Re: glad to be here

seshagiri wrote:

>Good discussion. I like it.
>I would like to bring to your kind notice that it is possible
>to "observe" and let things happen.

Sort of an active-detachment?

> Please read J.Krishnamurti literature
>my selections are incorporated at http://www.esnips.com/web/TheObserveristheobserved
>please go through.

I see a bunch of slides there,
and an ad for Krishnamurti.

In slide 3 you have an interesting paradigm.
You build an image of something and then
assert there exists the image and observer.
That gives me an image of a third view
which includes both observer and observed.
A house of mirrors or infinite regression, sorta.

I agree with the "cultural" aspect.
Not sure about slide 5, it suggests to me
that the center of a circle is not the circle.
Could be a quibble.

In 6, I'd answer by saying
the image of an observer is an image.
It makes little difference. There is a chop,
a carving of what is integrally whole.

Normally an individual is not aware
of the images being seen. There is a flow.
An interaction. Once the move is made
to observe images, a step removed ensues.

The observer could be said to be just another
image or could be said to be that from which
various images bounce off and are seen.
It's a curious situation. Other ways might be
invoked to point out lots of aspects.

Slide 11 reminds me of aggregates
or skandhas. Modern science may go that route.
In 12 you arrive at where I originally went to,
perhaps anticipating where you were going.
In 14, I agree, thinking can induce trouble.
Without thinking, with no-mind (wu-xin)
a large portion of conflict may vanish.

The TTC may suggest doing away
with that which causes the problem.

In 18 you arrive
at what might be called a unified field.

In 21 you introduce, "the awareness itself"
which is fine, but may contain seeds of
yet another mirror in the house.

In 25 you get to China
but I'm wondering how many slides there are.
Ah, looks like 42. An interesting number.

> The ideas expressed in Taoism were also expressed
>in different other phiolosophies differently.  If members of this
>group are interested in this topic, I would like to discuss them here.

I'd be happy to discuss them here.

Without having gone past 25,
I'm wondering if you conclude that awareness
can exist without a vehicle thereof?

Prana comes to mind, consciousness,
as a fundamental ingredient or strata.
I'm not sure if Taoism goes that route.

If it's all just, "awareness" at root,
does "right and wrong" have any weight
aside from what a culture places on it?

>== seshagiri.

-cheers!
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]