KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

LMP wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Wait, but that chaos I'm pointing to is also perfect order.

You see if I had to say something I would say that life is very still, calm, I feel nature is almost staged sometimes. If I were to say chaos that would only be if I studied details, life is infinitely detailed and there for me perhaps there is chaos, but chaos would then just refer to the fact that I do not know/understand what is happening. Perhaps you are referring to chaos as an energy that you are experiencing that I dont have.

But its a bit circular for me to say its chaos and perfect order. Let me try anyway. Hmm I think Im about to describe polarieties, close/far, me/not me etc. Without these polarities, is that where chaos begins would you say?

Yes, I was reffering to energy which lacks duality. When it lacks duality it lacks direction also, that's why it seems chaotic. Yet it's the most peaceful 'thing' that could exist, so it's also order. Finally, it's dynamic, changing continuously.
  It's a perceivable 'thing', not an attractive theory. It is the only thing on Earth-perhaps Universe-that is NOT thought.

bruce sean wrote:

LMP wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Wait, but that chaos I'm pointing to is also perfect order.

You see if I had to say something I would say that life is very still, calm, I feel nature is almost staged sometimes. If I were to say chaos that would only be if I studied details, life is infinitely detailed and there for me perhaps there is chaos, but chaos would then just refer to the fact that I do not know/understand what is happening. Perhaps you are referring to chaos as an energy that you are experiencing that I dont have.

But its a bit circular for me to say its chaos and perfect order. Let me try anyway. Hmm I think Im about to describe polarieties, close/far, me/not me etc. Without these polarities, is that where chaos begins would you say?

Yes, I was reffering to energy which lacks duality. When it lacks duality it lacks direction also, that's why it seems chaotic. Yet it's the most peaceful 'thing' that could exist, so it's also order. Finally, it's dynamic, changing continuously.
  It's a perceivable 'thing', not an attractive theory. It is the only thing on Earth-perhaps Universe-that is NOT thought.

Ok, so for a little bit let me ask how this duality is created. There is a belief that duality is here and must be overcome. For many years I have acted in various ways upon this belief. You say the peaceful thing can be percieved, yet thought is covering this thing as if it is not really known. Lets say I throw a ball, the ball cannot 'do something' and in the same sense the longing for the peaceful perception is like that ball, right.

Intellectually there may come a time when the longing, the search, the various qualities of this being is just put on one side, but the no-direction energy is still held on another side. So there is some clarity about how duality is taking place but the other is still missing. There is some kind of trick going on here which is to do with the fear of disappearing, thought is both looking for and trying to secure a position in a place where it does not belong.

What then is the nature of the leap that has to take place when suddenly the other comes along, or is perceived?

LMP wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

LMP wrote:

You see if I had to say something I would say that life is very still, calm, I feel nature is almost staged sometimes. If I were to say chaos that would only be if I studied details, life is infinitely detailed and there for me perhaps there is chaos, but chaos would then just refer to the fact that I do not know/understand what is happening. Perhaps you are referring to chaos as an energy that you are experiencing that I dont have.

But its a bit circular for me to say its chaos and perfect order. Let me try anyway. Hmm I think Im about to describe polarieties, close/far, me/not me etc. Without these polarities, is that where chaos begins would you say?

Yes, I was reffering to energy which lacks duality. When it lacks duality it lacks direction also, that's why it seems chaotic. Yet it's the most peaceful 'thing' that could exist, so it's also order. Finally, it's dynamic, changing continuously.
  It's a perceivable 'thing', not an attractive theory. It is the only thing on Earth-perhaps Universe-that is NOT thought.

Ok, so for a little bit let me ask how this duality is created. There is a belief that duality is here and must be overcome. For many years I have acted in various ways upon this belief. You say the peaceful thing can be percieved, yet thought is covering this thing as if it is not really known. Lets say I throw a ball, the ball cannot 'do something' and in the same sense the longing for the peaceful perception is like that ball, right.

Intellectually there may come a time when the longing, the search, the various qualities of this being is just put on one side, but the no-direction energy is still held on another side. So there is some clarity about how duality is taking place but the other is still missing. There is some kind of trick going on here which is to do with the fear of disappearing, thought is both looking for and trying to secure a position in a place where it does not belong.

What then is the nature of the leap that has to take place when suddenly the other comes along, or is perceived?

Aah, that's rather simple to answer: when the other 'comes along, or is perceived' there is no leap to take place, uhm? It's finished already, the leap has already taken place, right?

   The leap has to take place before. How, we may ask? It cannot take place if there is a perception that there is some (intellectual) clarity, uhm? There is some clarity but nothing really happens, so such a 'clarity' leads to an expectation of something to take place, therefore it is not quite clarity. Clarity on this side, as it were, in the field of thought, of the known, is not clarity at all. It is precisesly such a perception of clarity in this field that prevents a leap into the unknown. For if there is some clarity, why should there be a leap at all?
  So, for such a leap to take place, so that another energy could 'come along', there must be a perception of a complete lack of clarity, a complete darkness. But such a perception may not be forced, or faked in order to invite something which cannot be invited by the false.

Last edited by bruce sean (2012-03-14 14:57:05)

But inattention, and so division, never stops. Superficially there may be attention, but deeply the division never breaks down.

I don't accept any status quo. It has nothing to do with me. Instead, this is the status quo: inattention-that is the fact, not attention. You must start from the fact, which is division, not a suppossed unity which is not a fact-that is a supposition.
  Look around: the fact is inattention, which never stops: division is always there, deeply. This is the starting point: now proceed.

When inattention has stopped there is something else going on. Since that something else doesn't happen for most people, including the ones in this forum, inattention doesn't stop.

  It's an illusion that attention happens: the fact may be that people don't really know what attention actually means.

I didn't claim it both ways: I look around and I see inattention, it's an undeniable fact.

  You see, I don't call attention looking without the self for one second, or one minute and then the self is going right back: there is no such thing, which means the self was there all along, and also inattention.

  Why is the mind inattentive? That's its conditioning, it doesn't know anything else, it's caught in a perpetual rut.

YOU are attentive, then, but inattention is also a fact, in fact everywhere: if one can't see it, then one is also inattentive, uhm? You are here because inattention exists, otherwise there's no reason to be here, exchange some casual lines with a bunch of strangers, and all the rest.

   When you observe, you observe not just yourself, your behaviour, but other people's behaviour, and inattention is part of that behaviour, perhaps at the core.

  As for why is the mind inattentive I say that was the answer: conditioning, to grasp the whole thing in one look. I'm not trying to fix it, that's not why I said it, you simply asked why is the mind inattentive, and I just looked, without looking for a solution: it's conditioning; now, what to do about that conditioning is something else.

  The response is also based on what is continually seeing, not only what has been observed: it's the whole package that is seen, package which includes memory.

  You see, memory is not exactly a blockage to seeing, to me.

I thought it means, because of the context, that you are attentive.

  If you didn't mean that, then what does it mean, to be looking around? What does it mean to look? Not much, I must say: anybody can look.

  Now, if they look as a Christian then they see nothing; if they look as an American then it's nothing they can see; if they look as a Republican, again they see nothing. So anyone can look, but to see is something else.

  Only when you look without belonging to any group, of any kind, concerend with anything at all, however noble, however grand-can you actually see the facts. Otherwise, all you can see is the conditioning of that particular group, which is not seeing at all, because seeing an illusion means not seeing the fact, and so such seeing is not seeing at all.

  So, in answer to your question, looking around can generate seeing, or not-seeing. It all depends how one looks around. If one is not free, absolutely and completely free, then one cannot see, despite their looking.

  So seeing implies freedom, complete freedom, not one second I see, and the next I belong to some group or another, and so seeing is denied. That only means that freedom was missing, all along, and so seeing also didn't happen, not even for one second, for freedom doesn't alternate with a lack of freedom: that is pure fantasy.

It's not patience which is required-any moron can be patient, yet still not see anything.

  You are not reading the posts: I said very clearly that without freedom looking means absolutely nothing. In the absence of freedom, there's nothing to see, no matter how much one may look. So in the absence of freedom, all this talk about looking means nothing: this is not a matter of agreement or diagreement.

  Before looking, there must be freedom: freedom always comes first.

I wouldn't say it like that. The very presence of an 'opener' of the 'eyes', or of a 'keeper' of them not closed, indicates a lack of freedom, which then denies seeing.

  You make it sound like a paradox; it's rather pointing towards the impossibility of ' getting' to freedom by looking: it's more like freedom first, then looking has meaning.

bruce sez more: "I wouldn't say it like that. The very presence of an 'opener' of the 'eyes', or of a 'keeper' of them not closed, indicates a lack of freedom, which then denies seeing.

   You make it sound like a paradox; it's rather pointing towards the impossibility of ' getting' to freedom by looking: it's more like freedom first, then looking has meaning."

Ah, so, you are saying that the seeker cannot find that for which it seeks, and that because both the maker of the effort, if I may plagiarize a bit here, and the goal of that effort, are imagined.

But, if such is the case, then saying freedom first has no meaning whatsoever to the one you are trying to get that across to.

Why do you continue to engage in such an impossible task?