KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Now, let us take this a step further, and go scientifically into this.

  When the eyes are still, science tells us, our perception is fading. Now, there are 2 views on this: one, that the movement of the eyes is helping us perceive the world we do see; and the other is that this constant movement actually inteferes with perception, making it less clear.

  As a layman, I tend to agree with the latter, seeing the consequences for myself. But apparently science can prove that the other is true, matter of fact. In a lab, the eyeballs can be braced mechanically and thus made still, and the retinal image is stable: within seconds, everything fades from view. So it appears that this little movement does indeed help our perception.

  Also, despite this movement our perception is not shaking, trembling, as our eyes do: that's because through a fine mechanism the image produced on the retina is not moving, despite this constant micro-tremor, which is quite a miracle in itself.

  And finally, there is the problem of the blood vessels located in the eye: due to the eyes constant movement those blood vessels are not visible, since they move at the same rate as the eyes are, thus casting a stabilized retinal image, which is not visible, as we've seen. In fact, if the eyes were not moving at all, that would clearly impair our ability to see things. The retinal image would not be stabilized, and so those vessels would be visible. In fact, anyone can see them if one presses a small flaslight against their temples, and rocks it gently for a few seconds.

  So, bottom line, if you perceive the world around you, your eyes ARE moving, even if very slighlty. When you close your eyes though, it's a different story: they can be completely still. What happens then?

  See, those scientists failed to see the beauty of this: they didn't see anything marvelous when the eyeballs were braced mechanically. Now, why is that? The eyes may have been MADE still, but they were still moving! Because most likely, the subjects used were still having thoughts, and so even though the eyes were NOT moving, their thoughts WERE!
So they could see how perception fades when that happens, but they couldn't see what happens when thought stops as well: unfortunately, there is no machine which will stop stop!!!

  Under special conditions, they were able to separate the movement of the eyes from the movement of the thought: they've reached some valid conclusions while missing the most important ones, in regards to one's daily life: that is, what happens when thought stops. In daily life, those two movements cannot be separated.

  Which is what I said earlier, WITHOUT knowing all this: first, there is INATTENTION; then ATTENTION to inattention; and finally, there is INATTENTION again-or a perception without an object that is going on all the time, without paying attention to it.

Last edited by bruce sean (2012-05-03 20:59:17)

So the whole point is to not move your eyes, but not through concentration, since that is not possible anyway, because any tension indicates movement, however subtle.

None of that kind, nothing special, nothing exciting anyway, which is the last thing I'm looking for.

  Simply ordinary, peaceful days, spent mostly alone.

Yes, feeling an outsider, a complete outsider with nothing to say. Just breathing, observing.

I would rather say when one's not moved, or rather not moving...

or negated..

bruce sean wrote:

Yes, I know you prefer that term.

  But here's an improvement: each time your eyes are moving heaven is being negated. Each time, uhm? Each time they move an opportunity is being missed.

Dang, that's alot of missed opportunities.

Eden wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Yes, I know you prefer that term.

  But here's an improvement: each time your eyes are moving heaven is being negated. Each time, uhm? Each time they move an opportunity is being missed.

Dang, that's alot of missed opportunities.

That's why I called it an improvement, phrasing it like that: one can see the waste.

Now what is the next step? Obviously, it is not moving one's eyes while asleep. Is that possible?

Now what is the next step? Obviously, it is not moving one's eyes while underwater! Which is, meditating underwater.

bruce sean wrote:

It is possible, but only if one's eyes don't move during the day, otherwise they will move at night, too.

you're a wee bit psychotic Bruce