KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

yo, beanzy, the first wave of tomatoes (18) gets planted in about three weeks.

Ah, this part of California rocks...

one plant only...

Believe me, do I have a wonk on what it means to believe? Yes, but I believe I'll wait until next time; it has something to do with what it means, to believe.

snguyen wrote:

BobD wrote:

snguyen wrote:

The mind is thought, operated by thought. Thought creates problems and then tries to solve them. I am happy today and tomorrow I am not. Maybe my brain can never have insight. Dissatisfaction comes back, time comes back and I want a better future. I feel good today and there seems no problem… You see that it is all the movement of thought: recognizing, solving problems, enjoying a moment of happiness, recognizing happiness and recognizing pain, time … If you watch it every day and the mind becomes so aware of this movement that is affecting, pulling, pushing your very own psychological health, which is an essential issue of your life and not a casual, philosophical affair, then you cannot miss it, you cannot miss the understanding of its movement. The movement of thought creates that whole illusive world in which your pain and “enlightenment” are. Then silence is natural.

The nature, the quality of this silence is deep, “heavy”, and its depth is not easily disturbed. It is created by the truth, the truth in seeing the whole movement of thought and this movement comes to a stop. To perceive the truth, the quality of mind obviously must be very attentive. To what? To its own fabrication which is thought.  The silence is not an idea you think about silence, but a reality.

By endless watching you will discover that the mind can watch a thought. That is when it is very quiet and attentive naturally in its new, true nature, but not by effort anymore. To watch a thought without bringing in a second thought is like a stream of energy of the mind holding the thought in attentive silence. And to watch the very source of the watching, the watcher, there comes that total sense of attention in which there is no attender. Then you will find that state which has no thought at all.

The entirety of this message is simply a belief created by the egoic mind. Its a trick of the mind trying to entertain itself. Its the mind telling itself..."Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat." Its the mind denying it's true nothing nature. Its the noise generated to avoid the void. It is a false sense of relief.

Is it simply a belief, a trick thought keeps playing on itself, or is it a long journey of ceaseless watching and learning?

The message said, “by endless watching you will discover that the mind can watch a thought”. So Bob, your whole message above is actually one thought, one state that you ran through many thoughts to name it and put it away with a conclusion. It is a conclusion because if you could watch just one thought you would not say it is a trick.

We don’t watch or are unable to watch just one thought, one question, one problem. Instead of watching a thought (attachment, anger, frustration…) we run on with more and more thoughts. When you can remain with just one thought without even a sense of the observer, and that thought dies away, then what remains is silence. But if you run on with more thoughts, it only gets stronger momentum.

I watch my attachment and the attachment dies away and does not create dualistic problem and conflict in the mind. The physical attachment to my family is still there but it is not a problem. And it is essential for the mind to be free of all self created problems. Then it has room, space for creative solution.

We have a habit. Instead of watching, remaining with it, we bring in another habit of controlling, being noisy about it and we get caught in multiple habits.

How heavenly good it is to be free of a problem immediately! That is, do not live in time dimension.

Hello nguyen: One sees what one sees, but there really is no watcher separate from psychological thought. Nor was it meant to be personal or a criticism of what was said. My thoughts were just thoughts. No more...no less. Psychological thought and awareness are mutually exclusive. One can not watch the other.

Eden wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

So you are introducing levels of sensitivity: you are more sensitive than I am, and another is less sensitive than I. Now, you are not talking of the sensitivity of the self, which is non-existent. You are introducing these levels after the self has died, in quotes, and then sensitivity has different levels.
   And I say that levels belong to the world of duality, to the self, which puts things into little boxes, for its own safety. While true sensitivity either exists or it doesn't-it can't be more or less of it.

  Now to address your notion of numbness. Is it numbness to have no feeling? Not feeling in the usual sense means callousness-now that, to me, IS a feeling, which is the end result of many other feelings clashing with each other, thus producing this callousness.

  I don't mean that by a lack of feeling: I simply mean what it says-not an end product of several feelings and labeled as no feeling, but the actual thing, where there are no feelings to begin with, which might produce something which we usually label as indifference, thickness and what not.

  No feelings-which is energy in abundance, just energy, not running into any particular direction. Whereas feelings, and it seems to me this is the major distinction, are energy with direction.

  If there is no direction, why call it a feeling?

I am not talking about specific feelings or labels, but rather feeling in general--feelingness--the openness of the body to feel.   Only a total nut job would conclude that I am talking about specific so-called "feelings". You are hearing what you like to hear bruce, and you are unable to hear what I am actually saying.  Your brain is totally hijacked to the point where you can't even remotely decipher plain language. You can't even read the words being typed on a screen let alone feel the body that is typing the words.  Your numbness is plainly obvious and the more you mis-communicate the more you reveal the extent of it.

Rather, I'm carefully removing the false from what you say: the potential false, instead of embracing a misunderstanding and shaking your hand too soon. We must proceed with care in these matters, especially because we cannot see each other.

snguyen wrote:

By endless watching you will discover that the mind can watch a thought. That is when it is very quiet and attentive naturally in its new, true nature, but not by effort anymore. To watch a thought without bringing in a second thought is like a stream of energy of the mind holding the thought in attentive silence. And to watch the very source of the watching, the watcher, there comes that total sense of attention in which there is no attender.

This is what I said. Mind is not only thought.

Mind is the sense of awareness, the whole area of it that comes into being through the operation of the senses & the brain. Thought is only an aspect of it.

bruce sean wrote:

Rather, I'm carefully removing the false from what you say: the potential false, instead of embracing a misunderstanding and shaking your hand too soon.

Ahh....removing the potential false! Well that certainly does explain what you have been doing in all of our conversations thus far, and it explains why you are totally numb to the actual.  The funny thing is that there is no potential for false here.

bruce sean wrote:

We must proceed with care in these matters, especially because we cannot see each other.

No need to see each other if we can feel each other.  Of course in a forum that is pretty tricky as 99% of the signals are removed, but still, it's possible to some extent.

I'd much prefer my relationships to consist of people who already see that there no potential for false in me, otherwise there is no relationship of any kind from the start.  Some would call that non-potential "integrity".

Jayaraj wrote:

snguyen wrote:

By endless watching you will discover that the mind can watch a thought. That is when it is very quiet and attentive naturally in its new, true nature, but not by effort anymore. To watch a thought without bringing in a second thought is like a stream of energy of the mind holding the thought in attentive silence. And to watch the very source of the watching, the watcher, there comes that total sense of attention in which there is no attender.

This is what I said. Mind is not only thought.

Mind is the sense of awareness, the whole area of it that comes into being through the operation of the senses & the brain. Thought is only an aspect of it.

Yes, there is much further detail to the mind. When we say mind is thought, it means the mind right now is covered by thought. And thought is extremely strong, extremely conditioning the way the mind acts such that the whole operation is actually thought. Only in using the new tool of watching with a significant delay of thought then there is something new to mind.

Eden wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Rather, I'm carefully removing the false from what you say: the potential false, instead of embracing a misunderstanding and shaking your hand too soon.

Ahh....removing the potential false! Well that certainly does explain what you have been doing in all of our conversations thus far, and it explains why you are totally numb to the actual.  The funny thing is that there is no potential for false here.

bruce sean wrote:

We must proceed with care in these matters, especially because we cannot see each other.

No need to see each other if we can feel each other.  Of course in a forum that is pretty tricky as 99% of the signals are removed, but still, it's possible to some extent.

I'd much prefer my relationships to consist of people who already see that there no potential for false in me, otherwise there is no relationship of any kind from the start.  Some would call that non-potential "integrity".

But you yourself said that it's a tricky affair, so perhaps it's best not to start with certainty and arrive at uncertainty, and instead do it the other way around.

bruce sean wrote:

Eden wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Rather, I'm carefully removing the false from what you say: the potential false, instead of embracing a misunderstanding and shaking your hand too soon.

Ahh....removing the potential false! Well that certainly does explain what you have been doing in all of our conversations thus far, and it explains why you are totally numb to the actual.  The funny thing is that there is no potential for false here.

bruce sean wrote:

We must proceed with care in these matters, especially because we cannot see each other.

No need to see each other if we can feel each other.  Of course in a forum that is pretty tricky as 99% of the signals are removed, but still, it's possible to some extent.

I'd much prefer my relationships to consist of people who already see that there no potential for false in me, otherwise there is no relationship of any kind from the start.  Some would call that non-potential "integrity".

But you yourself said that it's a tricky affair, so perhaps it's best not to start with certainty and arrive at uncertainty, and instead do it the other way around.

Starting with distrust and starting with openness are two very different movements.  One is closure, the other is not. One is a shell, one is not. You will never feel me through your shell.

That which you call "uncertainty" is in fact 'certainty in your distrust'. So it is actually certainty that you are beginning with.

Last edited by Eden (2012-02-05 13:36:50)

bruce sean wrote:

Uncertainty is uncertainty: there is the potential for the false, everywhere. It doesn't mean one is certain the false is present. It might, it might not. It is like searching for a solution on the chessboard: there might be one, there might not, but before you resign you must first investigate if there is a solution. It doesn't mean you're certain there is one, and it doesn't mean you're certain there isn't.
You simply look to find out.

But you aren't looking, you are too busy "removing the potential false".  The one excludes the other.

bruce sean wrote:

It's just a matter of language: the looking does the removing, not me.

Well, then something is distorting the looking, as there is nothing to remove. If you could feel me, you would know that, but something is preventing it.

So we have come to a point where you can either feel me, or you can't. You feel the potential false in me, and I don't.  I feel the potential false in you, but you don't.

I have just addressed this matter on Tom's thread, so I wont repeat it here.  We have come as far as we can go I feel.

Jayaraj wrote:

snguyen wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

This is what I said. Mind is not only thought.

Mind is the sense of awareness, the whole area of it that comes into being through the operation of the senses & the brain. Thought is only an aspect of it.

Yes, there is much further detail to the mind. When we say mind is thought, it means the mind right now is covered by thought. And thought is extremely strong, extremely conditioning the way the mind acts such that the whole operation is actually thought. Only in using the new tool of watching with a significant delay of thought then there is something new to mind.

Yes. The new tool of watching only can bring in something new.

What is this watching? This watching is the learning of something new and therefore the learning has no content, absolutely. If the learning draws a conclusion, a concept on which it bases its life, it becomes false completely. So, the learning/watching has transformed into the light of insight. Insight is a constant state that has no time, no river no boat to cross to the other shore.

Can you deny, destroy, die, and throw away absolutely everything mankind has brought about in you? Because that state absolutely has nothing to do with anything that has been known.