Welcome to The Duncan Trussell Family Hour Center for Self-Optimization

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

DinduNuffin

Hrair
  • Content count

    536
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Community Reputation

35 Lavender Lad

5 Followers

About DinduNuffin

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

732 profile views
  1. wrong thinking sir.
  2. by jove sirs! those are the wrong KRISHNAMURTIS!
  3. wrong KRISHNAMURTI sir. this will not win the BIG BIG MONEY.
  4. and that is the nature of the self image sir. that is, the experience is over, but here is the mind, wallowing in it. reviewing it. weighing and comparing its tendencies, its attributes. tirelessly trying to form a static definition of itself, a rigid image of that which is pliable. all for a sense of what, permanency? but is there permanency in the accumulating and deteriorating self concept? certainly not. and so today you are a CUCK good sir, and tomorrow you'll be dominant but compelled.
  5. when it becomes part of your identity. part of your self concept. sir, we like to pretend the self concept is something permanent. rigid. static. we give it a name. we dress it up with all sorts of ideas. we compare and label the various attributes, the tendencies. and with each new experience the process repeats. and so the self concept is constantly cultivated, constantly refurbished. and so, to define the self statically, rigidly, ideologically, sir to identify and so to compel oneself with ideas, with belief, is to destroy reality in perception, sir by jove! put differently, when there is identification with a certain aspect of an integration, there is then compulsion. naturally. identification with the left is to deny the right. but both the left and the right are components of the whole integration. and so to understand a problem fully, that is, to find reality, there must be understanding of the left and the right, dispassionately, humbly, earnestly, and not with identification or denial. when there is compulsion, there is identification. and vice versa. do you see it sir?
  6. surely that is the only true action sir. action that comes in the wake of an idea is not action but rather compulsion. sir, what divides action from compulsion?
  7. indeed. identification in perception sir. when there is identification with a belief, perception, thought and action are skewed; corralled to fit within the concept's range. put differently, if you/we/i identify as a christian, a muslim, a democrat, a republican, you/we/i think and act within that field. surely that is clear sir. when there is identification with a certain ideology, with a system, with tradition, there is not freedom sir, only compulsion. to perceive, think, and act unrestricted, there must be complete negation of ideas. then there is receptivity sir. then there is intelligence. freedom. isn't that it?
  8. an idea can be held in fleeting consideration can it not sir? speculation for any number of purposes.
  9. sir this question makes the potentially false assumption that at one point movement was not. and it is surely not discernible whether movement was or was not. but movement now is. we can watch movement as it is. how we relate to it. and we can speculate that perhaps movement was at one time not. but the moment there is a belief that movement was or was not there is conflict. that is, the moment one identifies with an idea there is conflict, contradiction. and that contradiction destroys receptivity, destroys the perception of reality. all belief sir. all the colouring of the things by the mind. by the past. isn't that it sir?
  10. one is further along in the chain. isn't that so sir? first there was the movement of things, and then there was the movement of thought. yes?
  11. the movement of thought or the movement of things?
  12. buying this house, surrounded by woods, buying guns, food, utilities, are surely all attempts at finding security. then there is the matter of paying off your parents house. is that security? could it be sir that the resting ideological kerfuffle that exists in the relationship between yourself and your parents has brought about this idea of repayment? repayment in the form of security? hmm? perhaps they can then ignore your religious failures? your lack of muslimity? perhaps then they can ignore your lustful mindcock? your interest in finding the OTHERNESS through thought or through drug? but will there be security in this new environment sir? is there security to be found in the aggrandizement of the self? in the acquisition of wealth and property? or does the accumulation of money, things, and the refurbishment of the self concept only create further need for security? that is, when you move to the forrest, will the mind become clear, concise, receptive, blissful, or will it continue in its patterns of being fearful of losing what it has accumulated? so then sir, does this place of security exist as a finite state that can be achieved, secured, or does it instead exist only in relation to the aggrandizing self image? hmm? waxing and waning with the accumulation and reduction of the I concept?
  13. to begin questioning there must first be the ending of knowledge. when we know, we do not question. but when we see that knowledge has actually become an impediment to awareness, that knowledge skews and defines thought, action and perception, questioning can begin. so what shall we question sir? where shall we begin?
  14. what do you want to do with the 100 million dollars?