KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Sorry T, I have no idea of what I wrote and unwrote. All I remember of it was that when I read it after posting that it was not something I wanted to say to you.

Damned if I know why and what it was. Maybe someone made a copy of it before I zapped it.

On the edit remark, evidently I saw the remark as snarky. Maybe I remeoved it because I didn't want to be snarky in that response.

On snarkiness itself: I suspect this forum runs on the fumes of snark, and when it comes to snarkiness, each of us has our own touch. I like to think mine are clever, but that is only what I think.

I added that 'seek' thing on impulse as a jab at the Roots; sorry.

May your days always be memorable…

Here, Roots, let me put what I see you saying in my own words and see if we agree or not.

Roots: "... There is only reality and illusion, and until we see that there is a 'wall' and that what lies behind that wall is what is creating the illusion (i.e. our own activity hidden from our very selves) we cannot find the reality (nirvana etc.)."

willy: "We are doing something that prevents us from seeing what we are doing, and when we see what we are doing, we see what is preventing us from seeing what we are doing, and that seeing is the catalyst for bringing that doing to an end. When that doing comes to an end, we see that doing as a false self-identification."

If we do agree on that point, can we let it go at that, and let that be where you and I meet?

[edit removed a repeated word]

Last edited by wilbro99 (2012-04-29 13:51:38)

mmmm....

wilbro99 wrote:

Roots, let me put what I see you saying in my own words and see if we agree or not.

We are doing something that prevents us from seeing what we are doing, and when we see what we are doing, we see what is preventing us from seeing what we are doing, and that seeing is the catalyst for bringing that doing to an end. When that doing comes to an end, we see that doing as a false self-identification.

Before I examine this let me give a Roots' historical background to the brain against which the examination might be viewed.

Pre the advent of homo sapiens all brains worked on the basis of separation. In other words, creatures looked out and saw what they and their immediate own needed, and made a grab for it. That 'they and their immediate own' constituted a unit separate from everything else was (for them) a pivotal and unequivical fact of life to be (albeit unconsciously) acted upon for purposes of survival. It was how it worked; there had been no other way and it had worked like that for billions of years.

Enter homo sapiens:
The brain now has an altogether different (albeit in latency) capacity: it has the capacity to see that its 'immediate own' actually extends to encompass everything. In other words that existence per se is unitary. But its modus op being still in the old accustomed rut, it needs to catch up with its new capacity. This is simply the route that evolution has taken; first the capacity, and then the little game of catch-up. (Actually when you think about it it could never be any other way: it could never be possible for a creature to 'catch-up' with a capacity it didn't yet possess; so even poor old evolution never had a choice in the matter).

Ok. Willy sez: "We are doing something that prevents us from seeing what we are doing, . . "
I would say that what we are actually doing is behaving in a way that is inappropriate for our capacity but which the 'stuck in the rut' brain keeps seeing as ok because it's the way it (brains in general) had always worked previously. So, for as long as we keep on working from our brain as the centre of operations, so long will we be separated from reality.

Willy sez: " . . and when we see what we are doing, we see what is preventing us from seeing what we are doing, . . . "
I would say: yes I think that's fair comment. The brain's modus op., being inappropriate, requires a pseudo personality to manage affairs, which pseudo identity it creates and maintains for that purpose. When we see that it is doing that, obviously we spot the pseudo entity and recognise not only its role but also the spin-off effect, i.e blindness to reality.

Willy sez: " . . and that seeing is the catalyst for bringing that doing to an end."
I would say: Very loosely yes, but the actual switch - if I can call it that - is quite considerably more subtle than you suggest here and is already in fact accomplishes by this point, just as K is always asserting. You see, the recognition of the lie is itself the observation of the true. When you see the lie you must automatically also see the truth; it's inevitable. The maintaining of that vision of the true may be another problem, but that it is instantly seen, with no time lag whatsoever, is an indesputable fact.

Willy sez: "When that doing comes to an end, we see that doing as a false self identification."
I would say: Well, I think we saw it before, but hey-ho, I'll not quibble.

-------------

On the face of things it would seem from the foregoing that we are pretty much in agreement; I think that what I an going to say next will throw the spanner back in the works and reintroduce what is fast becoming our age-old difference. It is this:

There is a separation, a division, permeating your construction here which does not belong to my construction, and its first appearance is at the 'we' and the 'doing' within the first three words of your first sentence. Ity may seem pedantic to many but I think, rather, that it is at the root of things and important to be understood. You see, if speaking accurately, I would replace 'we are doing' with something like 'something is occuring (i.e. to create an illusion').

The difference is what makes the word not (i.e. other than) the thing - but though it can't (hence) be said it nevertheless needs to be understood, but because it cannot be understood in language but only by untransferrable insight, it's hard to have - but nevertheless crucial because it represents the difference between thinking divided and thinking unitary.