Seeing "what is"

Douglas,

YES ! What do you see? YES; and then, do you put all that aside and go back to the things you like to do (chuckling here), such as thinking about what you have seen, or thinking about other things?

You see, please understand, is it more fun theorizing then staying with “what is”…? Do you see that those who theorize about climate change, making ludicrous statements such as getting carbon targets (cop25 targets) - whatever percentage targets they are presently throwing out - is the same thing that you are doing? Fiddling while the planet burns, eh? (Grins)

You see, it’s your life, not mine. I’m protected.

True, but beside the point, which is that our conditioning distorts perception, and until or if this distortion ceases, we cannot really know how much or how little we know…if anything.

The only contradiction between these two statements is that yours posits that the distortion can cease.
I would question your optimism based on the fact that our conditioning runs very, very deep.
I am referring to our biological conditioning (like our mammalian eyes, nose, brain) which are very difficult to transcend. Probably even more difficult than the Psychological walls we are already having trouble transcending

I suppose my claim is that seeing “what is” means seeing that humans are only able to see what we have evolved to see - which is a delusion based on self-preservation. Cannot this truth (if it is one) set us free? As in the truth sets us free no matter what the truth is - the truth does not have to be what we want it to be in order for the scales to fall from our eyes.

I don’t believe for one minute that just because one has conditioning that it is impossible to see “what is”. One has to start somewhere, and so one starts at the beginning, conditioning and all, and begins to look around. If one is on this site, if one has read some K, it is obvious that if one still believes that it is impossible to clearly see what is going on around one, it is because one has chosen to keep one’s beliefs, and chooses to turn a blind eye to what is going on around oneself. Excuses, rationalizations can be legion, especially when one is not really serious about dropping one’s beliefs.

All the b/s coming out of the far right in the states about the election being stolen is b/s. They are only doing that because of their fear of losing their status of white privilege. They know that. They see it; the population of blacks, Hispanics, etc. is increasing - they see “what is” happening, and they don’t want that to change, so they lie, and they know they are lying.

You see, one is the world and the world is what one is. When one maintains a position of theorizing, of lying to oneself, then one has a world where all of that is happening more and more. That is the dark side.

Consider if you will a colorblind person or a dog - is it possible for them to see the colors that they cannot see?
Suppose I can see the color that they cannot see - does this mean I am seeing “what is” and they are not? Or does it mean we are all seeing our version of what is? Or that maybe none of us are? Maybe I am only seeing what humans can see and dogs are only seeing what dogs can see?
If there are multiple ways of interpreting our environment (dogs, octopi, spiders, humans) at best only one is correct.

nb. If I say “my way is correct” - like all claims, this needs at least some demonstration/reason in order to be properly addressed

Douglas,

You do like speculation. Hmmm. There are facts and there are theories. Now, speculation is just an idea about a fact, a theory about a fact - sort of like a second-hand approach to looking at life. So, you can choose to continue speculating, and amuse yourself endlessly, if that is what your pleasure is. Of course, that is a rather lonely pre-occupation. So, my condolences to you. Further, the problem with speculation is that every conclusion derived from speculation is utterly meaningless. They are meaningless because they inhibit understanding. Speculation also hinders learning. If you are not at all interested in facts, please let me know, and I will move on…

Does anything indicate that you have the facts? (this is a question - speculation is something else entirely)
Claims, become interesting, when they can be demonstrated. (this is a claim - demonstration : I have a unicorn in my back yard, (not so interesting) and can provide photos (much more interesting)

However, I do agree that our conversation (between you and me) is stuck in a rut and may benefit from at least a time out.

Think of it as a simplification rather than a delusion. A delusion is misleading and dangerous, whereas a simplification, at worst, lacks information that is not crucial for survival. What’s more, we’ve compensated for the limitation of our senses by inventing instruments that can detect what our senses cannot.

They say, “Sup”…

1 Like

There is a very strong bias to assume that there must be some truth to my beliefs - and the demonstration would be, as you imply, look I have survived, thus my senses/perception must be accurate - but this does not necessarily follow - Consider these examples:

1)The yellow folder on my computer desktop is in no way an accurate representation of the 0’s and 1’s, stored as electrical impulses (sorry I’m making this up as a noob - I don’t really know anything about computers) within the entrails of my laptop - they are not even a simple version of the real information being represented, they are a totally made up symbol, that I must nonetheless take seriously (don’t drag and drop in the bin etc…) despite being a complete delusion.

2)Imagine that I need between a 10 and 20% oxygen saturation in the air to survive. If I could perceive this ideal (for me) oxygen to air saturation as being a certain color (say blue) and all other (deadly) saturations as a different color (red), this would be great for my survival. If we were seeing something more representative of what is - like a gradient of colors from low to high oxygen saturation, my chances of survival decrease.

This is like saying quarks and quasars are real but the sun and the moon aren’t - whether or not our sense organs are enhanced, makes no difference to the quality of the interpretation.

If I was to speculate (at last - because it is fun) this might change with the arrival of smarter than human AI to help with our heuristics in understanding the world.

I’m assuming that Krishnamurti’s perception was not like ours; that he perceived what actually is occurring, whereas our perception is altered by our beliefs about what-should/should-not-be occuring. But you seem to be saying that how ever free of distortion Krishnamurti’s perception may have been, every human’s perception - be they be free or not - is inherently too limited to perceive comprehensively enough to live without conflict and confusion.

Yes, ‘what is’ is not some elusive, quantum State which is unobtainable by the average Joe.
The moment we are aware, we are already with what is. If we are conditioned and are aware of the conditioning that is ‘what is’. The difficulty is only about staying with what is.

1 Like

It is not because I am as I am that I am necessarily confused.
Confusion or conflict would necessarily arise from a contradiction such as : I am as I am, but believe I am something else.

What I am proposing is that we have not evolved to see reality as it is - understanding this fact (if it is one) would be freedom from an erroneous belief - thus seeing/accepting what is.
It would free us for example from the belief that what I believe to be true (my opinion vs your opinion) is actually true.

PS -

Actually - rereading your post - we are in agreement - the truth of our delusion is simple (not an elusive quantum state) - to see our delusion is to be free of it - thats what I’m saying too.

Awareness of our conditioning is of course an ongoing meditation - not a conclusion. The self has a tendancy to arise - and thus the danger often is to think “hey! I’ve got it now - I’ve understood what K is saying - so now my beliefs are true” (sad lol)

Seeing “what is” ignites a flame and all is consumed in the fire.

Yes - my question would be : is the self like a phoenix (or jesus)?

Does the self have a tendancy to continuously arise? (rebirth)

There is memory, and all that stuff in the brain.

Assuming that the human mind creates the (psychological) self moment by moment, the question becomes: If the mind stops creating the self, will it always restart?

This is in line with the Phoenix hypothesis ie the self constantly arising (from the processes inherent in the hominid brain).

Which would mean that the self is not an entity, rather a feeling constantly being created by the body (ie. its senses and brain)

Your assumption above suggests the answer is yes. Part of the function of the human brain is to create the feeling of self (as part of the survival instinct)

Yes. Unless you consider a feeling (thought, image) to be a ‘mental entity.’ Do you know about tulpas? It’s a bit way out there, but you might find it interesting. (I do!)

I assume, though don’t know for sure, that my brain will keep re-creating me. But maybe there are those for whom this ongoing re-creation process has stopped?