KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

wilbro99 wrote:

awareness, I have had a similar discussion before within the confines of a Kierkegaard group, where the other and I uncovered the fact that we both read Kierkegaard in the same way, a way, by the way, that is comparable to the agreement you and I seem to have in place, yet came upon it as differently as you and I.

I have run into two movements of energy along the way, but only as the result of the process as I was thrown into, so I really know nothing about the way of chakras in this matter.

It is a very interesting question. I immediately think of a process that has two ways of being sensed; through the mind and through the body. One way sets aside all sensations and looks at the form of understanding as it changes, and the other way experiences those changes as a change in energy flow.

I just don't know. All I can know in this matter is what I know, and I do not know the way of energy flow, except maybe as rising from a change in understanding. Maybe two inverse functions?

Does any of that make sense to you?

yes, i think we will always come to the at-once moment back, because that represents the presence. i can not say that is the presence, because thought as time can not reach into the timelessnes, but this two ways always is an output of thought, which cannot other than separating, and in our case to unite these two ways to one, which also is a form of separation, so it remains to a represent of the presence by thought.

after that contact - of course - there is this constant transformation, which IS the presence. so intelligence can not be reached by thought, it is its own order. so to remain at your tomatoes or other flowers, there is an intellegince in, which let them growing and they find always a contact to a supportive stock for example, and of course the organism of human is in a physical security. so i am talking about this energy, in which there is intelligence, which is ending false psychological security, which is non-security and establish security, in which the non-security is ending. so because of the non-reletionship to thought one is of course  not the opposite of the other.

so you have always this constant ending of yourself, in which is the ending of the observer and this ending IS observation (without the observer). thats the whole point of the story.

wilbro99 wrote:

awareness wrote:

… so you have always this constant ending of yourself, in which is the ending of the observer and this ending IS observation (without the observer). thats the whole point of the story.

Ok, my view of that is two fold.

First, there is the understanding come upon, which makes me the understanding, and which, when I release that understanding to the care of words, creates the sensation of coming apart, of being released.

And second, there is the understanding in operation, in which there is a possibility of catching oneself in the losing of that understanding to a self-identity, and stepping out of it.

I think I have said what you were saying in my way of saying it.

yes, indeed. that constant steping out - how do you say - sounds a little as an active form - so like the one is stepping out and is not any more in, while i emphasize the passive form like : the one is undergone the stepping out (ending). Indeed it is so, that in the uncondinioned state a lot of words are used as synonyma for this one point of the story: the presence (out of time), it must be so, because in this presence, the condition (the interpreter, the observer, the knower) is ending. so you can use a lot of words, choose them in that context, what your listener interests, so you can use all these words for the one sense, for the one feeling, which is taking place in presense inwardly, that "what is" is mutated to "which is".

awareness wrote:

wilbro99 wrote:

awareness wrote:

… so you have always this constant ending of yourself, in which is the ending of the observer and this ending IS observation (without the observer). thats the whole point of the story.

Ok, my view of that is two fold.

First, there is the understanding come upon, which makes me the understanding, and which, when I release that understanding to the care of words, creates the sensation of coming apart, of being released.

And second, there is the understanding in operation, in which there is a possibility of catching oneself in the losing of that understanding to a self-identity, and stepping out of it.

I think I have said what you were saying in my way of saying it.

yes, indeed. that constant steping out - how do you say - sounds a little as an active form - so like the one is stepping out and is not any more in, while i emphasize the passive form like : the one is undergone the stepping out (ending). Indeed it is so, that in the uncondinioned state a lot of words are used as synonyma for this one point of the story: the presence (out of time), it must be so, because in this presence, the condition (the interpreter, the observer, the knower) is ending. so you can use a lot of words, choose them in that context, what your listener interests, so you can use all these words for the one sense, for the one feeling, which is taking place in presense inwardly, that "what is" is mutated to "which is".

the problem lies now in the listener. k began first talking about the contioned state, as how the things are, well known from the past, the listener is cought in in the interest, he/she can follow that, because the words are placed so, that there is a conditioned meaning beyond these words, later on the half of his talks k switched into talking about the presence, the unconditioned state, so most of the listener cannot follow, because of the fact, that the listener is active, so that listening cannot happen. the listener is too much cought in its condition that he cannot follow, that k is talking with a lot of same words, he used in talking about conditioned state, is using now for the one point of our story, the presence, in which the listener is ending and listening can happen, but does not happen, because the listener is not ending.

Yes, I was thinking of the passive and active voice as a difference in the grammar of our respective languages.

My first guess would be that the difference in our respective languages here has to do with how that new language was first introduced.

My first introduction to that new language was the loss of meaning associated with the future, which meant that I lost something, and which left me with the puzzle of what to do without a future.

This harks back to something I have broached here before, and that that each of us supplies our own context, which is what you have just said.

You mentioned the mutation from what is to that which is, which signifies presence. I would add that that which is allows for the separation of that which is imagined from that which is, which allows the thought necessary for communication to remain a pointing finger, and not an entity on its own.

Does that stay within your meaning? I am just playing around with the parameters of our agreement here.

awareness, another shift, if you don't mind. I am finding this fascinating, this shift of awareness from presenting that *which is* to others in short messages to offering what has to be a scholarly reply.

Ok, I say this, "I am speaking to you in a language where the words have no meaning, but are arranged in such a way that a meaning may shine through, if you have the passion to look through these words."

Or, I could say this. "When I speak to you of presence, I do not mean it in the sense that you will take it, but in a sense you will not know until you know it."

Yes, the difference is palpable.

Interesting, awarenenss, it looks like you and I got separated along the way. I read your post #83 as pointing to the first version as the preferable one. As I look it over, I think I misunderstood this:

"so thought can be now used as a communication tool, of course. but if one said, look, that word which i use, has no meaning, in the sense of meaning out of a dictionary, this word i use for this presence, which is...., which i have no idea about, which i dont know about, then he/she cannot follow as the same as i say, these words has no meaning. so the pointing finger depends to the passion of the listener and until there is not a radical change, which means the ending of the listener, this pointing finger remains a pointing finger, or it would be interpreted as a crazy, old in bitterness living one, in both cases without understanding."

Could you say that again, differently? Thanks

Ok, that clears it up. There is presence, and there is presence, and to know the difference reveals both the problem and its solution.

There is X, and there is X, and to know the difference is to cavort with the gods...

Ha!

wilbro99 wrote:

Ok, that clears it up. There is presence, and there is presence, and to know the difference reveals both the problem and its solution.

There is X, and there is X, and to know the difference is to cavort with the gods...

Ha!

I regret that it may have been a personal irritation in our conversation, especially because I appreciate the transitions of thought. with the wake-upness first degree it was meant as an expression of my appreciation to this, so that it could be possible that you get that in the wrong neck

wilbro99 wrote:

awareness, I had no thoughts of discord, if that is what you read into my words.

I was just thinking before I sat down here that I have enjoyed the walk we have taken between the two ways of seeing, as it were.

My intent was to say to you that pegging me as someone in the know could be dangerous because  I simply may be one clever twit who knows how to toss words around.

So, we come out in the same place; both appreciating the transitions thought is capable of.

awareness wrote:

its simple , the one presence , which is time-presence is an illusion and the non-time-presence is a fact, which is not the opposite of the first mentioned. a fact is a fact and has no opposite.

And that is my understanding, as a matter of fact.

well, then we have something in common. so now, we talked about that time-presence, which is thought and which is feeling, emotion, which is also thought, like fear, sorrow, right?

then we have this constant non-time-presence, in which is the ending of thought, which means the ending of fear, sorrow, which is meant by compassion, love, right?

so, now, only one presence can be the IS.

wilbro99 wrote:

awareness wrote:

well, then we have something in common. so now, we talked about that time-presence, which is thought and which is feeling, emotion, which is also thought, like fear, sorrow, right?

then we have this constant non-time-presence, in which is the ending of thought, which means the ending of fear, sorrow, which is meant by compassion, love, right?

so, now, only one presence can be the IS. …

All I know is that there is an absolute difference in the way an entity capable of being present to itself can grasp that presence, and that that difference is decisive in how one relates to the world it finds itself in.

In my understanding, the only meaning for presence is the absence of absence, which means that the ability to reflect upon oneself as the one who is present cannot be entertained, which is the act that signifies absence of presence. I have no sense of what *the IS* is.

I am not saying that your conclusion is faulty, only that the way I came to understand what I understand will not support that conclusion. I just do not know.

If you and I have the same understanding of what the difference between X and X is, then the way we have come upon that understanding must determine the language our understanding takes.

No harm, no foul.

yes, so uncertainity remains for thought, and thought is our only instrument of communication. now, do you have an impression, that k was talking about something other that we talked in the last 2 days? is there another core ?

Last edited by awareness (2012-06-09 15:57:44)

wilbro99 wrote:

awareness wrote:

yes, so uncertainity remains for thought, and thought is our only instrument of communication. now, do you have an impression, that k was talking about something other that we talked in the last 2 days? is there another core ?
Last edited by awareness (Today 15:57:44)

All I can do here is report. I asked myself the question, and that because I had no answer in hand. The only answer I came upon was presence reflecting upon presence, and that returns me to the thought that that is where I began the inquiry.

If what your are asking here is whether or not I can entertain the thought of a beyond, the only beyond I know is the absence of my presence in the direction other than the direction where absence of presence signifies the temporal sense of self. That beyond is one I fall into when I fall apart, so to speak.

Do you think there is a core, and do you think that because the fact was given to you? If so, maybe you and I are not really communicating as we thought we were. I just do not know.

If we are at cross purposes here, well, that is simply the way it is; no harm, no foul.

i cannot find another core than the transformation of what is, which is. so till that moment i was a very unsatisfied human being in the society, now i am satisfied outside the society inwardly. I had needed 10 years until the moment of transformation has occurred. so i am here to indicate it to those people, which are still on the way, that there is a real possibility, and to have contact with those, in which transformation has occured.

Last edited by awareness (2012-06-09 17:05:16)

willbro99, do you remember our discussion, we had once, where we talked about something and nothing, that they cannot occupy space at the same moment? i think it has something to do with. so time-presence and non-time-presence cannot be at the same moment. bruce and i have a similar discussion, if there is a contact between the part and the whole. i think, thats an crucial point.

turn the page, please