KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Tom wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

I'm only suggesting that fear has nothing to do with the form: that the death of the form creates no fear, in and of itself.

In and of itself, yes.

So fear is possible only when there is a perception of a so-called psychological body. How does this perception come about? Because when this perception changes to that of a no such thing (psychological body, that is) then the fear of death has been abolished, which is something, you know?

Tom wrote:

Eden wrote:

Tom wrote:

I am demanding a dialogue with life, that's all.

Life keeps telling you that you are full of shit.

No, life doesn't tell you anything about yourself; it can't. The moment it says, 'You are this,' - good, bad, anything - it has created division because it is then just one fragment of life talking to another fragment. After all, we know what we are like as human beings. We can take any word and turn it round to suit ourselves, to suit our purposes. So the label is meaningless because it implies the labeller and the labelled as though they are two separate entities.

Life does not create division. Division is a result of our reaction to life. It is a response, pure and simple.
How can you say that life doesn't tell you anything about yourself? Unless I am misinterpreting you, that seems a silly thing to say.

We react to the challenges and situations that life brings us. The way that we react, it's efficacy or inadequacy are a clear indication of the veracity of our conduct.

Isn't right conduct something that can only happen with complete commitment to the truth?

Tom wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

So fear is possible only when there is a perception of a so-called psychological body. How does this perception come about? Because when this perception changes to that of a no such thing (psychological body, that is) then the fear of death has been abolished, which is something, you know?

A psychological perception is all about images, isn't it?

Why do you divide perception in 'psychological' and 'non-psychological'? There is either awareness of a tree, or there isn't one; similarly, there is either awareness of an image, or that image is operating from the background, without any awareness of its existence.
  Perception is perception: it operates everywhere, or it doesn't at all.

It is only a 'so-called psychological body' upon seeing this: it is not a given. So a perception is needed to see that there is no such psychological entity.

bruce sean wrote:

It is only a 'so-called psychological body' upon seeing this: it is not a given. So a perception is needed to see that there is no such psychological entity.

But we come back to the thorny old question of whose perception it is. Who or what is it that perceives it has no psyche?

LMP wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

It is only a 'so-called psychological body' upon seeing this: it is not a given. So a perception is needed to see that there is no such psychological entity.

Lets say this is more of a fleeting feeling in the body, to be tense, the stomach, the face, the hands etc. Would you just look at them one at a time? Or rather just the thought that picks up on these items? What is percieved according to you?

There is a perception of one of these things, or of all of them at once: it doesn't make a difference. Let's just say it's thought then that comes in the background and assumes the role of the  perceiver. Even though, it is not an entity, only an image, a random image assuming that role. And if such a perceiver comes in, it forms another image of what is being seen, and so whatever the senses present is transformed into an image.
So an image comes as a perceiver-not an entity-which creates another image of the perceived. Thus, now we have an image looking at another image: never an entity.

bruce sean wrote:

LMP wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

It is only a 'so-called psychological body' upon seeing this: it is not a given. So a perception is needed to see that there is no such psychological entity.

Lets say this is more of a fleeting feeling in the body, to be tense, the stomach, the face, the hands etc. Would you just look at them one at a time? Or rather just the thought that picks up on these items? What is percieved according to you?

There is a perception of one of these things, or of all of them at once: it doesn't make a difference. Let's just say it's thought then that comes in the background and assumes the role of the  perceiver. Even though, it is not an entity, only an image, a random image assuming that role. And if such a perceiver comes in, it forms another image of what is being seen, and so whatever the senses present is transformed into an image.
So an image comes as a perceiver-not an entity-which creates another image of the perceived. Thus, now we have an image looking at another image: never an entity.

If thought assumes the role of the perciever, then an image of me is 'looking' at an image of me. 'I should be asleep, but Im not', is such a case. In this sense the new (the awake) is made old right, and even the new can be played with as an idea or image.

bruce sean wrote:

In which case there is only the old, modifying itself, and appearing as new. You see, reality seems to be 'fixed', right, solid and all that. I say it's not, nothing is fixed, it'a complete chaos, moving without direction. But memory interferes with this perception.

well we are encouraged to take one thing at a time and concentrate at it right from the beginning (childhood), and the person is explained to function like this too, one perception at a time

complete chaos? well I dont know

bruce sean wrote:

What we are encouraged to do is our conditioning. Therefore, it is meaningless, and perhaps it may be discarded.

  As for chaos-it is reality in its birthday suit.

Does chaos co-exist with conditioning? Ifeel it is a stupid question but its the best I can come up with.

bruce sean wrote:

Wait, but that chaos I'm pointing to is also perfect order.

You see if I had to say something I would say that life is very still, calm, I feel nature is almost staged sometimes. If I were to say chaos that would only be if I studied details, life is infinitely detailed and there for me perhaps there is chaos, but chaos would then just refer to the fact that I do not know/understand what is happening. Perhaps you are referring to chaos as an energy that you are experiencing that I dont have.

But its a bit circular for me to say its chaos and perfect order. Let me try anyway. Hmm I think Im about to describe polarieties, close/far, me/not me etc. Without these polarities, is that where chaos begins would you say?