First of all, it can refer to a process in the content of thought. For instance, when K says, envy is me, greed is me, the observer is not different from his/her envy/greed. The realisation of this ends the content.

I am not different from violence, greed or hate or jealousy. Suffering is me, but we have separated anger, jealousy, loneliness, sorrow, as something separate from me so that I can control it, shape it, run away from it; but if that is me, I can do nothing about it but just observe it. So the observer is the observed.

The Observer Is The Observed Pdf Download

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://byltly.com/2yGcBx 🔥

K: That is real observation without the observer. The observer is the past, memory, knowledge, experience. All the observer is the past. Can I look at something without the past? Of course it is possible.

You have observed your anger, your greed or your jealousy, whatever it is, as an observer looking at greed. The observer is greed, but you have separated the observer because your mind is conditioned to the analytical process; therefore you are always looking at the tree, at the cloud, at everything in life as an observer and the thing observed. Have you noticed it?

You say something to me which hurts me, and the pain of that hurt is recorded. The memory of that continues and when there is further pain, it is recorded again. So the hurt is being strengthened from childhood on.

K: We only know the space as the observer and the observed. I look at this microphone as an observer, and there is the object which is the microphone. There is a space between the observer and the observed. This space is distance, distance being time. There is the observer and the distance between him and a star or mountain. You are asking what the other space is, which is not this. I cannot tell you; I can only tell you that as long as this space [between] the observer and the observed exists, the other is not.

Sometimes delusions are more helpful than truth.

If everytime I blinked, the world seemed to dissapear, that would be most impractical.

If everytime I turned my head the world seemed to rotate, that would totally make me fall over.

Vision and sound are co-creations involving both the organism and its environment. Sights and sounds do not appear ex nihilo, from thin air: they are reflections of actions and events taking place in an objectively present intersubjective world (available both to our immediate awareness and the physical senses).

There was a man mending the road; that man was myself; the pickaxe he held was myself; the very stone which he was breaking up was a part of me; the tender blade of grass was my very being, and the tree beside the man was myself. I almost could feel and think like the roadmender, and I could feel the wind passing through the tree, and the little ant on the blade of grass I could feel. The birds, the dust, and the very noise were a part of me. Just then there was a car passing by at some distance; I was the driver, the engine, and the tyres; as the car went further away from me, I was going away from myself.

K: He did not identify himself with the tree but he was the tree. This means that there was no space between him and the tree, no space between the observer and the observed, no experiencer experiencing the beauty, the movement, the shadow, the depth of a leaf, the quality of colour. He was totally the tree

Whenever Krishnamurti is talking about perception or observation one can take for granted that he is talking about the *common-sense experience (see note below) of seeing and hearing, or what we usually call sense-perception. E.g. that one can both see a bird sitting on a tree branch , and listen to the sounds it makes.

So, for example, any neurological theory we might have about the nature of sense-perception is itself a movement of abstract thought, which is included in psychological memory/thought. So when Krishnamurti asks us whether it is possible for there to be a perception in which thought and memory are absent, it includes all psychological thoughts, memories, theories and abstractions.

the tender blade of grass was my very being, and the tree beside the man was myself. I almost could feel and think like the roadmender, and I could feel the wind passing through the tree, and the little ant on the blade of grass I could feel. The birds, the dust, and the very noise were a part of me.

In this latter case, the perception associated with the statements refers to the ending of this content (when the observer is the observed); or to bringing about a sense of responsibility, and even felt culpability, for the thought processes of wider society (when it is seen that I am the world).

K: Can you observe a flower, a bird, the water, the beauty of the land, your wife or husband, without the observer? This means without the image you have. Do it, and you will find how extraordinarily attentive you have to be, not only now but when the image is being built, so that your mind is free to look. Have you ever looked at anybody whom you like or love? You have looked at the person through the image you have about them, and so the relationship is between these two images. That is why there is so much antagonism and why there is no relationship at all.

Krishnamurti: We only know the space as the observer and the observed. I look at this microphone as an observer, and there is the object which is the microphone. There is a space between the observer and the observed. This space is distance, distance being time. There is the observer and the distance between him and a star or mountain. You are asking what the other space is, which is not this. I cannot tell you; I can only tell you that as long as this space as the observer and the observed exists, the other is not. There is a way of freeing the observer who creates the space as the observer and the observed.

So, as long as there is the observer and the observed as two separate entities, there is time. If the observer identifies himself with the observed, in that process time is involved too. If you say you believe in God, you try to identify yourself with that, which involves time because you have to make an effort, struggle, give up this, do that, etc. Or you blindly identify yourself and end up in an asylum.

So, is it possible for this division between the observer and the observed to come to an end? As long as there is this division, time will go on, and time is sorrow. One who will understand the end of sorrow must understand this, must go beyond the duality between the thinker and the thought, the experiencer and the experienced. So what is one to do? I see within myself the observer is watching, judging, censoring, accepting, rejecting, disciplining, controlling, shaping. That observer, that thinker, is the result of thought. Thought is first; not the observer, not the thinker. If there were no thinking there would be no observer, no thinker; there would only be complete, total attention.

So, is it possible for the division between the thinker and the thought, the observer and the observed, to come to an end? No time must be involved. If I do certain practices in order to break down this division, time is involved and therefore I perpetuate the division as the thinker and the thought. So, what is one to do? Put that question, not verbally but with astonishing urgency. You are urgent only when you feel something very strongly; when you have physical pain, you act, there is an intensity. Man has lived for so many millennia, suffering, tortured, never finding a way out. To find a way out is an immensely urgent question. So one must understand this question very deeply, which is to listen to it, listen to what is being said.

So when one understands the nature of time, what is involved in it, there is order and virtue, which is immediate. When you understand this virtue, which is order, which is immediate, then you see that the division between the observer and the observed is non-existent. Therefore time has come to a stop. It is only such a mind that can know what is new.

Any movement on the part of the observer, if he has not realised that the observer is the observed, creates only another series of images, and again he is caught in them. But what takes place when the observer is aware that the observer is the observed? Go slowly, go very slowly, because it is a very complex thing we are going into now. What takes place? The observer does not act at all. The observer has always said he must do something about these images, suppress them or give them a different shape; he is always active in regard to the observed, acting and reacting passionately or casually. This action of like and dislike on the part of the observer is called positive action: I like, therefore I must hold; I dislike therefore I must get rid of. But when the observer realises the thing about which he is acting is himself, there is no conflict between himself and the image. He is that. He is not separate from that. When he was separate, he did or tried to do something about it, but when the observer realises that he is that, there is no like or dislike, and conflict ceases. For what is he to do? If something is you, what can you do? You cannot rebel against it or run away from it or even accept it. It is there. So all action that is the outcome of reaction to like and dislike has come to an end.

An object providing options that describe which DOM mutations should be reported to mutationObserver's callback. At a minimum, one of childList, attributes, and/or characterData must be true when you call observe(). Otherwise, a TypeError exception will be thrown. 152ee80cbc

download magic the gathering 1997

cast away tamil audio track download

best shooting games for pc under 200mb download