Seeing/Being/self-investigation

[Guest guest]

J M de la Rouviere wrote:

> J M de la Rouviere <moller

>

> Dear Joyce,

>

> I think you are somewhat mixing your categories here.

>

> 'False identity' is the position prior to the 'realisation' of what you have

> referred to as the condition of 'mutually interdependent' arising, where the

> content of consciousness is not separate from consciousness itself. That

> is, the sound and the silence is one joint phenomenon and do not arise

> sequencially.

>

> So false identity as a reality of living experience cannot be the case in

> such a condition of undivided being. The two are mutually exclusive. And

> while false identity is the case, they are indeed two, not one. Only from

> the point of view (or as my friend Dan might have qualified such a

> statement,' from the 'non-point of view') of wholeness can forms of

> fragmentation be seen to be whole. But seeing, when directed from the

> fragmented disposition of I -consciousness, can only present two. The

> observer and the observed. False identity indicates a disposition of being

> totally identified with duality and as such cannot be whole. The moment

> false identity is seen by wholeness for what it is, the latter falls away

> and only wholeness is the case. J. Krishnamurti has said: The seeing of the

> false, IS the truth. Perhaps this is what he meant.

>

> Love,

>

> Moller

>

 

I don't know what Krishnamuriti meant Moller, but I love how you put it. It is

hard to say if seeing of the false Is the Truth. It might be that or a part of

that or perhaps a step to the Truth. It is not clear how one definitively take a

step to the Truth One Is. Sometimes I think there is no Seeing the Truth because

there is only Being the Truth. Probably there is something between Seeing and

Being which preserves the identity or a seer. Maybe Seeing is Being when there

is no Seer.

 

Love

Harsha