :-)

OK Juan avec plaisir...

Juan E. wrote: Why not? ... According to Merriam-Webster dictionary

Yes yes i know, but... i have the féeling as i see it, that the inquiry is more an approach/ initiative and the seeing is a conséquence... you see what i mean Juan?

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 11 Oct 2016
Topic: the main thread is suffering...

What i try to say here is that the two (seeing and initiative) are not incompatible.

When i decide to sit to observe the movement of thought, it is an initiative but i know that, in méditation, there is à state which there is no will. Then i can do that even if there is a method in the sitting, the immobilty of body, the préservation of the movement of eyes and so on.

A lot of People doesn't do that because they think or believe that initiative is an obstacle in méditation....

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 16 Oct 2016
Topic: Can conflict end? And if it is so, why are we not able to end it?

Maybe that the cause to trying to resolve problem, is a trying to escape to suffering... People Who let suffering be are rare... People are trying to escape suffering in daily life all the time because We think or believe that suffering is a problem to resolve.. but suffering is not a problem...it is a manifestation, a way, an opportunity to see the cause... and we try to end it, the manifestation which can lead to the cause...

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 17 Oct 2016
Topic: Can conflict end? And if it is so, why are we not able to end it?

Juan E. wrote: after centuries of conflict, still follows the same pattern

yes! after centuries of conflict, still follows to trying to escape to suffering, thinking/believing that suffering is the problem but suffering is not the problem, and that confusion still after centuries. if human see realy what is suffering, he stop to try to resolve problem...

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 18 Oct 2016
Topic: Can conflict end? And if it is so, why are we not able to end it?

Clive Elwell wrote: What is your take on this Richard?

Yes that's it... how suffering leads to freedom? How it is possible? Is a lot of People ask that...? Dan say that he sees suffering as a catalyst...

As i see the phenomenon, suffering canalize brain to present, the here and now and then a state where there is seeing, awareness... but human doesn't do that... he want to escape to suffering, it's the sense of his life to don't feel suffering... but suffering is not the problem... on the contrary.

strange isn't it. ..?

Forum: A Quiet Space Fri, 21 Oct 2016
Topic: The burning question is: Can image formation end?

Clive Elwell wrote: images created by thought.

Clive Elwell wrote: can image forming end?

Hi clive, Dan, all

As i see it, and as i said in another thread, thought Just redistribute the image which is before created by brain process and which is memorised.. the images redistribuated by thought are the second layer of retranscription.

Is it possible that images formation end? I dont think so.. is it possible to be aware of the fact that images formation is a translation? Yes.

Forum: A Quiet Space Sat, 22 Oct 2016
Topic: The burning question is: Can image formation end?

Clive Elwell wrote: what is the difference between the 'brain process' and thought... can you explain your “image formation is a translation”, Richard?

hi Clive,

ok..

for exemple, The eye, takes in the physical stimuli of light rays and transduces them into electrical and chemical signals that can be translated by the brain to construct physical (cells movement) images. here there is no thought.

this translation (image) which is not a thought, is memorised and then can be used by brain through stimulation of memory which expulse a thought (a photocopy of the first brain translation memorised)

Clive Elwell wrote: why do you think that this image formation process cannot end?

because it is a vital necessity to live... the process of formation image is not the problem as i see it... but the non awareness of the fact that translation is just a translation..

Forum: A Quiet Space Sat, 22 Oct 2016
Topic: The burning question is: Can image formation end?

Clive Elwell wrote: As long as the process is at work, there will be images.

yes...

Clive Elwell wrote: As images separate, there will be conflict in relationship.

as long as it shall not be seen that this separation appearances are just a translation, there will be conflict

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 23 Oct 2016
Topic: The burning question is: Can image formation end?

Clive Elwell wrote: What to you is an image? Yes, that is a necessary question to look at in this thread.

Hi Clive,

By "process of image formation" i mean that:

richard viillar #8 wrote: for exemple, The eye, takes in the physical stimuli of light rays and transduces them into electrical and chemical signals that can be translated by the brain to construct physical (cells movement) images. here there is no thought.

this translation (image) which is not a thought, is memorised and then can be used by brain through stimulation of memory which expulse a thought (a photocopy of the first brain translation memorised)

But maybe you are talking just about the process of thought...

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 23 Oct 2016
Topic: The burning question is: Can image formation end?

Clive Elwell wrote: why should I form images while doing this?

i don't form images... images emerges et sont personnifiées...

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 23 Oct 2016
Topic: The burning question is: Can image formation end?

i don't form images... images emerges and are selfyied......

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 24 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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...

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 24 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 25 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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...

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 25 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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?

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 25 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 26 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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...

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 26 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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??? ;-)

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 26 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 26 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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...

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 26 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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..

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 26 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 26 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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...

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 26 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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?

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 26 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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...

Forum: A Quiet Space Thu, 27 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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?

Forum: A Quiet Space Thu, 27 Oct 2016
Topic: "Selfying the whole"

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...