KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

burr in the bonnet, sds?

suds, be a good detergent, will you, and clean behind your ears before you begin looking for the dirt behind the ears of another...

Ha!

wilbro99 wrote:

suds, be a good detergent, will you, and clean behind your ears before you begin looking for the dirt behind the ears of another...

Ha!

wibs, okay I am in the process of scrubbing and cleaning every piece of dirt on me.

Haha...

joe sez: "that, willy, is the two truths business...they must be taken together."

Ha, I think I see why your two truth business still does not make sense to me; you were not wonking!

You said, "If taken together perhaps this conundrum does not exist but taken separately or weighting one more than the other there is no escaping it." I took that 'taken together' as implying the presence of the second subjectivity, which would make it a wonk.

How do you get two truths out of it your way. Just curious; I have long since given up trying to understand two truths.

The only truth I know is that I am doing what I am doing; and I know that either I am in the doing or I am watching the doing, but not both at once.

Were I to wonk this, I would separate those two and put a gate between them.

joe, I am completely lost; zip, nada. Let's explore:

joe sez: <<that moment, willy, when doing turns to watching, they are both there. …>>

There are two turns, one synchronizes and the other deletes. What do you mean by turns, like ice to water?

<<… The two truths only states that the meaning given by the doer is seen for what it is, meaning given by the doer.  In other words, if you are watching the doing then both must be there, isn't it so? …>>

Is there any other meaning other than the one given by the giver of the meaning whether seen or not?

<< … First, though, we better be clear what we mean by doing, or I might have taken you completely out of context, or vice versa you may be hearing me out of context. >>

Yep, more than likely the two of us are in two-truth-limbo again. Jeez, man, I cannot even get a grip on one truth, and you give me two. Have pity. One or the other, but not both at once. It's enough to drown a herd of cats…

Ok, here is what I have noodled out on this two truth thingy. There is a problem with the form that I have not quite caught yet, and tt has to do with the one truth that there is two truths, and where, in that mess, do I place the discernment of that form.

I would guess that my difficulty is that I cannot place it in the logic of wonk, and that my understanding runs solely on wonk gas.

I think that is by far the cleanest I have been able to say it to date...not that that is worth more than it is, mind you...

So, that is what you/it mean, or it seems so! Seems are good for throwing curves! The seemless is made of one cloth! Hot Damn, it seems that I have got it.

Hey, joe, that is the only way to travel, on the seems of things. Yes, the form of that is the negation of the presented, which leaves behind the identity who observes this nothing, but it does describe something.

It also undoes the *one truth*, whatever that may be seen as being. Very clever, these Buddhist dudes.

They are defining a state of being in such a way that only those who know it can interpret it. They are saying to stay out of it; use it, but do not get caught up in it.

Stay out of it is my mantra; it works wonders when the freeway is a parking lot.

joe, here is my response to that finding of mine; wrote it about an hour ago and was wondering where it fit. Thanks. I have the fit!

I am the one, who in finding itself, finds itself in the world it finds itself in.

That unit is the consciousness of being conscious of being conscious.

That unit is the double unit that includes it's own self-reference as the posited being.

And, that unit is the I that I am, the one, who in finding myself finds myself in the world I find myself in.

One of the things that circle of words tells me is that when I place myself in the world correctly, ground myself in my senses, I can use the form that is language without identifying with its necessarily contained self-reference, and that simply because I know I put it there.

Another thing that circle of words tells me is that the movement from consciousness to I-am-me is from being to form to reflection to me, and that I cannot extract that identity from the thought that I am without ending me.

RJ wrote:

okay so...
you're it!

Dear God, hello, how are you?
What were you doing before the creation of this physical Universe?
Were you sleeping, did you dream? Are you dreaming still?

yours semi-faithfully
RJ ii (idiots incorporated)

I asked Bruce a little while ago, to start a thread about God, the big guy/gal who created this universe. I think it is a worthwhile topic to explore. What is God, is there even a God, or Gods, are we made in his/her image, are we part of God, are we totally God, can we ever know about God totally and fully or only partially? These are some of the questions about God...

wilbro99 wrote:

Yo, RJ, when the Lord High Executioner tries to lop off the Court Jester's head, you surely must realize who has the King's ear in his pocket, must you not?

wibs, all this talk of cutting off someones head, hmmm, very krishnamurti like. LOL More Zen like to me, I think.

I have been reading more of Lao Tzu and one of his main points is not to add anything, but to subtract, to let go of what you think you know.

So maybe with the sword of discrimination, not the real sword that cuts peoples heads off, but this sword of discrimination we can use to chop off our concepts and knowings....

wilbro99 wrote:

Attention el jefe.

I have noticed lately that there were large spikes in 'page views' of this thread that occur somewhere between 06:00 and 09:00.

For the last three days, that time period has registered three to four hundred page view each day.

Any ideas? It's a puzzle.

Wibs, what I noticed about you, is this: You like to play cat and mouse, I have seen into you. You like to catch your prey... You are one sneaky fellow, off and on, stalking, waiting patiently for your prey to helplessly land right in front of you. LOL Fascinating, intriguing fellow you are...