KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

bruce sean wrote:

To see for ourselves, but what do you see? You see entities.

  I said, you can call the body an entity, a physical entity: such an entity does have a center, which is the brain. No one's arguing with you there.

  I am denying the existence of any other entity: no psychological entity.

  So, to make it clear for you, so you won't bring up again the same thing: physical entity-yes; psychological entity-no. Bottom line.

Your tone is very condescending, bruce. Do you know why?

Is that what you observe?

Exactly, different understandings....thank you.

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

To see for ourselves, but what do you see? You see entities.

  I said, you can call the body an entity, a physical entity: such an entity does have a center, which is the brain. No one's arguing with you there.

  I am denying the existence of any other entity: no psychological entity.

  So, to make it clear for you, so you won't bring up again the same thing: physical entity-yes; psychological entity-no. Bottom line.

Your tone is very condescending, bruce. Do you know why?

If that is your perception then I appologize. I thought it couldn't get any clearer than that, so a simplified statement was made.

  It seemed like a must, since you tend to overlap the physical and the psychological too easily.

tree wrote:

go, thou art free

Or stay, thou art or aren't free...thanks for the message, however.

bruce sean wrote:

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

To see for ourselves, but what do you see? You see entities.

  I said, you can call the body an entity, a physical entity: such an entity does have a center, which is the brain. No one's arguing with you there.

  I am denying the existence of any other entity: no psychological entity.

  So, to make it clear for you, so you won't bring up again the same thing: physical entity-yes; psychological entity-no. Bottom line.

Your tone is very condescending, bruce. Do you know why?

If that is your perception then I appologize. I thought it couldn't get any clearer than that, so a simplified statement was made.

  It seemed like a must, since you tend to overlap the physical and the psychological too easily.

OK, young smarty-pants, but just so you know, apologize is spelled with one "p".  :-) It seems to me you may be relating to an image instead of a person, but only you would know that - if you're honest with yourself.

Psychological entity - have you heard of poltergeists?

)

bruce sean wrote:

Long time ago. But I don't remember now.

  Relating to an image? That's all we are, anyway. But there is a difference in hearing what perhaps comes from memory, from an image, which is another-through another image, and thus changing what was being said, and not doing that, and so perceiving exactly what was intended to be communicated.

  So even though another is but a bunch of images, it matters how those images are being listened to-through another image of one's own, or with no distortion.

  The perception of a psychological entity necessarily distorts that listening.

Well, b, I will get back to you on this post. "All we are" is seen another way by these eyes.

bruce sean wrote:

Well, b, you're insisting on the existence of psychological entities. Because the brain/body I've made clear doesn't fall into that category, and so I have no problem with that, and so the seeing is not different after all, there.

  But psychologically, meaning apart from the body/brain, there is no center, no entity.

  Any time you could bring something which contradict this, please do so.

Well, I started a very lengthy response to your other post, then decided to start with this one.

Alright, b, you are obviously very curious as to whether this lil ol’ hill of beans will say there is or isn’t a psychological entity. Come to think of it, I believe there has been some poking and prodding about this topic on the forum recently. Perhaps beans’ input will weigh the stack one way or another and the answer will all fall decisively on a particular side...?

Instead of debating whether there is something which can be defined as a “center” or “entity” (which are two separate balls of wax), how about this: in others at times, have you noticed ego/self-image in operation? And if so, what is it that you were picking up on?

sorry but i beg to differ.. and it has been said, and seen, before,
there may be no identity.. still there is an entity, the being you..

wilbro, is this your head floating in space?

wilbro99 wrote:

bruce sez: "The ego is not an entity: rather, a random array of images. At any one time one image predominates over the rest. That image though is not created by a center: rather, it comes from another, which comes from another, and so on.

  Without a center, there is no entity."

So, bruce, are you saying that the ego is not an entity, but a stream of results, which, when viewed in the direction that indicates source, may be said to be an unending stream of results rising in response to prior risen response?

All this stream requires is the first risen response, and all others flow from that, courtesy of an at once change you defined as its source of power by positing a random array of responses.

I can follow the dynamic set up as a pulse, or heartbeat, waiting to be claimed by a continuity we may tag as the ego. The ego is then defined not as an entity, but the spirit of a continuity finding a common center to the changing.

What you are describing is a change in which something always remains the same, and that sameness reflects itself to a central focal point. If there is two focal points, that sameness is a constant area swept out by that earth orbiting the sun.

See, what appears to be random in one dimension, could repeat in another dimension. Strange attractors? How about them apples? No center indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

It doesn't remain the same, the dominant fragment is changing all the time. It appears to stay the same because that dominant factor always connects with the self-image, and so it appears to have an identity independent of the fragments. Everything is connected with this self-image, and so everything is perceived in relation to one's interests.
  But the self-image is also just another fragment of thought, on the same level with all the rest of the fragments.

You're asking me if thought is making choices in daily life. Of course, it is: but thought is NOT an entity.