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

THE KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!!! WIN BIG BIG MONEY!!!

645 posts in this topic

hey everyone! who's up for a challenge? A KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!! …just read one book by jiddu krishnamurti then eat 1 PSYCHOACTIVE CACTUS or two+ grams of mushrooms (legally, of course) and then describe your experience. the smartest brain thoughts will win BIG BIG MONEY!!!    

 

the term 'BIG BIG MONEY' is being used as a metaphorical term representing self awareness.  it is not actual money.  surely that much is obvious.  that being said, the speaker intends to give away something that is, to him, worth far more than the sum of the hypothetical money being metaphorically discussed in this thread.  so by jove sirs, don't take this metaphor literally!  and don't do anything illegal ever!  

now, let's try to have a fun metaphorical, discussion about the nature of reality.    

Edited by DinduNuffin
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • hey everyone! who's up for a challenge? A KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!! …just read one book by jiddu krishnamurti then eat two+ grams of mushrooms (legal ones of course) and then describe your experience. the smartest brain thoughts will win BIG BIG MONEY!!!
  • You just described my college years.
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • ok well if you want to win the BIG BIG MONEY then you have to describe your experience.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-22 10:57:33
  • The best I can sum it up is already in my signature. Seeing as what we're talking about turns out to be just the way that things already are, in the end there really isn't much to say or do about it. 

    Chop wood, carry water.
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • @WeedmasterP

    "it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be"

    the first part is arguably true. the second part implies perspective and secondary conclusions. this can't be truth as truth is not based in belief. not cracked up to be implies there is comparison to what has been judged as cracked up to be. this is a subjective reality. not truth. 

    that will not win the BIG BIG MONEY.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-24 00:36:12
  • The first part is tautological, so it literally can't not be true, and the second part is just a slang re-iteration of the phrase "the map is not the territory," a sentiment which I've seen you express repeatedly. But hey, far be it from me to question your judgement as the overseer of this momentous competition. My best wishes to your eventual winner; I hope they do the wise thing and invest their prize money in stocks and bonds.
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @WeedmasterP

    "it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be"

    the first part is arguably true. the second part implies perspective and secondary conclusions. this can't be truth as truth is not based in belief. not cracked up to be implies there is comparison to what has been judged as cracked up to be. this is a subjective reality. not truth. 

    nice try, but that will not win the BIG BIG MONEY.



    How can a person share an idea of "truth" and at the same time not express it through a subjective reality?

    Can you give me an example of a "truth" which does not come from your(or another humans) subjective lens of reality @DindoNuffin?
     
    Post edited by Danlo at 2015-12-22 03:36:30
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • ;)

    Thinking has not solved our problems. The clever ones, the philosophers, the scholars, the political leaders, have not really solved any of our human problems, which are the relationship between you and another, between you and myself. So far we have used the mind, the intellect, to help us investigate the problem and thereby are hoping to find a solution. Can thought ever dissolve our problems? Is not thought, unless it is in the laboratory or on the drawing-board, always self-protecting, self-perpetuating, conditioned? Is not its activity self-centred? And can such thought ever resolve any of the problems which thought itself has created? Can the mind, which has created the problems, resolve those things that it has itself brought forth?

    -Jiddu Krishnamurti
  • @WeedmasterP, 

    "it ain't what it's cracked up to be" and "the map is not the territory" do not share the same meaning. one implies measurement. conclusion. status. the other describes a problem with perception. you will never win the BIG BIG MONEY at this rate. 

    @danlo,

    the speaker is suggesting 'truth' exists outside of thought. ..suggesting 'truth' cannot be confined to language or opinion. that truth cannot be of the subject but rather just is. the observer is not the observed, the map is not the territory... so truth cannot be conveyed linguistically. truth is the ever-changing, indefinable realm of what is. 
     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-22 10:10:42
  • @the_cosmic_giggle,

    you are the closest to winning the BIG BIG MONEY. just mow on some (legal) mushrooms and post your thoughts.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-22 10:58:55
  • I gotta hand it to you, you put on one hell of a mental gymnastics show. Watch the astounding Nuffin do semantic somersaults in circles around the point! One night only. WIN BIG MONEY!!!
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • what is the point the speaker dances around? 
     
  • I'm saying you went way out of your way make up your own interpretation of "it ain't what it's cracked up to be." And as the person who originally penned the statement, I can assure you that your effort to avoid understanding it was remarkably successful.
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • this is not opinion. this is logical. "cracked up to be" implies perspective, comparison. it implies the existence of a comparative experience. just as the comparative experience will vary, so will the measurement. meaning the statement exists only in opinion, preconception, not in actuality. it can only describe a subjective reality. never truth. 

    understanding is not labelling something with a preconception.
  • Krishnamurti said:

    Thinking has not solved our problems. The clever ones, the philosophers, the scholars, the political leaders, have not really solved any of our human problems...

    I
    Could
    Not
    Possibly 
    Disagree
    More
    Vehemently
    !
    I 
    Could 
    Go 
    On, 
    And 
    On
    ...
    Post edited by BobDobolina at 2015-12-22 16:01:31
    I'm not a gross asshole, but I play one on the forum...

    ...alright, I'm a gross asshole.
  • @BobDobolina,

    your comment leads us into the definition of problems. what problems are actual and what problems are conceptual? human problems are conceptual in that we have psychologically created them. they are born of the image. not of reality. …i am too much of this, i need to become that. …i have this quality- it's less desirable than that quality. i must become something more than i am. it's all suffering created by the subjective experience. it's not real. no philosophy will undo it. only an understanding of the mechanism. 

    technology has improved management of some external problems. but it has just led to more suffering. the ending of psychological suffering, conflict, duality can only be achieved through the dissolution of the self image. 

    your examples are of those who have contributed to science. but these people still live in suffering. and they haven't touched the root of the problem. they have just hammered in the same nails. 

    in other words, disease does not arbitrarily emerge. so without addressing the cause it will re-emerge. 
     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-24 00:39:21
  • I'm not so sure you have BIG MONEY you Japanese dog
    imageDTFHF(D)P 2016image

    Weaknesses
    Confrontational
    Needy
    Drug User
    Bigoted Philosophies
    Enjoys Spamming
  • DinduNuffin said:

    ...it's all suffering created by the subjective experience. it's not real. no philosophy will undo it. only an understanding the mechanism.

    The issue I have is that some love to wave their hands and say that all is subjective and nothing matters in this world but the Ground of Being. This is not the 'whole truth' in my opinion and experience. The intersection of Yin (internal/subjective) and Yang (external/objective) is where we live.

    Can technology save us from ourselves, or the root suffering of existence (all things arise and pass away)?

    No.

    It can wipe out polio, help us understand the mechanism of physical dis-ease, and reduce much preventable hunger and suffering on the way.
    Post edited by BobDobolina at 2015-12-22 16:02:23
    I'm not a gross asshole, but I play one on the forum...

    ...alright, I'm a gross asshole.
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @WeedmasterP, 

    "it ain't what it's cracked up to be" and "the map is not the territory" do not share the same meaning. one implies measurement. conclusion. status. the other describes a problem with perception. you will never win the BIG BIG MONEY at this rate. 

    @danlo,

    the speaker is suggesting 'truth' exists outside of thought. ..suggesting 'truth' cannot be confined to language or opinion. that truth cannot be of the subject but rather just is. the observer is not the observed, the map is not the territory... so truth cannot be conveyed linguistically. truth is the ever-changing, indefinable realm of what is. 
     



    How is "the map is not the territory" not a comparison? Is the map the territory? Isn't any answer to that a comparison of the map and the territory?
  • Whats the deal with this 

    KRISHNAMURTI 

    guy
    I did the LBRP and all I got was this T shirt
  • I bought two of his books yesterday, so I'll find out soon. Thanks for all the talk about the man. He seems to have been raised overprotected, and then found his own spirituality without the guidance and books of others. I like him.
  • yes, i see what you're presenting. but is polio the problem or is it a result of circumstance, a symptom? we can vaccinate a population that lives in squalor, but they still live in squalor... 

    are not the vaccine maker and the gun maker both driven by the same animal? this animal is what the speaker suggests is the cause of suffering. not the particular issue. 

    the scientist creating vaccines and the scientist working for nestle or monsanto are driven by the same force. elimination of that force will end the subjective suffering and have a much greater impact than tackling the individual symptoms.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-24 00:42:23
  • @endymion,

    "the map is not the territory"

    this is a metaphorical representation of the disconnect between the description and the described. there is no inherent suggestion of quality or quantity. therefore no comparison. 

    we are not comparing the map to the territory, rather suggesting the two are unrelated outside of one being a linguistic representation of the other. 

    "it ain't all it's cracked up to be"

    implies the speaker compares. has made a judgement. has an opinion. a preconceptions. this is a subtle but important distinction. 
     
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @endymion,

    "the map is not the territory"

    this is a metaphorical representation of the disconnect between the description and the described. there is no inherent suggestion of quality or quantity. therefore no comparison. 

    we are not comparing the map to the territory, rather suggesting the two are unrelated outside of one being a linguistic representation of the other. 

    "it ain't all it's cracked up to be"

    implies the speaker compares. has made a judgement. has an opinion. a preconceptions. this is a subtle but important distinction. 
     



    How do you know what the described is like and that it's different from the description?
  • @longplay_

    krishnamurti the man is of no use. don't concern yourself with defining him. it's the concepts he presents that hold value. it doesn't matter who delivers the message just the content. 

    just read awakening of intelligence then eat the (legal) mushrooms and then enter the contest to win the BIG BIG MONEY.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-04-19 21:20:25
  • @endymion,
     


    simply put, language cannot encompass the true significance of that which is described/experienced. one can talk about a rock but those words don't become the rock. there remains a separation. please ask questions if this is not clear.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-22 13:15:39
  • DinduNuffin said:

    ...is polio the problem or is it a result of circumstance, a symptom?

    Polio is not the problem, but it is a problem.

    Are you indicating that if all problems are not solved, one should not let the fire of Shakti drive one to work to reduce suffering?

    The 'objective problem' of Polio was not solved by the cessation of the internal war. It was through the driving force of dissatisfaction that pushed for a tangible solution to the suffering experienced by millions.

    That Shakti is a medicine that has specific use, and (indeed) when mis-used causes suffering itself.

    Thus the value of the Yin and the Yang.
    Post edited by BobDobolina at 2015-12-22 16:03:23
    I'm not a gross asshole, but I play one on the forum...

    ...alright, I'm a gross asshole.
  • DinduNuffin said:

    simply put, language cannot encompass the true significance of that which is described/experienced. one can talk about a rock but those words don't become the rock.

    Woah, dude. You mean ... shit ain't what it's cracked up to be? You just blew my mind, maaan.
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • @Bobdobolina, 

    from one angle polio is a problem. from another angle it is a symptom. the speaker wishes to address polio as a symptom. he wishes to address the problem abstractly. once it is understood abstractly we'll see how it applies to the particulars. 

    the speaker is not suggesting the dissolution of the image should stop the advancement of science. science will continue to grow so long as there are tangible or conceptual problems. maybe we can reach an understanding through discussion of conceptual problems.

    is presenting oneself as free of blemishes worth filling the oceans with micro beads? many people look through a lens that suggests it is. where did that image come from? is it tangible or conceptual? has true significance been realized? ..or have certain needs been fabricated to support the idea that a company/person is incomplete, that they must become/acquire to reach completeness? 

    consider every coca cola can. every plastic bottle. every remaining drug metabolite. every micro bead. every kuerig cup. every bomb. ...has the conceptual advancement of science resulted in a net benefit to mankind? hmmm.

    what the speaker wishes to explore is the reason that altruistic advancements drown in a sea of misguided/greed based ones. that's why he's reluctant to comment on the success the particular examples. to do this we must get to the very core of what brings man to a place of creativity. 
     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-04-19 21:22:24
  • 0101010101001000101011010110000111100101100111010101111100110010
    Post edited by Pumpy at 2016-01-19 14:40:45
  • God these "non dual" threads can be so annoying!

    Have I been on this forum too long if almost every thread gives me a feeling of deja vu, a feeling that this has been discussed over and over and over ad infinitum?
     
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • @WeedmasterP,

    'shit' the item is not the description of shit. 'shit' being less than what is expected or 'cracked up to be' implies measurement by the observer. it implies you are looking through an image. imposing measurement. 'shit' is just shit. the rock is just a rock. we can discuss it only by applying the loose verbal representation. 

    remember that these images are also applied inwardly. ...my name is dindunuffin and i am the reverberation of experience. …my name is @WeedmasterP, i am thoughtful, well read, articulate…etc. these internal images guide not only how we behave outwardly but also how we perceive ourselves in a given situation. when the images are threatened we feel pressure to protect them. this is how jealously arises. anger. self deceit. 

    when a concept is presented that challenges a preconception, a duality is formed. of this arises conflict. ..anger. dissonance. ...my god is the right god! …my perspective is the right perspective! 

    one is then left at a crossroads. will he minimize the value of what is presented by another? will he rationalize the validity of his own preconception? or will he look at what is being presented with all of his awareness? freeing himself to see actuality. 

     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-04-19 21:25:46
  • Pumpy said:

     

    DinduNuffin said:


    I'm not suggesting the dissolution of the image should stop the advancement of science.


    I believe you mean "the speaker". Wouldn't want to let yr façade of preposterous asstwattery slip.

    EDIT: Good catch! I see you already got it.
     


    Bae caught the speaker slippin.
    You've got the butterflies all tied up
    Don't make me chase you
    Even doves have pride
  • Are you so full of yourself that you actually think @WeedmasterP doesn't understand what you're saying? Or are you so juvenile and pedantic that you insist that his semantics have to match yours in order for you to admit that he might mean something different than what you thought on a first reading? 

    By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
    Post edited by endymion at 2015-12-22 14:22:51
  • @pumpy,

    the word 'i' in this context creates a duality. the speaker must avoid its use to maintain logic, not a facade. 
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-04 01:11:38
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @pumpy,

    the word 'i' in this context creates a duality. the speaker must avoid it's use to maintain logic, not a facade. 



    Just because someone uses the word 'I', it doesn't mean they are creating a duality. Have you heard of dual-aspect monism? It's where the subjective, mental reality and the objective, physical world are dual aspects of the same underlying reality, and doesn't mean a full duality between the two.
     
  • CosmEffect said:

    Just because someone uses the word 'I', it doesn't mean they are creating a duality.

    E and E-Prime
    Post edited by BobDobolina at 2015-12-22 14:49:25
    I'm not a gross asshole, but I play one on the forum...

    ...alright, I'm a gross asshole.
  • @endymion,

    there is an important distinction that is still being missed. if one understands its significance one wouldn't seek to apply relative judgemental terms. juvenile implies you have judged another to be of a certain maturity. in other words, the maturity level of the speaker is not what it's cracked up to be... comments like this are best avoided as they lead the conversation away from any substance and into the realm of emotion and security. 

    anger is an expression of fear. fear is the self image protecting itself.
     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-22 14:52:38
  • BobDobolina said:

     

    CosmEffect said:

    Just because someone uses the word 'I', it doesn't mean they are creating a duality.

    E and E-Prime

    Is one supporting or refuting what the other one has to say? Also notice there was no example of using or not using 'I' in E-Prime and the author actually uses 'I' to refer to the author.
  • These threads are like the middle of the second round in a UFC fight. OP shows up about a month before, feels out the situation, tests the waters..bell rings. Back to the corner for collection of the gospel. Round two begins, a few "the speaker" comments in tangential threads and then suddenly, bam, a left hook and full blown personal-pronoun TKO. 
     
  • 0101010101001000101011010110000111100101100111010101111100110010
    Post edited by Pumpy at 2016-01-19 14:18:05
  • @BobDobolina, 
    ...indeed. 

    @cosmeffect,
    the speaker suggests that the duality arises only in a certain context. one is free to say i outside of this context. but in this discussion the speaker is bound by logic. 
     
  • CosmEffect said:

     

    BobDobolina said:

     

    CosmEffect said:

    Just because someone uses the word 'I', it doesn't mean they are creating a duality.

    E and E-Prime
    Is one supporting or refuting what the other one has to say? Also notice there was no example of using or not using 'I' in E-Prime and the author actually uses 'I' to refer to the author.
    I just find E-Prime an interesting related tangent when discussing identity.
    I'm not a gross asshole, but I play one on the forum...

    ...alright, I'm a gross asshole.
  • @DinduNuffin The current speaker suggests that the other speaker is more psychotic as compared to the current speaker. Or is that creating a duality as well?
  • @pumpy,

    it's not fake. it must follow logic. …now, what is gross? does it imply the self image? does it imply you view the speaker through an image? what do you see without that image? just content. discussion. no judgement. only progress. 

    if we make the conversation about a particular quality of the speaker, the progression takes a new trajectory...

    the objective of the speaker is merely to engage thinkers to strengthen the collective understanding.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-24 00:50:40
  • @CosmEffect

    again, why the comparison? what happens when we have a discussion free of the image? free of preconceptions? free from the idea that the current speaker is psychotic? 


    put less abstractly, what happens when a muslim and a christian engage in discussion with all their baggage, their beliefs, their preconceptions? there will never be progress. just the perpetual assertion of images protecting themselves from dissolution. its a mechanical formula for conflict. 

    the 'i' refers to what is mechanically preconceived, the ego. using 'the speaker' removes this implication of individuality, allowing for logical abstraction. 
     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-22 15:40:12
  • there ya go! it's just that simple.
  • now who the fuck is going to win the BIG BIG MONEY!!!
  • Semantics
  • fullstop said:

    Semantics

    Ah, so you're one of those anti-sematic fellers?
    Post edited by BobDobolina at 2015-12-22 16:05:39
    I'm not a gross asshole, but I play one on the forum...

    ...alright, I'm a gross asshole.
123456771
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!!!! WIN BIG MONEY!!!
  • Neo-Advaita is a fantastic set of teachings for anyone who wants to be able to tell anyone "shut-up you're stupid" whenever they feel like they need an ego boost. 

    The teachings aren't worthless, but there's certainly a lot of people studying them with whom it's a waste of time to try and interact with.
  • @dindunuffin so it's all really a progress you say.
    Post edited by malonei at 2015-12-22 16:44:49
  • @dindunuffin and there are things that make it go quicker and there are others that slow it... down?
  • Danlo said:

    God these "non dual" threads can be so annoying!

    Have I been on this forum too long if almost every thread gives me a feeling of deja vu, a feeling that this has been discussed over and over and over ad infinitum?
     



    I'm starting a support group on Tuesdays and Thursdays. PM me.
    You've got the butterflies all tied up
    Don't make me chase you
    Even doves have pride
  • @danlo are americans familiar enough with nonduality? like, i don't even know. those teachings seem worth of a lot of attention, yet there's a lively part of me that is looking for some kind of a catch in it. dunno.
  • @flowerbudrise,

    do you mean process? the process of eliminating the image? i can happen instantaneously…but certain conditions of understanding must be met. in other words you somewhat paradoxically must upload a set of instructions that allow the self to perceive these images. its counter intuitive at first. the tendency is to protect them with fear and anger. 

    in other words, you can eliminate the images instantaneously if you understand the full significance of the fallacy of their limitations. or you can eliminate the images one by one if you meditate, use psychedelics, whatever, as to slowly become more aware of your idiosyncrasies, preconceptions, images. 

    both ways work but have limitations.. the instantaneous method requires some intellection/keen observation and it's tough to maintain or in most cases fleeting. the one by one method is painfully slower and also tough to maintain. 

    the reason it's tough to maintain is because the image maker won't stop. the speaker is creating images right now. memories. of what's being written right now. some of these images are useful. some will be limiting. this process is the key to understanding. eliminate the image. see what is. 

    if you did mean progress then no, the speaker does not seek progression towards anything. that implies the image of what the speaker is now and an image of what the speaker should wish to become. the speaker does not look through those images. 

    if one looks through the lens of 'i am not good enough' how will it skew their experience? 
    the speaker does not wish to become anything. the speaker sees the world without seeking. without this hue or resonance of thought. without this skewing of perception. 


    the speaker will answer your other question later. the speaker is making breakfast for dinner.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-22 17:45:41
  • @DinduNuffin i am not as detail-oriented as you are. i lost that ability to focus and keep at it long time ago, so talking to you seems almost like a game, something i shouldn't pursue, but i will. it reminds me of something familiar, that's why. no comment about progress though. i should go off the internet now.
  • DinduNuffin said:

    the process of eliminating the image? i can happen instantaneously…but certain conditions of understanding must be met. in other words you somewhat paradoxically must upload a set of instructions that allow the self to perceive these images. its counter intuitive at first. the tendency is to protect them with fear and anger.

    Much as I've been clowning on your contrived affect and self-appointed expert role, I do feel obligated to state that I am in total agreement with this bit here. And it sheds some light on where you're coming from.

    Sincerely, and putting all internet assbaggery aside, my guess is that you attempted the instantaneous rather than gradual approach, and succeeded. Probably rather recently, perhaps within this past year. Well, am I close? Are you one of the recently awakened?

    I ask because not only have I seen this before, I've been this before. My own moment of instantaneous awakening was just past five years ago at this point (never did have much patience for gradual anything), and in the immediate aftermath I went around with an attitude similar to yours now. Of course it's entirely possible that I'm just projecting, which is why I ask.
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • http://www.deeshan.com/krishnamurti.htm

    I didn't read the whole book on shrooms but I did read this concise summary of his core teachings written by Krishnamurti himself while pretty high. I actually really enjoyed it. 

    The part that resonated with me the most was the last sentence: "When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence."

    I like that he talks about understanding what "I" is, unfixed in our intellectualizations, feelings, culture, beliefs, delusions, and attachments. But I REALLY like the way he talks about love and compassion being the natural outcome of this full understanding of self. Seems like Krishnamurti was a pretty loving and humble guy. Probably wouldn't have enjoyed his teachings being hawked off for big money.
  • This forum has made me completely reconsider the value of "realization".
  • What's the point of "awakening" if it doesn't make you a more loving person?
  • @flowerbudrise

    is the feeling that one should not pursue a certain thought the image protecting itself from dissolution?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-22 19:42:46
  • @WeedmasterP

    the question has been put: is the novelty of the speakers experience, what drives his enthusiasm? this is correct, yes? the speaker is so amazed with what he has learned he must express it! yes? the realities of civilization have not yet re-soiled his perception. lets go into it.. 

    from this question arises an important point. even right now as you read you are creating new images. very quickly you're brain submerges you back into this realm of limitations. your memories. your identity. your role at work. your responsibilities. etc. you lose sight of what is and it becomes again what you believe it to be. then, as experience repeats, novelty erodes. and as you describe, enthusiasm tapers off… or in other words… a new image has been established. 

    we must talk about the difference between complete understanding and linguistic understanding. words are just a tool of expression. they are not necessary for thought. in fact, they confine thought. understanding this concept verbally allows one to mentally juggle it back and forth with another. understanding wholly, with full awareness, with no images, allows for a continuous refreshening of perception. a constant gathering of the perfume of existence. the novelty will never wear off as it is constantly refreshed. 


    does that answer the question? 

     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-24 00:56:37
  • @spacebanana, 

    yes! true compassion, love, intelligence, meditation are all one and the same! that's it! intelligence is what remains when the images have all been dissolved. intelligent thought being the absence of belief, preconceptions, images. to see what is! meditation is what remains after the resonating thoughts are cancelled by the understanding of their limitations. seeing what is! love is a more difficult explanation. first we must understand the separation of krishnamurti's love and the western understanding, which is more a combination of lust, fear, ownership, jealousy, security..etc… it of course varies with the particulars. basically, love is also seeing what is as you've realized the true significance of existence. you have realized this glimmering peace that exists outside of intrusive human thoughts. ..you see what is. ..you've dissolved the ego. ..you understand the significance of the image maker. 

    with this understanding of meditation it can be done anywhere anytime. even when your in the middle of an activity. just look without the image... the image that you are impatient. that you are bored. that you are less valuable than someone else. that you are proud. that things have lost their novelty. all images. any relative 'understanding' you have is false. meanings. significances. they all seem real but they're not. and they limit you.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-05 00:06:23
  • @DinduNuffin hey cool, you can keep the big $. I love you for free. 

    xx
  • @spacebanana

    your brain thoughts now put you in the lead for the BIG BIG MONEY! 

    as far as worrying about what krishnamurti thinks, let's ignore krishnamurti completely. lets talk about the concepts he presented not his particulars. he's no guru. we don't need a teacher anyways. truth is inside us and all around. not something deliverable by any man. 

    the significance of the BIG BIG MONEY will be evident to the winner. 
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-22 21:04:47
  • Hmm... Pretty strange that @destroya hasn't posted here, he's usually all over these non-dual, dual dual, non-non-non-dual-dual, word gymnastics threads.
  • no gymnastics @Dr_Feelgood. simply logic and discussion.
  • Destroya can win in in 12 words or less
    Pumpy said:

    @DinduNuffin 

    No problem! Just pointin' out how fake and gross yr persona experiment is.



    wait pumpy already won right?
  • please do not take offence. your interpretation is what makes an experience fake and gross. remember these are relative terms. they have no place in reality. 

    1 krishnamurti book then the mushrooms.
  • flowerbudrise said:

    @danlo are americans familiar enough with nonduality? like, i don't even know. those teachings seem worth of a lot of attention, yet there's a lively part of me that is looking for some kind of a catch in it. dunno.



    I would think not, but either way it does not matter. These threads always end up annoying, because this "realization" of "non dualism" cannot be taught in any way whatsoever. It can only be experienced.

    I am not saying that it is not helpful at all, but it tends to end up as totally misleading. I have not seen dindo say anywhere that this is something you have to experience yourself, because he is way to busy jerking off on semantics.


     

     

    Danlo said:

    God these "non dual" threads can be so annoying!

    Have I been on this forum too long if almost every thread gives me a feeling of deja vu, a feeling that this has been discussed over and over and over ad infinitum?
     



    I'm starting a support group on Tuesdays and Thursdays. PM me.


    haha, now this is helpful indeed.
     
    Post edited by Danlo at 2015-12-23 02:19:08
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • Danlo said:

    God these "non dual" threads can be so annoying!

    Have I been on this forum too long if almost every thread gives me a feeling of deja vu, a feeling that this has been discussed over and over and over ad infinitum?
     

     


     
    I did the LBRP and all I got was this T shirt
  • DinduNuffin said:

    even right now as you read you are creating new images. very quickly you're brain submerges you back into this realm of limitations. your memories. your identity. your role at work. your responsibilities. etc. you lose sight of what is and it becomes again what you believe it to be. then, as experience repeats, novelty erodes. and as you describe, enthusiasm tapers off… or in other words… a new image has been established. 

    does that answer the question?

    No. In case you were distracted by your desire to explain points with which I am already intimately familiar, the specific question was this:
    WeedmasterP said:

    Sincerely, and putting all internet assbaggery aside, my guess is that you attempted the instantaneous rather than gradual approach, and succeeded. Probably rather recently, perhaps within this past year. Well, am I close? Are you one of the recently awakened?

    That is not a complicated question. Were you feeling less loquacious you could answer with a simple yes or no.
    Post edited by WeedmasterP at 2015-12-23 09:05:48
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • NO WHAMMIES NO WHAMMIES BIG MONEY NO WHAMMIES
    Post edited by Thel at 2015-12-23 09:26:09
    You've got the butterflies all tied up
    Don't make me chase you
    Even doves have pride
  • Every time someone comes on here claiming to have experienced something profound that they have to tell others about and dispel their illusions about reality, I keep recalling things like this:http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XCYcf3yz08g (RAW on paranoia in the occult community and the neglect of the heart)

    We need to get a boddhicitta cultivation group going here and lay off the visionary shit.
    Post edited by endymion at 2015-12-23 09:58:16
  • @WeedmasterP,

    the speaker did answer the question. if the novelty of your experience has worn off you never understood in the first place. let's not allow the dialog to be diverted by your own insecurities. are you truly listening to the speaker or are you listening through an image? rise above that image to see what is. 

    if you understood you wouldn't try to shift the conversation onto the speaker. you would see the speaker as unimportant and look to the message. 

    @danlo,

    what is it about this dialog that threatens your self image? why the fear and lashing out? remember if your stuck behind this image you will never see what is. only this fear based, self imposed image of the speaker. the speaker has already discussed the difference between understanding linguistically and true understanding. 

    reaching a common understanding of certain terms is vital to successful dialog. the speaker is concerned with semantics because there is a need to understand the parts before we can understand the whole. do you understand the significance of the word semantics? 

    please, see the preconceptions. the images. how they skew your version of reality. then re-read the posts and respond to what is, not what you perceive to be unpleasant or threatening.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-23 10:34:20
  • Here's schooling you guys. Better up your game or submit to his wisdom
  • no submission. no conflict. just discussion. does the perception of submission/loss drive the fear and anger as it threatens the self image of the reader? 

    let's not label the speaker as wise or anything else. doing so is the creation of a new image. ..the speaker is wise. …the speaker is dumb. …the speaker is gross, redundant. all images. all imposed by perceiver. the speaker is meaningless without the message. 
     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-23 10:41:11
  • DinduNuffin said:

    the speaker did answer the question.

    Again, no "the speaker" didn't. What you did was outright refuse to answer the question, then give a haughty rationale for so doing. Fine, we can play it that way. What is it about this dialog which threatens your self image, to the point that you've chosen to find convoluted reasons for not engaging with simple questions?
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • You're doing this weird thing where you're trying to pick at other people's use of subject object language and the use of conceptual thought, and then you try and back away from it in you're own usage of language. All the while you're necessarily "communicating" using subject object language and concepts. Why don't you just learn how to actually communicate with people using clear concise language? Unless you are setting yourself up as some sort of enlightened trickster guru who is going to instill realization by hitting them with a shoe, it's pretty much your only option.
  • @DinduNuffin I am sorry if you feel that I lashed out at you in any way. It is just that some of us has discussed this issue to death in other threads on this board.

    I should have known better then posting here, so carry on man.
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • DinduNuffin said:



    reaching a common understanding of certain terms is vital to successful dialog.



    This is rich.
    You've got the butterflies all tied up
    Don't make me chase you
    Even doves have pride
  • LongPlay_ said:

     

    Danlo said:

    God these "non dual" threads can be so annoying!

    Have I been on this forum too long if almost every thread gives me a feeling of deja vu, a feeling that this has been discussed over and over and over ad infinitum?
     

     


     


    Definitely:)
     
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • @. I brought @destroya up because I'm fairly certain @DinduNuffin is destroya... They use the same tactics and produce the same results. These kinds of threads are no different from what Bill O'Reiley does as far as I can tell... All you have to do is position yourself at the center of a discussion and then try to manipulate the vernacular in an effort to draw attention to yourself. 

    @Danlo already pointed out the similarity between this thread and the non-dualism threads.

    Anyways, I don't really care - I think these threads are very entertaining. I'm relatively new to the forum and I'm definitely capable of making faulty connections, so if my hypothesis is wrong, I want you all to know that I truly and sincerely do not give a shit.

    Love: Doctor_Feelgood
  • Meh I hope its not destroya especially because i love his simplicity in responses, he doesn't use excess words which is very Buddhist.
  • It's not destroya. He was too busy sexting me last night via PMs. He has an alibi.
  • And yes if anyone's wondering his sexts are concise and to the point.
  • Dr_Feelgood said:

    @. I brought @destroya up because I'm fairly certain @DinduNuffin is destroya... They use the same tactics and produce the same results. These kinds of threads are no different from what Bill O'Reiley does as far as I can tell... All you have to do is position yourself at the center of a discussion and then try to manipulate the vernacular in an effort to draw attention to yourself. 

    @Danlo already pointed out the similarity between this thread and the non-dualism threads.

    Anyways, I don't really care - I think these threads are very entertaining. I'm relatively new to the forum and I'm definitely capable of making faulty connections, so if my hypothesis is wrong, I want you all to know that I truly and sincerely do not give a shit.

    Love: Doctor_Feelgood



    Well you are fairly certainly wrong because destroya is my only account here and space banana and mr. Dot are both correct. :)

    Also I'm glad everyone's starting to understand the egoic side of the nondualist game.
    Post edited by destroya at 2015-12-23 21:08:32
  • @WeedmasterP

    The speaker realizes the conversation is being diverted intentionally. if the conversation moves onto the particulars, it separates from the abstract. Alternatively put, it can't become a you vs me conversation. That implies the image. Beliefs. The speaker intends to discuss without beliefs.
  • @endymoin,

    Yes! You see! The contradiction! You're beginning to understand! You may win the BIG BIG MONEY after all... 

    The question has been put, is the speaker a trickster guru, driving the conversation towards abstraction? What is to be gained? 

    @Endymion, please go into it.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-24 01:04:42
  • @destroya My mistake, as I said it was merely a guess. I'm a big fan of your work, upon reflection I probably should have worded that post differently - I was on my way out the door.
    Post edited by Dr_Feelgood at 2015-12-24 00:14:51
  • @danlo,

    To you, this issue reeks of redundancy. It no longer sparks your Intrest. you have played with it I'm your mind so much that it is no longer valuable. But with this understanding you were compelled to comment. Compelled to be heard. Your understanding must be affirmed! Is this not the presentation of another image? Another preconception? ...my perception must be affirmed. ...or your understanding is less valuable or weaker than mine. Etc... 

    Now is behaviour limited by this image? This preconception. This need for assertion. Limited in that the specific circumstances that led up to your first comment, would always result in expression of the first comment. nothing else. behaviour is limited by the image. The pressure by which it flows is the image. Put differently, the image/preconception guides the behaviour. Alternatively, the action of asserting yourself, is a behavioural limitation of an image.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-23 23:51:06
  • @Dr.Feelgood,

    let's not be concerned with the particulars, who i am, who you are. understanding the commonalities allows for understanding of the individual. 
  • @destroya,

    'Also I'm glad everyone's starting to understand the egoic side of the non dualist game'

    indeed.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-23 23:37:28
  • @DinduNuffin You've positioned yourself as a teacher in this thread, which makes me wonder: do you teach classes in meatbody land? You've obviously seriously studied Krishnamurti's work and I'd love to take a class of yours sometime if you are in my area. I'm not asking you to post any specific personal information in this thread (just to be clear).
  • @.,

    very buddhist… why strive to be something? anything? why? why live under that hue or resonance of thought that tells you you're not enough of this or you need to achieve more of that. existing in that mindspace prevents full awareness. full awareness demands understanding of all the resonating pulses of seeking. 

    put differently,
    living with the understanding that one must always continue to grow and develop creates a constant state of perceived underdevelopment. your actions are born of this sensation. this resonance of thought. 

    …and if a buddhist can be confined to a word, should one really strive to become a buddhist? would one then not be confined to the limitations of that thought structure? striving to become anything is not seeing truth. 
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-24 01:07:15
  • @DinduNuffin You claim to have no self-image, yet you are obviously fitting into a certain persona that you are trying to cultivate.
  • @Dr_Feelgood,

    do not look to the speaker for answers. look to the @dr_feelgood. the answers are inside of your own perception. both the speaker and @Dr_Feelgood can independently arrive at any of these conclusions. they are all connected by logic and anyone can observe these images, preconceptions, beliefs, in action.


     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-24 00:00:23
  • @DinduNuffin I feel you man, I will look to my inner Dr_Feelgood for answers. Everyone should look inside themselves and try to find their own unique Dr_Feelgood. My one question is, how would I have ever known to look inside without your teaching? Even if you exist purely as an egoless being of light wandering through misdirected internet forums you obviously still have some kind of need to teach. If I follow that desire to teach where does it end?
  • Dr_Feelgood said:

    @DinduNuffin I feel you man, I will look to my inner Dr_Feelgood for answers. Everyone should look inside themselves and try to find their own unique Dr_Feelgood. My one question is, how would I have ever known to look inside without your teaching? Even if you exist purely as an egoless being of light wandering through misdirected internet forums you obviously still have some kind of need to teach. If I follow that desire to teach where does it end?



    Great question. Thoughts, anyone?
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!!!! WIN BIG MONEY!!!
  • @CosmEffect,

    the question has been put, is the speaker, who claims to hold no image, cultivating a persona? let's go into it. 

    persona? where does that exist? is 'persona' not an image or preconception of a behaviour or action over time? where does that exist? in actuality or conceptually. this subjective 'persona' exists in the mind of the observers not the speaker. 

    cultivation, the process of trying to acquire or develop a quality or skill. why interest ourselves with the motives of the speaker? the speaker is not interested in the motives of the receivers. and the speaker is of little interest conversationally. in fact, the speaker is nothing more than the reverberation of culture and environment. not unlike yourself. 


     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-24 00:34:01
  • Dr_Feelgood said:

    @destroya My mistake, as I said it was merely a guess. I'm a big fan of your work, upon reflection I probably should have worded that post differently - I was on my way out the door.



    Thanks bro :) where were u headed in such a hurry?
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @danlo,

    To you, this issue reeks of redundancy. It no longer sparks your Intrest. you have played with it I'm your mind so much that it is no longer valuable. But with this understanding you were compelled to comment. Compelled to be heard. Your understanding must be affirmed! Is this not the presentation of another image? Another preconception? ...my perception must be affirmed. ...or your understanding is less valuable or weaker than mine. Etc... 

    Now is behaviour limited by this image? This preconception. This need for assertion. Limited in that the specific circumstances that led up to your first comment, would always result in expression of the first comment. nothing else. behaviour is limited by the image. The pressure by which it flows is the image. Put differently, the image/preconception guides the behaviour. Alternatively, the action of asserting yourself, is a behavioural limitation of an image.



    I said I am sorry dude! This "speaker" is not special by the way. Just another human insisting on the usefulness of trying to step out of the human condition. You can refer to yourself in third person as much as you want, but you are still a person typing. When you step away from this illusory "speaker" role you still have to deal with a cranky girlfriend/boyfriend maybe? Maybe you are sad and lonely? You might even be a content individual for all I know.

    It is very human to seek confirmation from fellow mammals. To pretend otherwise is to neglect and outright deny what you are. It is also very human to seek acceptance and love from fellow mammals. It is even more human to argue and talk shit about each other, and to try and crawl your way up to the top of the argument hierarchy. Its all good man, it is ok. There is actually nothing to teach. Human is what human does.
     
    ShinyMonkey said:

     

    Dr_Feelgood said:

    @DinduNuffin I feel you man, I will look to my inner Dr_Feelgood for answers. Everyone should look inside themselves and try to find their own unique Dr_Feelgood. My one question is, how would I have ever known to look inside without your teaching? Even if you exist purely as an egoless being of light wandering through misdirected internet forums you obviously still have some kind of need to teach. If I follow that desire to teach where does it end?



    Great question. Thoughts, anyone?


    Well that is the thing though. Not everyone has to "look inside" to find "truth" or whatnot. Only a certain type of person has to look inside to find "wisdom". What about all the other people out there who do not ever even think about these things? Is there something wrong with them?

    Do we as "inner wisdom seekers" judge other people? If we do, what have we learned?

    I know plenty of people who find most answers outside of themselves. No "inner wisdom". Do they suffer from brain damage or something? They do what they do with or without "inner wisdom".

    Accept it all, or fuck off. Merry christmas!!

     
    Post edited by Danlo at 2015-12-24 02:25:34
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • ShinyMonkey said:

     

    Dr_Feelgood said:

    @DinduNuffin I feel you man, I will look to my inner Dr_Feelgood for answers. Everyone should look inside themselves and try to find their own unique Dr_Feelgood. My one question is, how would I have ever known to look inside without your teaching? Even if you exist purely as an egoless being of light wandering through misdirected internet forums you obviously still have some kind of need to teach. If I follow that desire to teach where does it end?



    Great question. Thoughts, anyone?


    Where does it end?

    On your fifth forum account with a gun to your head
    I did the LBRP and all I got was this T shirt
  • LongPlay_ said:

     

    ShinyMonkey said:

     

    Dr_Feelgood said:

    @DinduNuffin I feel you man, I will look to my inner Dr_Feelgood for answers. Everyone should look inside themselves and try to find their own unique Dr_Feelgood. My one question is, how would I have ever known to look inside without your teaching? Even if you exist purely as an egoless being of light wandering through misdirected internet forums you obviously still have some kind of need to teach. If I follow that desire to teach where does it end?



    Great question. Thoughts, anyone?


    Where does it end?

    On your fifth forum account with a gun to your head


    STOP WATCHING ME
    You've got the butterflies all tied up
    Don't make me chase you
    Even doves have pride
  • Forgive me for my previous pithy replies, I may not have been dedicating the time this subject deserves. But I'm finally off work for Christmas, so now I've got plenty of time to squander and can reply at greater length.

    Basically I would say that because thoughts are never actually the things which they attempt to represent, when playing this game of language there is no ultimate "right answer." This is why I prefer the Zen approach, which is to say as little as possible and even then never take it literally. Real understanding happens outside of language. Language is not the real deal, which is precisely why it shouldn't be taken at face value. If one accepts this, one ceases to be constrained by any one particular way of phrasing things. Whereas your approach, @DinduNuffin, has got you so hung up on language you've become phobic of using personal pronouns.

    Frankly I find it ironic that you keep declaring other people are being guided by their preconceptions, when this is exactly what you did with my response right from the start. You came up with your own preconception about what "it ain't what it's cracked up to be" means, then you found ways to rationalize that preconception. And this is not merely my assertion, I can actually demonstrate it concretely.
    DinduNuffin said:

    "it ain't all it's cracked up to be"

    You put this within quotations, as if I were the one who wrote it, but this is not what I wrote. You in your own head have changed a word, and changed the meaning, then argued against the meaning that you made up. I didn't write "all," I wrote "what." And if you want to nitpick individual words as hard as you have been, this kind of error makes a real difference. 
    DinduNuffin said:

    'shit' being less than what is expected or 'cracked up to be' implies measurement by the observer.

    Who said anything about "less?" I didn't, you did. This qualitative comparison to which you object is a concept which you yourself introduced. I merely said "shit isn't what it's cracked up to be," not "shit is worse than it's cracked up to be." If I say "a house is not a dog," that is a very different statement from "houses are not as good as dogs." This is what I meant when I said you went out of your way to make up your own interpretation. 

    So, real simple: "what it's cracked up to be" means "whatever is believed/thought/expected" about something. "Ain't" is just a negation. And "it" refers to fundamental reality, that which is true. So "it" (reality) "ain't" (is not) "what it's cracked up to be" (an idea). Reality is not an idea, the map is not the territory. Believe it or not, there actually are other people who understand this, and there are valid ways of phrasing it which differ from your own. 
    DinduNuffin said:

    one is then left as a crossroads. will he minimize the value of what is presented by another? will he rationalize the validity of his own preconception? or will he look at what is being presented with all of his awareness? freeing himself to see actuality.

    So far you have been doing the former. Had you been initially "free to see the actuality" of what I said, you would have recognized that I started by agreeing with you. But because you would not even entertain the possibility that I might actually understand what you're talking about, you decided to instead re-interpret and minimize what I'd written in a way which rationalized your own preconceptions. The very thing you suggest others are doing. Honestly, I'm kind of impressed. It's not every day you see irony this thick. 
    DinduNuffin said:

    The speaker realizes the conversation is being diverted intentionally. if the conversation moves onto the particulars, it separates from the abstract. Alternatively put, it can't become a you vs me conversation. That implies the image. Beliefs. The speaker intends to discuss without beliefs.

    I'm not trying to divert anything by asking you about your own experience. I'm merely asking you about your experience. Not your ideas, not your beliefs, but your experience. Because guess what? Experience is all you actually know. These abstract generalizations you're making are fine but they are purely theoretical, a mental image. You claim to be discussing without beliefs, but you aren't. By trying to confine this conversation to only the abstract expressions of your choice, you are merely defining your own set of beliefs. God forbid we talk about anything in particular. 
     
    Danlo said:

    I would think not, but either way it does not matter. These threads always end up annoying, because this "realization" of "non dualism" cannot be taught in any way whatsoever. It can only be experienced.

    I am not saying that it is not helpful at all, but it tends to end up as totally misleading. I have not seen dindo say anywhere that this is something you have to experience yourself, because he is way to busy jerking off on semantics.

    @Danlo I wanted to return to this, because I both agree and disagree. The BIG BIG MONEY to which I suspect @DinduNuffin refers is the breakthrough beyond thought, and this is certainly something which can only be experienced. Word-juggling alone will never get anyone there. That said, I disagree that it cannot be taught. Perhaps "taught" isn't the best word. Let's say "coached." I am quite sure that one can be coached by a skilled teacher toward an understanding of this, because that's how it happened for me. I had a lot of help in getting to my initial satori experience, and without that help I doubt I would have pushed through the fear and confusion generated by ego's resistance to having the rug pulled out from under it. There is a real method here, it isn't totally arbitrary, and that method is something which can be taught. 
    Post edited by WeedmasterP at 2015-12-24 09:01:54
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • @WeedmasterP Yes, I can see what you mean by that. In my case it happened without a teacher/coach at all though. It was something that shined through during severe moments of grief.

    Psychedelics has helped as well, some folks refer to them as teachers I guess.

    This technique you are speaking of, do that involve koans? I tried that once, and it almost drove me nuts:)

     
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  •  

    LongPlay_ said:

     

    ShinyMonkey said:

     

    Dr_Feelgood said:

    @DinduNuffin I feel you man, I will look to my inner Dr_Feelgood for answers. Everyone should look inside themselves and try to find their own unique Dr_Feelgood. My one question is, how would I have ever known to look inside without your teaching? Even if you exist purely as an egoless being of light wandering through misdirected internet forums you obviously still have some kind of need to teach. If I follow that desire to teach where does it end?



    Great question. Thoughts, anyone?


    Where does it end?

    On your fifth forum account with a gun to your head


    STOP WATCHING ME


    I did the LBRP and all I got was this T shirt
  • @Danlo I would basically call it a koan, yeah. I was asked to find any substantiation for the idea that "I," my identity, was a real thing. Any answer I submitted was of course wrong, and through a few days of increasingly agitated back and forth of this nature I eventually got the point, all in one inverting instant. I'd say that taking psychedelics and reading a few choice authors definitely softened the ground for me, so to speak, but this particular effort was one of about five days' sober concentration. 

    If working with a koan almost drove you nuts, that means it almost worked. Figuratively, the way a koan works is to get the conceptual mind spinning in circles so forcefully that it falls off its axis. I certainly don't think this is the only way to "get the point," but it is what worked for me. Makes sense that extreme grief might occasion the same realization, that is a different kind of pulling the rug out from under one's identity.
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • You like to use the zen approach and say as little as possible @weedmasterp? Did I read that right? :l
  • @destroya Haha, well, at least that's my preference when it comes to "describing the infinite" or whatnot, yeah. But I see your point.
    Post edited by WeedmasterP at 2015-12-24 10:01:53
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • destroya said:

    You like to use the zen approach and say as little as possible @weedmasterp? Did I read that right? :l



    Burn!
    You've got the butterflies all tied up
    Don't make me chase you
    Even doves have pride
  • @DoodieButtshart "Where does it end? On your fifth forum account with a gun to your head" lol.

    @destroya I was on my way to hang out with my family. You know, because its Christmas and everything.
     
  • @WeedmasterP,

    the speaker cannot forgive. forgiveness implies an image. the speaker sees without the image. 

    what happens if one expresses without cliche or ambiguous generalizations? what then? does this raise or lower the probability of misinterpretation? perhaps if we avoid generalizations. beliefs. images. 

    for example, we can discuss the following ambiguous generalization,

    'it ain't all it's cracked up to be'

    this implies comparison. measurement. robert forman implies he has seen from a certain perspective and then through enlightenment, from another perspective. yes? does this not imply comparison? measurement? the image? you see, it doesn't matter if the image is interpreted as positive or negative by someones subjective standard, what matters is the comparison, that's thought. a preconception. an image. not truth. 

    the speaker became a functioning organ system in 1982. slowly the speakers brain became more and more aware of its environment. it formed images. language. then concepts. then consciousness. it compounded into this thing that, in 1999, watched the film 'the hurricane' about boxer rubin carter. in the film rubin carter reads awakening of intelligence in prison. the functioning organ system retrieved the book and downloaded it that same year. as for beliefs, the speaker has no beliefs. no images. the speaker sees with full awareness. 

    as for being taught or coached. let take a particular example… when one is confronted by an angry bear, one reacts a certain way based on a preconception. ...bears are dangerous. ...must get away. …engage sympathetic nervous system. this is an understanding. the response is immediate. the mind does not dwell in thought and consideration instead it reacts! the same is true of perception. with the right combination of images, responses, understandings, perception can see it's skewed conceptual limitations. it can learn to achieve full awareness. awareness without the image. 
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-24 21:17:03
  • @danlo,

    the speaker is the reverberation of experience. nothing more. the echoing of images. the speaker cannot forgive as the speaker has no image. the speaker is not insisting anything. just asking questions. the speaker is not arguing with @danlo. the speaker intends only to discuss. but lets not discuss the speaker. the speaker is uninteresting by most standards. 



     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-24 22:02:22
  • What the fucking fuck?
    You've got the butterflies all tied up
    Don't make me chase you
    Even doves have pride
  • @DoodieButtshart Yeah that was an amazing non-reply of a reply. My work here is done. I ain't even mad.
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • @WeedmasterP,

    in what way did the speaker's response not suffice? please go into it? 
  • Jimmy's gettin upset
    I did the LBRP and all I got was this T shirt
  • Dr_Feelgood said:

    @DoodieButtshart "Where does it end? On your fifth forum account with a gun to your head" lol.

    @destroya I was on my way to hang out with my family. You know, because its Christmas and everything.
     



    Merry Christmas :)
  • I just got back from midnight mass, and it was pretty cool. The preacher dude seemed like a real holy man. Glad I went. Merry Christmas to all, and to all, go fuck yourselves!
    Post edited by ShinyMonkey at 2015-12-24 23:20:29
  • I'd say the last reply @DinduNuffin made to @WeedmasterP put a nice bow on this Christmas turd. Happy holidays you beautiful cunts.
  • ShinyMonkey said:

     

    Dr_Feelgood said:

    @DinduNuffin I feel you man, I will look to my inner Dr_Feelgood for answers. Everyone should look inside themselves and try to find their own unique Dr_Feelgood. My one question is, how would I have ever known to look inside without your teaching? Even if you exist purely as an egoless being of light wandering through misdirected internet forums you obviously still have some kind of need to teach. If I follow that desire to teach where does it end?



    Great question. Thoughts, anyone?


    even the mighty buddha came back to teach, its a good thing to do and it seems to be sinonomus<-- spelling fuck) with enlightened beings.
  • Lol. A certain speaker seems to be trolling a bit.
     
    DinduNuffin said:

    @WeedmasterP,


    'it ain't all it's cracked up to be'

     



    Did you crack up that sentence yourself? There a vast ocean of difference between that sentence and weedys signature. 

    If I understand weedys signature correctly it simply means that everything we think it is, is wrong. It is what it is and not what we crack it up to be. There is probably many different ways to state its simple meaning.

    I mean, is that not your whole point? That everything we think it is must be wrong, because it originates in thought itself, which is not "truth".




     
    Post edited by Danlo at 2015-12-25 04:04:25
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • image
    You've got the butterflies all tied up
    Don't make me chase you
    Even doves have pride
  • *
    Post edited by Dr_Feelgood at 2015-12-25 10:06:29
  • @danlo,

    Mr. @WeedmasterP
    'it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be'

    'the first part is arguably true. the second part implies perspective and secondary conclusions. this can't be truth as truth is not based in belief. not cracked up to be implies there is comparison to what has been judged as cracked up to be. this is a subjective reality. not truth.' 


    above is the initial response from the speaker. the first part is arguably true and arguably false as the statement is too general and ambiguous to provide a clear understanding. as is the second part, which also implies perspective and secondary conclusions. this can't be truth as truth is not based in belief. not cracked up to be implies there is comparison to what has been judged as cracked up to be. this is a subjective reality. not truth. not full awareness. through negation we will unveil reality. 

    @danlo,
    'I mean, is that not your whole point? That everything we think it is must be wrong, because it originates in thought itself, which is not "truth".'

    no, sir. that is still of the image. wrong implies judgement of right. it implies the observer is looking through the image of comparison. the objective contrasts with the conceptual. that implies measurement. comparison. thought. secondary conclusions. this is not full awareness. this is not meditation. this is not truth. do you see? 

    @danlo, @WeedmasterP, before we go any further, would someone provide a definition of meditation?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-26 00:36:10
  • Oh hey, it's one of these threads again. Where's the cash player?
  • ...
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-26 01:05:44
  • @JuiceBox

    yes, sir. to win the BIG BIG MONEY one must read at least one book by krishnamurti then eat >2 grams of (legal) mushrooms and then describe the experience below. success will be based on most smartest brain thoughts. the brain thoughts must be unique and must widen the speakers understanding.
  • How big money???
  • The speaker of all speakers manifested to me in a vision last night, and it stated clearly that all the other little speakers are only muddying the waters. It told me to kindly ask all the other little speakers to shut the fuck up and get on with it. Myself included of course.
    Post edited by Danlo at 2015-12-26 05:30:14
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • @Destroya,

    BIG BIG MONEY. what if action is born through the expectation of some reward, does this imply the image?
  • @danlo,

    one cannot look to any speaker for truth. no speaker can offer truth. this speaker can only offer the echoing of experience. truth exists outside of language. outside of thought. a rough description can be built, but only through negation.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-26 08:41:23
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @Destroya,

    BIG BIG MONEY. what if action is born through the expectation of some reward, does this imply the image?



    But what kind of dollar amount specifically? 10$? $500? $20,000? $500,000? $7,000,000? $4,000,000,000? Specific number please :)
  • @DinduNuffin Ok, I read the Krishnamurti and ate the mushrooms. This is the vision that was delivered to me once the I had digested the psychedelic brew:

    I was a child, age 8 or 10 walking through a playground. Suddenly, the ground parted in front of me - the fires of hell sprang forth from this chasm and bathed the world in flames. Krishnamurti levitated out of the hell-hole laughing. His eyes were firey - he had bat wings and he was unusually muscular. He said to me in a voice too deep and loud for any mortal being: "Listen to DinduNuffin, for he is my greatest disciple. Eat of the mushrooms, read of my books and spread my word throughout internet forums everywhere." 

    He continued to laugh - my eyes rolled back in my pre-pubescent head and I cried in my ecstasy. DinduNuffin had delivered me to the firey shores of salvation and I will always cherish him for it.

    Do I get big big money now?
    Post edited by Dr_Feelgood at 2015-12-26 10:26:18
  • Dr_Feelgood said:

    @DinduNuffin Ok, I read the Krishnamurti and ate the mushrooms. This is the vision that was delivered to me once the I had digested the psychedelic brew:

    I was a child, age 8 or 10 walking through a playground. Suddenly, the ground parted in front of me - the fires of hell sprang forth from this chasm and bathed the world in flames. Krishnamurti levitated out of the hell-hole laughing. His eyes were firey - he had bat wings and he was unusually muscular. He said to me in a voice too deep and loud for any mortal being: "Listen to DinduNuffin, for he is my greatest disciple. Eat of the mushrooms, read of my books and spread my word throughout internet forums everywhere." 

    He continued to laugh - my eyes rolled back in my per-pubescent head and I cried in my ecstasy. DinduNuffin had delivered me to the firey shores of salvation and I will always cherish him for it.

    Do I get big big money now?



    No. But good job :)
  • If anyone wanted to give me big money, place everything ever owed to me into this account;

    https://secure.randpaul.com/
     
  • @Dr_Feelgood,

    no sir. no man can give you truth. no one can lead you to understanding. not krishnamurti. not the speaker. you must reach understanding independently. being led implies the image. the image of the current self contrasting with the image of the projected self, is the very machine that drives the follower. this is not full awareness. not meditation. not love. not understanding. 
  • Here was my actual dream though;

    I was walking through the Jefferson Mall in Louisville, alone. There was the most beautiful girl that I had ever saw sitting alone, listening to music. She had black and white painted finger nails, wearing a sweater that covered everything but her finger tips. I set down next to her cautiously, and asked if I could listen with her. She said yes, and we listened to one song together. After the song ended, the gumball machines began overflowing, and covered the mall. Then, my dog began barking, and woke me up.

    My dogs have been named Bullitt, Flash, Jesse, RedNeck, and Smokey. The song was by Tech N9ne. The girl and I are going on a date in a few hours.
    Post edited by ShinyMonkey at 2015-12-26 12:00:35
  • @DinduNuffin Half of your challenge involves reading Krishnamurti and now you're saying Krishnamurti can't teach you anything?
    Post edited by Dr_Feelgood at 2015-12-26 12:14:14
  • @Destroya,

    if it is the award that dictates the willingness of the participant, the participant is not without the image, not perceiving with full awareness, not able to conceptually contribute to a widening of the speakers perception. alternatively put, those caught up in a state of seeking will not win the BIG BIG MONEY.
  • @Dr_Feelgood,

    yes sir! you are beginning to see! a paradox exists fundamentally! if we first describe meditation the nature of this contradiction will reveal itself. could we first describe meditation? 
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-26 12:27:01
  • @DinduNuffin Nah man, I think I've shot enough time into your garbage pile. I hope you find your flock one day Father DinduNuffin.

    Hari Krishna
  • @Dr_Feelgood,

    no sir. no followers. no leaders. no beliefs. no images. no preconceptions. just dialog.
  • AGE OF AQUARIUS

    ENLIGHTENMENT AND PERSONAL FREEDOM

    The precession of the equinoxes has to do with more than just the two different zodiac systems. As the equinoxes precess, they relate to the Great Ages of Man. These Ages mark different periods where significant evolutionary changes occurred. The Ages are defined by the Sidereal Sign that is the current location of the Vernal Point. Currently, the Spring Equinox (0° of Aries in the Tropical Zodiac) occurs at about 7° of the Sidereal Sign of Pisces and we will be in the Sign of Pisces until the Spring Equinox precesses into the Sidereal Sign of Aquarius, which will mark the beginning of the Age of Aquarius. (Even agreeing on this definition of the "Ages" there is much dispute as to the actual year that the "Age of Aquarius" will begin.

    The general thoughts about the Age of Aquarius are that it will mark a period of enlightenment and freedom.

    http://www.greatdreams.com/ages.htm
     
  • @ShinyMonkey,

    what is the difference between choice and discernment?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-26 14:11:44
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @ShinyMonkey,

    what is the difference between belief and discernment?



    i had to look up the meaning of discernment.
     
  • DinduNuffin said:

    just dialog.



    You have a real weird idea of what constitutes a dialog.
    You've got the butterflies all tied up
    Don't make me chase you
    Even doves have pride
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!!!! WIN BIG MONEY!!!
  • I went to a concert in Louisville 3 years ago. I didn't have the money to do the VIP thing where you meet all the artists, and I didn't really want to anyways. Didn't wanna appear like a dickrider, or something Hopsin won't shut the fuck up about. Anyways, I hung around for a while after the show was over, because I heard that the artists will come out of hiding for a while. I searched for my lost Dog, and found him. That Dawg is named Stevie Stone, from St. Louis. I got a pic with him and put it as my facebook profile, where all my friends were joking like, "your only black friend." I was like, the fucking high school is mine bitch, and the majority of you motherfuckers are black. Not to mention that my actual best friend is a fat black guy who reminds me of E-40. I bought E-40's album My Ghetto Report Card, and Pimp-C's Pimpalation, along with Who is Mike Jones and Chamillionaire's The Sound of Revenge and Nelly's Country Grammar, and Limp Bizkit's Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored water in that two year period.

    Then I bought Madden 06. You can't beat me at video games. Only games in meatspace. I would win all the Madden Tournaments. Almost worked my way to the top tournament in New York, then threw the game because I knew how much the flight would cost. Oh, I heard Tech N9ne's The Beast, and was like "that's the dude. That's the fucking dude man."
    Post edited by ShinyMonkey at 2015-12-26 14:36:23
  • yes sir, express yourself. be free. be heard. choice implies want has created belief. whereas discernment implies understanding. 

    @ShinyMonkey,

    please, tell me more?
  • Well, when I met Stevie, I could tell he was nervous for some reason. I didn't know why, they guy just killed it, and had the second best part of the show. I was half drunk, and super excited, so maybe I came on a little strong, but I figured he'd be a little more aggressive, but in a nice way. When I got out to my car, I was beating myself up for not being a little nicer to him, or at least introducing myself. I really just grabbed him, told someone to take a pic, then walked away. I've lost the pic :'( Anyways, then momentum came out. 
     


    I was like, alright, something happened, what the fuck? When we shook hands, I was like just relieved, and he didn't seem passive anymore, just relaxed. I wanna meet him again! I was going to go to his Cleveland show because I was off for a few days and had money to blow. Then, I was put in a nuthouse for taking too much acid, and someone convincing me to call my family. It worked, but they could have been nicer about it! Anyways, I spent the week helping a friend from my high school escape his spice induced trance. Fun times, I guess.
  • "Nationalism is just glorified tribalism"

    Krishnamurti was a badass
    image
    If you don't learn how to program your own mind, the world will program it for you.
  • Why u so obsessed with krishnamurti? Why can't it be general spiritual teachings not just krishnamurti?
  • @DinduNuffin Its not your fault this thread went to shit man. You probably wasn`t aware that we had a thread just like this recently, with about 600 comments.

    There should be at least a year between these threads, because all I want to do now is go full blown nihilist all over this shit, and that is immature and beside the point.
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • destroya said:

    Why u so obsessed with krishnamurti? Why can't it be general spiritual teachings not just krishnamurti?



    Specific stepping stone brotha.
     
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • Why is Ram Dass so obsessed with maharaji? Just because someone's guru influenced the greatest guru ever known, you ain't gotta be jelly.
  • Just don't get the obsession
  • Well think about this;

    If a man awakened you to the fact that you were the smartest person in the history of the world, but in reality you didn't know shit, how freeing must that have been? Therefore, with nothing else to do at that point, they just have fun and tell people about their guru, because at that point, what the fuck else would they have to do?
  • Duncan is cool, and so is Rogan and Chris Ryan.
    Post edited by ShinyMonkey at 2016-01-01 11:53:23
  • @danlo,

    there was a thread recently where someone offered BIG BIG MONEY to whomever can advance the work of krishnamurti? no sir, you are limited by your belief. you have a preconception about this forum. you 'know' its limitations. you believe you understand the full capacity of this dialog and therefore can only produce self-image affirming comments. alternatively put, you can only work within the confines of your belief system. this approach is of the image. it will never advance anything as it merely reinstates the preconceived limitations.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-27 08:26:44
  • @destroya,

    krishnamurti is experience. he is no guru. the obsession comes with understanding the image, internally. not just the superficial images that are easy to pick out but the full significance of this concept.

    many spiritual teachings are of a system or structure. these are essentially thought borders. compartments of thinking. negation of all belief, all structure, all images is understanding, intelligence, love, meditation. 

    @destroya,
    sir, to you, what is meditation?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-27 08:27:53
  • Oh, and why these two haven't formed a group, I have no idea. Stevie needs him an Ubi, and he needs to be the second most popular rapper in the world.
     
    Post edited by ShinyMonkey at 2015-12-27 08:28:08
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya,

    krishnamurti is experience. he is no guru. the obsession comes with understanding the image, internally. not just the superficial images that are easy to pick out but the full significance of this concept.

    many spiritual teachings are of a system or structure. these are essentially thought borders. compartments of thinking. negation of all belief, all structure, all images is understanding, intelligence, love, meditation. 

    @destroya,
    sir, to you, what is meditation?



    What the...
  • Now we have to advance Krishnamurti's work to win the money? 

    @danlo
    This thread is just another in an eternal cycle of people claiming to know the way to Truth. This time it just happens to be "Krishnamurti + mushrooms = win big money". Just don't have a different experience then they did because then you did something wrong. Didn't eat enough mushrooms. Didn't pray enough. Didn't meditate enough.

    Underneath it all they're still just a fallible human with a fallible human brain.
    You've got the butterflies all tied up
    Don't make me chase you
    Even doves have pride
  • @DoodieButtshart

    That's just like, your opinion, mannnnmnnnn
  • Now we have to advance Krishnamurti's work to win the money? 

    @danlo
    This thread is just another in an eternal cycle of people claiming to know the way to Truth. This time it just happens to be "Krishnamurti + mushrooms = win big money". Just don't have a different experience then they did because then you did something wrong. Didn't eat enough mushrooms. Didn't pray enough. Didn't meditate enough.

    Underneath it all they're still just a fallible human with a fallible human brain.



    Yeah, sounds about right.
     
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @danlo,

    there was a thread recently where someone offered BIG BIG MONEY to whomever can advance the work of krishnamurti? no sir, you are limited by your belief. you have a preconception about this forum. you 'know' its limitations. you believe you understand the full capacity of this dialog and therefore can only produce self-image affirming comments. alternatively put, you can only work within the confines of your belief system. this approach is of the image. it will never advance anything as it merely reinstates the preconceived limitations.



    Well, is is possible to be human and not be limited by your beliefs? Give me an example of a human being who operates without any kind of belief whatsoever.

    Do you know what you are talking about?

     
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • I am the Way

    Prepare for Salvation
    I did the LBRP and all I got was this T shirt
  • @danlo,
    All beliefs limit thought. limit percepton. Culture is your operating system. Please, if this is not clear go into it, don't be threatened by concepts presented by the speaker. One adopts a belief out of a certain want. That belief then creates the boundaries of which thought can operate. To go outside those boundaries one must understand the limiting nature of belief. Alternatively put, one believes they know the full significance of this dialog, they believe the speaker to be pretentious. Their self image or belief structure then protects itself through rationalization, jealously, fear, which all emerge when the preconception contrasts with the belief. This is why @shinymonkey is repeatedly posting ransom items. Fundamentally this is an attempt at affirming the belief that the speaker is less than useful.@shinymonkey please continue to demonstrate your images so the speaker can discuss their dissolution.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2015-12-27 10:09:24
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @danlo,
    All beliefs limit thought. limit percepton. Culture is your operating system. Please, if this is not clear go into it, don't be threatened by concepts presented by the speaker. One adopts a belief out of a certain want. That belief the creates the boundaries of which thought can operate. To go outside those boundaries one must understand the limiting nature of belief.



    I am beginning to think that you are slightly retarded. How is this breaking news to anyone on this board again?






     
    LongPlay_ said:

    I am the Way

    Prepare for Salvation



    Or

    I am the WAY

    Please cover your ears when I talk.
     
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • Doodiebuttshark,
    Not enough prayer? Meditation? This implies measurement. Comparison to a system or structure. Still of the image. Still of belief. What is meditation?