KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

“In my in, those two are not separable, not that it makes a difference; so, your in it shall be.”
(Sir William)

joe wrote:

blasted misfits, don't you know that you are enlightened already!?!?!?!  The job is finished, you have seen the illusory I! …

beans wrote:

I'm not sure that attentiveness is the absence of focus, willy. It seems they can go hand in hand at times.

Yes, a difference that makes a difference can come and go, and a guide is helpful to a certain point.

So, have you seen that illusory bloody thing in fact or not?

What exactly do you need a guide for? To see that difference for sure? How are you going to implant that guide in your eyes, in your brain?

joe wrote:

hehehe...

natura wrote:

“In my in, those two are not separable, not that it makes a difference; so, your in it shall be.”
(Sir William)

joe wrote:

blasted misfits, don't you know that you are enlightened already!?!?!?!  The job is finished, you have seen the illusory I! …

beans wrote:

I'm not sure that attentiveness is the absence of focus, willy. It seems they can go hand in hand at times.

Yes, a difference that makes a difference can come and go, and a guide is helpful to a certain point.

So, have you seen that illusory bloody thing in fact or not?

What exactly do you need a guide for? To see that difference for sure? How are you going to implant that guide in your eyes, in your brain?

joe wrote:

hehehe...

Natura, I'm not sure what you are asking. We go through our lives learning and reinforcing patterns. For a while the patterns are influenced in one direction or break, and then in another direction and the patterns deepen. Our body/brain operates in a certain way for a while, and then a lack of complete understanding and "environmental" factors change that. Each body/brain is a bunch of patterns. You have shown me this is the case for you too.

An insight that gets drowned out/not built upon is just a memory.

Guides are part of the "environment", just like K books and forums. We can be influenced by them.

Now we've gone and lost the wonk of willy's thread.

Bye!


                                                                Beans

Last edited by beans (2011-11-29 07:21:15)

wilbro99 wrote:

beans, I'll try CPR when I get around to it, if I get around to it...

I fear it was my fault for idiotically interjecting the idiot business...

Way to go, you idiot! Really think yer smart dontch ya. If I wasnt such an idiot I would add a picture to this post...but I don't know how to do it. God I'm dumb....

requiescat in pace

joe wrote:

blasted misfits, don't you know that you are enlightened already!?!?!?!  The job is finished, you have seen the illusory I! …

natura wrote:

So, have you seen that illusory bloody thing in fact or not?

beans wrote:

Natura, I'm not sure what you are asking

Well, trying to specialize the subject.

What I’m really asking, beany: ‘Have you ever seen in fact that phenomenon of your ego or not?

Note, I don’t ask have you read something about it, has someone told you about it, have you read Krishnamurti or other spiritual teachings about it.

My simple question is have you seen it or not? The word ‘seen’ may be understood also as having experience, but anyway, it must be personal, from fist hand.

beans wrote:

We go through our lives learning and reinforcing patterns. For a while the patterns are influenced in one direction or break, and then in another direction and the patterns deepen. Our body/brain operates in a certain way for a while, and then a lack of complete understanding and "environmental" factors change that. Each body/brain is a bunch of patterns. You have shown me this is the case for you too.

An insight that gets drowned out/not built upon is just a memory.

Guides are part of the "environment", just like K books and forums. We can be influenced by them.

That’s alright,
but to see that bloody thing of my ego is essential for understanding of everything.
It could be a crucial point of all human life to see it, to experience it so as it is in fact without imaginations of it, without any fiction.

If we are aware about necessity to see it, we will ask about meditation because sooner or later we will be disappointed with endeavours to get it in common way.

So, ask again if I’m still not clear.

wilbro99 wrote:

requiescat in pace

You, old joker,

You’ve reached 5000 postages and now suddenly 'requiescat in pace'

waiting for congratulations, aren't you?

Stop simulation, com on

natura wrote:

joe wrote:

the only thing I will clear up is a language usage, natura, since I know you will take it only as that...when you mean to imply the beginning or start of something, the word is first.  When you want to imply a hand that is clenched together the word is fist.

Joe, sorry
Please explain
Don’t forget whom is this thread dedicated to.

to you natura...in the last week I have noticed several times you using the word "fist" instead of the word "first".  Of course I knew you meant to imply first, but since it has happened more than twice I thought you would want to know.

natura;

5000? Were that I were that clever; serendipity only…

I have a few thoughts on something else:

natura wrote:

So, have you seen that illusory bloody thing in fact or not? …

The first thought I got here had to do with the character of the question; was it asked rhetorically or not. Let me follow up on that thought by taking on the question myself, directly; directly means that I am going to engage with it, take it on.

I get a question. How am I going to answer that? If we both have yes, what does that mean, how do we know that we spell the word the same way?

And it looks like I am heading for the barn that is this thread; namely, how in the hell can we ask, and why do we ask, questions whose answers sound the same but appear completely different when we spell that sound out?

Look, natura who refused 99 used virgins, I think you and I, from our banter and from each reading what the other has posted, can assume that you have a yes and I have a yes. Let's posit that and do a rhetorical romp.

Now, let the two of them meet, yes to yes, and love the connection so much that they miss the fact that they might not mean the same thing.

Then, let the two of them meet, smell the other, get to know the yes of it, and find out that they don't mean the same thing, that the other has a yes that is a no.

Look at that possibility. Is that no a no because it is a no or because the yes was not the same? This, natura, is what I would tag as context. We each have our own basket of yes, but isn't there one yes in it that directly connects?

I calls it the wormhole, I does, and it's the place where we feel each other for real; empathy. It is only then that each of those baskets can placed into an in-common basket, like having a set of their own.

Now we can collect all those different contexts into a single context and name that tune.

Great fun! Natura, thanks for being such a good sport!

------

Last edited by beans (2011-11-29 21:04:04)

OK, well I'll be a sporty sport too then, on accounta that's a good image ;-)

a polar bear at that...

wilbro99 wrote:

tree, I dedicate this slice of the image (it's really that elephant those guys were arguing over painted as a process and not a tusky sort of animal).

Form of forms: this form; the inform.

I give this to you and you do not see this, but you see that which I have given you, which you must first interpret into your this, and give it back.

What is this? Step up one story and see that this is communication. The difficulty revealed is that there are some forms that have more than one way of filling them.

That is something the form cannot know, which mean that the form cannot self inclosing. This is a nutshell version, an animated version, of Gödel's take down of axiomatically grounded systems.

Ok, tree, a question, just to see if you were looking. What might happen if the form one identifies with is one of those twofers?

Imagine trying to talk to oneself when its already a dialogue.

you've been understood,

to know the taste of the soup
one need not eat the whole bowl
a spoonful will do