People are always talking about how they observe this and that. How this observation they talk about is the observation that K says is necessary in self discovery/understanding.
Well, I would only say, no. What we do is observe/analyze the memory of an event (anger, etc.). We see our mistakes and promise ourselves to do a better job next time. I just "learned" from my mistakes. Or not, as we continue to make them.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
People are always talking about how they observe this and that. How this observation they talk about is the observation that K says is necessary in self discovery/understanding. Well, I would only say, no. What we do is observe/analyze the memory of an event (anger, etc.). We see our mistakes and promise ourselves to do a better job next time. I just "learned" from my mistakes. Or not, as we continue to make them.

I have a tendency to observe through analysis as you have suggested, Randal. The problem this creates for me is that, when I analyze the past toward the purpose of improving the future, I am continually judging the past as "not good enough" and the future as "could be better." I spend so much of my time doing this (which inevitably bumps me out of the present) that, in those few instances where I actually AM spending a little time in the present, the judgmental habit automatically carries over ("not good enough" . . . "could be better").

Therefore, analyzing the past toward the purpose of improving the future continually hampers my ability to observe and appreciate the present, non-judgmentally, for what it is. For me, this is a HUGE problem. Does anybody else find this to be a problem as well?

Linda Thorlakson wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
People are always talking about how they observe this and that. How this observation they talk about is the observation that K says is necessary in self discovery/understanding. Well, I would only say, no. What we do is observe/analyze the memory of an event (anger, etc.). We see our mistakes and promise ourselves to do a better job next time. I just "learned" from my mistakes. Or not, as we continue to make them.

I have a tendency to observe through analysis as you have suggested, Randal. The problem this creates for me is that, when I analyze the past toward the purpose of improving the future, I am continually judging the past as "not good enough" and the future as "could be better." I spend so much of my time doing this (which inevitably bumps me out of the present) that, in those few instances where I actually AM spending a little time in the present, the judgmental habit automatically carries over ("not good enough" . . . "could be better").

Therefore, analyzing the past toward the purpose of improving the future continually hampers my ability to observe and appreciate the present, non-judgmentally, for what it is. For me, this is a HUGE problem. Does anybody else find this to be a problem as well?

Randal Shacklett wrote:
we believe ourselves to have a soul which will go beyond, at some point.

There is no soul Randal. It is mere wishful thinking.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Keshni Sahni wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
we believe ourselves to have a soul which will go beyond, at some point.

There is no soul Randal. It is mere wishful thinking.

Randal Shacklett wrote:

People are always talking about how they observe this and that. How this observation they talk about is the observation that K says is necessary in self discovery/understanding.
Well, I would only say, no. What we do is observe/analyze the memory of an event (anger, etc.). We see our mistakes and promise ourselves to do a better job next time. I just "learned" from my mistakes. Or not, as we continue to make them.

On the other hand the intense experience people seek with some sports, recreational activities, religion, fanatic causes, and drugs, there is a great deal of interest, desire, in bridging, fulfilling, the observation.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
This automatic(mechanical)judgmental observation is what we, as a species, have to navigate our environment. The problems come Linda, when we don't observe ourselves as that, but rather, we believe ourselves to have a soul which will go beyond, at some point.

I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying here, Randal. Are you saying that, through believing that it is possible to go beyond judgmental observation, we are creating an obstacle to observing ourselves as we are?

If this IS what you are saying . . . hmmm . . . interesting. If I believe that it IS possible to observe myself nonjudgmentally (which . . . while I've never been able to pull it off myself . . . I DO believe possible), then . . . even as I observe myself in relation to myself and others, I am judging how close this observation is to my ultimate goal of being a nonjudgmental observer. Thus creating yet another division between the observer and the one observing the observer. Thus creating another conflict between what I am and what I would rather be instead.

Hmmm . . . to take it one step further . . . if I believe that it IS possible for me to one day be a nonjudgmental observer . . . then I am searching for something which I already know exists and, therefore, making myself unavailable to the unknown.

So . . . my question is: "Is it possible for me to observe myself being judgmental without being judgemental about the observation itself????"

My answer is: "I don't know."

Hey . . . am I just dreaming here? Or did I actually discover my "don't know" mind??? COOL!!!

Linda Thorlakson wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
This automatic(mechanical)judgmental observation is what we, as a species, have to navigate our environment. The problems come Linda, when we don't observe ourselves as that, but rather, we believe ourselves to have a soul which will go beyond, at some point.

I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying here, Randal. Are you saying that, through believing that it is possible to go beyond judgmental observation, we are creating an obstacle to observing ourselves as we are?

If this IS what you are saying . . . hmmm . . . interesting. If I believe that it IS possible to observe myself nonjudgmentally (which . . . while I've never been able to pull it off myself . . . I DO believe possible), then . . . even as I observe myself in relation to myself and others, I am judging how close this observation is to my ultimate goal of being a nonjudgmental observer. Thus creating yet another division between the observer and the one observing the observer. Thus creating another conflict between what I am and what I would rather be instead.

Hmmm . . . to take it one step further . . . if I believe that it IS possible for me to one day be a nonjudgmental observer . . . then I am searching for something which I already know exists and, therefore, making myself unavailable to the unknown.

So . . . my question is: "Is it possible for me to observe myself being judgmental without being judgemental about the observation itself????"

My answer is: "I don't know."

Hey . . . am I just dreaming here? Or did I actually discover my "don't know" mind??? COOL!!!

Peter Stephens wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:

People are always talking about how they observe this and that. How this observation they talk about is the observation that K says is necessary in self discovery/understanding.
Well, I would only say, no. What we do is observe/analyze the memory of an event (anger, etc.). We see our mistakes and promise ourselves to do a better job next time. I just "learned" from my mistakes. Or not, as we continue to make them.

On the other hand the intense experience people seek with some sports, recreational activities, religion, fanatic causes, and drugs, there is a great deal of interest, desire, in bridging, fulfilling, the observation.

The observer is as much interested in mistakes of life as he/she is in exploiting life. The approach to life completely is what is questionable, not any part of it, success or mistake. It is as hard to completely question oneself as it is to totally question life.

Peter Stephens wrote:

The observer is as much interested in mistakes of life as he/she is in exploiting life. The approach to life completely is what is questionable, not any part of it, success or mistake. It is as hard to completely question oneself as it is to totally question life.

You are saying the observation to improve, to change, is not an observation at all, right? This is the fragmented condition. I am asking what brings someone to totally observe? I mean are we thinking of a technique to bring about complete observation? I don't have the ability to formulate an intelligent question. What do i do? This is just leading me up the garden path, isn't it?

Peter Stephens wrote:

You are saying the observation to improve, to change, is not an observation at all, right? This is the fragmented condition. I am asking what brings someone to totally observe? I mean are we thinking of a technique to bring about complete observation? I don't have the ability to formulate an intelligent question. What do i do? This is just leading me up the garden path, isn't it?

Randal Shacklett wrote:
What is "wrong" with me, that I desire to make "right"?

I can't help but observe that this is a MOST EXCELLENT question. One which I must remind myself to ask myself more frequently. Or, hmmmmm . . . maybe not. For, in reminding myself to ask it of myself more frequently . . . I am attempting to become someone other than who I am. So . . . maybe I'll just settle for making the observation that it IS a MOST EXCELLENT question (which is still a very judgemental observation . . . but . . . hey . . . if I'm gonna observe myself as I am . . . then the fact that I'm judgmental is part of that observation . . .and, if I'm judgmental in this very moment . . . well . . . it's neither right nor wrong . . . it's just one aspect of being me).

Linda Thorlakson wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
What is "wrong" with me, that I desire to make "right"?

I can't help but observe that this is a MOST EXCELLENT question. One which I must remind myself to ask myself more frequently. Or, hmmmmm . . . maybe not. For, in reminding myself to ask it of myself more frequently . . . I am attempting to become someone other than who I am. So . . . maybe I'll just settle for making the observation that it IS a MOST EXCELLENT question (which is still a very judgemental observation . . . but . . . hey . . . if I'm gonna observe myself as I am . . . then the fact that I'm judgmental is part of that observation . . .and, if I'm judgmental in this very moment . . . well . . . it's neither right nor wrong . . . it's just one aspect of being me).

Yes. it is a question that sounds intelligent. I think it gets at the point you began with, but do I understand this? That's because it is the sort of question I can ask and not see the intelligence in it. It is just as likely to be a prejudicial question. A question i take to mean i am not responsible. Essentially I am judgemental.

Randal, I've just joined. Tell me: the words "Enlightened being" appear in your profile: is this what you claim to be or is it simply part of your address description?
edward

There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we will

Randal Shacklett wrote:
So I convince myself that I am observing myself as I am, in the way Krishnamurti talks about, and I live happily/unhappily everafter. It's called delusion.

Yeah . . . I suppose the delusion is that there's an I (the observer) separate from the self being observed. This is a delusion I've yet to escape. Maybe there within lies the problem (trying to escape what is).

Well . . . at least I'm aware that I'm deluded . . . could be worse, I suppose.

Linda Thorlakson wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
So I convince myself that I am observing myself as I am, in the way Krishnamurti talks about, and I live happily/unhappily everafter. It's called delusion.

Yeah . . . I suppose the delusion is that there's an I (the observer) separate from the self being observed. This is a delusion I've yet to escape. Maybe there within lies the problem (trying to escape what is).

Well . . . at least I'm aware that I'm deluded . . . could be worse, I suppose.

So what happens when one is aware of ones delusion?

Life is relationship

Eve Goodmon wrote:

So what happens when one is aware of ones delusion?

Because you posed the question? Because this is a question and answer forum? Because you say you have delusions? We all have delusions, if we are a ware that they have no basis in actuality, I mean you really are aware that it is all image, do you hold on to it? not you as Randy but one any one?

Life is relationship

Eve, seriously, no really, I mean it, where does Mr. Krishnamurti ever discuss his "teaching" being a form of question and answer? If I am only satisfied with answers, my questions are not very intelligent, then are they?
If someone poses a thoughtful(intelligent) question, I might ponder it's implications and formulate my own (hopefully) intelligent question, as a response.

Satisfaction as an end is one thing and investigation is another. K gave planty of answers and questions. He set this format in order to create a dialouge where people can explore these issues verbaly till there is no more answers, the point being is in order to get to that point where there is no need for answers....one has to qestion everything including what K says....

Life is relationship

Eve Goodmon wrote:

Satisfaction as an end is one thing and investigation is another. K gave planty of answers and questions. He set this format in order to create a dialouge where people can explore these issues verbaly till there is no more answers, the point being is in order to get to that point where there is no need for answers....one has to qestion everything including what K says....

So why are you doing it? Why are you participating in this forum this is all it is, isn't it? An exchange of opinions and information right? So what is the point of communicating on this topic? If discussion can not lead to something more what is the point in any of it? Unless there is better show on tv?

Life is relationship

The old man would have said that dialogue is meaningful only when both of us are interested in the topic, with equal intensity.. and exploring together, sharing - not debating, merely exchanging opinions - but hesitantly, delicately probing together -

Part of the problem here, on these forums, is the multitasking..

When I am participating on too many threads at the same time... it is difficult to be attentive to what is implicit in the words and what in in between the words.

What is the drive to be everywhere? - chances of better visibility, popularity, ...it may be a very relevant forum topic..

It is inevitable to reach at such bitter junctions where dialogue dries up.. and debate ensues!

I Am Not This!

Manoj SachDeva wrote:
When I am participating on too many threads at the same time... it is difficult to be attentive to what is implicit in the words and what in in between the words.

Isn't this the core problem with human relationship for everyone, everywhere?

Eve Goodmon wrote:

So why are you doing it? Why are you participating in this forum this is all it is, isn't it? An exchange of opinions and information right? So what is the point of communicating on this topic? If discussion can not lead to something more what is the point in any of it? Unless there is better show on tv?