KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

joe wrote:

I am left handed...

I'm left-footed...

bruce sean wrote:

amardaya wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

You are the least interesting person for me; oh boy, the nonsense is back.

If at all you are serious as you claim you'll see that what you're saying above  is not coming from insight, but past/hurt/self/ego/time which is the personal.

No, it's coming from a crystal clear observation of a series of facts. It has nothing to do with me-I am not touched by it. Crystal-clear facts.

Clearly, what you call facts are colored by the conditioning, the past, the experience, etc, etc. 

Then you say it has nothing to do with me(yourself, here). But the fact of your written post shows something else, a "you" verses "me", a "you" who has something to do with a "me", in your statement,"you are the least interesting person to me", which reveals an image has been formed, an experience recorded of a "me".

You say you are not touched by it, but your post reveals otherwise indicating to the fact that a "me" does exist to a "you".  Your statements contradict clearly.

Last edited by amardaya (2012-07-13 13:29:54)

amardaya wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

amardaya wrote:

If at all you are serious as you claim you'll see that what you're saying above  is not coming from insight, but past/hurt/self/ego/time which is the personal.

No, it's coming from a crystal clear observation of a series of facts. It has nothing to do with me-I am not touched by it. Crystal-clear facts.

Clearly, what you call facts are colored by the conditioning, the past, the experience, etc, etc. 

Then you say it has nothing to do with me(yourself, here). But the fact of your written post shows something else, a "you" verses "me", a "you" who has something to do with a "me", in your statement,"you are the least interesting person to me", which reveals an image has been formed, an experience recorded of a "me".

You say you are not touched by it, but your post reveals otherwise indicating to the fact that a "me" does exist to a "you".  Your statements contradict clearly.

The contradiction is non-existent. When a person has nothing to say, that fact makes him/her a mediocre person, or a non-interesting person, as I said: it's the same thing. When seeing is, there are plenty of things to say, and on the whole, such a person is interesting, in the sense that she/he says something new all the time, not in the sense that a psychological 'me' exists or doesn't exist.

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

beans wrote:

Yes, and we should also kick out anyone who doesn't have blue eyes.

Anyone who's not serious, it could be my mother, my son, my wife, or myself-it's not personal, even if I'm the one to get banned. No favoritisms, not even to myself.

The judgment that "those who are not serious according to my standards" should be removed from the forum is personal.

See - there is someone there with an idea of what should and shouldn't be according to the pattern of thought that you just laid out about an idea of "seriousness". Contrast that with seeing in the moment that a particular action is causing havoc.

I haven't proposed any standards; it is something to be discussed. A lack of seriousness manifests itself through many forms, and some of the most obvious ones perhaps we can all see. I mean, some forms are very obvious.

RJ wrote:

best to ignore him amardaya,
he is here to talk, not to listen
you will get frustrated and when you express your feelings it will make him smile in a way that would not be pretty to behold (it's a chess player's thing)

LOl! Ahh, yes, yes, t's the chess player thingy! Totally get it! I do see what you mean mate.:-)

RJ wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

I am listening, dear, listening

http://alainsojourner.typepad.com/.a/6a … 970d-800wi

Let's be logical:

this RJ chap is both emotional and irrational
therefore 'he' must really be a 'she'
I will expose him by calling him 'dear' and at the same time persuade him of my many manly attributes such as always being right and having phenomonal powers of logic
whereupon he will succumb and turn gay for me...

hang on, I missed something...

Alright, dear, it has nothing to do with being a man or a woman, with whom one's having sex or to whom one's attracted-which varies greatly depending on how blind one is(like one may be attracted to a woman who's smoking because she looks confident, cool, but if one really looked they would see that smoking is covering up fear, insecurity, and would NEVER be attracted to someone with such behaviours-and the list goes on and on and on).

  We all have the same problems, men, women, gay or straight. Same problems, and we gathered here to solve them, nothing else.

RJ wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

I am listening, dear, listening

http://alainsojourner.typepad.com/.a/6a … 970d-800wi

Let's be logical:

this RJ chap is both emotional and irrational
therefore 'he' must really be a 'she'
I will expose him by calling him 'dear' and at the same time persuade him of my many manly attributes such as always being right and having phenomonal powers of logic
whereupon he will succumb and turn gay for me...

hang on, I missed something...

Anybody who's not peaceful is both emotional and irrational, woman, man child or adult, king, janitor, president or pimp.

  You may have read too many books about emotions, due to your profession, and give them too much importance-you see, unfortunately the books won't explain such emotions, really explain them, what is the real cause of them. They tend to give them too much importance, because they seem so real; but, they're only real because an illusion is not being perceived...So because an illusion is what produces them, are they real?!

  But the illusion must be first perceived.

bruce sean wrote:

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

I haven't proposed any standards; it is something to be discussed. A lack of seriousness manifests itself through many forms, and some of the most obvious ones perhaps we can all see. I mean, some forms are very obvious.

The standards are your idea of the parameters of "seriousness". We've been around this block before, and see it differently.

Seriousness, in the K Way, can include humor. Someone may be serious and another may not be able to see this.

Occasionally, humor has its place. Yet the main reason we are here is to solve the HUMAN PROBLEM. That is why we must be serious, because this problem is a tremendous problem, and we, humans haven't solved it.

Yes, if one is serious, the "main reason we are here" is the solve the human problem - within ourselves (not within another). For any human, even K, this means lifelong observation of what is happening including with the body/brain.

bruce sean wrote:

Are you implying that suffering cannot be eradicated at once, and that we need 'lifelong observation' to 'not suffer'?
 
  Is it a matter of practice, or will observation occur naturally once the illusion is dispelled?

It can be eradicated at once, and until the whole body/brain has the correct understanding, suffering will return (or must be continually denied and escaped from by the ones who want to believed they've moved "beyond").

Understanding is a matter of doing, and the body/brain does need to acclimate.

For any human, even K, observation is a lifelong necessity - and there is no "rule" that what has changed cannot "unchange".

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Are you implying that suffering cannot be eradicated at once, and that we need 'lifelong observation' to 'not suffer'?
 
  Is it a matter of practice, or will observation occur naturally once the illusion is dispelled?

It can be eradicated at once, and until the whole body/brain has the correct understanding, suffering will return (or must be continually denied and escaped from by the ones who want to believed they've moved "beyond").

Understanding is a matter of doing, and the body/brain does need to acclimate.

For any human, even K, observation is a lifelong necessity - and there is no "rule" that what has changed cannot "unchange".

At the core? Can at the core perception ever reverse to not seeing the whole? I am excluding severe brain accidents, although I'm not sure even then, and I have a good reason for saying that, but won't go into here.

  Ocasionally, of course there are reactions, especially when functioning in an environment based on a set of images. But they are like ripples on a deep, calm, undisturbed ocean.

beans wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Are you implying that suffering cannot be eradicated at once, and that we need 'lifelong observation' to 'not suffer'?
 
  Is it a matter of practice, or will observation occur naturally once the illusion is dispelled?

beans wrote:

It can be eradicated at once, and until the whole body/brain has the correct understanding, suffering will return (or must be continually denied and escaped from by the ones who want to believed they've moved "beyond").

Understanding is a matter of doing, and the body/brain does need to acclimate.

For any human, even K, observation is a lifelong necessity - and there is no "rule" that what has changed cannot "unchange".

bruce sean wrote:

At the core? Can at the core perception ever reverse to not seeing the whole? I am excluding severe brain accidents, although I'm not sure even then, and I have a good reason for saying that, but won't go into here.

Yes, the core perception can change drastically - it's all in the way of being of the human being. I have a good reason for saying that, but won't go into it here. ;-)

No, I mean irreversibly at the core-I don't mean that it depends on your daily fluctuations of moods, thoughts, all that. It cannot go back, do what you will.

  If it can, then it's NOT a radical change, the only kind that exists.