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

    516
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Community Reputation

27 Lavender Lad

5 Followers

About DinduNuffin

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

695 profile views
  1. now sir the speaker has moved to the forest by the lake. PEYOTE is plentiful here, and it is about to get more plentifuller good sirs... here, there is no one around to judge or compare. and so guests of the speaker are free to take CACTUS and watch SUNSETS. so stay tuned sirs and sirsettes... there is much more to come.
  2. sirs, we are almost to it.
  3. sirs, phase two of the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE is nearing blast off. so are you ready sirs? are you ready to get to it?
  4. the speaker has had some HARE KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGES.
  5. The truth is sir, you have attached to your DTFH persona a psychedelic monkey face, and to the speaker there is a psychedelic KRISHNAMURTI face. and we both seek gratification whether it be through negation or the adoption of principles or preconceptions, fundamentally it is the same. Fundamentally, it is seeking gratification/validation. By jove sir! The moment you encapsulate an experience as 'non dual' you have built it against a relative image -the self! Duality. A labelled experience does not represent reality, rather it skews it. This is fragmentation sir. The building of the self image. It is not necessary to split observation if you are but a grammaphone to an ideology sir. A grammaphone to 'non duality.' But if we are to look freely, receptively, creatively, then we must discern what divides observing through the self image from clear, direct observation. There is a split here sir, whether or not you associate with it any significance, there is a divide. Do you see it sir? It is necessary that we see this divide before we can build it into a greater concept. And we will never get there if we just quote others. So let's talk, actually sir. Let's get to it!
  6. sir, had you left the long form previous post up the speaker would have addressed it. otherwise the speaker addresses all points. now, the speaker may not say the thing that brings you gratification, that brings you validation, but it makes it no less significant what the speaker says. and good sir, you did not acknowledge the question put by the speaker: may we first agree that this is our fundamental incongruence sir? that we represent two opposing vectors? one, an addition of preconception - the bhagavad etc, and one the negation of preconception, the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE. is that not so sir? if you could yay or nay sir... and @Karmor there is no reason to feel uncomfortable talking about our need for validation/gratification. but, if you find it unsettling, that is, if you find yourself eluding that sense of condemnation in the confrontation of your need for validation, we need not use 'you' as an example. that is, we need not exemplify 'your' posts about the bhagavad just to make some point about the need for validation. we can just as easily use the speaker. we can just as easily use the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE. the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE is not about you, is it sir? not about any of the sirs, even @monkey_mine. in fact, the only reason the speaker started the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE is for his own gratification. for his own validation sir. that is, obviously the speaker knows none of you. so he came here not for you. he came here for himself. is that not true sir? did not the speaker come here for himself? for his own validation? to observe? sir to answer the question adequately we need to split 'observation' into two categories. one category is observation free of expectation, and the other category is observation with expectation. now, if that satisfies good sir, perhaps you could acknowledge the above question about our fundamental conflict?
  7. @Karmor, now sir, have you ever considered why it is that you are compelled to write so exhaustively? so thoroughly? or why you are compelled to write at all? surely that is a question of great significance. and if we look to the question actually, and without the perversions of subjectivity, we see that you are compelled to write such responses for yourself and not for the speaker. for if we were to remove the speaker from this conversation and immediately replace him with some other speaker, you would still quote the bhagavad, wouldn't you sir? you would still be so compelled. so obviously you are not quoting the bhagavad to gratify the speaker, but rather to gratify yourself through validation. but validation is not actualization, is it sir? in fact, to seek validation is to become handicapped by ideals. and that is our fundamental disagreement here sir. you are suggesting that to find tranquility there must be authority, ideals, practice, tradition. the speaker puts that tranquility is only found in the complete absence of these things. the speaker puts that tranquility is found outside the restrictions of the bhagavad, outside of KRISHNAMURTI or CACTUSES. sir the speaker puts thought must come to an end for there to be tranquility/receptivity, and you are saying that tranquility/receptivity is a relative, approximative state that can be accessed through goal setting/practice/tradition etc. may we first agree that this is our fundamental incongruence sir? that we represent two opposing vectors? one, an addition of preconception - the bhagavad etc, and one the negation of preconception, the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE. is that not so sir?
  8. sir by jove. the moment you 'know' non duality it is no longer non duality! the moment you know anything, it is labelled memory. and when a memory is considered there is conflict, duality. naturally. so there is no state of non duality outside of self approximation. surely we are together on this. now sir, what do you mean 'you are not thought?' sir is this statement not in direct opposition to reality? certainly you are thought sir. and yes. they talk about love, don't they sir? the buddhist. the christian. the left. the right. they are all talking about love! but can anyone really talk about love sir? hmm? to the speaker it seems that the moment one talks about love, it ceases to be love and becomes a process of self definition. a refurbishment of the past and so the self. for if there were truly love in the mind there would not be the regurgitation of memory onto the palate of perception! instead there would be receptivity! and that is meditation to the speaker! that is bliss! but most of us are preaching our particular way of finding love. he will sell you his KRISHNAMURTI, and you will sell him your bhagavad! and we will both end up broke psychologically! for it is only when we look at one another outside of our systems that we will find communion. and that is love sir.
  9. Sir, shame is thought. You can follow it. Anger is thought. And you can follow it. Gratification is two fragments of thought resonating - expectation and interpretation. Quietude sir, is the absence of thought. Is that not so sir? Now sir, it comes as no surprise that chanting makes the upper layers of consciousness silent. Just as does isolating ones self from relationship. For it is relationship that elicits the permutations of perception, the permutations of thought. but if we can't see this sir, then there is confusion, conflict. And so there naturally comes an effort to quiet it. Perhaps we learn a certain mantra a certain chant. And we find out that with its repetition the eddy of the mind, that little pocket of recent experience, is filled not with our own projections, not our fears, our anxieties, but rather repetition, a pattern sir. And obviously the self ceases to be. Naturally. That is, until the chant is over. And again begins the process of identification, condemnation and rationalization which refurbish the self and so fuel conflict, duality. Unless this process is dispassionately understood! Then there is quiet. Receptivity.
  10. good sir, the moment there is acceptance or denial there is identification and so the self concept is refurbished. the moment one see's themselves as conflicted and so in need of change there is naturally shame and repression. shame in the false encapsulation of the self. and repression of a fragment of conditioning. it is only when there is awareness of the self that is not labelled as mine or not mine, bad or good, up or down, that the relative self concept is not refurbished. and that sir, is our fundamental disagreement. the speaker puts that there cannot be a movement toward reality, or quietude, or meditation, or love, which, to me, are all the same function mechanically, so long as there is an additional modality of thought. and that is simply because, the moment an additional modality of thinking is, the mind is not quiet, not creative or receptive, but instead the mind is operating under a field of predetermination. that is, it can only see and function under a pattern. when expectation is not met, there is anger, frustration, and when expectation is met, there is gratification, naturally. anger is just emphasis. just the pressure of confusion. and gratification is merely confirmation. and if we are looking with either the expectation of gratification or the fear of invalidation, then we see not what is actual. can we not agree on this simple fact sir? that the moment there is a process governing perception, there is a movement away from quietude? put differently, is it not true that the expectation of a pattern, is an additional process of thought? fragmentation sir? perhaps you think that the speaker is preaching some sort of philosophical anarchism? perhaps you have framed what the speaker is saying as a form of escape reserved only for the highbrow intellectual. and in light of this, perhaps you find some security in this system, in your books, in your bhagavad gita. but it is all in search of what? quietude? receptivity? to find out what is meditation? oh sir, you need not look in some book to find out what is meditation! all you will find in that book is predetermination. and if you look to life through any system of predetermination, you will be subject to its disruptive responses. so quietude is not to be found in the bhagavad sir. or any book. only more processes. more interference. quietude, or receptivity is only to be found within the sir or the sirsette. perhaps you would try putting away your gita sir? and then perhaps you would try one book by KRISHNAMURTI and then one CATUS? hmm? sir?
  11. is that the natural state sir? have a look around you? is that what you see? silent awareness? because the speaker sees exploitation, fear, pride, jealously, hate, and so on. sure, there are some chinese and retarded people living in bliss, perceptually, but most of us are in conflict internally. so surely the natural state is to pin labels. to approximate. to criticize. to predict! always to predict! the most cunning man is the man who best predicts! he who can exploit! so naturally the mind evolved this way. the speaker puts that it is, in fact, unnatural to teach the human mind dispassionate self awareness. but it is also a necessary and unavoidable progression of the cognition, collectively. you can see it happening sir. we are getting to it. what does this mean? this, the map is not the territory. you must excuse, the speaker has not read any of the great books. requires preconception?! oh by jove sir! how can preconception be correct when there is not yet conception! the speaker puts that preconception is never a component of perception, but only a component of prediction, which is a form of fragmentation. sir, what is the result of trying to do something with preconception?
  12. control sir? surely there cannot be equanimity when there is suppression? and the moment there is control there is suppression. suppression implies intent. and intent implies preconception. and we know that as long as there is preconception there is not a quiet and receptive mind. and this is where we disagree good sir. you are suggesting that the mind can become still through of process of training, control, practice, and conversely, the speaker puts that the mind is quiet and receptive only when there is not the resonance of control. by jove sir! when an aspect of the self is avoided, that is, condemned, repressed, shamed, there is naturally a relative association, a memory. when that aspect is re-encountered it is done so through the residue of association. and if that association is plagued with condemnation then there is no clarity, receptivity. but what if there is no condemnation tied to the thought. no avoidance sir. is the self image sculpted then? the speaker puts that it is not. if our discussion here on this thread is unsavoury, we could finish our discussion on the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE thread. we were getting to it.
  13. no, @Karmor it is not avoidance! avoidance engenders the relative self image! that is, the moment one defines that which is to be avoided, there is too the concept of the avoider, naturally. so we cannot get to quietude through any method, and approach, other than negation.
  14. sir, everyday we are fragmented by those things we define relative to ourselves. so every moment there must be awareness of this process if we are to avoid its perversions. but the speaker is not looking to maintain some state of quietude, some state of transfixion! there is MUSIC and CACTUS and FINGERBANGING! so we must get to it! and we will not get to it if we are concerned with maintaining some state of transfixion sir.