|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 25, 2015 7:43:42 GMT -5
I agree that it kind of looks like that, if one solely looks at what you cited from my article. Again, that's the "short" version. But let me clarify my view: The book reveals how an objective reality is a logical impossibility. It leaves you unable to believe that there's something out there – not merely because you're unwarranted in believing so, but because you've seen the logical misstep involved in believing so. So, it's not that I adopted new beliefs, or a new set of ideas. it's that I'm unable to believe the old ones. Stop 'believing' in old or new ideas.. suspend thinking/knowing/believing, stop 'looking' and start 'seeing'.. I believe he's offering a way to do that, Tzu. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2015 7:45:39 GMT -5
I've been reading some of J. Krishnamurti lately and haven't found any teachings as such, but yeah, being aware and attentive seems to be his answer to everything. Which I guess is a teaching, but perhaps better described as a non teaching, because being aware and attentive is your primary experience. Any teaching prescribing a doing is a step away, it seems. Hey jazz, J Krishnamurti was It for me for about six years, 1970-1976, and I went to Ojai, Calif in April-May 1980 for the annual talks and dialogues. I had never seen a video of him up until that time. What surprised me was the ready smile and the joy, the twinkle in his eyes, that doesn't come through the written word. You are right, he doesn't really have a teaching. He helps people explore the nature of self, primarily through attention, he makes you do the work, he didn't spoon feed. He was good in small groups or one on one. It's hard to say he had a teaching because he didn't go beyond what those present drove him to explore. Very few drove him really deep. The first book I read was Think On These Things, I remember picking it off a wire rack at News Stand International. During those years a new book would come out every year by Harper and Row, I always ordered it immediately, and ordered many of his previous books. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 25, 2015 8:32:40 GMT -5
Stop 'believing' in old or new ideas.. suspend thinking/knowing/believing, stop 'looking' and start 'seeing'.. I believe he's offering a way to do that, Tzu. What i sense from his communications thus far is a mind tangled in its own thinking, applying 'logic' to an organic process of experiencing your own existence and imagining if/then scenarios ('looking').. just see.. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 25, 2015 8:44:54 GMT -5
I believe he's offering a way to do that, Tzu. What i sense from his communications thus far is a mind tangled in its own thinking, applying 'logic' to an organic process of experiencing your own existence and imagining if/then scenarios ('looking').. just see.. The organic process of experiencing your own existence is often hampered by the tangled mind, would you agree? The process of untangling in order to "just see" is, I believe, unique to the individual (one's temperament, experiences, conditioning). |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 25, 2015 9:27:08 GMT -5
What i sense from his communications thus far is a mind tangled in its own thinking, applying 'logic' to an organic process of experiencing your own existence and imagining if/then scenarios ('looking').. just see.. The organic process of experiencing your own existence is often hampered by the tangled mind, would you agree? The process of untangling in order to "just see" is, I believe, unique to the individual (one's temperament, experiences, conditioning). I would agree. 'Untangling' is seldom enhanced by more tangling or swapping one belief for another... |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 25, 2015 10:02:39 GMT -5
The organic process of experiencing your own existence is often hampered by the tangled mind, would you agree? The process of untangling in order to "just see" is, I believe, unique to the individual (one's temperament, experiences, conditioning). I would agree. 'Untangling' is seldom enhanced by more tangling or swapping one belief for another... What would be your suggestion for someone entangled (i.e. they can't, at this time, "just see")? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2015 10:06:24 GMT -5
I maintain my position that you are spellbound. You perceive you are not encased in beliefs about existence, but you are in that you have simply adopted\aligned yourself to a set of ideas that asserts they are not ideas, they are the truth. I agree that it kind of looks like that, if one solely looks at what you cited from my article. Again, that's the "short" version. But let me clarify my view: The book reveals how an objective reality is a logical impossibility. It leaves you unable to believe that there's something out there – not merely because you're unwarranted in believing so, but because you've seen the logical misstep involved in believing so. So, it's not that I adopted new beliefs, or a new set of ideas. it's that I'm unable to believe the old ones. Hey Goran, I came across your book a while back on Amazon. I didn't browse it, didn't give it a second thought (I've explored and thought through this extensively). This morning I did browse the article of the OP and glanced at your book (will go back as time permits). Right now I have a question, if there is no external world, what coordinates events in our lives? (in consciousness, as there are no bodies) I've been watching the Women's World Cup. The action is centered on the soccer ball, one side tries to put in the opponent's goal, the other side tries to stop that and vice versa. In your view there are no players, no physical bodies, no ball, no field. But there are eleven player on each team, four officials, a referee, two linesman and an off field official. I see two opposing teams fighting for the ball, one person kicks the ball and two or more ladies rush for it. I see a goalie trying very hard to keep the ball out of her net. And then I see the stands full of fans. One or more of the USA games were sold out, numerous people from the USA driving and flying to Canada to see the games. Other non-USA or non-Canada games had very few fans in the stands. And then you have the camera man, and the commentators and the guy pushing the buttons at my local cable company. And then I watch the game with friends, and we see the same action on the field, and I read articles in the newspaper about the action. On July 5th will be the final game, there will probably be almost a billion people watching on TV. What is coordinating all this in consciousness if there is no external objective world? If there is a something which could coordinate all this in consciousness for 7 billion people, wouldn't it be easier for there just to be a world with people? Your logic doesn't impress me. Theoretically, sure, but we don't live theoretically. edit: Also, I am reading your posts and replying to them. If brains and bodies don't exist, then likewise, there is a something coordinating reading and replying. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2015 10:15:59 GMT -5
I believe he's offering a way to do that, Tzu. What i sense from his communications thus far is a mind tangled in its own thinking, applying 'logic' to an organic process of experiencing your own existence and imagining if/then scenarios ('looking').. just see.. Goran and gopal need to meet, and compare logic.  |
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Jun 25, 2015 11:18:25 GMT -5
Since I started this journey there has been such a drive towards getting rid of the external objective world. I wonder if this drive comes from believing this world is dangerous and a threat. It's a nice notion. It makes me feel really safe if there's no such thing as an external objective world.
Question everything, even that.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2015 13:41:39 GMT -5
I maintain my position that you are spellbound. You perceive you are not encased in beliefs about existence, but you are in that you have simply adopted\aligned yourself to a set of ideas that asserts they are not ideas, they are the truth. I agree that it kind of looks like that, if one solely looks at what you cited from my article. Again, that's the "short" version. But let me clarify my view: The book reveals how an objective reality is a logical impossibility. It leaves you unable to believe that there's something out there – not merely because you're unwarranted in believing so, but because you've seen the logical misstep involved in believing so. So, it's not that I adopted new beliefs, or a new set of ideas. it's that I'm unable to believe the old ones. Yeah, the interesting thing is there are lots of different ways to present this argument in intellectual terms about the fallacy of physical objectivity and they are of course each very sound. Now the intellect is a funny beast though, as it's just a tool, and what's using that tool will ultimately form an opinion on any given argument that's presented as to whether it's convinced or not. Where it gets even more interesting is that the intellect can be used to abstract this question of objectivity, as objectivity is of course the ground on which the intellect rests. So intellect can be used in a form of introspection, to investigate it's foundations. Now, stronger minds and bigger intellects than mine have done that, and they all eventually come to the same conclusion as to the limiting nature of intellect, as to the ephemeral nature of objectivity. Goedel comes to mind as a stellar example. But here again and as you point out, ultimately the results of the intellect will either be accepted or rejected on a subjective basis. Ultimately, as facts are void, opinion will trump them.  That said, I do see some value in your offering proof as to the nature of objectivity to people because paradoxically, the ones that trust their intellect will come to understand the limits of it and start directing their attention elsewhere. The poor mans proof as to the limits of the intellect is simply to recognize the nature of it as founded on distinction, which is, in turn, founded on division, and any division is, simply put, the embodiment of a limitation. Whenever the mind fires up, it can't help but divide -- even when it integrates, as the result of the integration is bounded. A perfect example of how integration results, ultimately, in division, is the concept of the monism. In seeing/saying "One", there are two, and what can be understood and known if the intellect is quiesced, is not two. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2015 13:50:45 GMT -5
Since I started this journey there has been such a drive towards getting rid of the external objective world. I wonder if this drive comes from believing this world is dangerous and a threat. It's a nice notion. It makes me feel really safe if there's no such thing as an external objective world. Question everything, even that. Right, never settle for an intellectual conclusion. There's nothing wrong with questioning and it can even be great fun! The intellect will always chase itself in circles on existential matters. Instead, allow attention to open up rather than resting on any particular thought. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jun 25, 2015 13:55:55 GMT -5
I maintain my position that you are spellbound. You perceive you are not encased in beliefs about existence, but you are in that you have simply adopted\aligned yourself to a set of ideas that asserts they are not ideas, they are the truth. I agree that it kind of looks like that, if one solely looks at what you cited from my article. Again, that's the "short" version. Yes, i am aware the article is the "short version", you have clearly expressed this in the article. And because you classify it as the 'short version', this denotes that the content in the book will be the same as the website article, just longer. So if it "kind of looks like that" in the short version, it will most likely look like that in the long one. But let me clarify my view: The book reveals how an objective reality is a logical impossibility. You use the word "reveal" because you believe your logical equations to be correct. You have not literally revealed this to anyone. The only thing that has occurred is you have changed your perception of reality. You once perceived the physical realm was real, now you don't. Nothing has changed about reality, other than your perception of it. And if it serves you well to now perceive the physical realm is an illusion, then have at it. However, utilising logic, if the physical realm is all an illusion, and you are part of the physical realm, then you also are an illusion, as potentially must be all your thoughts about it. I do not see the logic in a physical being claiming the physical is not real. It leaves you unable to believe that there's something out there – not merely because you're unwarranted in believing so, but because you've seen the logical misstep involved in believing so. You and you're, not me or mine or anyone else who does not agree with your conclusions. But putting aside the potential futility of arguing different points of view about existence...i am always more interested in other aspects of people. Goran, please, if you will, tell me what benefits you have or will obtain by perceiving the physical realm is an illusion, or benefits to humanity and all other living things on our earth. So, it's not that I adopted new beliefs, or a new set of ideas. it's that I'm unable to believe the old ones. Belief: - The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. - Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. - Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. - confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. Tenet: - A doctrine, principle, or position held as part of a philosophy, religion, or field of endeavor. - from Latin, literally: he (it) holds, from tenēre to hold. Your book contains what? What do you do with them? I stand by my opinion. I also stand by my attitude of not needing or desiring to prove your conclusions right or wrong. I just find it interesting to sometimes discuss with others when they claim to know the absolute truth about existence when an equally viable alternative is they have simply adopted another set of ideas about it, and that's why i veer towards discussing what benefits their ideas will have for them and others. I'm not a Truth seeker, i am a realist. I look for and utilize things that are of actual benefit for the life i am aware of while in human form. "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make our world." - Buddha Before, your world was partially constructed by the thought\belief\perception the physical realm is real. Now your world is partially constructed by the thought\belief\perception the physical realm is an illusion. Existence has not changed, only you have. For better, worse or neutral...only you can accurately judge the effect of your new outlook on life has on you. As for me, i am not adversely affected by your world view. |
|
|
|
Post by deepakgod on Jul 15, 2015 12:21:23 GMT -5
I don't see a problem  Just a way to say Right, there is no you to see a problem so how can there be a problem? [b There is only the present moment where everything is as it is and you are IT as IS |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 11, 2015 13:21:55 GMT -5
An interesting discussion, although diverged from the topic. The confusion comes from mixing two things: objective reality and physical reality. An objective reality doesn't exist. Everyone, from a human being to an ant to a bacteria - perceives the world around subjectively. The way a tree looks to me - will look, feel, taste, smell - different to an ant. My 'green-ness of a leaf is not the same as yours. We agree it is a green approximation. Consider colourblind people. Consider how a dog is supposed to have a grey scale vision, but its sense of smell will put a human to shame. BUT. An absence of objective reality doesn't mean an absence of physical reality. We simply cannot percieve it directly, the Mind distorts the message. But it exists. If you think otherwise..... wait until you are on a morphine drip from an excruciating pain. Goran got carried away a tad. I tried to read his book way back... doesn't resonate. That morphine drip gets in the way. [/quote] The attributions sometimes get screwed up...... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2015 9:24:10 GMT -5
The confusion comes from mixing two things: objective reality and physical reality. An objective reality doesn't exist. Everyone, from a human being to an ant to a bacteria - perceives the world around subjectively. The way a tree looks to me - will look, feel, taste, smell - different to an ant. My 'green-ness of a leaf is not the same as yours. We agree it is a green approximation. Consider colourblind people. Consider how a dog is supposed to have a grey scale vision, but its sense of smell will put a human to shame. BUT. An absence of objective reality doesn't mean an absence of physical reality. We simply cannot percieve it directly, the Mind distorts the message. But it exists. Yes, good distinction. This is just about how I see it too. Not that solving this type of stuff (as if) is of any real importance. |
|
Just a way to say