KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Only one: the conditioned mind must not try to uncondition itself by doing something, including trying to be quiet in order to free itself, which is not possible.

Now, a little about the brain. The constant watching without words melts down the recording and memory process. There is constant work there. If you tell a teenager to watch for a day, there will not be much effect. Not a practice, but it is a part that cannot be neglected.

bruce sean wrote:

snguyen wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

When one is confused, is that confusion to be cleared up bit by bit by bit? A little less confusion every day?

You might misunderstand it for something else and the game continues until you see that it is not. It changes and acts like an illusion, a mirage. You drop it. But if you mind is not completely quiet, some illusion comes up again.

No illusion can happen again when the core is gone. Which means what? It means that the mind is 'always' quiet. There is no other way to be because some patterns have actually changed in the brain.

It does not happen overnight does it? Time is not the thing here. But it is your life, your new nature, your renewable passion. It does change your brain, so logical it is. It changes your face expression, your smile, your eyes...

And the new, the discovery never ends. And the new means, absolutely, the death of the old. Who remain static, fixed, and not reborn constantly are already dead. Who are reborn constantly becomes that which is life. They have not their own lives. It is life.

snguyen wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

snguyen wrote:

You might misunderstand it for something else and the game continues until you see that it is not. It changes and acts like an illusion, a mirage. You drop it. But if you mind is not completely quiet, some illusion comes up again.

No illusion can happen again when the core is gone. Which means what? It means that the mind is 'always' quiet. There is no other way to be because some patterns have actually changed in the brain.

It does not happen overnight does it? Time is not the thing here. But it is your life, your new nature, your renewable passion. It does change your brain, so logical it is. It changes your face expression, your smile, your eyes...

At the core it DOES happen overnight. If it doesn't, then nothing happened.

bruce sean wrote:

At the core it DOES happen overnight. If it doesn't, then nothing happened.

That means you have already come to the core. For me, I don't know. I know insight strikes and it is all new again, and again, seem no limit.

bruce sean wrote:

So the core is still alive, and by insight perhaps it will vanish: one insight today, another tomorrow, and maybe after some years it will happen.

  But what kind of insight is this, when the core is still there?

What is this core? Is it something concrete, fixed, not changeable? Does it depend on perception?

I say that insights change perception. And it is this perception that counts because you don't know the core or anything else without this perception.  The core you talk about must be related closely to your perception.

What is insight? I don't know it. I only know its effect, its giving to me a new perception. A real, radical change in the way the mind sees things now. And it is a real change, not new ideas, but like fear is lost, removed. It is like you are given a new viewing scope but with this new thing, you still look at life, the wonderful of it. Partial insight for you to look with more clarity.

snguyen wrote:

That is it. You belong to a system that creates all the effects, not just fear but everything else: pain, pleasure, sorrow. As long as I remain there, they are there with me. When there is abandonment of the whole system out of true understanding, there is something else different.

You said elsewhere, fellow gatekeeper, in this matter of self, that insight is that which changes perception.

In the above you have described a perception that contains a perceiver, stated objectively, but meant subjectively. Let me try to describe an escape route that does not require the future.

The system is the perception in which the perceiver finds itself living. That system might be the product of an imagined world wherein the fact and the fantasy are so closely commingled that it all seems real. If it is, how does one separate the imagined from it?

If we assume that the system is supported [by] an act of reflection that is taken for an act of perception, there is an out. The assumption that the system is based upon a reflection taken to be a perception is based upon an escape that could only be made if those were the conditions.

I am also opening up the discussion to include the notion of an insight as a momentary ending of the imagined, revealing that which the imagination was feeding off, and requiring a new perception to fit those facts.

In this way, the insight is always a whole act, but which is to understood requires a change of perception to actualize it.

Enough for now. What do you think?

Last edited by wilbro99 (2012-01-25 16:55:53)

Willy, to your #40
--   "You said elsewhere, fellow gatekeeper, in this matter of self, that insight is that which changes perception.

In the above you have described a perception that contains a perceiver, stated objectively, but meant subjectively. let me try to describe an escape route that does not require the future."

Language! Language! Call it what you will, but it is still there: life, the new mind, perception, happiness. 



--   " I am also opening up the discussion to include the notion of an insight as a momentary ending of the imagined, revealing that which the imagination was feeding off, and requiring a new perception to fit those facts."


Yes, but insight ends the imagined, the false, the mistaken, the error, once and for all, for that particular error. There is no worry, question anymore about uncertainty/insecurity. There is no more self-image. It ends. All imagined acts end with it. All nervous reactions end with it. All thoughts related to it end, no more coming back. And there is nothing left there to require a perception there, it’s free there, and a new perception is born which lives differently.

You see, the fact of fear is actually an imagination. When the imagination is uncovered, it ends. Nothing is there. A physical fact is there, let’s say, I broke my arm. The broken arm is there, but all by itself, it is still nothing. Only when the judgment, the comparison … about it make conflicts, then the mind is sick and loses its discovery at perception. Facts need no perception.

What is the new perception? It is life. What is life? Vast, deep, unfathomable. So interesting to the mind: time, space, transparency…

--     "In this way, the insight is always a whole act, but which is to understood requires a change of perception to actualize it."


Partial insight means, insight into fear, pleasure, ideas… And that is so powerful, so energetic for the mind to be free and penetrate into that which is the great interest. Partial insight is a whole act, on fear, on self image for example, but remember, all things are related closely, and so to understand fear means to understand a whole lot. But it is not that there is not more. However, the more does not add to the current understanding. It will mutate, trans-form understanding as it always did to me.

There can be an insight. Then another. Each is total. It is the truth about the issue about which the mind is faced with. This doesn't mean the first insight is partial. It is not in contradiction with the other.

Bruce "And when fragmention is not, then total insight is".

Nothing new here. But anyway you supply some comment to what I found. For me, if something happens that brings action immediately from some source that I don't expect, suddenly, I call it insight. It definitely has very large significance because it changes the "brain" whereas the reason of thought can never know such changes.

I do not agree friends...
Every think is neW and fresh...maybe the same words but different in side...

snguyen wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

I couldn't care less of what another has said.

But then why you sound as a complete copy from that of someone has said? You know, we really need to be honest. And if you are not somehow, I point it out. Clear it. If not, you keep carry your super ego around, very originally.

Facts are facts, irrespective of who said them. Your beloved k is also a copycat if you happen to come accross a certain book written 500 years ago. Same ideas, down to details, and which he read. But I don't accuse him of anything because when you see the same thing you might repeat certain words-after all, the facts are the same-but what's behind them is a completely new action, action which I have described in quite a number of ways which have never written ever before.
  But if you don't pay attention, or if you don't know what to look for then you will miss it: it is just like a physical reflex, a body feel. Unless you have it in your body, you can look at another's movements and not see it's there. Only when it's there in your body you cannot miss it, it's not possible.
   Like most people here, you accept some parts of what you read and deny others, therefore it is nothing factual, because this is a complete package. That completeness you keep missing.