KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

No sir, value we give because we have slipped in to the illusion that what we perceive is static.

If I perceived the table not be static I wouldn't have lunch on it: I would rather eat while walking... Static or changing, it doesn't lead to forming values, in itself: something else does. Something which has nothing to do with the atomic changes undergone by a table!

Ha, ha,no sir, not like that. We know the table doesn't change so fast. But we know it changes, gets destroyed. So we sit there & eat.

No sir, something you see as constantly changing you cannot cling to.It is the image which we make of it  we cling to. Inherent with the image is value.

The value we cling to has nothing to do with the poor table: it has to do with something else, with a certain illusion; what is it? The perception of the table, not what I think of it, is of a static shape, which I can use, build or destroy.
  What I think about the table, or a chair, of which I get attached to, is NOT part of the natural perception of that chair, of that table: it has to do with thought. Perhaps the illusion is there, just perhaps.

awareness wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

I'm not getting it: the shape is fixed, which is why I can eat off it. That it may undergo subatomic changes by the millisecond doesn't affect my life, does it? Like I said, the illusion of color doesn't kill people: some other type of illusion does-what is it?

The shape appears to be fixed to the senses.But unless we have the understanding, the view, that it undergoes change & perishes we bulid the image about it expecting it to be the same.There starts the whole confusion, conflict & misery!

indeed. it is the to be which is the "to become"

Is that the illusion?

wilbro99 wrote:

I dedicate the following bit of nonsense to whomever it is that gets the joke here:


Where is the illusion?

It is in the mind.

But what is the mind?

It is where the illusion is to be found.

But where is that?

In the mind.

But what is the mind?

I told you, it is where the illusion is to be found.

But where is that?

I told you already, it is to be found in the mind .

But what is the mind?

My God, have you been listening to anything I have said?

Well, come to think of it Willy, I've been having a sense I am running around circles!

Last edited by Jayaraj (2012-07-27 19:33:58)

bruce sean wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

If I perceived the table not be static I wouldn't have lunch on it: I would rather eat while walking... Static or changing, it doesn't lead to forming values, in itself: something else does. Something which has nothing to do with the atomic changes undergone by a table!

Ha, ha,no sir, not like that. We know the table doesn't change so fast. But we know it changes, gets destroyed. So we sit there & eat.

No sir, something you see as constantly changing you cannot cling to.It is the image which we make of it  we cling to. Inherent with the image is value.

The value we cling to has nothing to do with the poor table: it has to do with something else, with a certain illusion; what is it? The perception of the table, not what I think of it, is of a static shape, which I can use, build or destroy.
  What I think about the table, or a chair, of which I get attached to, is NOT part of the natural perception of that chair, of that table: it has to do with thought. Perhaps the illusion is there, just perhaps.

There has to be a table in the first place for thought to create a value.We can't make an image of something if we see it to be changing constantly.Value we create in comparison ect.

You know the issue was what causes the illusion. The organism is limited, it cannot see change.Unless understanding is awakened in the mind & sees objects in their correct perspective we are going to build images & values. That's all.

Illusion is the past? You mean to say that it's not taking place at the moment, therefore it's an illusion?

Illusion I consider to be something we consider to exist when in actual fact it exists only in our imagination.

Oh, right, this is psychologically right? Brain makes an impression of everything it perceives physically which is memory-that is needed,right?

On #162, I would ask the same question differently: Is it possible that the temporal sense of self is a dead end?

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

Ha, ha,no sir, not like that. We know the table doesn't change so fast. But we know it changes, gets destroyed. So we sit there & eat.

No sir, something you see as constantly changing you cannot cling to.It is the image which we make of it  we cling to. Inherent with the image is value.

The value we cling to has nothing to do with the poor table: it has to do with something else, with a certain illusion; what is it? The perception of the table, not what I think of it, is of a static shape, which I can use, build or destroy.
  What I think about the table, or a chair, of which I get attached to, is NOT part of the natural perception of that chair, of that table: it has to do with thought. Perhaps the illusion is there, just perhaps.

There has to be a table in the first place for thought to create a value.We can't make an image of something if we see it to be changing constantly.Value we create in comparison ect.

You know the issue was what causes the illusion. The organism is limited, it cannot see change.Unless understanding is awakened in the mind & sees objects in their correct perspective we are going to build images & values. That's all.

You will still see a tree as a non-changing object no matter how enlightened you will be. That's the natural human perception, and I say that's not the culprit; something else is.
  I see a tree as a solid subject, fixed in form: why should I be attached to it, even if it's not changing?! I don't see why. And who's to get attached to it? So there must be an I first and foremost to form an attachment, and that may be the culprit, not the perception of a tree as a solid object.

Jayaraj wrote:

wilbro99 wrote:

I dedicate the following bit of nonsense to whomever it is that gets the joke here:


Where is the illusion?

It is in the mind.

But what is the mind?

It is where the illusion is to be found.

But where is that?

In the mind.

But what is the mind?

I told you, it is where the illusion is to be found.

But where is that?

I told you already, it is to be found in the mind .

But what is the mind?

My God, have you been listening to anything I have said?

Well, come to think of it Willy, I've been having a sense I am running around circles!

Before discovering something new, one may run in circles, until vision gets clearer.

bruce sean wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Do I really build an image about the table that it will remain the same? It gets destroyed, I buy another one, if I can afford it. I don't see how a table can lead to an atomic disaster!

I don't build an image that the table reamains the same.But due to the illusory view that it remains the same I bulid an image about it & create a value according to it's usefulness, cultural conditioning etc.

I'll try that for the moment!

All that is in relation to 'me', to an 'I'-in its absence there's no 'builder', just the perception of a solid object, which I may use externally, for efficiency's sake.

No sir, the perception of a solid object-in view, in understanding, is the beginning of the 'me'.The illusion & the birth of 'me' are inseparable.

Last edited by Jayaraj (2012-07-28 19:18:51)

awareness wrote:

yes, brain is a product within time, it is physically time, it functions within time, time is therefore its security, it can only function within security. unfortunately is time, psychological time an illusion in which brain and therefore thought found its security in, but this security is obviously a non-security, therefore we see conflicts, separation, nationalities, wars.

so now, is it possible that time is dropped by brain, the false, the real non-security? what is then? can the brain function within something, which is timelless, which is the establishment of a new order, the real security, which is intelligence, an energy from the very beginning, which is always fresh, new ? does the brain get old?

Can the brain drop time? Time is thought. So this is asking,'Can thought end?'.Psychologically. Thought exists in a state of division only psychologically which is illusory. Therefore once the division is ended it must end.

That is a remarkable question whether the brain can be still. Man must live for that I feel. Man is apparently unaware non movement is summation of energy & spends life in dissipation!

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

Well, come to think of it Willy, I've been having a sense I am running around circles!

Before discovering something new, one may run in circles, until vision gets clearer.

Ha, ha, for that must remain still! I  thought I was chasing you around!

Tip-toeing is fine: it means looking carefully, attentively instead of jumping towards an answer-in my book.

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

I don't build an image that the table reamains the same.But due to the illusory view that it remains the same I bulid an image about it & create a value according to it's usefulness, cultural conditioning etc.

I'll try that for the moment!

All that is in relation to 'me', to an 'I'-in its absence there's no 'builder', just the perception of a solid object, which I may use externally, for efficiency's sake.

No sir, the perception of a solid object-in view, in understanding, is the beginning of the 'me'.The illusion & the birth of 'me' are inseparable.

It's not an illusion that I see a table as a table-not quite; but to believe in myself without having any proof of what that is-that's quite a different matter.
  I see a tree as a tree; and I depend on other's people's opinion about me: is there any connection between the two? I don't mix the psychological with the technical-they are two different things, to me. Even if I see the illusion in the psychological, which then becomes an empty space, the perception of a tree will not change, fundamentally.