KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Eden wrote:

awareness wrote:

we are talking about innocence, in which there is maturity.

innocence=maturity=freedom=love=sensitivity=emptiness=summation of all energy=the unconditioned mind=the universal man=freedom from the known=wholeness=total negation=the light in oneself=choiceless awareness=total action=relationship=meditation=innocence=understanding=space in the mind=innocence=maturity=freedom=love=sensitivity=emptiness=summation of all energy=the unconditioned mind=the universal man=freedom from the known=wholeness=total negation=the light in oneself=choiceless awareness=total action=relationship=meditation=innocence=understanding=space in the mind=innocence=maturity=freedom=love=sensitivity=emptiness=summation of all energy=the unconditioned mind=the universal man=freedom from the known=wholeness=total negation=the light in oneself=choiceless awareness=total action=relationship=meditation=innocence=understanding=space in the mind=innocence=maturity=freedom=love=sensitivity=emptiness=summation of all energy=the unconditioned mind=the universal man=freedom from the known=wholeness=total negation=the light in oneself=choiceless awareness=total action=relationship=meditation=innocence=understanding=space in the mind=maturity=innocence=maturity.

Any questions?

look at your question. the answer is in the question.

Last edited by awareness (2012-06-29 18:30:09)

Eden wrote:

awareness wrote:

Eden wrote:

innocence=maturity=freedom=love=sensitivity=emptiness=summation of all energy=the unconditioned mind=the universal man=freedom from the known=wholeness=total negation=the light in oneself=choiceless awareness=total action=relationship=meditation=innocence=understanding=space in the mind=innocence=maturity=freedom=love=sensitivity=emptiness=summation of all energy=the unconditioned mind=the universal man=freedom from the known=wholeness=total negation=the light in oneself=choiceless awareness=total action=relationship=meditation=innocence=understanding=space in the mind=innocence=maturity=freedom=love=sensitivity=emptiness=summation of all energy=the unconditioned mind=the universal man=freedom from the known=wholeness=total negation=the light in oneself=choiceless awareness=total action=relationship=meditation=innocence=understanding=space in the mind=innocence=maturity=freedom=love=sensitivity=emptiness=summation of all energy=the unconditioned mind=the universal man=freedom from the known=wholeness=total negation=the light in oneself=choiceless awareness=total action=relationship=meditation=innocence=understanding=space in the mind=maturity=innocence=maturity.

Any questions?

look at your question. the answer is in the question.

thank you Captain Obvious!

enjoy the relationship with yourself

bruce sean wrote:

CB wrote:

Hummm, Ok, well I never would have guessed that!

But so I guess the real question then would be how this "pure energy" or energy without friction comes about, because it "takes care of the rest." But then that "pure frictionless energy" starts to sound like a god in the sky, because all one knows is the friction energy!

So your saying that it (pure energy) has something to do with understanding,... but then I would need some clarification on what that means? Or is that the wrong question, as it can not be clarified?

We can go into that. Yes, it sounds like the grace from god! How does the friction-free energy come about? Because, as we've said, it takes care of the other, no action is required.

  How does it happen? Let me watch first.

Ok, I've watched it, for days now, and I still can't tell how it comes about-that was the question.

  A slight pause in what one's doing and bum, it's there; sometimes we do things too quickly, in a rush; when I pause, the other is taking over. But I can't watch it directly: if I do, it's no longer there; so I can't watch it, but indirectly, its effects are seen: thoughts are going away, in an instant. There is no direct contact, but somehow the energy full of friction vanishes.

  On the other hand, if for another it doesn't come in an instant, I've suggested something: don't move your eyes.

K: Living, intelligence, love, compassion; they are all too limited.

awareness wrote:

enjoy the relationship with yourself

I certainly am!

Eden wrote:

awareness wrote:

Eden: space in the mind


you would be welcome in the club of separatists, where there is space.

space between the i and the you, these minds are full of space

"Space is the mind" is Krishnamurti's phrase, not mine.  Not to worry though, there is space in this universe for jackass comments also. 

As for the "I and the you", I have made it plainly clear that there is no such thing, except as an illusion in the fragmented mind. Are we clear? Great!

you said "space in the mind". for me is this clear. night eden:-)

Last edited by awareness (2012-07-01 05:10:49)

Eden wrote:

awareness wrote:

Eden wrote:

"Space is the mind" is Krishnamurti's phrase, not mine.  Not to worry though, there is space in this universe for jackass comments also. 

As for the "I and the you", I have made it plainly clear that there is no such thing, except as an illusion in the fragmented mind. Are we clear? Great!

you said "space in the mind". for me is this clear. night eden:-)

You are as clear as mud.

its your mud in which you stuck in

Eden wrote:

Without fragmentation it is impossible to be stuck. That is the fact.

said the fragment

bruce sez:   "… A slight pause in what one's doing and bum, it's there; sometimes we do things too quickly, in a rush; when I pause, the other is taking over. But I can't watch it directly: if I do, it's no longer there; so I can't watch it, but indirectly, its effects are seen: thoughts are going away, in an instant. There is no direct contact, but somehow the energy full of friction vanishes. …"

A question that was asked of the author of the above words was one of how 'it' happened, where the answer by the author describes what the 'it' was the question was about.

The author of those words above is describing a difference I would tag as an existential difference, where existential means that the difference can be known only by the one knowing it. If another, in reading that description thinks that they know, in an existential sense, of such a difference, then it might be possible to develop what might be called an existential language to communicate back and forth about that difference.

The difficulty in that sort of discussion is that when that 'it' is there, in place, or however it is to be described, thought comes to an end, which means that 'it' will not be described other than by the difference described that describes what it means.

In order to discuss that difference, the only avenue open to point to it is to cast that difference in terms of what one was doing that is no longer being done. This requires hanging out at that difference and watching what is going on in that movement in which the pause occurs.

I predict that the author will say that there is no such movement, and that because no one has shifted positions, and I will agree. The only question I have of the author is this: Why have you not developed the category of understanding to describe the difference that movement makes?

No bloody wonder some think you are bonkers. Become a Wonkman and a memner of the Court Jester's staff. There are positions open, by audition only!

wilbro99 wrote:

bruce sez:   "… A slight pause in what one's doing and bum, it's there; sometimes we do things too quickly, in a rush; when I pause, the other is taking over. But I can't watch it directly: if I do, it's no longer there; so I can't watch it, but indirectly, its effects are seen: thoughts are going away, in an instant. There is no direct contact, but somehow the energy full of friction vanishes. …"

A question that was asked of the author of the above words was one of how 'it' happened, where the answer by the author describes what the 'it' was the question was about.

The author of those words above is describing a difference I would tag as an existential difference, where existential means that the difference can be known only by the one knowing it. If another, in reading that description thinks that they know, in an existential sense, of such a difference, then it might be possible to develop what might be called an existential language to communicate back and forth about that difference.

The difficulty in that sort of discussion is that when that 'it' is there, in place, or however it is to be described, thought comes to an end, which means that 'it' will not be described other than by the difference described that describes what it means.

In order to discuss that difference, the only avenue open to point to it is to cast that difference in terms of what one was doing that is no longer being done. This requires hanging out at that difference and watching what is going on in that movement in which the pause occurs.

I predict that the author will say that there is no such movement, and that because no one has shifted positions, and I will agree. The only question I have of the author is this: Why have you not developed the category of understanding to describe the difference that movement makes?

No bloody wonder some think you are bonkers. Become a Wonkman and a memner of the Court Jester's staff. There are positions open, by audition only!

There is no language possible to describe something which is beyond words, or even how it happens. Not is it relevant: it's either happening or not. If not, we can look at obstacles, instead of by-passing them and jump to what's 'beyond' them.
Two, what others think of the author can be flushed down the toilet, and three, what movement?!

I've said pause, and there's nothing else to say there: if I fill up that pause, then it's not a pause anymore. There's no need for further words here, I think. Pause.

  Apparently this pause is being missed by most.


  Now, the obstacle: it's not about jumping over it, but about looking at it, seeing it from all angles, including the one from which it is seen as an obstacle, an angle missed by many.