KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

bruce sean · 2012-03-23 20:50:06

That's it: you have no idea what bliss is. To #100.

Last edited by bruce sean (2012-03-23 20:50:29)

beans · 2012-03-23 20:51:56

Nah, bruce, take #98 out for a serious test drive. You'll either come to understand it, or you won't. But if not, we stay at an impasse.

beans · 2012-03-24 13:37:15

Krishnamurti: How am I to put an end to conflict in action?

Questioner: Don't act.

Krishnamurti: My life is action. Talking is action; breathing is action; to see something is an action; to get into a car, to go to my house is action. Everything I do is action. You tell me, 'Don't act'! Does that mean just to stop where I am, not think, not feel; to be paralyzed, to be dead?

Questioner: The idea, which is unreal, and reality can never go together.

Krishnamurti: I realize that action is life. Unless I am totally paralyzed, dead or insensitive, I must act. I see that every action breeds more pain, more conflict, more travail. I am going to find out if there is an action in which there is no conflict.

K, Collected Works, Vol. XVI,Action

bruce sean · 2012-03-24 18:44:55

beans wrote:
Nah, bruce, take #98 out for a serious test drive. You'll either come to understand it, or you won't. But if not, we stay at an impasse.

Post no. 98 has nothing to do with bliss, which is not born of thought, of the past: feelings ARE.

Also, you said earlier that occasionally a thought of the self may happen. Now, how do you know it's of the self, or it's not? The self is hiding behind the most technological kind of thought-I may think I'm in some thing 'only' technologically, but actually it's the self all along which even gave me the energy to get into that field to begin with. So the self was there from the beginning, and continues to be there all along.

How does one know? This is serious.

bruce sean · 2012-03-24 18:46:55

beans wrote:
Krishnamurti: How am I to put an end to conflict in action?

Questioner: Don't act.

Krishnamurti: My life is action. Talking is action; breathing is action; to see something is an action; to get into a car, to go to my house is action. Everything I do is action. You tell me, 'Don't act'! Does that mean just to stop where I am, not think, not feel; to be paralyzed, to be dead?

Questioner: The idea, which is unreal, and reality can never go together.

Krishnamurti: I realize that action is life. Unless I am totally paralyzed, dead or insensitive, I must act. I see that every action breeds more pain, more conflict, more travail. I am going to find out if there is an action in which there is no conflict.

K, Collected Works, Vol. XVI,Action

Which means you can't explain it yourself-I didn't read it, for I skip quotes-and so you prefer to use memory instead: is intelligence awakened in this case?

beans · 2012-03-24 19:05:41

And then I shall choose to skip your post also for judgmental, unintelligent reasons.

bruce sean · 2012-03-24 19:12:27

I commented on the very action of quoting-irrespective to how good that quote relates to a discussion, any discussion. Any action of quoting implies memory, which denies intelligence-which is to work through something ourselves, not to present the final product-that's not hard, to compare and come up with the right quote another used in a similar situation. Every situation is new though, and maybe it's better to start from scratch, which requires looking, intelligence, and a quote kind of prevents that.

beans · 2012-03-24 19:12:53

beans wrote:
Nah, bruce, take #98 out for a serious test drive. You'll either come to understand it, or you won't. But if not, we stay at an impasse.

bruce sean wrote:
Post no. 98 has nothing to do with bliss, which is not born of thought, of the past: feelings ARE.

Humans are conditioned organisms, just as all living species are, and are conditioned to have thoughts and feelings. This is not the same thing as ego, unless the ego is attached to it. Did you know that wild animals often mourn when a mate or offspring dies? This is due to feelings. Wild animals also seem to experience bliss, which is also a feeling - though it is tempting for thought to place bliss into the "beyond" category. It is also tempting for us to identify with a feeling of bliss and ride that train into delusion about oneself.

bruce sean wrote:
Also, you said earlier that occasionally a thought of the self may happen. Now, how do you know it's of the self, or it's not? The self is hiding behind the most technological kind of thought-I may think I'm in some thing 'only' technologically, but actually it's the self all along which even gave me the energy to get into that field to begin with. So the self was there from the beginning, and continues to be there all along.

How does one know? This is serious.

It's very subtle. It takes a lot of attention and honesty with oneself (hence my suggestion about post #98)....be vewwwwy qwwwwuiet.....

beans · 2012-03-24 19:14:48

bruce sean wrote:
I commented on the very action of quoting-irrespective to how good that quote relates to a discussion, any discussion. Any action of quoting implies memory, which denies intelligence-which is to work through something ourselves, not to present the final product-that's not hard, to compare and come up with the right quote another used in a similar situation. Every situation is new though, and maybe it's better to start from scratch, which requires looking, intelligence, and a quote kind of prevents that.

Yes, exactly. And I commented on your action of irrationally judging quotations. If the a quotation makes the point well, there is no problem, unless someone has certain qualms and distastes...

bruce sean · 2012-03-24 19:14:54

Also, to introduce another who's not even present in a discussion acts as a distraction, and without attention intelligence cannot operate, can it now?

bruce sean · 2012-03-24 19:16:21

beans wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
I commented on the very action of quoting-irrespective to how good that quote relates to a discussion, any discussion. Any action of quoting implies memory, which denies intelligence-which is to work through something ourselves, not to present the final product-that's not hard, to compare and come up with the right quote another used in a similar situation. Every situation is new though, and maybe it's better to start from scratch, which requires looking, intelligence, and a quote kind of prevents that.
Yes, exactly. And I commented on your action of irrationally judging quotations. If the a quotation makes the point well, there is no problem, unless someone has certain qualms and distastes...

Read the post below: a quote is a distraction: an action of removing the attention from the issue at hand to what another said about that issue: meanwhile, looking has stopped.

beans · 2012-03-24 19:16:35

bruce sean wrote:
Also, to introduce another who's not even present in a discussion acts as a distraction, and without attention intelligence cannot operate, can it now?

If it is a distraction to you, it is due to the preconceived judgment and distaste which get in the way, isn't that obvious?

beans · 2012-03-24 19:17:35

bruce sean wrote:
beans wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
I commented on the very action of quoting-irrespective to how good that quote relates to a discussion, any discussion. Any action of quoting implies memory, which denies intelligence-which is to work through something ourselves, not to present the final product-that's not hard, to compare and come up with the right quote another used in a similar situation. Every situation is new though, and maybe it's better to start from scratch, which requires looking, intelligence, and a quote kind of prevents that.
Yes, exactly. And I commented on your action of irrationally judging quotations. If the a quotation makes the point well, there is no problem, unless someone has certain qualms and distastes...
Read the post below: a quote is a distraction: an action of removing the attention from the issue at hand to what another said about that issue: meanwhile, looking has stopped.

Read the post above.

bruce sean · 2012-03-24 19:23:18

beans wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
Also, to introduce another who's not even present in a discussion acts as a distraction, and without attention intelligence cannot operate, can it now?
If it is a distraction to you, it is due to the preconceived judgment and distaste which get in the way, isn't that obvious?

It's a distraction to ANYONE WHO IS LOOKING. To the one who's already distracted, in the sense that they're not looking to begin with, it doesn't indeed SEEM as a distraction-it's the most natural thing.

But looking doesn't need another's comments on something which is seen clearly-someone's fixed words who can't say anything at all at the moment. The present is new, it is happening right now, and to revive old words prevents a total communication right now.

beans · 2012-03-24 19:27:42

Perhaps to you, but absolutely not to me. I am able to look at a quote without a feeling of distaste and to understand what is being conveyed, regardless of whose words they are.

One must be very RIGID to have such rules, and it's a shame, because look at the distraction it is causing you.

kirsten · 2012-03-24 19:29:47

bruce
you said the person is not important, it is about the words ?
then why is it a distraction when a quote is being posted..

bruce sean · 2012-03-24 19:36:08

Many reasons-but it's important to see them all at once.

The person is not present and so cannot actively contribute to a seeing which must happen now, in a discussion that we're having here.

To rely on memory in order to write the EXACT words of someone else is to stop looking right now, in the present.

To use memory denies a direct communication between two brains: seeing must happen right now and of something which is seen for the first time, by the brains ENGAGED in a discussion.

Lastly, it may be illusory to think we understand another's exact words and then unable to explain it ourselves.

kirsten · 2012-03-24 19:38:08

bruce sean wrote:
Lastly, it may be illusory to think we understand another's exact words and then unable to explain it ourselves.

yes.. keep that in mind please

bruce sean · 2012-03-24 19:42:18

I'm not the one quoting-I don't need anyone's words to support the facts. Seeing the facts finds the right words, that is not the problem.

I can answer anything you like, anything at all, there is nothing hidden.

night · 2012-03-24 19:42:36

who of you two knows more about bliss, let me know. I am writing a book on bliss and would like to add your testimonies to it.

beans · 2012-03-24 19:43:29

Hi night - maybe it can be an autobiography "Bliss in the Depths of Night"

bruce sean · 2012-03-24 19:45:02

night wrote:
who of you two knows more about bliss, let me know. I am writing a book on bliss and would like to add your testimonies to it.

Leave that for the reader: it needs their own testimony, this bliss thing.

pearl · 2012-03-24 20:33:22

bruce sean wrote:
That's it: you have no idea what bliss is. To #100.

Most certainly you can never have an idea about it, if you do then it is not truth, beauty, bliss, but just an idea and all ideas separate even the idea of bliss.

pearl · 2012-03-24 20:35:22

night wrote:
who of you two knows more about bliss, let me know. I am writing a book on bliss and would like to add your testimonies to it.

Bruce's bliss is intellectual masturbation and what is your's?

night · 2012-03-24 20:55:37

beans wrote:
Hi night - maybe it can be an autobiography "Bliss in the Depths of Night"

I like it.

KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Announcement

#101 2012-03-23 20:50:06

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#102 2012-03-23 20:51:56

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#103 2012-03-24 13:37:15

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#104 2012-03-24 18:44:55

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

#105 2012-03-24 18:46:55

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

#106 2012-03-24 19:05:41

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#107 2012-03-24 19:12:27

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#108 2012-03-24 19:12:53

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

#109 2012-03-24 19:14:48

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

bruce sean wrote:

#110 2012-03-24 19:14:54

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#111 2012-03-24 19:16:21

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

#112 2012-03-24 19:16:35

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

bruce sean wrote:

#113 2012-03-24 19:17:35

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

bruce sean wrote:

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

#114 2012-03-24 19:23:18

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

#115 2012-03-24 19:27:42

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#116 2012-03-24 19:29:47

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#117 2012-03-24 19:36:08

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#118 2012-03-24 19:38:08

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

bruce sean wrote:

#119 2012-03-24 19:42:18

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#120 2012-03-24 19:42:36

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#121 2012-03-24 19:43:29

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#122 2012-03-24 19:45:02

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

night wrote:

#123 2012-03-24 20:33:22

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

bruce sean wrote:

#124 2012-03-24 20:35:22

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

night wrote:

#125 2012-03-24 20:55:37

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

Board footer