KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

nope, you're way off Joe, which keeps you a bit of a worry to me way over there...

me?

I float like a butterfly, sting like a bee

LMP wrote:

Roots wrote:

to suppose that the glitch is the real

You are saying that when I end the 'me vs not me' distinction that thought makes, the I survives nevertheless by now being this new seeming oneness? That in fact both me and not me is the 'I' whether believed to be one or two things?

No, LMP, that would not describe my understanding, but I think what you have said here probably aligns fairly well with willy.

What say you willy? The second subjectivity is in LMP's mix there somewhere isn't it?

wilbro99 wrote:

RJ wrote:

I just have this sense that if (not when, if) someone, anyone starts to get in touch with 'what is' beyond their all-consuming mind, senses, wishes, fences, then there is a natural impulse to bring light, love and laughter into the lives of those around them.
meaningless, endless, pointless bickering about correct states of consciousness seems so demeaning to all involved, all who are clearly clever men, all who seem dearly, fairly in the dark.

Oh my! That takes the cake!

There is something that one gets in touch with, that, when having been touched by it, turns the one so touched into a crusader, who then wields a sword of righteousness against those present amongst us who indulge in meaningless, endless, pointless bickering about correct states of consciousness, and whose cleverness cannot save them from themselves because they have not yet been saved by this touch, and, in that having been saved, acquired this natural impulse to bring light, love and laughter into the lives of those around them.

So, repent all ye clever arseholes who have not yet been touched by the essence of love that obviously accompanies those words quoted above. Repent and be saved! Or -- go to hell forthwith, do not pass go, and forget the 200 bucks.

Lord love a duck!

I guess this natural impulse come in all flavors…

   

hmm, firstly I see this as a malicious twist and the impulse is to bat your hand away
but then, dear Wilyum, I see those liver spots a little better

that querelous hand is a lonely one, it reaches for understanding, companionship

let me pat it instead
"there, there old man
never fear
your atoms will soon be recycled
and you can finally retire from the stage
with no more need to entertain
your self"


aaaaah, peace at last.

RJ, on your #57, I appreciate your concern; this response has 'the touch' about it.

If an old infidel may respond, this touch fits you better than the slice & dice mode.

RJ, it was not my intent to disarm you; but thanks for the bouquet anyway.

My intent was solely to speak to the RJ I knew of the Rumi days, that's all.

ay, that's better
good fellow

kirsten wrote:

said the mouse

I thought that was self-apparent

The illusion of volition is physical, it manifests in the thought of "I" on a material level.  Science has shown this to be illusory, a convenient "lie" of sorts that helps us sort through our days.  You are speaking to the volition of one who sees the "I", and can actually do something about it, or so it appears to me in your wordings.  Do you mean something else?

joe wrote:

The illusion of volition is physical, it manifests in the thought of "I" on a material level.  Science has shown this to be illusory, a convenient "lie" of sorts that helps us sort through our days.  You are speaking to the volition of one who sees the "I", and can actually do something about it, or so it appears to me in your wordings.  Do you mean something else?

What I see consists of two things: the true, which consists in us and everything that surrounds us: and the false, which consists in the view of the true from its own (the falses) perspective. In other words there is the true and a wrong handle on the true.

Mostly, people just go through life contending with the resultant of having a wrong handle. Evolution provides that some begin to see through a chink and spot for themselves that they have a wrong handle. These begin trying to suss-out the detail of how it is they have the handle wrong with a view to putting it right. Right handle = nirvana (or whatever name). The cause of the handle error, the 'I' (or the scriptural 'leviathan') is too powerful for these (now sighted) to do anything about it - every action other than the initial spotting is sourced in the trouble itself, and hence ineffective. However, with the sighting achieved, if the person then does nothing but negate the things which maintain the problem, they can reach the grail.

These requisite 'negations' consist in nothing more or less than the thousands of year old imperatives lent us by the scriptures  . . . . .  thou shalt not this that and the other plus love the lord they God etc. 'God' must be read as 'the true', and situation then is that compliance with all the 'shalt nots' is automatic compliance with 'love the true', for the reason that there can be no worldly gain in the doing of the 'shalt nots'.

joe wrote:

right, except backwards...you are looking at the (by)product and that skews the practice. The head is leading this way and so will go on unsatiated and forever searching for what it already is.

I am with you completely on the first paragraph, it is what in buddhist terms is often referred to as the "two truths".  I have referred to it as the conventional and the absolute. Thing is, in understanding that there are always two truths present, that it is part of the context of living, the search to end it is over and the search to understand its operation begins.  That never ends, not in nirvana or any other imagined state.

You think nirvana (etc.) is an imagined state?

joe wrote:

I think nirvana is a description of someone who is functioning absent the psychological complex, for the most part.

Yeah, that fits the description I guess.

So in that sense no it is not an imagined state.

Ok.

However, I also think that the very idea of nirvana and what these men who supposedly attained it is the result of the telephone game of stories, meaning they are built up beyond the actuality through the retelling.

Well, nobody's ever going to know the truth about that one are they. If I say it's more I'm guessing, and if you say it's less you're guessing. You are aware that I believe there are people on the forum who possess a serious degree of, let's call it progression; and those say that even in their 'condition' life is a veritable delight, basically. I'm inclined to believe them because I feel assured that I spot them. I accept that we probably can't go very much further on that but it might be interesting to talk about why.

joe wrote:

yes, I am aware that you believe these things.  I have often asked you the question of what does that do, that belief?  I would ask the same thing now.

I don't think you'll like the answer joe but when I present it to you, and you ponder it, I would ask that you weigh into the balance your general opinion of my rationality otherwise.

Firstly, I used the term 'belief' but strictly speaking it is a missnomer. As far as anybody is able to say that they know anything in this world I would say that I know it. Now, nobody could rationally make such a claim unless they had personal experience of it or at least of something akin. I (continue to) maintain that I have that, for the reason that to say otherwise would be an outright lie, which, why would I tell?

The essence of the nature of my experience is, that many years ago now (though it builds, slowly) one day (let's say 'one day' but in truth it was more like a few, which is to say I was not 'hit by lightning') I knew literally nothing about what by some are viewed deep dark subjects - did not even consciously have the remotest interest in them - and the next day I knew more than all the churches stuck together (which it's reasonable to say also, put like that, is not a lot).

Take that for what you will joe, the fact of it is not the point here, I only mention it because it constitutes the background upon which I am able to say, for a start, that there are different states of consciousness with regard to 'knowing'; for a second thing that the type of knowing referenced is not brain stuff; and for a third, that there are numerous degrees or states of this knowing (although I rather suspect the states are infinite just like the attainment of ordinary knowing, except this is real and the other is not knowing at all other than for science purposes).

So, having provided some sort of basis upon which to answer your question, my response to it is this:

If it were - as you're always disposed to suppose - 'belief', it would not 'do' anything for me, and/or I would hope, for anybody else. But since it is not belief but my knowledge, it does an awful lot. It allows me to 'see' K, and it allows me to 'see' others like K, and it allows me to 'see' any others who possess some (or at least a reasonable degree) of what those (properly termed 'greats') themselves possess in sackloads. That, as you may imagine, is quite useful. But I doubt you believe me anymore now than you ever have; which is why, Joe - and seriously, no offence intended - I have always thought you to be on the wrong site for your purposes. (and I really do mean no offence by it).