KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

snguyen wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

I don't know why you call energy a feeling. Feeling which implies separation between an entity that feels and that which is felt. When this energy is, that's all there is-there is no separate energy to feel another energy.

No need for separation and still you "feel", sense the whole. You don't actively feel it but it happens, it is. That comes only when the brain really destroys it sense of separation, psychological time, becoming and progress, images and values, the I and the you. It requires a constant, tremendous awareness and attention to understand everything and bring the brain to its own happening, change.

We can go further by the doing in each of our daily life, not by logic and talk, and find out. But to say there is energy but not to feel it, then in what form does this energy communicate?

Very good and beautifull...
You are also sugesting to not fell the energy?
Hum, maybe the energy communicates also by the eye, by vision, visualysing objects, people,
By the events of the nature...

snguyen wrote:

Ekanta wrote:

snguyen wrote:

No need for separation and still you "feel", sense the whole. You don't actively feel it but it happens, it is. That comes only when the brain really destroys it sense of separation, psychological time, becoming and progress, images and values, the I and the you. It requires a constant, tremendous awareness and attention to understand everything and bring the brain to its own happening, change.

We can go further by the doing in each of our daily life, not by logic and talk, and find out. But to say there is energy but not to feel it, then in what form does this energy communicate?

Very good and beautifull...
You are also sugesting to not fell the energy?
Hum, maybe the energy communicates also by the eye, by vision, visualysing objects, people,
By the events of the nature...

No, I mean that energy can express in many beautiful ways but not the way of thought psychologically. Can you leave the field of thought, psychologically, completely? You see, that is not time, not thought. To be with that, not in the sense of time, but to be it, thought and time


must end. Do you see it with me?

Yes I see with you...
And them also silence
But here we are
But take the words in other level is also good and beautifull
Thank you

bruce sean wrote:

snguyen wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Not quite: rather, it is locked in the image of what is.

All right, the images. Look at them.

The brain evolves in time, through time, through historical time and time in one's own life from childhood. Without this evolution, there is no brain, and in the process it is built up by images, physical and over to psychological. So, to discard all images in the structure of brain is to undo time, or to stop completely time: progress in time, residues of time which is the me, time as division between me and this whole tremendous existence, between me and you which creates conflicts. How can one see actually that time is totally wrong? Without time, there is no hope either. Nothing. Does this mean a tremendous, lighten-up awareness in the mind without moving at all in any direction which is time? The moment the mind is inattentive it starts to move again in measurement in which energy is wasted.

Does that mean that when the energy is not wasted it doesn't move?

Not long ago silence existed outside the mind and it gave the mind a certain encouragement, an evidence, a quality of calm quietness upon which the mind looked at life and searched for more deeper understanding. It was actually an interest and sometimes a hope to discover. But now silence is death. It is not an outside encouragement but is death itself. Everything is gone, dead, ceases to exist. It must be this way because death is so.

It comes as a newborn thing when the mind has seen that whatever it has done was just hanging on to a desperate inevitable illusion. Death has no argument, not a murmuring of self pity nor a whispering of a second thought. It has no meaning and why should it when it is. Anything else may or may not have an argument. Death has none. Or else it is not death.

bruce sean wrote:

Is death the ending? The ending of it all?

Yes, death is the ending of the world of conceptualization, recognition, and time. On the one hand it has great significance of a freedom from all problems. It destroys all false significance brought up by conceptualization of an impermanent feeling or sensation, a nervous response and the search for more which is the trick upon all that mechanism. On the other hand it has no meaning or significance at all because meaning is a verbalized thing and is destroyed instantly the moment it begins to form. The meaning is the little thing for communication to listeners but it has no existence in that state called death. The question whether it is the ending of it all comes from the concept world, and yes the concept world is ended. It is absolute silence in which the mind does not move at all. And here meditation begins.

snguyen wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Is death the ending? The ending of it all?

Yes, death is the ending of the world of conceptualization, recognition, and time. On the one hand it has great significance of a freedom from all problems. It destroys all false significance brought up by conceptualization of an impermanent feeling or sensation, a nervous response and the search for more which is the trick upon all that mechanism. On the other hand it has no meaning or significance at all because meaning is a verbalized thing and is destroyed instantly the moment it begins to form. The meaning is the little thing for communication to listeners but it has no existence in that state called death. The question whether it is the ending of it all comes from the concept world, and yes the concept world is ended. It is absolute silence in which the mind does not move at all. And here meditation begins.

So death is not the ending. What does it begin then?

Teulada wrote:

how would you know this?


T

It is written in you; you are life itself.

Suppose this morning I wake up and forgot all the past knowledge which acts only to hinder, to prevent the seeing that is always totally new, fresh, uncontaminated by the continuity of the past, where should I begin? Of course, to enquire thoughtfully and to ask questions into all corners of the self in its relation to the world is necessary, but I have gone into all that and see the futile circling. To start thinking again is to keep circling again. To move thought is to connect to the past and that is normally called enquiry. Can I enquire into the new that cannot be measured, that thought absolutely cannot touch, that has no path, no gate, no time and space, and that is immensely immeasurable for the little selfish, particular mind? What can I do? Do I first feel a glimpse of that tremendous infinity and out of feeling its overwhelming greatness, I put away completely, absolutely everything and stay totally silent? Is there a death to the little selfish mind that awfully divides? Is there a complete cessation of all efforts to reach? Is there yet a complete orderly living, a seriousness that renounces this worldly attachment at the root of it? If not, what I say there is or there is not something beyond is related to the petty contaminating background.

Now, I have done all that, put away everything, create order in living, and meditate and meditate, still does it mean anything any way at all? So what is death? It is a complete destruction of all that I know as life: my perception, my insight or insight that I have to relate to me for its existence which is then my insight, the continuity of daily work in the search for anything, beyond or not beyond. It has to be like a bomb that explodes and brings down the whole structure of the brick and steel building which is the me.

Now that I wake up this morning, and there is nothing.

No, I don't deny the use of thought but before going deeper into the so called beyond, don't you have to really live it? The words, the description, might mean something for you and other for me.

What I try to relate is that, I see that the state of mind that is not fully attentive is trying to sort things out by thought. Then it has no depth, no reality. Total attention that is not by the egoistic effort to become, one that is losing its normal consciousness and keeps falling into that energy and not knowing, leaving all else behind unknowingly, is something to let it go on. In that state, thought does not care to move. It might be limited or not depending on how you limit it, right? If it is going on half knowing half not knowing and forgotten easily for memory is not active that much at all, it is left to be unknown. Is not meditation, total attention a movement into the not knowing? And how does it affect your brain, how does it bring out new insight, new seeing?

bruce sean wrote:

you haven't answered what is beyond total attention. Nothing fancy, but something very, very simple, related to attention. Then you will see that attention is limited, it will be very obvious.

That's just your theory, this "beyond attention"...you have no clue what you're talking here.  Go slow.  You say attention is limited.  What is limited is not attention, in other words limited attention is not attention.  There is no such thing as attention that is limited, and or attention that is unlimited.  There is attention.  And when it is, there is nothing beyond it.

No, I'm pointing out the contradiction in your sentences and asking you to look more deep by before making shallow statements such as,"attention is limited".

But you have not deeply inquired into what it means to be attentive, or into the lack of attention, have you?   If so you won't make such statements.

It's not insight just nonsense, just as your observation of death in other thread when you talked about "dead guy".  you see brucey, even a dead guy can be more 'alive', more present than some of the living ones like you who are totally in a maze.  Anyways, you'll find plenty of fish to whom you can sell your cheap shots.  Goodnight.

Last edited by pearl (2012-02-07 22:25:11)