The seeker is the Sought. Love it. The cosmic joke 😄 You are what's looking. "God likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing outside of God, he has no one but himself to play with" - Alan Watts
That is not what I am saying here, Bluebird. There is no "God" in it for me. I am not saying that "you are what is looking." I am saying that there is no "you" apart from perceptions, feelings, and thoughts.
If you like Alan Watts, you should know that he went to divinity school, was ordained in the Episcopal Church and served as a chaplain for six or seven years, so there was plenty of "God" flowing from that mouth, but not the way you mean it. For Alan, there was no "God." He was about as Zen as it gets.
@@RobertSaltzman How can you not be what is looking? Have a look. Of course there's no separate individual. That's a mental construct.. It doesn't exist in direct experience. All there is is what is.. Whether you want to call that God. THIS. Awareness. Consciousness. Aliveness. It all 👉 to the same thing. Which isn't a "thing" 😄 and you are IT.
@@RobertSaltzman Yes for sure. Like I was saying in my previous reply. There are many different words that point to what is. But what is is beyond laungage. What Alan talks of as "God" is also what I'm pointing 👉 to. Not God in the Kingly sense but that which is. The deep down self.. Everything and No-thing.
@@bluebird6966 "I am what is looking" is one view of what "I" am but certainly not the only one, and far from being self-evident as you seem to imagine. It's a shakey idea, if you ask me, that splits what is seen from the apparent "seer" and imagines a fixed presence that endures while the apparent scenery changes. No one knows what "myself" is or isn't. Defining it as "the observer" is just one idea.
To say I am what I perceive, I am everything starts from a center a core sense of self which finds more satisfactory to be the perception instead of the perceiver. J krishnamurti didn't say you are the tree, he said you are the interpretation, the knowledge about the tree. Which means you are memory basically.
You are simply wrong about this, Jorge. This is not about finding it "more satisfactory" to be one thing or another. It has nothing to do with satisfaction. It means that the seer is the seen. There was no "I" in it, until you put it there. facebook.com/watch/?v=430837491467949
Very helpful. Thank you...
The seeker is the Sought. Love it. The cosmic joke 😄 You are what's looking.
"God likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing outside of God, he has no one but himself to play with" - Alan Watts
That is not what I am saying here, Bluebird. There is no "God" in it for me. I am not saying that "you are what is looking." I am saying that there is no "you" apart from perceptions, feelings, and thoughts.
If you like Alan Watts, you should know that he went to divinity school, was ordained in the Episcopal Church and served as a chaplain for six or seven years, so there was plenty of "God" flowing from that mouth, but not the way you mean it. For Alan, there was no "God." He was about as Zen as it gets.
@@RobertSaltzman How can you not be what is looking? Have a look. Of course there's no separate individual. That's a mental construct.. It doesn't exist in direct experience. All there is is what is.. Whether you want to call that God. THIS. Awareness. Consciousness. Aliveness. It all 👉 to the same thing. Which isn't a "thing" 😄 and you are IT.
@@RobertSaltzman Yes for sure. Like I was saying in my previous reply. There are many different words that point to what is. But what is is beyond laungage. What Alan talks of as "God" is also what I'm pointing 👉 to. Not God in the Kingly sense but that which is. The deep down self.. Everything and No-thing.
@@bluebird6966 "I am what is looking" is one view of what "I" am but certainly not the only one, and far from being self-evident as you seem to imagine. It's a shakey idea, if you ask me, that splits what is seen from the apparent "seer" and imagines a fixed presence that endures while the apparent scenery changes. No one knows what "myself" is or isn't. Defining it as "the observer" is just one idea.
To say I am what I perceive, I am everything starts from a center a core sense of self which finds more satisfactory to be the perception instead of the perceiver. J krishnamurti didn't say you are the tree, he said you are the interpretation, the knowledge about the tree. Which means you are memory basically.
You are simply wrong about this, Jorge. This is not about finding it "more satisfactory" to be one thing or another. It has nothing to do with satisfaction. It means that the seer is the seen. There was no "I" in it, until you put it there.
facebook.com/watch/?v=430837491467949
The images K is referring to are internal ie memory or idea. If there is an outside world independent of those remains to be seen.