KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

always a pleasure doing business with you

Hi BobD, if you have that reflection necessary to troll as opposed to bash, as you apparently do, you are the man!

Start a lodge and begin collecting a crew of trolls! I'll leave the motto to you! Have fun!

I have other fish to fry...

wilbro99 wrote:

Dedicated to sds, and, in particular, addressed to sds.

Dedicated, in general, to all who read further.

You will be reading this, and that is the truth as you have actualized it. Beyond that, you and I have just come into contact.

This meeting is timeless, and that because we are meeting in the world this truth conveys. I could be alive or long dead, yet this truth connects us.

As such I can talk to you, and you, even if I am dead, can also talk to me.

So, here we are, in this world where we communicate over time and space. Shall we communicate? What if I say things you do not like?

Will you show your animal nature and growl at me, or put me down, or insult me, or assassinate my character?

And what will you do if I say things you think I should not be saying? What then?

But think about this, where are we meeting? What is this dimension we enter when we engage through sign and symbols?

And how can we corrupt it other than by clogging the lines open between us by introducing a pair of avatars ready to defend the imagined world of each.

Now, just how in the billy hell can we talk about self-knowledge and self-knowing without clogging those lines? How do we go about getting those reactive avatars to step down?

Now, do you see that old fart who is talking to you?

And, do you see who this old fart is talking to, or will you clog the lines?

You see, I have just actualized those last two questions; and, that little guided tour is over.

I leave you to your own answers to them...

All very well said, willy, billy, nilly, silly boy(just teasin ya, here, you know:) 
Totally agree with ya on this. 
But hey, go tell this to the warmonger and see what he would say and come back and share it. :-)

I was more interested in what willy would say and so addressed to it to him, but oh never mind.

willbro hello, I would now like to say what I think about you, but I am afraid too much because of the pre-warned consequences, then we could not see us any more. I had to tell you very much, but our honeymoon is now sadly over. so let us stay just for the wonky tonky, then you are humble know what I mean and what I would like actually wanted to say, although I did not say it. just think one step further, then it gives the little what has been said also no sense, but it is far better than to be no longer be able to see into your eyes:-).

wilbro99 wrote:

awareness, you have lost me, seriously, I have no idea of what you have said.

thats what i said

wilbro99 wrote:

awareness, you have lost me, seriously, I have no idea of what you have said.

he loves you, dummy, same as me

awareness, I simply do not understand what you are saying.

wilbro99 wrote:

pearl sez: "All very well said, willy, billy, nilly, silly boy(just teasin ya, here, you know:) 
Totally agree with ya on this. 
But hey, go tell this to the warmonger and see what he would say and come back and share it. :-)"

Hi pearl, I do think I just saw something that tells me another here also agrees with me, in spades yet.

I have learned over the last forty some years that just because our words seem to oppose each other does not necessarily mean that we are not looking at the same thing; it's a matter of language, and how we speak self.

And even there, this language of self is difficult, in that a common tongue may not be easy to come upon.

I get ya, willy. I mean I even understood your language! lol.  It's great that you din't get hurt by my calling you willy, nilly, billy...I was just being poetic, a bit humrous and a bit affectionate, merrily, silly pearly.

wilbro99 wrote:

awareness: "right, understanding is in the ending of the particular understanding."

Now, that I understand, providing we mean the same thing by the particular.

In my language, the particular is that which comes to an end in the understanding of it. The one who understands that is free of that defined particular.

hmm, apart from the fact that in understanding there is no one:-)

wilbro99 wrote:

awareness wrote:

willy wrote:

awareness: "right, understanding is in the ending of the particular understanding."

Now, that I understand, providing we mean the same thing by the particular.

In my language, the particular is that which comes to an end in the understanding of it. The one who understands that is free of that defined particular.

hmm, apart from the fact that in understanding there is no one:-)

So, you and I apparently define understanding differently. What I see you defining is what I would call the registering of a time in which the self reference is absent, and the sensation present is that overflowing cup. I call that the registering of no self.

What I call understanding is the understanding of the one who comes back from that absence, and is capable of sensing the rising of that unnecessary reflection that is the self in particular, the one who occupies time, and the ability to step around it as one would step around tree as opposed to trying to walk through it.

Maybe we mean the same thing, maybe we don't. It would take the passing back and forth of our respective understandings in this matter to determine that.

At least, this is progress; our language has different meanings in it, and we may find an in-common language, or we may not...

ah, ok, you mean the one as a real in-dividual.