KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

joe wrote:

Eden wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Let me be clearer: if your eyes are moving ( whoever is reading this), you are not inquiring. It's that simple.

I've told you from from day one little brucey....all animals on planet earth are inquiring at all times.  Maybe this will be the year you graduate from preschool spirituality and hit the big time:  kindergarten.

wow eden, your openness is but one of the pillars of your greatness.

you wouldn't know openness if it slapped you in the face, literally.

joe wrote:

BobD wrote:

Wow joe. Can you say "cop out"?

yes i was able to verbalize it right now so yes bob, to answer your question.  Really, though, what am I going to say to you that will not just be trying to prove a point?  I am just not that interested in playing...

Well joe...I beg to differ. Your first sentence above shows that you are indeed interested in nothing but playing. "yes i was able to verbalize it right now so yes bob, to answer your question"  Really joe? you are not playing?  Then you try to intimate to the readers here that I am the one playing by totally contradicting yourself and saying that you are just not that interested in playing?  So which is it joe?  Playing or not? Serious or not? Or do you go from playing to so called "serious" to suit some agenda or protect some image you have here on this message board.  Or is it just too personally confusing for you? Do you feel you are not capable of discussing with me without the dialogue degrading into an imaginary war of wills and images? Or is it just that you like to be on top in every conversation? Cmon joe...these moments are few and far between...lets have a real conversation.

Goodnite joe. Tomorrow doesn't exist but...sleep well

bruce sean wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Yes, we want some assurance of some kind first.

That's it. That may be why man never changes!

It may. Do you want some assurance? Because you are looking up to some books...

Ha, ha, reading K's books has never been an assurance for me. It is investigating myself-the book is the mirror.

Last edited by Jayaraj (2012-04-25 02:05:04)

Eden wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

It may. Do you want some assurance? Because you are looking up to some books...

Ha, ha, reading K's books has never been an assurance for me. It is investigating myself-the book is the mirror.

There are better mirrors.  I suggest the kind with heartbeats. Of course we all have to start somewhere.

LOL! Thank you.

So in other words everyone has his own idea of heaven, the muslim, the christian, the buddhist, the hindu, the bruce...and then their little shoddy secrets of "how to get there".  One thing they all have in common is utter lack of awareness of their selves and to escape from the confusion that is them, they project a heaven, and also a hell.  Close your eyes, don't move and you'll find heaven.  Open your eyes and move you'll go to hell...says the bruce. lol.

sds, here is a quote I found from JK's Wholeness of Life:

"The ``what is'' can only be observed when there is no me. Can one observe the colours and forms around one? How does one observe them? One observes through the eye. Observe without moving the eye; because if one moves the eye the whole operation of the thinking brain comes into being. The moment the brain is in operation there is distortion. Look at something without moving one's eyes; how still the brain becomes. Observe not only with one's eyes but with all one's care, with affection. There is then an observation of the fact, not the idea, but the fact, with care and with affection. One approaches ``what is'' with care, with affection; therefore there is no judgement, no condemnation; therefore one is free of the opposite."

What that quote reminds me of is a mixed salad, where the dressing is sure to wilt the whole mess.

Perhaps this is the source of this thread?

So there you have it, brucey copying Krishnamurti, still brucey lacks love, care, affection, self awareness, insight, even though he might imitate K's words.  In other words brucey is a psuedo, and not at all a genuinely enlightened individual as he would like others to believe, or believes himself, and so his words carry no truth, no real insight even if he copies Krishnamurti.  He only watches with his robotic mind and or his eyes what ever.

sds wrote:

Thanks Willy for the JK quote. Very interesting, indeed.

This is a good thread, with a lot to ponder on.

I have noticed for myself, after reading K daily that his main teaching is about observation, watching, seeing without any distortion, without any interference from thought. I just cannot do it like he did it. I wish I could, but so far no luck.

So when I saw Bruce posted something like this, I thought maybe this is something I can do. I will stay with it and go into this and we will see....

Be careful, sds, this is not a matter of practice. And anyone out there: you either do it, or you don't-you cannot move your eyes less and less until they stop: they stop right away or they don't.

When we are young we feel joy very often . We do not say wow what was that? What did I do to get that . Only as we get older and our passion for play and life starts dying do we want to repeat experiences in somewhat  selfless states or release from stress  even in drugs, and drink . One of the most powerful selfless temporary states is the orgasm .  The priestly saints who were  as dry as the wine barrels they got their pleasure from wanted a so called dark night of the soul in their knotted belt of experiences, to become a bona fide  repressive masochist for truth.


  Here we have a gentleman that thinks holding his eyeballs still for two minutes brought him joy, or heaven, or a state of intoxication, or bliss  once in the past. I sincerely doubt he could even repeat it again himself convincingly,  and achieve the same result like a good scientist in any study of himself?    Even if it worked a little bit it would involve self projection as hypnosis, and  exclude blind people from joy, or insinuate they were always in bliss?

So Going back into religion  When the first koan was invented? We can see  it stopped the students minds in their tracks, and they did have a brain stillness experience, when there whole minds were taken off of themselves by a shock  . Repeating the trick never worked well for long because repetition of koans dulls the mind. So  they tried to invent newer, and newer ways to shock the brain momentarily out of its trance, or sleep walking state of self interest .

Looking backwards for pleasure or joy is always about trying to repeat the delight of any past experience or someone else's  special experiences they might think, or have thought they were in control of like the drunk ?  That looking back to the past , or hoping for joy tomorrow, or repeating a drink or drug, or rebirth, or others methods, practices, and rituals is immaturity . A fools game . Methods practices are preventing the learning and seeing  the avoidance of real creativity in the imitation of anyone .

Seeing, learning about the asleep present, the unhappy state, or bored state  of background in our concept filled mind in the present, and being still is important. Not as a goal or for a reward or to receive bliss though but merely to learn for its own sake .  We can be   watching now in the present  with no motive   with no forward, or backward movement, in thought time taking us away from our state now so we can pay attention and learn about an inner state that acts in the world compelling us sometimes, to do things we know are bad for us, and not so good for others.   :-)

Last edited by everyone (2012-04-25 15:58:12)

sds wrote:

Bruce, I just read this thread. It is very fascinating, interesting, intriguing, insightful.

I have tried not to move my eyes for two minutes and it is not so easy. They are always moving it seems.

Can one do this with eyes closed, or must it be with eyes opened? And can I do it for less than two minutes, will that still work? Will I still experience Heaven if I do it say for 20 seconds?

What I did realize immediately is that the eyes are always moving, in movement. It is hard for the eyes or the body to be still, to not be moving, movement.

So thank you for helping me to see this.

I am willing to explore this further with you Bruce.

Could you please share a little about your experience of not moving your eyes for two minutes. What is it like for you?

So they're always moving. Right. Which is what happens with most people. With eyes closed is easier than with them opened. This is because when you turn your head your eyes are also moving-they're always in movement. But this can of course change. Specially at the 'turning point'. But that's something else; firstly, don't move them while still, eyes closed or not.

  What happens when they don't is not an experience.

sds wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

sds wrote:

Thanks Willy for the JK quote. Very interesting, indeed.

This is a good thread, with a lot to ponder on.

I have noticed for myself, after reading K daily that his main teaching is about observation, watching, seeing without any distortion, without any interference from thought. I just cannot do it like he did it. I wish I could, but so far no luck.

So when I saw Bruce posted something like this, I thought maybe this is something I can do. I will stay with it and go into this and we will see....

Be careful, sds, this is not a matter of practice. And anyone out there: you either do it, or you don't-you cannot move your eyes less and less until they stop: they stop right away or they don't.

So I am not able to do it Bruce. Now what? No Heaven for me? I am denied access?

Not at all. It may be that stillness of the brain comes first, THEN you discover your eyes are not moving, not the other way around.

  Even though, I think it's possible to greatly reduce their speed by being aware of their movement: try it.

everyone wrote:

When we are young we feel joy very often . We do not say wow what was that? What did I do to get that . Only as we get older and our passion for play and life starts dying do we want to repeat experiences in somewhat  selfless states or release from stress  even in drugs, and drink . One of the most powerful selfless temporary states is the orgasm .  The priestly saints who were  as dry as the wine barrels they got their pleasure from wanted a so called dark night of the soul in their knotted belt of experiences, to become a bona fide  repressive masochist for truth  .  Here we have a gentleman that thinks holding his eyeballs still for two minutes brought him joy, or heaven, or a state of intoxication, or bliss  once in the past. I sincerely doubt he could even repeat it again himself convincingly,  and achieve the same result like a good scientist in any study of himself?    Even if it worked a little bit it would involve self projection as hypnosis, and  exclude blind people from joy, or insinuate they were always in bliss?

So Going back into religion  When the first koan was invented? We can see  it stopped the students minds in their tracks, and they did have a brain stillness experience, when there whole minds were taken off of themselves by a shock  . Repeating the trick never worked we'll for long because repetition of koans dulls the mind. So  they tried to invent newer, and newer ways to shock the brain momentarily out of its trance, or sleep walking state of self interest . Looking backwards is always about trying to repeat the delight of any past experience . That looking back to the past , or hoping for joy tomorrow  is the avoidance of seeing the asleep, present, unhappy state of mind in the present and being still now with no forward or backward movement in thought time . :-)

It is not an experience what happens when the eyes are not moving.