I don't have a clear view yet; it's mind boggling.

the superficiality of existence is thriving

This post was last updated by Monic Devi Wed, 17 Jun 2009.

Monic Devi wrote:

I don't have a clear view yet; it's mind boggling.

Is there anybody in this planet with a clear view :)

I will never fit this ugly world but I feel less and less bad for that

Is desire for a clear view a 'cloud' that blocks perception?

"K: Perception seeing itself perceiving - then it is not perception." J. Krishnamurti The Way of Intelligence Chapter 6 Part 4 Seminar Madras 31st December 1982

Nick Carter wrote:
(in another topic which has blocked replies) "I'm through with discussion but I don't know "how" it happened. It just finally dawned on me what a waste of time it is."

Is this another 'cloud' that blocks perception?

Is discussion the problematic waste of time, or is it "things that don't meet my needs" that we reject and, thus, form into our own little cloud?

"K: Perception seeing itself perceiving - then it is not perception." J. Krishnamurti The Way of Intelligence Chapter 6 Part 4 Seminar Madras 31st December 1982

It is not a waste of time nor is it problematic.

Discussion with the right person /group can be challenging when the information exchanged provides a different percepective.

the superficiality of existence is thriving

Trying to communicate with an idiot can be "challenging", but why bother? In my experience with discussion, each participant maintains and defends a position. So rarely does anyone admit to having his/her view of a matter expanded or cast in doubt, and so rarely does anyone challenge anything but my tolerance for gobbledeygook, K-speak, and gibberish, that I won't waste more than a few minutes engaging a discusser. End of discussion.

I wouldn't communicate with an idiot because that would be a waste of both our times.

the superficiality of existence is thriving

But what if it was a kind, gentle, sweet idiot that was being shunned by people who considered it a waste of time?

Real idiot is one who does not have independent judgement.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Monic Devi wrote:
I wouldn't communicate with an idiot because that would be a waste of both our times.

Why cut out any possibility for communication in advance? Might it be that it is easier to communicate on some levels with an idiot at ease with life, than with a sharp intellectual looking to dominate a discussion?

"K: Perception seeing itself perceiving - then it is not perception." J. Krishnamurti The Way of Intelligence Chapter 6 Part 4 Seminar Madras 31st December 1982

Is there anything more annoying than a fake idiot?

Keshni Sahni wrote:
Real idiot is one who does not have independent judgement.

Interesting comment. Is any "judgement" truly independent"?

"K: Perception seeing itself perceiving - then it is not perception." J. Krishnamurti The Way of Intelligence Chapter 6 Part 4 Seminar Madras 31st December 1982

gp garden wrote:
Why cut out any possibility for communication in advance? Might it be that it is easier to communicate on some levels with an idiot at ease with life, than with a sharp intellectual looking to dominate a discussion?

Perhaps it could be, I wouldn't know.
The verbiage, "idiot" is not part of my vocabulary, here it's used for communication purpose in keeping up with the prior posts.
Each individual is situated in their own time and space accordingy to their psychological evolution. In this arena, there is no right or wrong, good or bad. It is up to the individual to desire the change; discussions of any value take place when there is that desire. It is up to the individual to determine, without condemnation, the discussion is of no value.

the superficiality of existence is thriving

Monic Devi wrote:

I don't have a clear view yet; it's mind boggling.

As you watch anything?a tree, your wife, your children, your neighbour, the stars of a night, the light on the water, the bird in the sky, anything?there is always the observer?the censor, the thinker the experiencer, the seeker?and the thing he is observing; the observer and the observed; the thinker and the thought. So, there is always a division. It is this division that is time. That division is the very essence of conflict. And when there is conflict, there is contradiction. There is ?the observer and the observed??that is a contradiction; there is a separation. And hence where there is contradiction, there is conflict. And when there is conflict, there is always the urgency to get beyond it, to conquer it, to overcome it, to escape from it, to do something about it, and all that activity involves time.... As long as there is this division, time will go on, and time is sorrow?. J. Krishnamurti

the superficiality of existence is thriving

One has created an image "I" and the "Other".
The image separates, divides. interesting.

the superficiality of existence is thriving

"There is ?the observer and the observed??that is a contradiction; there is a separation. And hence where there is contradiction, there is conflict. And when there is conflict, there is always the urgency to get beyond it, to conquer it, to overcome it, to escape from it, to do something about it, and all that activity involves time.... As long as there is this division, time will go on, and time is sorrow?. J. Krishnamurti

Are we not taking the time to "do something about it" by yacking incessantly, discussing, blabbing on and on? Why not just live with it, quietly, attentively? Why not just observe the contradiction, the conflict one is?

gp garden wrote:
Keshni Sahni wrote:
Real idiot is one who does not have independent judgement.

Interesting comment. Is any "judgement" truly independent"?

There is no end to theoretical questions. But at a practical level, yes. There is such a thing as unbiased discretion.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Keshni Sahni wrote:

gp garden wrote:
Keshni Sahni wrote:
Real idiot is one who does not have independent judgement.

Interesting comment. Is any "judgement" truly independent"?

There is no end to theoretical questions. But at a practical level, yes. There is such a thing as unbiased discretion.

Is this discussion about the theoretical level, the practical level or the actual perceptual level at which self interest influences behavior?

"K: Perception seeing itself perceiving - then it is not perception." J. Krishnamurti The Way of Intelligence Chapter 6 Part 4 Seminar Madras 31st December 1982

This post was last updated by gp garden Fri, 19 Jun 2009.

To me it is wholesome view of the false as well as the true.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Keshni Sahni wrote:
To me it is wholesome view of the false as well as the true.

So, are you saying this is a discussion about "wholesome" view"? That sounds "theoretical" in the sense that we can not meaningfully discuss the whole using language flowing from the partial. We can certainly see the false, but that immediately implies the influence of the "not wholesome" is already operating. In other words, to see the false is to see the self and, therefore, insofar as an identity is made, the state of inattention.

"K: Perception seeing itself perceiving - then it is not perception." J. Krishnamurti The Way of Intelligence Chapter 6 Part 4 Seminar Madras 31st December 1982

This post was last updated by gp garden Fri, 19 Jun 2009.

nick carter wrote:
Are we not taking the time to "do something about it" by yacking incessantly, discussing, blabbing on and on? Why not just live with it, quietly, attentively? Why not just observe the contradiction, the conflict one is?

I recognize your frustration, however, "words" are necessary and the ultimate means of communication on online discussions.

the superficiality of existence is thriving

This topic is for discussion of "the observer and the observed" for which your objective feedback, thoughts are welcome.

For other subject matters, please visit the appropriate forum.

the superficiality of existence is thriving

Is "the observer is the observed"? Most here accept the statement as truth and only a few dare admit that this alleged truth, though explicable, isn't obvious. This leaves us with a lot of pontificators talking to each other, talking down to the credulous, and talking rubbish to the few honest people who are admittedly in the dark.

If it were obvious to me that the observer is the observed, I'd find some way to make it obvious to others that did not draw attention to me, The One Who Sees.

nick carter wrote:
"the observer is the observed"?

Is the observer always the observed in the sense that we are always aware of the influence of that observer? Though the observer might always be in the field of observation, always ready to react, does that mean inattention to the observer's reactionary direction is always noticed?

"K: Perception seeing itself perceiving - then it is not perception." J. Krishnamurti The Way of Intelligence Chapter 6 Part 4 Seminar Madras 31st December 1982

gp garden wrote:

nick carter wrote:
"the observer is the observed"?

Is the observer always the observed in the sense that we are always aware of the influence of that observer? Though the observer might always be in the field of observation, always ready to react, does that mean inattention to the observer's reactionary direction is always noticed?

You speak of the observer as if you were not it; as if you could be "aware of" or notice the observer's "reactionary direction", you being something else, something other than the observer.

nick carter wrote:
You speak of the observer as if you were not it; as if you could be "aware of" or notice the observer's "reactionary direction", you being something else, something other than the observer.

Nick, These are just questions asked about perception of anyone, including the writer. The intent was to address the nature of observation. Of course I am the observer, but looking at in the third person. And, why do you say "as if you could be aware of or notice the observers's reactionary direction"? Do humans not notice when they are angry, when they speak with a nasty tone, when they exploit another for their own advantage, when they are in psychological pain? Aren't these reactions all the observer and the observed?

"K: Perception seeing itself perceiving - then it is not perception." J. Krishnamurti The Way of Intelligence Chapter 6 Part 4 Seminar Madras 31st December 1982

gp garden wrote:
Do humans not notice when they are angry, when they speak with a nasty tone, when they exploit another for their own advantage, when they are in psychological pain? Aren't these reactions all the observer and the observed?

These are examples of what is commonly called "self-awareness", recognition of reaction or behavior in oneself that one does or does not approve of, the degree of discrepancy between what one is and what one should be.

nick carter wrote:
examples of what is commonly called "self-awareness",

And isn't the self in self-awareness the observer?

Yes, the self-awareness is the observer, therefore logically, the observer is the observed.
But the oneness of the two is not immediately apparent, not obvious. One does not perceive the absurdity of the situation, but can only admit that, yes, one is divided.

To actually see, with total clarity and immediacy that the division is imposed, imagined, is to see that the observer is the observed. Verbal, intellectual seeing, as in acknowledging the discrepancy, is not actual seeing.

nick carter wrote:
self-awareness is the observer

I was looking for a way to put it in words myself, but one could not have done it better. A very powerful statement!

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.