I am not sure what is it that such an identification will help to reveal. Understanding is always about seeing the underlying pattern in any event of perception which includes the ‘me’.
1 Like
It is not an identification. It is a fact. I am violent. The self is a violent entity. There’s nothing to be revealed or understood. It is only when we move away from the fact that we talk about understanding. But there is nothing to be understood when I am right in the middle of it.
Well, I don’t see you as a teacher or a pupil Paul. I consider that we are all equal on this forum and none of us are experts on K’s teaching. I would think it fair to say that most of us on here have some understanding of the teachings.
Perception without images is surely moment to moment. Sometimes I am highly attentive and aware and at other times I am not. We all live in the world of images most of the time. Images surely operate through thought. When I am listening and observing with attention, thought is absent and my perception is clearer.
1 Like
Yes, that would be interesting I think.
Let’s take an example. If someone scolds us - whatever the reason may be (fault in my side or his), how we react to it? - What is the immediate response there?
Ok. Leave him. I see something and want to discuss about it. I just want to enquire about ‘what happens when we actually suffer?’. Shall we discuss about that. Will you listen?. Here listening means to observe what I put forth in table without beliefs/images.
Absolutely. Psychologically we are ‘one’. If we observe the ‘thought’, the thought stops, and we can have an actual relationship.
That’s the whole point. When thought is absent is it any longer my perception? Yet thought is very quick to grab it, retain the memory and say, ‘My perception, my insight.’ Do you see the point?
What do you mean by actually suffer? Are you suffering now?
How do you know you’re aware if you don’t acknowledge what you’re aware ot?
My point is that resentment doesn’t magically disappear when you’re aware of it.
I don’t know how you drew this conclusion, but you’re mistaken. Everyone who is conscious is aware, and “I” is present.
You hold some mistaken notions that you need to examine, and I don’t have the time or the patience to help you with that, so I will cease to reply to your posts henceforth, giving others the opportunity to help you.
Maybe you are simply not aware of it.
As I see, in the middle of it (it being the whole context), the I or me is again the ‘will to observe’ and not necessarily consumed in the ‘IS’ ness of violence or fear. Understanding therefore involves neither negation inside of the context or affirmation outside of the context of a I/me, it simply transforms the ‘IS’ ness of the fact by revealing yet another pattern in perception of how I/me is sustained. Call it insight.
As long as it’s not Rodent of the Year I accept!
1 Like
Thanks for the clarification, I sensed that was what you meant.
Looking at this question of something which reveals not just thinking, but the process behind thinking, if this is something you consider dialogue to be, it’s still not clear why there should be a division as thinking, and a process of thinking, when elsewhere so much time gets devoted to reconciling observer with observed.
So is choiceless awareness the factor as dialogue that reveals not just thinking, but the process underpinning it?
Does this then introduce a further qualifier to dialogue in that there is a minimum sensitivity entry requirement for dialogue to be, and what is there when there is only very low sensitivity, and what when there is very high? This would then put dialogue on a sliding scale of sensitivity, which could extend all the way from the crowd at the Capitol trying to break in while others attempt to stop them, through to a brain able to sense everything fully at a distance, with no physical interaction other than matter itself.
Sorry I have to reply to you here as the system is having a moan about too many replies. Whoever programmed this software is a complete control freak!
Yes. Dialogue within fragmentation itself, with no distinction as inner or outer, self or other.
1 Like
When you have no resentment, there’s none to be aware of. When you have resentment, there’s awareness of it, but the awareness does not magically eradicate it, as you believe.
Resentment must be seen for what it is to cease to be. Awareness of resentment is only the beginning of understanding it, not the end
1 Like
Sorry. We can do it alone, but it’s not that easy. Because if you do a dialogue between ‘Fragmentation’ & ‘fragmentation’ (i.e. Past speaking with the Past), you can’t see the 'whole movement of I now. Only if we observe ‘I’ as the whole, we can see what happens.
So who did Krishnamurti do it with then? And is we outside of fragmentation or is it an expression of it, and what of the observer is the observed in regards to this all? At the heart of all this surely is who really am I, and why must the fact of relationship which governs everything always be taken so literally to mean one biological entity and one other. Why should the requirement to see dialogue in terms of membership of a group not be seen as an expression of dullness?
1 Like