KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

bruce sean wrote:

So much for inquiry.

bruce, try this on with that snide sandwich you have there....next time before you decide what the metaphor means, ask about it.  You love to 'question' another's meaning but usually because you have decided what they mean.  I have already explained the metaphor and you basically ask the same questions again, so no real response was needed.  If you still are missing it, read it again and you may know what was meant.

and now you get that idea onto paper, what you have held from the start.  Feel better for saying it?

Here is the rub bruce---the flow with which you are familiar makes lots of mistakes but never looks back to see what they were, and if the cause is actually the following of the flow mistaken for truth.

lol...linear thought moves forward, bruce.  You are buying a bag of hooey.

as you wish bruce, you will only see what you see...

bruce sean wrote:

From the past into the future, and back again, and forward again-hence the confusion and friction in thought (psychologically). It is only thought which looks back, after all.

Perception never looks back.

if you run over a child in the street because you did not understand how to operate a car properly, is it thought that is looking back to see where something went wrong?  Sure it can be but it is more likely to be the person realizing something is amiss, and attending to it so it does not continue to happen.  It is really no different than you realizing that what you think is the timeless looking through you is really just you looking, after all.  Your stance, however, prohibits you from ever seeing this, as long as the stance is continued.

perception has nothing to do with time, or the past.  I ask you right now to see that the perceptions you share are often wrong.  It does not involve analyzing the past but seeing the actuality of our life, right now.  This started because I knew when I wrote the post you would misinterpret the original meaning, which you did.  I corrected it and you said, fine--mistake corrected and moved on but you see, or perhaps you do not see, that I knew you would misinterpret it to start because that is the pattern you display here, over and over.  You will just as surely repeat it again and most of that is because of this silly belief about time and thought blocking you from seeing what is happening.  It is the issue I have always had with those who study or have studied K, the blinders come up and the game is then difficult to navigate, to truly enquire.  All those blasted absolutes he liked to use get stuck as notions, but this is for another thread perhaps.

Last edited by joe (2012-04-11 16:47:59)

so your stance then is that any time you look back it is only thought, not insight or perception?

joe wrote:

so your stance then is that any time you look back it is only thought, not insight or perception?

I don't have a stance: it is so. Looking back implies thought.

No, no, no! There are no enemies. When perception withought thought is operating, thought has no special meaning-of course, this is begging the question.
  I meant it operates when it must, and at times it's completely absent.

bruce sean wrote:

No, no, no! There are no enemies. When perception withought thought is operating, thought has no special meaning-of course, this is begging the question.
  I meant it operates when it must, and at times it's completely absent.

When the observer separates from thought and starts to analyze, the flow of memory gets momentum. But if I flow, swim in the flow of memory, it soon loses its flow.

joe wrote:

fine, but its operation, in conjunction with insight, opens a person up to where they are blind, unless they refuse to look back under the guise that it is only thought doing so.  Thought is always in operation bruce, for you, me, K or anyone else.  Well K is dead so maybe that is the wrong example.  Psychological thought is what may or may not be in operation.  So I ask you to look absent the psychological at what is being pointed to.  It is not that hard, just do it.

Joe, I agree with you. But I find that it is not just limited to just that. After all, all that, all challenges are in a way insignificant. Then with observing I notice where the I-thought separates itself for meaning. But here there is a losing movement also.

bruce sean wrote:

It is more than that: sometimes all thought is absent.

  Psychological thought, on the other hand, is never present.

  What are you pointing at? Not generalities, but specifically, what? To #43.

well I would ask you to read it again as I have already specifically stated it but I guess that wont fly so pay attention, here it is...you very often misinterpret what is meant, not only by me but by many.  This represents a pattern that I am pointing out to you.  The reason I am pointing it out is because it represents a pattern of thought, and yes bruce, psychological thought.  In this case the idea of yourself (of being able to perceive accurately) blocks you from seeing that what you think is accurate perception often is just the opposite.

bruce sean wrote:

snguyen wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

No, no, no! There are no enemies. When perception withought thought is operating, thought has no special meaning-of course, this is begging the question.
  I meant it operates when it must, and at times it's completely absent.

When the observer separates from thought and starts to analyze, the flow of memory gets momentum. But if I flow, swim in the flow of memory, it soon loses its flow.

But why are you stating this? I see it the other way: the flow also has a momentum-actually, this is long gone, for me. It used to be like that, but now it's wrong to speak of momentum, either way.

It is like a rock dropped on a water sufface, but the waves soon die down. The surprise thing is memory does not record it, which is a marvelous peace.

But you have to describe it in way that makes sense for the question at hand, though for you it is all long gone.