KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

beans · 2012-03-18 17:59:47

In observation without the observer, awareness works on its own...there is no egoic motive, unless there is.

No, no, no. I hope you are not really that rigidly set in your ways yet! Flush that black and white thinking down the toilet.

It is something that must be seen...the self-image appears at times...have you seen it?

bruce sean · 2012-03-18 18:09:18

You can never see it, because when you look there's nothing there: that's why it's an illusion. Once you understand that, looking is always there, so the illusion never comes back. Voila!

beans · 2012-03-18 18:10:53

Neat magic trick, but that's not how it actually works - in reality :-)

bruce sean · 2012-03-18 18:11:06

Also, if there is a way to handle that self-image, then that's your observer, which denies observation. Voila again.

bruce sean · 2012-03-18 18:12:13

beans wrote:
Neat magic trick, but that's not how it actually works - in reality :-)

Understanding IS magic. Voila!

beans · 2012-03-18 18:12:34

Don't get stuck on the word "handle" - you must have missed the point in #26

beans · 2012-03-18 18:13:43

bruce sean wrote:
beans wrote:
Neat magic trick, but that's not how it actually works - in reality :-)
Understanding IS magic. Voila!

Yes, but alakazam, you are mis-understanding.

bruce sean · 2012-03-18 18:23:52

beans wrote:
Don't get stuck on the word "handle" - you must have missed the point in #26

It's not just 'handle', it's also 'way': there is no way to approach the self-image, because a way denies observation, a way is a motive already, it has a target in mind:in this case, the self-image.

True observation has not target, uhm? You look, but you don't know what you're gonna see, and when you do that there's nothing to see, inwardly.

bruce sean · 2012-03-18 18:25:25

beans wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
beans wrote:
Neat magic trick, but that's not how it actually works - in reality :-)
Understanding IS magic. Voila!
Yes, but alakazam, you are mis-understanding.

And vice-versa: there's no magic in misunderstanding.

beans · 2012-03-18 18:26:12

Uhm, where did you pick "uhm" up - it's hilarious! It sounds like you should be wearing a pith hat and have a white handlebar moustache.

beans · 2012-03-18 18:31:46

bruce sean wrote:
beans wrote:
Don't get stuck on the word "handle" - you must have missed the point in #26
It's not just 'handle', it's also 'way': there is no way to approach the self-image, because a way denies observation, a way is a motive already, it has a target in mind:in this case, the self-image.

True observation has not target, uhm? You look, but you don't know what you're gonna see, and when you do that there's nothing to see, inwardly.

Observation is an approach of sorts. So other descriptive terms could also apply such as "way", "handle".

The target of observation is "what is". So when one is paying attention, observing, one may see the thought of the self, the self-image.

kirsten · 2012-03-18 18:32:36

not in control of the way i'm going
but writing about it i will

kirsten · 2012-03-18 18:38:57

uhm ?

beans · 2012-03-18 18:42:14

Wherever did you find him?! He's like a cross between a Clue character and Ian Andersen of Jethro Tull.

kirsten · 2012-03-18 18:47:29

yes.. looking for a moustache i stumbled upon him.. it's bruce !

beans · 2012-03-18 18:49:01

I thought so! Who else could be so deadpan about a narcissus flower? :-))))) Bruce, do you have daffodils in LA?

bruce sean · 2012-03-18 18:50:53

beans wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
beans wrote:
Don't get stuck on the word "handle" - you must have missed the point in #26
It's not just 'handle', it's also 'way': there is no way to approach the self-image, because a way denies observation, a way is a motive already, it has a target in mind:in this case, the self-image.

True observation has not target, uhm? You look, but you don't know what you're gonna see, and when you do that there's nothing to see, inwardly.
Observation is an approach of sorts. So other descriptive terms could also apply such as "way", "handle".

The target of observation is "what is". So when one is paying attention, observing, one may see the thought of the self, the self-image.

Ha, ha, ha. Very funny.

Observation with a target is not observation, because if I project a target I will indeed see it, but were I observing from the very beginning, there would be no target to see!!!

Beans, you're missing the big picture here: THERE IS NO APPROACH. The end.

bruce sean · 2012-03-18 18:52:10

beans wrote:
I thought so! Who else could be so deadpan about a narcissus flower? :-))))) Bruce, do you have daffodils in LA?

Let's keep it serious: you see what a non-serious person can do to a discussion?

kirsten · 2012-03-18 18:53:28

i'm dead serious bruce
lighten up please

bruce sean · 2012-03-18 18:54:34

kirsten wrote:
http://kevinsampsell.files.wordpress.co … riter1.jpg
not in control of the way i'm going
but writing about it i will

Still not serious enough to explore one's own mind right now: if one was serious, one wouldn't express whatever images come to their minds, because there wouldn't be any, and so nothing to express...

kirsten · 2012-03-18 18:55:57

well that clearly is an image

bruce sean · 2012-03-18 18:56:10

kirsten wrote:
i'm dead serious bruce
lighten up please

I've just proved that you're not: there are images in the brain which show a lack of attention. I think it's obvious.

beans · 2012-03-18 18:57:18

bruce sean wrote:
beans wrote:
bruce sean wrote:

It's not just 'handle', it's also 'way': there is no way to approach the self-image, because a way denies observation, a way is a motive already, it has a target in mind:in this case, the self-image.

True observation has not target, uhm? You look, but you don't know what you're gonna see, and when you do that there's nothing to see, inwardly.
Observation is an approach of sorts. So other descriptive terms could also apply such as "way", "handle".

The target of observation is "what is". So when one is paying attention, observing, one may see the thought of the self, the self-image.
Ha, ha, ha. Very funny.

Observation with a target is not observation, because if I project a target I will indeed see it, but were I observing from the very beginning, there would be no target to see!!!

Beans, you're missing the big picture here: THERE IS NO APPROACH. The end.

We could debate til the cows come home about whether observation is an approach, and use all caps, and then maybe some #$% symbols, but let's not.

:-)

It's more important to see that "what is" is not a projected target, it is "what is".

bruce sean · 2012-03-18 18:58:08

kirsten wrote:
well that clearly is an image

I'm not painting any image here: a brain which expresses an image about the speaker, which is a mere impression, is not attentive to its own imagery. Nothing personl here.

kirsten · 2012-03-18 18:59:37

ah bruce you just did exactly that
don't you see it ?

KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Announcement

#26 2012-03-18 17:59:47

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#27 2012-03-18 18:09:18

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#28 2012-03-18 18:10:53

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#29 2012-03-18 18:11:06

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#30 2012-03-18 18:12:13

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

#31 2012-03-18 18:12:34

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#32 2012-03-18 18:13:43

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

bruce sean wrote:

beans wrote:

#33 2012-03-18 18:23:52

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

#34 2012-03-18 18:25:25

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

beans wrote:

#35 2012-03-18 18:26:12

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#36 2012-03-18 18:31:46

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

bruce sean wrote:

beans wrote:

#37 2012-03-18 18:32:36

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#38 2012-03-18 18:38:57

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#39 2012-03-18 18:42:14

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#40 2012-03-18 18:47:29

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#41 2012-03-18 18:49:01

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#42 2012-03-18 18:50:53

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

beans wrote:

#43 2012-03-18 18:52:10

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

#44 2012-03-18 18:53:28

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#45 2012-03-18 18:54:34

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

kirsten wrote:

#46 2012-03-18 18:55:57

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#47 2012-03-18 18:56:10

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

kirsten wrote:

#48 2012-03-18 18:57:18

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

bruce sean wrote:

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

#49 2012-03-18 18:58:08

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

kirsten wrote:

#50 2012-03-18 18:59:37

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

Board footer