KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Are you speaking as a result of a direct experiencing of these things, filtered through memory, or is this a thoeretical statement based on ideas which you have gathered from others?

snguyen wrote:

So thought comes in a split second after the fact and because all one’s life is structured on ideas and deeply vested in attachments identified by psychological thought, thought takes over and destroys the observation of facts. Thought starts to use naming that is attached to an emotional content and one lives off in the field of thought, completely old, untouched with facts, and limited. When some other brain/mind discovers a different field or dimension not understandable to thought, thought discards it as mystical. On the other hand, the other dimension sees thought overriding everything, limiting everything, causing endless conflicts as a false way of living. Such a way of living “knows” everything by thought, including its projection on death, god, and what the unknown is.

For a mind that has a capacity to delay thought from coming into the scene and observes directly the fact, such a mind is free from anything describable by thought. With such freedom comes silence and a release from memory. In silence, in unconditioned state, the mind sees sharply for all of its senses are released from bondage and its energy is self perpetual. Is not this unconditioned state the ground for total insight? Because, insight does not have a cause it must require a mind that is unconditioned to receive it. Insight is not of time; it comes suddenly to mind, sheds light to it, and dispels the darkness, or removes the noises of confusion completely. The mind can never know where insight comes from. The trying to know is of thought. But there is that which has no direction of coming and going, no cause and so not detectable.


Dear friend, what can be done with THE mind? How THE mind is to be experienced and accepted? Ekanta

How far can the mind travel?  Explosively unlimitedly.

Jayaraj wrote:

snguyen wrote:

Insight is not of time; it comes suddenly to mind, sheds light to it,

Means decide the ends.The ends can never be free of the means. So from the beginning the inquiry cannot have any interference with the past-lest there cannot be insight. Which is observing without the past. From moment to moment. Then there can be insight-totally out of the blues.

So it is intelligence that is free from the past; it is intelligent to be free of the past. Freedom is to be free from the known. This is a very huge challenge, a radical revolution of total insight that ends the known now, outside of time.

Why is it that I have to end the known? Yet I can observe that all enlightened, wise beings renounced the known. To observe without the past is to live a life free of all attachments and not that I live attached to things hidden or justified and observe without the past as an idea or just a little parts of the past, the convenient ones, but keep to the others that I justify.

Yet is it a contradiction when I try to bring order into the known, to have good things to do with the known?  K did everything for the world but not attached to it. Same went with all other great teachers.

Being attached to the past, to things, am I free to observe or is my observation already attached and conditioned by the past and hence the past is alive observing and therefore continues?

What is the past? The past is the present, that which has continuity. So, yes, thought is observing its own movement, the past is observing itself, digging up every single corner for all corners are the past, the known, and penetrating the light of observation into.

The problem is I want both freedom and psychological security of the known which is rooted in time. As long as there is no insight into this contradiction, the mind is caught between the two. Without insight, which sheds the light of truth to the matter, the pain of confusion continues. So the mind holds dearly the whole problem in its entire awareness, attention, alertness, watching the fact of an immovable problem and therefore being in touch with the fact. To be directly in touch with the fact and the fact transforms. The moment there is only the fact of what is, insight strikes. Insight does not provide a problem with an answer so that they both exist. A problem exists only because of the lack of insight and so with insight, there is no more problem posted by the mind. Silence.

snguyen wrote:

Can a petty mind concerned with itself, its little pleasures and worries all day, enter into that eternal unknown? Can the mind see its own pettiness?

No and no. The mind sees only what it chooses to project. At least...this mind does.

Hi Si, thanks for the intro post. I have an idea for a wonk that I must first realize into words before I can post it.

I will dedicate it, when it comes into its wordy being, to the gate keeper who keeps those two worlds apart.

You know, the one that will not let an identity into the movement remembered.

But that is part of the wonk, so later, gater...

and that is the doorway I am pointing to, albeit unsuccessfully willy, but let's see how it shakes out here.  I would alter what you are saying to say that the mind can be either petty or not and that this same mind both creates its own pettiness and also at times sees that it is doing that.  I think it is confusing to  say it is the petty mind that sees, but to say that the same mind that can be petty can also see its pettiness is saying something different...however, this is likely to run up against the same resistance as before, the absolute stance.

Hi Si, let me respond to your post by translating what I see you saying into my language of such a saying.

snguyen wrote:

So thought comes in a split second after the fact and because all one’s life is structured on ideas and deeply vested in attachments identified by psychological thought, thought takes over and destroys the observation of facts. Thought starts to use naming that is attached to an emotional content and one lives off in the field of thought, completely old, untouched with facts, and limited. When some other brain/mind discovers a different field or dimension not understandable to thought, thought discards it as mystical. On the other hand, the other dimension sees thought overriding everything, limiting everything, causing endless conflicts as a false way of living. Such a way of living “knows” everything by thought, including its projection on death, god, and what the unknown is. …

There is a difference. That difference may be described as a change in which one's world-view is radically changed, and that by a radical change in the self-to-self relation that grounds that world-view.

That difference may be aligned with its description in two absolutely different ways: either one has come across that difference, and is trying to put its effect into words, or one is describing a difference one thinks exists.

The former, *having come across* that difference, not only thinks about the difference, but knows the difference, which defines what I mean by know here. The difference between knowing it and thinking it then depends upon whether one knows it before one thinks it, or thinks it in hopes of knowing it.

snguyen wrote:

For a mind that has a capacity to delay thought from coming into the scene and observes directly the fact, such a mind is free from anything describable by thought. With such freedom comes silence and a release from memory. In silence, in unconditioned state, the mind sees sharply for all of its senses are released from bondage and its energy is self perpetual. Is not this unconditioned state the ground for total insight? Because, insight does not have a cause it must require a mind that is unconditioned to receive it. Insight is not of time; it comes suddenly to mind, sheds light to it, and dispels the darkness, or removes the noises of confusion completely. The mind can never know where insight comes from. The trying to know is of thought. But there is that which has no direction of coming and going, no cause and so not detectable. …

Thus this drift: There is a difference, and that is how it feels to me. That is my description of *coming across* that difference. This tells you that I think I am coming from the *having come across* that difference, in that I am describing a difference I did not know before.

snguyen wrote:

How far can the mind travel?  Explosively unlimitedly.

That difference is explosive; it is the explosion itself, cast in terms of a dynamic.

That dynamic drives an absolute wedge between two states of being that can be seen as being seen by one in two absolutely different ways.

In one way, the first way, there is a mover who moves from one state to another, and in reflection upon that movement, finds a paradox in the form of The Great Null Gate.

In the other way, the second way, there is a movement from one reflection to another in which that movement is experienced as a transcendence, a Gestalt shift, if you will.

The first way is how it is remembered, and the second way is how it is sensed.

Si, your first and second paragraphs are descriptions cast in the first and second ways respectively.

Or so it seems to me.

wilbro99 wrote:

Hi Si, let me respond to your post by translating what I see you saying into my language of such a saying.

snguyen wrote:

So thought comes in a split second after the fact and because all one’s life is structured on ideas and deeply vested in attachments identified by psychological thought, thought takes over and destroys the observation of facts. Thought starts to use naming that is attached to an emotional content and one lives off in the field of thought, completely old, untouched with facts, and limited. When some other brain/mind discovers a different field or dimension not understandable to thought, thought discards it as mystical. On the other hand, the other dimension sees thought overriding everything, limiting everything, causing endless conflicts as a false way of living. Such a way of living “knows” everything by thought, including its projection on death, god, and what the unknown is. …

There is a difference. That difference may be described as a change in which one's world-view is radically changed, and that by a radical change in the self-to-self relation that grounds that world-view.

That difference may be aligned with its description in two absolutely different ways: either one has come across that difference, and is trying to put its effect into words, or one is describing a difference one thinks exists.

The former, *having come across* that difference, not only thinks about the difference, but knows the difference, which defines what I mean by know here. The difference between knowing it and thinking it then depends upon whether one knows it before one thinks it, or thinks it in hopes of knowing it.

snguyen wrote:

For a mind that has a capacity to delay thought from coming into the scene and observes directly the fact, such a mind is free from anything describable by thought. With such freedom comes silence and a release from memory. In silence, in unconditioned state, the mind sees sharply for all of its senses are released from bondage and its energy is self perpetual. Is not this unconditioned state the ground for total insight? Because, insight does not have a cause it must require a mind that is unconditioned to receive it. Insight is not of time; it comes suddenly to mind, sheds light to it, and dispels the darkness, or removes the noises of confusion completely. The mind can never know where insight comes from. The trying to know is of thought. But there is that which has no direction of coming and going, no cause and so not detectable. …

Thus this drift: There is a difference, and that is how it feels to me. That is my description of *coming across* that difference. This tells you that I think I am coming from the *having come across* that difference, in that I am describing a difference I did not know before.

snguyen wrote:

How far can the mind travel?  Explosively unlimitedly.

That difference is explosive; it is the explosion itself, cast in terms of a dynamic.

That dynamic drives an absolute wedge between two states of being that can be seen as being seen by one in two absolutely different ways.

In one way, the first way, there is a mover who moves from one state to another, and in reflection upon that movement, finds a paradox in the form of The Great Null Gate.

In the other way, the second way, there is a movement from one reflection to another in which that movement is experienced as a transcendence, a Gestalt shift, if you will.

The first way is how it is remembered, and the second way is how it is sensed.

Si, your first and second paragraphs are descriptions cast in the first and second ways respectively.

Or so it seems to me.

Thanks Willy, I will trace your words carefully. The language is good in precisely putting it, instead of messing it up.

to clarify, anytime a posit of time and thought being ended as a permanent state are introduced it is not done in the abstract.  That is the absolute stance I am talking about.

joe wrote:

to clarify, anytime a posit of time and thought being ended as a permanent state are introduced it is not done in the abstract.  That is the absolute stance I am talking about.

And I say that there is an absolute that all stances rise from. Why do I say that? Because that is how I find it.

That finding is what I call home, and each time I come home, it is the same place, absolutely. It is not the absolute, but where I touch my absolute; it is that grounding in one's senses that I sometimes go on about. It is where I find myself when I find myself in the world I find myself in.

That describes, in a sense, what I refer to as the second subjectivity, almost as if one has returned to one's roots, but this time with an understanding of that place.

Is that too mystical? I think it only sounds that way because it deals with the presence or absence of a sense of self, where the presence always returns home, regardless of which way it loses itself. And that opens up a wonk, if I were to entertain it.

wilbro99 wrote:

joe wrote:

to clarify, anytime a posit of time and thought being ended as a permanent state are introduced it is not done in the abstract.  That is the absolute stance I am talking about.

And I say that there is an absolute that all stances rise from. Why do I say that? Because that is how I find it.

That finding is what I call home, and each time I come home, it is the same place, absolutely. It is not the absolute, but where I touch my absolute; it is that grounding in one's senses that I sometimes go on about. It is where I find myself when I find myself in the world I find myself in.

That describes, in a sense, what I refer to as the second subjectivity, almost as if one has returned to one's roots, but this time with an understanding of that place.

Is that too mystical? I think it only sounds that way because it deals with the presence or absence of a sense of self, where the presence always returns home, regardless of which way it loses itself. And that opens up a wonk, if I were to entertain it.

Yes but you never entertain a sense of permanency about the state in your writing, which is the absolute difference in an absolute stance, haha.  Do you not see what I am going on about with that?

joe sez: "Yes but you never entertain a sense of permanency about the state in your writing, which is the absolute difference in an absolute stance, haha.  Do you not see what I am going on about with that?"

Nope, I fear I do not; unpack that a bit for me.