KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

beans · 2012-03-17 17:25:16

Hope you don't mind that I'm posting this here, bruce. I find it interesting and see that there are possibly a couple more things to explore.

bruce:
When the psychological is absent there is no self. Whatever you call the reference point, it is not the self. Thought as an instrument is nothing at all. Such a reference point is still nothing. What operates the instrument is insight, not the instrument operating by itself.

joe:
semantics...the subject (and second subjectivity) remain, call it the self or something else if you want. It is not the perspective of the whole, it is a singular perspective.

beans:
I'd wager that judgment of self as evil or "something that shouldn't exist at all" is playing a big part in this discussion.

bruce:
One can only say that it shouldn't exist after it's not there anymore. While it's still there, there are no should's, because it is the should's which perpetuate the self, uhm?

beans:
Uhm, not exactly.

First, it comes and goes and will come and go for the life of the human, regardless of whether it is observed or unobserved.

Second, it's just a thought, and sometimes a useful thought, so who's to say whether it should or shouldn't be there?

bruce:
Not the self. But in your view it's not possible because you're also convinced that the self comes and goes.

You see, once one sees that there is no center, it's not possible to 'see' the existence of one-it's just not.

beans:
If the self is a thought that is used to represent oneself in communication (such as we are doing here), then where is the problem with that?

bruce:
No problem when used as an instrument: AS LONG AS THERE'S NO USER.

bruce sean · 2012-03-17 17:42:09

The problem is with the word 'oneself', instead of 'itself'. The former posits an entity different from thought, the latter doesn't fall into that trap.

beans · 2012-03-17 18:26:01

What exactly is the problem with the word "oneself"? It does not posit an entity different from thought, the body/brain, or the particular perspective/understanding -- if that's all it was meant to point to.

See, there is no trap unless one doesn't understand what "oneself" means.

beans · 2012-03-17 18:27:29

In the True Story thread, bruce said (about suffering), "....But now show that to beans, because she says it will always be there, no matter what."

No, I do not say that suffering will always be there, no matter what. Why would you think I am saying that?

bruce sean · 2012-03-17 18:35:32

Because you said that the self comes and goes, no matter what, for the rest of one's life.

beans · 2012-03-17 18:40:25

OK, well let's look at what we have so far:
beans:
If the self is a thought that is used to represent oneself in communication (such as we are doing here), then where is the problem with that?

bruce:
No problem when used as an instrument: AS LONG AS THERE'S NO USER.

So if the self is just a thought that we use in communication, where is the suffering there? See, there is a crucial factor missing that would cause suffering.

bruce sean · 2012-03-17 18:45:23

That is not the self: thought used in communication is not the self.

beans · 2012-03-17 18:47:21

Oh?

wilbro99 · 2012-03-17 18:53:57

bruce, is there a benign self-reference, and why do answer it the way you will?

bruce sean · 2012-03-17 19:17:30

I don't know: I just answer.

wilbro99 · 2012-03-17 19:22:33

Ok, try this one one on for size: Instead of trying to get the other to see something, tell me what you are trying to get others to see.

bruce sean · 2012-03-17 19:30:22

I'm not quite doing that: rather, I'm communicating what seems like an obvious fact to me. Another either sees it, in which case I 'agree' and move on, as it just happened with pearl, or doesn't, in which case I'm going into more details, but not being aware of me being right and another wrong.
I mean, it comes out the way it will, I have little control over that.

beans · 2012-03-17 20:07:07

This line of discussion is fascinating.

Recently, I came to understand (insightfully) that there are different ways that people handle the self-image. There are people who have “no filter” and say whatever comes to mind without any regard for the origins of that thought (that is to say whether it stems from building or protecting the self.) There are people who push their thoughts of the self and feelings away, only responding without a self-reference. Generally, people fall somewhere between these two extremes and respond according to conditioning based on memories that match up with whatever's happening.

It seems to me that neither is the “right” way, that is, if neither is observing to see and understand the elusive self-image.

wilbro99 · 2012-03-17 20:11:18

Well, bruce, why is it, do you think, that you and I have no idea of what the other is saying?

bruce sean · 2012-03-17 20:15:19

I did respond to your question.

bruce sean · 2012-03-17 20:18:39

beans wrote:
This line of discussion is fascinating.

Recently, I came to understand (insightfully) that there are different ways that people handle the self-image. There are people who have “no filter” and say whatever comes to mind without any regard for the origins of that thought (that is to say whether it stems from building or protecting the self.) There are people who push their thoughts of the self and feelings away, only responding without a self-reference. Generally, people fall somewhere between these two extremes and respond according to conditioning based on memories that match up with whatever's happening.

It seems to me that neither is the “right” way, that is, if neither is observing to see and understand the elusive self-image.

If the self-image exists, there's only one way to handle it, and it leads to conflict. When there is observation then the self-image is absent, and there is no way to handle anything-such a question doesn't even come up, when there is observation.

RJ · 2012-03-17 22:14:19

beans wrote:
This line of discussion is fascinating.

Recently, I came to understand (insightfully) that there are different ways that people handle the self-image. There are people who have “no filter” and say whatever comes to mind without any regard for the origins of that thought (that is to say whether it stems from building or protecting the self.) There are people who push their thoughts of the self and feelings away, only responding without a self-reference. Generally, people fall somewhere between these two extremes and respond according to conditioning based on memories that match up with whatever's happening.

It seems to me that neither is the “right” way, that is, if neither is observing to see and understand the elusive self-image.

oh, so insightful!
spread yourself far and wide Beans
you tell it like it is!

beans · 2012-03-17 22:26:25

Hello, sweetie! How was your day?

BobD · 2012-03-17 23:40:24

I agree beans...it definitely is fascinating. So much so that nothing more needs to be said. And I am not saying that to be a contentious smart ass. Damnit! See how the self ruins it all...

RJ · 2012-03-18 01:19:05

beans wrote:
Hello, sweetie! How was your day?

full of life, love and creativity
nature, music, great food, good friends, a wonderful family
I do nothing in my life that I do not wish to do.
How about you?

how is the dull, repetitive, cyclical, 'enquiry' with the same people, over the same old lines going for you? Think you'll break through to something around the 5000 mark?
Bruce is gunning for the 10K, he's obviously got nothing better to do either.

beans · 2012-03-18 07:34:39

BobD wrote:
I agree beans...it definitely is fascinating. So much so that nothing more needs to be said. And I am not saying that to be a contentious smart ass. Damnit! See how the self ruins it all...

:-) When the urge to say something is there, and if it's untainted, why not say it...

beans · 2012-03-18 08:08:54

beans wrote:
Hello, sweetie! How was your day?

RJolly wrote:
full of life, love and creativity
nature, music, great food, good friends, a wonderful family
I do nothing in my life that I do not wish to do.
How about you?

Then why come to the forum and do what you do? From the sound of your responses, they are coming from a deep pit lately.

RJolly wrote:
how is the dull, repetitive, cyclical, 'enquiry' with the same people, over the same old lines going for you? Think you'll break through to something around the 5000 mark?
Bruce is gunning for the 10K, he's obviously got nothing better to do either.

Is that your impression? I find it fascinating, as I said above. I have a lot of affection for bruce, younger than my brothers, though admittedly sometimes he is annoyingly stubborn, and I see one facet of what he doesn't yet see, evidenced in this thread. He is so close to seeing it...

So RJ, why are you really here on this forum? And what is your greatest challenge along the way?

bruce sean · 2012-03-18 16:21:07

RJ wrote:
beans wrote:
Hello, sweetie! How was your day?
full of life, love and creativity
nature, music, great food, good friends, a wonderful family
I do nothing in my life that I do not wish to do.
How about you?

how is the dull, repetitive, cyclical, 'enquiry' with the same people, over the same old lines going for you? Think you'll break through to something around the 5000 mark?
Bruce is gunning for the 10K, he's obviously got nothing better to do either.

It's not a question of better:What must be done must be done.

beans · 2012-03-18 17:48:12

bruce sean wrote:
beans wrote:
This line of discussion is fascinating.

Recently, I came to understand (insightfully) that there are different ways that people handle the self-image. There are people who have “no filter” and say whatever comes to mind without any regard for the origins of that thought (that is to say whether it stems from building or protecting the self.) There are people who push their thoughts of the self and feelings away, only responding without a self-reference. Generally, people fall somewhere between these two extremes and respond according to conditioning based on memories that match up with whatever's happening.

It seems to me that neither is the “right” way, that is, if neither is observing to see and understand the elusive self-image.
If the self-image exists, there's only one way to handle it, and it leads to conflict. When there is observation then the self-image is absent, and there is no way to handle anything-such a question doesn't even come up, when there is observation.

The self-image appears at times and there are multiple ways to handle it, one of which (observation) does not lead to conflict on a personal level.

bruce sean · 2012-03-18 17:55:31

If observation is 'a way to handle the self-image' than it is obviously not observation, because an observation with a motive is not observation at all: it misses the very motive behind it!!!

And the self-image is either always there, or it's never there: there are no 'sometimes' here. Once the core illusion is gone, then gone it is. There may be other forms of inattention which can creep in, but the core illusion can never become real again.

KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Announcement

#1 2012-03-17 17:25:16

Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#2 2012-03-17 17:42:09

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#3 2012-03-17 18:26:01

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#4 2012-03-17 18:27:29

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#5 2012-03-17 18:35:32

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#6 2012-03-17 18:40:25

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#7 2012-03-17 18:45:23

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#8 2012-03-17 18:47:21

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#9 2012-03-17 18:53:57

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#10 2012-03-17 19:17:30

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#11 2012-03-17 19:22:33

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#12 2012-03-17 19:30:22

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#13 2012-03-17 20:07:07

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#14 2012-03-17 20:11:18

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#15 2012-03-17 20:15:19

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#16 2012-03-17 20:18:39

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

#17 2012-03-17 22:14:19

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

#18 2012-03-17 22:26:25

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#19 2012-03-17 23:40:24

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

#20 2012-03-18 01:19:05

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

#21 2012-03-18 07:34:39

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

BobD wrote:

#22 2012-03-18 08:08:54

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

beans wrote:

RJolly wrote:

RJolly wrote:

#23 2012-03-18 16:21:07

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

RJ wrote:

beans wrote:

#24 2012-03-18 17:48:12

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

bruce sean wrote:

beans wrote:

#25 2012-03-18 17:55:31

Re: Who turned off the lights? or Where am I?

Board footer