Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Observer/Observed


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 31 in total
Wed, 25 Jul 2012 #1
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Krishnamurti spoke well when he said that "the observer is the observed", but he didn't do a good job of explaining why. Maybe it's just as well - better to find out for yourself.

You know, if you've ever tried to shift attention between the observer and the observed, that it can't be done; that the separation between the observer and the observed is an illusion. But knowing this doesn't dispel the illusion because illusions are unavoidable side-effects of consciousness, and there's no getting away from them. All you can do is quit mistaking them for what they appear to be.

The illusion of separation between the observer and the observed is caused by the body of knowledge that constitutes the discrepancy between the past and the present. When this body of knowledge is slim and supple, it doesn't obstruct perspicacity or cause distortion. But when this body of knowledge swells up with religious nonsense, it blocks observation and causes distortion, which is compensated for with more baloney.

This post was last updated by lidlo lady (account deleted) Thu, 26 Jul 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Jul 2012 #2
Thumb_snapshot_20130606 john Campbell Canada 535 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
When this body of knowledge is slim and supple, it doesn't obstruct perspicacity or cause distortion. But when this body of knowledge swells up with religious nonsense, it blocks observation and causes distortion. This blockage and distortion is experienced as separation

? An example for perspicacitys'sake may help here,merci.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Jul 2012 #3
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

john Campbell wrote:
? An example for perspicacitys'sake may help here,merci.

K is the prime example, but the doctor is a good replica.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 #4
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
:

When this body of knowledge is slim and supple, it doesn't obstruct perspicacity or cause distortion. But when this body of knowledge swells up with religious nonsense, it blocks observation and causes distortion. This blockage and distortion is experienced as separation

All knowledge causes distortion unless seen.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 #5
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
The illusion of separation between the observer and the observed is caused by

Inattention and important factor is not knowing the nature and structure of the centre'me/I'.

lidlo lady wrote:
The illusion of separation between the observer and the observed is caused by the body of knowledge that constitutes the discrepancy between the past and the present.

This body of knowledge is going to stay even when the illusion ends. So, how can this be responsible?

lidlo lady wrote:
When this body of knowledge is slim and supple, it doesn't obstruct perspicacity or cause distortion.

This shows your lack of understanding of the actual relationship between knowledge and distortion/clarity. When knowledge is active, the clarity is always compromised.

lidlo lady wrote:
But when this body of knowledge swells up with religious nonsense,

Or its criticism...

lidlo lady wrote:
it blocks observation and causes distortion...

True.

lidlo lady wrote:
which is compensated for with more baloney.

The mirror is right there, but you wouldn't look in to it.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 #6
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
The mirror is right there, but you wouldn't look in to it.

Your mirror is so distorted you don't dare "look in to it".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 #7
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
Your mirror is so distorted you don't dare "look in to it".

Respond to some other part of the post also or all will notice that your easily provokable mind is immature and works at very superficial level.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 #8
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Actually, nothing you say is worthy of response, but since we're trading insults...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 #9
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
Actually, nothing you say is worthy of response,

Who is the lucky poster who is worthy of considerate response by you? Even K does not have your respect. In any case, you do not respond, but mostly react superficially and aggressively. By now, who is not familiar with the silly nature of the contents of your post here?

lidlo lady wrote:
but since we're trading insults...

And that being your hobby, you will see 'insults' in everything. Actually, I am trying to expose your superficiality in understanding the matters of mind and total ignorance of the matters of heart.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

This post was last updated by Sudhir Sharma Thu, 26 Jul 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 #10
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

You're too dishonest to admit what you're doing. You issue an insult as if it was a judgment from on high. Your self-righteousness has blinded you to what you are.

Shouldn't you be doing some doctoring, doctor?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 #11
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
You know, if you've ever tried to shift attention between the observer and the observed, that it can't be done; that the separation between the observer and the observed is an illusion.

This is all so theoretical, but that is what is expected from someone having superficial knowledge. The observer/observed duality comes in to existence only in inattention. So how is one going to try and shift attention in inattention?

Attention will always find either thoughts or emptiness inwardly.

But I may be wrong as the authority bigger than K is the initiator of this thread.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 #12
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
This is all so theoretical, but that is what is expected from someone having superficial knowledge. The observer/observed duality comes in to existence only in inattention. So how is one going to try and shift attention in inattention? Attention will always find either thoughts or emptiness inwardly. But I may be wrong as the authority bigger than K is the initiator of this thread.

Nurse: Well, that's it, doctor. I'll have to seek employment elsewhere. Your internet addiction has rendered you worthless as a physician.

Doctor Sharma: Nonsense, nurse! I've explained to you the vital importance of dialogue and how transformed brains like mine must engage in dialogue with those less fortunate so that they, too, can experience the depth of understanding and clarity of mind that I so brilliantly display!

Be patient, nurse. Soon our waiting room will be full of people seeking my wisdom and understanding and I'll be able to pay you a living wage, for a change.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Jul 2012 #13
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Inattention and important factor is not knowing the nature and structure of the centre'me/I'.

Your 'me' has a title, Sudhir. It calls itself 'doctor.' Please pay attention.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Aug 2012 #14
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1165 posts in this forum Offline

I am observing a laptop.

I am the observer. The laptop is the observed.

The observer is the observed.

Therefore I am a laptop.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2012 #15
Thumb_302953_290679690958348_100000489591998_1251845_275029325_n jorge felino Portugal 6 posts in this forum Offline

the observer is not a separate entity observing. the observer is the memory , knowledge interfering in observation. the observed is not something out there. it is memory, knowledge interfering in observation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2012 #16
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

jorge felino wrote:
the observer is not a separate entity observing. the observer is the memory , knowledge interfering in observation. the observed is not something out there. it is memory, knowledge interfering in observation.

I agree that this was K's point, Jorge. You have put it accurately.

When you observe, is it only memory that observes? Or, it is both memory AND the senses AND the living brain with its vast potential to detect the new as well as the old in any situation, the similar AND the dissimilar? I feel, for me, it is the latter.

Also, we are somehow back to the question of memory. Is the 'observer' as K calls it, memory per se OR (again in K's symbolic form) the summation of all past hurt and desire, crystalised in thought as 'the self?'

The memory seems to me to be the history, not only of hurt and desire but also of all interractions with the world. K sometimes alluded to this using the word 'friction.' But his use of the word 'friction' was pejorative. He did not seem to see friction as natural and inevitable.

The efficacy of friction is that it is the cause/effect principle upon which all memory and all mind is built. And K says that all this may be shed, given an insight into it. Then, it seems to me, this observation without an observer, would be a diembodied, metaphysical absolute. Embodiment means the grown-togetherness of a thing with everything that affected it in its entire history. To separate mind from its history IS disembodiment.

Jorge, you write that the observer 'interferes' with observation: That knowledge is distortion. I am saying that without the history of friction and the knowledge thus gained, there would be no observation.

It is the idea/thought that there can be 'observation without the observer' (Ie. without memory, thought, emotion or knowledge) that may be the greatest interference in observing the 'what is' of your own mind, what actually transpires and not what K says should or should not. And it is this experiential observation, rather than idealistic filtering, which takes place when we are at our most attentive.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Wed, 08 Aug 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2012 #17
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

jorge felino wrote:
the observer is not a separate entity observing. the observer is the memory , knowledge interfering in observation.

This is the delusion Krishnamurti suffered from and passed on to others, but it isn't necessarily a permanent condition. If you go into the possibility of observing without memory, you'll find that it's as possible as walking without feet or seeing without eyes or breathing without lungs. "Observation" is a word for what memory (along with the other senses) does.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2012 #18
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
or breathing without lungs

That's another anti-fish slur. I've had it up to the gills with this lungist prejudice.

Plus, bats get along using radar (not to mention T Lobsang Rampa's 'thrid eye'), birds have wings and K could levitate, walk through walls and be in three places at once. Your provincial logic leaves 'special powers' out of the equation, Ms. Lidlo.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Wed, 08 Aug 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2012 #19
Thumb_302953_290679690958348_100000489591998_1251845_275029325_n jorge felino Portugal 6 posts in this forum Offline

when there is observation without the observer, memory is there only when necessary, without any personal conotation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2012 #20
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

jorge felino wrote:
when there is observation without the observer, memory is there only when necessary, without any personal conotation.

I do not believe in disembodied observation, Jorge. No lo creo. I do not believe in non-personal memory. To assert such things in the way you do sounds like a recitation rather than an actuality, if you will permit me to observe, personally that is.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Wed, 08 Aug 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2012 #21
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

jorge felino wrote:
when there is observation without the observer, memory is there only when necessary, without any personal conotation.

Let's look closely at this statement, shall we?

Who says, "when there is observation without the observer..."?

He might as well be saying, this is what happens when no one is there to know what happened.

If being-able-to-know-what's-happening-without-being-there makes sense to you, explain it to me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2012 #22
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
If being-able-to-know-what's-happening-without-being-there makes sense to you, explain it to me

The reverse question to you is ," Why there be a need of 'Me' for the knowing or thinking to happen?"

This post was last updated by Ravi Seth Thu, 09 Aug 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2012 #23
Thumb_302953_290679690958348_100000489591998_1251845_275029325_n jorge felino Portugal 6 posts in this forum Offline

dont believe anything. the oserver is the observed, so, there is no observer. all that, happens inside a body-brain.no need of a who? for observation to be.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2012 #24
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
The reverse question to you is ," Why there be a need of 'Me' for the knowing or thinking to happen?"

We've been through this already. You're making me repeat myself. The "me", the "I", the self, the person, is an illusion created by the movement of thought. Get over it!.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2012 #25
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

jorge felino wrote:
dont believe anything. the oserver is the observed, so, there is no observer. all that, happens inside a body-brain.no need of a who? for observation to be.

Since you're a cat I won't comment on your grammar, but since you're a commentor, all I can say is that once you know "who", you have nothing to say.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2012 #26
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

jorge felino wrote:
the oserver is the observed, so, there is no observer. all that, happens inside a body-brain.no need of a who? for observation to be.

"Body-brain" is a clumsy formulation Jorge, as the brain is part of the body, not equal to it as some sort of dual presence. But I agree that there is only the living body, with its mind and that there is no who other than that. But, in the case of this poster, it is my body, as distinct from your body. You are not me and I am not you.

Although you relate observation to what you call 'body-brain' you still end up with a sort of disembodied or generalised 'observation' unless you see that it is the individual being that observes and that this individual being is functionally correct in distinguishing the 'me' from the 'you.'

It is therefore not a question of 'the need for a who' but the fact that each of us is a who, a living person, an individual. It is subservience to collective belief and our mental incoherence that lessens our individuality.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Thu, 09 Aug 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2012 #27
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
It is subservience to collective belief and our mental incoherence that lessens our individuality.

Please go into this, if you will.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2012 #28
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
Please go into this, if you will.

I have been for the last three years.

It seems to me that belief is part of the mental processing of all impressions. It is when that element of thought which is belief hardens and forms the basis for human relationships that the 'fall from grace' occurs, and it is continuous. Belief constantly and naturally arises from the senses. Thought merely systematises it at the verbal level. We have the facility to question and the life force to drive that questioning. When we cease to question, the mind becomes a tool of the belief structure that crystalises, whereas the mind should be master of the whole of itself, to whatever extent possible. I do not know what the optimum condition may be but it is clear that we fall horrendously short of it.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Thu, 09 Aug 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2012 #29
Thumb_snapshot_20130606 john Campbell Canada 535 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
I do not know what the optimum condition may be but it is clear that we fall horrendously short of it.

Theory of (whatever) maybe could fit here,belief then becomes suspended,and not able to shackle freedom,and so, free thought, remains free.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2012 #30
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
The "me", the "I", the self, the person, is an illusion created by the movement of thought. Get over it!.

It appears the illusion is over with you.

With folded hands i beseech thee to kindly explain how did it get over in your case?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 31 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.)