Ending the self

Pure perception destroys self.

Pure perception destroys all things.

Do you say this because you’re a living demonstration of it, or because you believe Krishnamurti was a living demonstration of it?

And/or have some reasonable demonstration that the claim is true.

Such as…

Pure perception reveals the truth of all things - either way.

Pure perception is the revelation of actuality. Pure perception is life.

That pure perception destroys self is a fact. Where pure perception is - self is not.

The teaching of K opens a door.

Why sit around on the threshold describing the door (just image-making) when one can enter into the truth of living nature and find out firsthand?

Ask perception. Another can never ask the right question for anyone else.

Looking for an authority on perception? Yeah - right!

I suppose one could make a simile with the idea of “pure water” containing only water, and no floaty bits.
Or maybe argue along the lines of “pure perception” leaving no room for conceptualisation, nor reification of concepts.

In pure perception the observer is the observed, as there is no gap between what is observed and the observer.

Contra to the ‘observer being the observed’ as images.

Anyone who has read K’s teaching can say this, so why bother? If it’s true for you, why waste time in a forum like this?

Saying it is easy - living it is entirely another thing.

K’s teaching is being destroyed by the incessant repetition and regurgitation of a consensus consciousness.

Most who write about K and the observer is the observed evidently do not understand that it has two very different and distinct meanings.

The key to K’s teaching was never actually said by him. This explains why the self never ends, and why those who follow him believe it is in the words, and that the words give hope - to the self.

Before K died, he gathered those close to him, and told them in no uncertain terms that no-one in his life had understood what he said or pointed out.

This is a wrong question.

It is crucial to point out the hole in the road, when it is not seen by everyone.


Care to elaborate? My understanding of “the observer is the observed” is that we perceive what we believe. Is that the wrong meaning?


When does pure perception takes place inside us? Is it possible to control the perception?

Regarding ‘we perceive what we believe’: There is no perception where belief is involved. Belief is the psychological animation of thought’s images as self.

Perception happens where the sensory nervous system is open and receptive and thought is not acting. One can’t believe in something and then think perception proves that belief…that consensus consciousness belief pattern is a fallacy.

The self sees everything which is an actuality of the real world as an image of itself and believes it is perceiving reality when in fact it is not a perception at all but a personalised memory of itself regurgitated.

Here the observer is the observed has one meaning, decoded as separation of the observer from the actual factual truth of what is observed. The measurer as psychological thought measures itself and NOT what is perceptible, hence the observer is the observed.

The image-maker then wrongly believes that the images he/she has concocted are a reality in their own right, separate from the image-maker, and then he/she acts as if those images are a unique reality, which brings about a consensus consciousness of total disorder.

Herein lies the invention of images which trigger so-called emotions, or emotional response as personal experience, as a virtual reality, known as psychological time. Hence there is eternal conflict between virtual psychological reality and the actuality of physical reality - psychological time versus physical time.

On the other hand, when pure perception is acting, and technical thinking acts in harmony and unity with pure perception to record interaction in technical images as an assertion of actuality, then the observer and the observed are one entity.

Any image remembered is mitigated and still connected to what is perceived. There is NO measurement of the measurer separate from that which is perceived.

The observer is the observed - meaning the observer as a separate entity is cancelled out as any image recorded cannot stand alone without its holistic reference to the existing perception as reality. The only time involved is the physical time of memory and NOT the psychological time of becoming other than one is.

These two very distinct and different meanings have become disastrously confused in interpretations of K’s teachings.

When the observer is the observed as the observer measuring his/herself rather than being earthed by the pure perception of what is being in actuality observed, the self is acting.

When the observer is the observed and technical thinking is mitigated by pure perception, then the self is not.

1 Like

Yes - although perhaps the use of the word ‘observer’ in either case is rather confusing (this is not a criticism of Krishnamurti, but rather a comment on the way his words have sometimes given rise to very simple misunderstandings in people).

For example, in the first case (of what we might call psychological duality), there is the point of view of a separate ‘observer’ (as ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘mine’) which has separated itself off from the mental object - the ‘observed’ (as greed, envy, jealousy, etc) - which it is supposed to be ‘observing’.

But in reality, as you mention, this is an entirely false observation, because the entity purportedly doing the observing is itself a unitary aspect of the object being observed (envy is me, me is literally envy, there is no difference between the two processes: the observer is the observed). So the so-called ‘observer’ is not actually observing at all, but is merely part of the reactive process we call envy, jealousy, etc.

Meanwhile, in the second case (of what we might call nondual perceptivity), the ‘observer’ - in the above (psychologically dualistic) sense - is entirely absent: there is only perception (or observation without the observer), in which the world and oneself are non-different.

In this case I do not separate myself (as an ‘observer’) from nature or identity myself with nature, but ‘I am nature’ (which is to say, there is no longer oneself or ‘I’ separate from the world, but only a state of complete attention: the observer as the observed).

So in either case, the ‘observer’ is, strictly speaking, a misnomer: in the first, because the observer isn’t really observing anything clearly (because the ‘observer’ is merely a reactive process co-incidental with the reaction of envy, jealousy, etc); and in the second, because the ‘observer’ is entirely absent, non-existent.


So the observer is envy when it beholds the envied?

1 Like

Yes - or rather, the observer is non-different from the envy that is experienced (in relation to the image one has of the ‘envied’). It is a single process, a unitary event.

To explain this better:

Envy is the result of comparing oneself (the image that one has of oneself) with another (not the actual other, but the image I have about them).

This comparison - which is a form of mental or psychological measurement - seems (at first glance) to involve several different elements: ‘I’ who am doing the comparing, ‘you’ to whom ‘I’ am comparing myself, and finally the feeling of envy that results.

However this whole process is a unitary reaction, which takes place because thought has taken over the role of ‘observation’ (as a pseudo ‘observer’), which intrudes on what is actually out there (i.e. what is actually observable - as a person who may be beautiful, intelligent, rich, etc). If there were simple, non-judgemental observation of this (actual) person, there would be no cause for envy, but merely a perceptual sensation that is not carried over into the next moment.

But because thought is predominant, and has taken on the role of ‘observation’ (with its pseudo ‘observer’), there is a judgement, a comparison - a reaction of the self-image to the supposedly beautiful (intelligent, rich) person - which automatically results in envy.

This reaction is instantaneous and causally interrelated (the ‘self’- image, the image of the ‘envied’, and the feeling of envy, all arising simultaneously), meaning that the observer is literally envy.


So isn’t this the question?

Does one continue to sit on the threshold (as followers), wondering about what K meant when he said this or that - trying to work him out?

OR: -

The door is open. Is the inquisitiveness and passion acting to venture beyond that open door and discover firsthand all that lies beyond?

The self cannot go there.