KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

pearl wrote:

Eden wrote:

pearl wrote:

To me it is obvious your relationships are filled with conflict, bias, fear and insecurities be it on the forum or off the forum, in other words rather shallow without any true depths, or genuine affections.

Unlike bruce, whose relationships are all deep and full of affection?  lol.

Well, if bruce is ready to settle for mediocrity who are you to stop him?  Everyone in this world seems to be content with mediocrity, including you, so...

Do you know the woman you are referring to? No, because I don't either.

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

beans wrote:

Well, bruce, there are things you don't share here. Why should you be the arbiter of what others should and shouldn't share?

Apparently you avoid even discussing general things in your life, like a relationship with the cashier at your local supermarket, etc. Are you afraid your image is going to be trampled upon, the same way mine constantly is, and you couldn't bear it?!

No, bruce. Don't you see that others here constantly try to trample on their image of "beans"? To some extent because beans is a mystery to them - a blank slate for the projections of what is in the mind.

That is the test of relationship, to be present enough to watch and see if anything happens in oneself during these minor conversations, to understand where the person is coming from and why they do what they do.

Discussing personal details is fine if that's what one wants to do, but don't judge what you don't understand.

I do understand everything, BECAUSE I DON'T JUDGE ANYTHING.

  That's the point: their image of beans contradicts yours. You see, had you not had an image about yourself you wouldn't have cared about their image of beans.
  You are pointing out only half of the deal: their image of beans. What about your image of beans, uhm?

Eden wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

pearl wrote:

Yeah, I guess you're right.  But, bruce you're in love. :-)

Then love is not!!!!!

  Where little bruce is, love is not.

Is it the little bruce who is 'relaxed' or the big bruce?

It is the body.

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

beans wrote:

Well, bruce, there are things you don't share here. Why should you be the arbiter of what others should and shouldn't share?

Apparently you avoid even discussing general things in your life, like a relationship with the cashier at your local supermarket, etc. Are you afraid your image is going to be trampled upon, the same way mine constantly is, and you couldn't bear it?!

No, bruce. Don't you see that others here constantly try to trample on their image of "beans"? To some extent because beans is a mystery to them - a blank slate for the projections of what is in the mind.

That is the test of relationship, to be present enough to watch and see if anything happens in oneself during these minor conversations, to understand where the person is coming from and why they do what they do.

Discussing personal details is fine if that's what one wants to do, but don't judge what you don't understand.

Do you care about their trampling upon their image of beans? You do if are sensitive to that image. And you are sensitive to that image when another image is present.

bruce sean wrote:

pearl wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Fear? You must be insane. I only described facts, not love, not projections into the future-I said 'whatever happens, happens'.

Those facts speak of fear.  It's the same story that has taken place billions of times over and over.

Who is afraid? Me or her?

  And why did you say she represents mediocrity? Based on what?

Not she, but the whole thing is mediocre.  It smells of fear not just from herside but from your side as well.  The love of images like everyone else.

bruce sean wrote:

This is all made up in your head. I said whatever happens, happens. What fear? I am not concerned with what will happen.

This is what exactly what you've said even though you might deny.  Maybe you were high on something when you spoke the other day.  Anyways, you think you're the only human(male) who can love anyone but that is all your images of yourself for the fact is you're like any other male here, or esle where seeking security, comfort calling that love, compassion.  But it is just made up of fear like with the majority.

Sir, no matter how much you deny it's all there in your posts. I'm not making up anything.  you said it so, that you think it will be another rejection(!!), another ordinary thing in your own words, in other words an image of another image.

Exactly, that's why I said it's like any other shoddy affair repeated over and over in human history between a male and a female, the exact drama.  Not that it's bad, but as a matter of fact it's nothing new either and just another mediocre affairs.

bruce sean wrote:

Which is just sex, that's it.

  But I'm yet to discover if that's so.

But, let me tell ya, that's what you'll have, some shoddy two or five minute sex and then she'd be gone.  Until then you will feel like you're the only one who has it in him to love, and what not.

bruce sean wrote:

How do you know that? Do you know Lauren?

No need to know Lauren, or Sharon, just knowing you on the forum and how you conduct yourself here is way enough clue as to who or what you're as a humanbeing, and the lack integrity, honesty, and true compassion speaks a lot.  THE END.

It's a fact, the laurens, the sharons, the bruces, the edens, etc, etc are all the same like the rest of the humanity even though they might like to think otherwise...their affairs, their sotires, their thoughts all mediocre.  Just a fact.  Nothing to take personally.  I know you like to think your girl is different so does every guy.  But, the fact is you're all so much alike.

Indeed you are!

You are the whole of mankind.  You are them, they are you.