KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Well, willy, I guess for every sublemon there must be a sour-pucker.

(drive on)

Thanks, treeji, you truly are a giving tree  :-)

beans wrote:

That's true, he does address the self-image in that way. Guess it's appropriate for that situation.

I think "present to oneself" is such an amorphous bit of understanding at first. How does one know one is present to oneself, except to understand the difference between that and not being present. There is doubt, there is comparison to what has been read, and searching for signs that might match up with what has been read. On the other hand, with some or at times, there can be a belief that one is present during times when the shadow self is running rampant. But, if one is really observing,  may start to understand the differences.

Would you say the shadow self is the same thing as the escape itself, or is the escape just the method used to escape from the shadow self? K would say one is the fear, etc...

First off, beanzy, I found him speaking my language of presence, where the key to it is your notion of understanding the difference between presence and absence of presence. Let me put my willyji hat on and have at it.

Presence is read as absence. What does it mean, to be without a headache? Look and see. If you have no headache, this is what it means. If you are aware of absence rising, then presence can be itself forgotten. I see him making the same point about joy as the absence of that self, and the seeing of that sensation as an indication only, not as an answer in itself.

Is the shadow self the escape? I would not say that. I would say that the presence of the shadow self is indicated by the urge to escape, to become another. By its presence only shall it become known, and that because it is the shadow self.

And finally, if I am the shadow self, which I can become if I fall into the body/me complex, and which is not that difficult to do, then my reaction to what is going on is my reaction to what is going on, and in trying to escape the reaction, I become the reaction to the reaction; still myself, but more tightly bound.

I have a hunch the problem of the self can only present itself as it manifests, and it is those manifestations that can be observed. Does that make sense to you?

I see you can see individually if you want to with no psychological authority or advice . Obviously in a country he can freely exploit in he feels pleasure? He has arrived ?    Can joy be watched, or is joy total non self concern ? He seems like a nice self assured traditional exploiter but I do not think he understands the difference between pleasure and joy, since he has so many followers and attachments himself. He is not helping them see the inventor of all psychological thought, and climbing to the top, is  himself, posing as traditional thought that has reached a false place in life. On a podium  teaching others how to exploit and pretend pleasure is joy, that can be watched by the struggling muddled observer  becoming an interpretive traditional observer, and imitating him  themselves.  :-)

willy asks: "Ok tree, What I see this ji guy speaking to is the essence of what I call Home.

    My guess that he is not speaking to what you tag as *this*. Is that correct?"

tree responds: "vapid speculation is insuffcient"

Ladies and gents, we have a new mayor of dodge!

edit made bold my comment

Last edited by wilbro99 (2012-04-02 12:40:16)

(you can play without me, thanks)

wilbro99 wrote:

beans wrote:

That's true, he does address the self-image in that way. Guess it's appropriate for that situation.

I think "present to oneself" is such an amorphous bit of understanding at first. How does one know one is present to oneself, except to understand the difference between that and not being present. There is doubt, there is comparison to what has been read, and searching for signs that might match up with what has been read. On the other hand, with some or at times, there can be a belief that one is present during times when the shadow self is running rampant. But, if one is really observing,  may start to understand the differences.

Would you say the shadow self is the same thing as the escape itself, or is the escape just the method used to escape from the shadow self? K would say one is the fear, etc...

First off, beanzy, I found him speaking my language of presence, where the key to it is your notion of understanding the difference between presence and absence of presence. Let me put my willyji hat on and have at it.

Presence is read as absence. What does it mean, to be without a headache? Look and see. If you have no headache, this is what it means. If you are aware of absence rising, then presence can be itself forgotten. I see him making the same point about joy as the absence of that self, and the seeing of that sensation as an indication only, not as an answer in itself.

Is the shadow self the escape? I would not say that. I would say that the presence of the shadow self is indicated by the urge to escape, to become another. By its presence only shall it become known, and that because it is the shadow self.

And finally, if I am the shadow self, which I can become if I fall into the body/me complex, and which is not that difficult to do, then my reaction to what is going on is my reaction to what is going on, and in trying to escape the reaction, I become the reaction to the reaction; still myself, but more tightly bound.

Well, willyji, I couldn't find anything in mooji's talk that didn't meet with (or glaringly stand out against) my understanding. I think sometimes it is helpful to lay out what one means by "being present" etc as we have done.

The reason for the question about whether the shadow self and the escape are the same was because of a recent posting of yours which to my mind could have been read either way, depending how the inclusive the term self was used. To me it seems the self-image and the escape are two different things. It seems to me that one may be in the process of escaping and have left the self-image behind, or just be attempting to escape pain in general at some point, caught up in the pleasure-pain cycle.

willy wrote:

I have a hunch the problem of the self can only present itself as it manifests, and it is those manifestations that can be observed. Does that make sense to you?

Yes, this makes sense. The self-images (and it seems there are many flavors) are difficult to notice and subtle, except for when they're not. When there is a strong reaction, one can look and see if that self-image is being held onto.

Last edited by beans (2012-04-02 20:05:33)

everyone wrote:

I see you can see individually if you want to with no psychological authority or advice . Obviously in a country he can freely exploit in he feels pleasure? He has arrived ?    Can joy be watched, or is joy total non self concern ? He seems like a nice self assured traditional exploiter but I do not think he understands the difference between pleasure and joy, since he has so many followers and attachments himself. He is not helping them see the inventor of all psychological thought, and climbing to the top, is  himself, posing as traditional thought that has reached a false place in life. On a podium  teaching others how to exploit and pretend pleasure is joy, that can be watched by the struggling muddled observer  becoming an interpretive traditional observer, and imitating him  themselves.  :-)

Hi everyone. Are you sure that he is an exploiter, or is that just an assumption because he is teaching and because of the garb and scenery? On sweltering summer days, do we go to work in our underwear :-)  ?

You said, "but I do not think he understands the difference between pleasure and joy, since he has so many followers and attachments himself." K also had followers, does that mean he did not understand the difference between pleasure and joy?
What attachments do you see?

Why do you say he doesn't know the difference between pleasure and joy? Maybe we can look at this...

everyone wrote:

There is nothing wrong with listening to anyone or everyone .:-)  Beans please listen . Traditionally you are told to believe truth has a representative on earth . Secondly you are told you must serve truth to receive truth . It is Absolutely untrue that believe first works to help us  see, or learn the Art of Inquiry, or the art of listening without personal prejudice or bias, or comes from a personal representative . Tradition can always be seen as believe me first not see for yourselves first. See  so you yourselves never have to believe anything except a scientific theory, founded on something factual again. :-)

Yes, nothing wrong with listening or talking, as you are doing and as mooji is doing. Does that mean I necessarily put either of you on a pedestal? No, I can look at what you say and contemplate it. I may enjoy doing this. So everyone, don't be so certain...

beans wrote:

That's true, he does address the self-image in that way. Guess it's appropriate for that situation.

I think "present to oneself" is such an amorphous bit of understanding at first. How does one know one is present to oneself, except to understand the difference between that and not being present. There is doubt, there is comparison to what has been read, and searching for signs that might match up with what has been read. On the other hand, with some or at times, there can be a belief that one is present during times when the shadow self is running rampant. But, if one is really observing,  may start to understand the differences.

Would you say the shadow self is the same thing as the escape itself, or is the escape just the method used to escape from the shadow self? K would say one is the fear, etc...

All this is the activity of thought: comparison, occupation with doing something to change, division in time, and so the movement keeps going on day after day, endlessly. Is there any possibility to live not in the division of time?

beans wrote:

snguyen wrote:

beans wrote:

That's true, he does address the self-image in that way. Guess it's appropriate for that situation.

I think "present to oneself" is such an amorphous bit of understanding at first. How does one know one is present to oneself, except to understand the difference between that and not being present. There is doubt, there is comparison to what has been read, and searching for signs that might match up with what has been read. On the other hand, with some or at times, there can be a belief that one is present during times when the shadow self is running rampant. But, if one is really observing,  may start to understand the differences.

Would you say the shadow self is the same thing as the escape itself, or is the escape just the method used to escape from the shadow self? K would say one is the fear, etc...

All this is the activity of thought: comparison, occupation with doing something to change, division in time, and so the movement keeps going on day after day, endlessly. Is there any possibility to live not in the division of time?

Hi Si, we use thought in our work, we use thought when we converse with our loved ones, when we read a book. It's just part of being human. I find it interesting to see others' understandings. It does not necessarily mean this is lost in time.

Yeah, I understand. But many times I found myself to be caught in divisions and the conflicts were terrible. What I see is that I divided myself into many things and they kept coming back. Is there any way to be whole? Be present to oneself?

Si wrote:

Yeah, I understand. But many times I found myself to be caught in divisions and the conflicts were terrible. What I see is that I divided myself into many things and they kept coming back. Is there any way to be whole? Be present to oneself?

Sometimes we are present to ourselves and others times we aren't. It is a way of being based on understanding of the being, right?