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
KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!!!! WIN BIG MONEY!!!
  • Sir I care not what they do.
    Sir can void exist without form inside it?
    Can form exist without void inside it?

    image
    Post edited by . at 2016-01-06 11:49:55
  • @19232,

    sir, what is it to care? 

    questions have been put sirs: can void exist without form inside it? can form exist without void inside it. 

    the speaker does not know as the answer is indiscernible. we could draw picture to represent the problems, to label its parts, but the problem remains indiscernible. what happens when one cannot discern?
  • Sir, one cannot dwell on the thoughts of the thoughtless, lest one becomes thoughtless oneself.

    What is it to care?
    Sir caring is to back up discernment with emotion.
    We have already left that field behind.

    Sir are we as deep as it goes?
    Should we strive to go deeper?

    What is the ether that divideth itself?
  • @19232,

    we have left that field behind leaving also the discernment that emotion is itself thought. shall we go into it again? sir, is emotion thought? is discernment thought? what connects the two? 

    have we gone so deep there is nothing more? go into it sir? what is deeper than this fundamental differential? can we discern? or is any further answer born of belief? speculation? the base of conflict, sir? go into it.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-06 12:20:03
  • Truth is intelligence.
    We are intelligence personified.
    We search for truth as a fundamental function of our intelligence.
    Discernment and emotion are both tools of the intelligence.

    Deeper we must go.
    Are we not a derivative of the ether?
  • @19232,

    indeed, we are derivatives of the 'ether' to give it a name. truth is intelligence. and in a sense we are intelligence personified. indeed the search for truth is a fundamental function of the self conscious mind. now, the question has been put: are discernment and emotion tools of intelligence? is that it sir? what is intelligence?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-06 14:26:10
  • Yes
  • Deeper sir
  • @19232, 

    that is what she said, indeed.
  • Ha!
  • @19232,

    she got what she discerned. now, where were we sir? what is intelligence if not highest capacity of the conscious mind to perceive environment. do we agree thus far, sir?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-08-12 14:50:35
  • Correct sir
  • @19232,

    so intelligence is the highest capacity of the conscious mind to perceive environment. what then is intelligent action?
  • @sirs, 

    Hmm? What is intelligent action? Right action sirs?
  • Yes
  • @19232, 

    Is it to create a podcast, with no theme song sir? Is it to hold a KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE? Sir, what is right action?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-06 19:25:44
  • That which cooperates with the discerned conditions of one's environment from moment to moment, I reckon.
    "The bad news is, we're it. The good news is, we're enough."
  • @noizemonk, 

    Indeed sir! You see! That which cooperates with the discerned conditions of ones encironment through each moment. The spontaneous, intelligent action bred from discernment. 

    Now sirs, when the speaker looks around, he doesn't see intelligence operating. Maybe small pockets here and there. But generally, there is a movement towards mimicry. various forms of media, education, society have created a tremendous sense of insufficiency in humanity. Sirs, with all the religions, the gurus, the teachers, the presidents, why is intelligent thought not functioning collectively?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-06 20:28:08
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya,

    slowly sir. remember we need a word for independently discernible associations and associations with subjective descriptors applied. is this distinction unclear?



    Sir, distinctions associations, etc, all images
  • @destroya, 

    At a base level yes. But why repeatedly assert that everything is images while failing to attach meaning? Give it substance sir, go into it. If you do, you'll find there is a distinction between independently discernable associations and the comparative, judgemental application of value. 
     
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya, 

    At a base level yes. But why repeatedly assert that everything is images while failing to attach meaning? Give it substance sir, go into it. If you do, you'll find there is a distinction between independently discernable associations and the comparative, judgemental application of value. 
     



    Substance, meaning, levels and base levels, going into it, distinctions, all images in the speakers mind
  • @destroya,

    Not so fast sir, a particular meaning or distiction yes, but meaning itself? That is certainly not confined to the mind of the speaker. 

    Please, continue sir. We will arrive through negation. ..or perhaps you would rather reassert that negation is thought, the image? Rather spend another evening avoiding oneself. Avoiding intelligent discernment. Refurbishing the self image. fearing what might result from engaging the speaker in actual logical dialog.
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya,

    Not so fast sir, a particular meaning or distiction yes, but meaning itself? That is certainly not confined to the mind of the speaker. 

    Please, continue sir. We will arrive through negation. ..or perhaps you would rather reassert that negation is thought, the image? Rather spend another evening avoiding oneself. Avoiding intelligent discernment. Refurbishing the self image. fearing what might result from engaging the speaker in actual logical dialog.



    Avoiding, logical, refurbishing, negation, reassertions, meanings, images in the speakers mind.
  • @destroya, 

    Yes, but what is the significance? Why repeatedly assert this point?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-06 21:14:15
  • There appears to be an interest within power structures/individuals in minimizing intelligent spontaneous action based on discernment of direct experience. This could be due to a perception of risk and a desire to maximize control through predictability. This goes on in many forms despite the impossibility of long-term control. A possible artifact of this may be that many people never realize it is possible to act in this way through intention, and look to authority to act on their behalf.
    "The bad news is, we're it. The good news is, we're enough."
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya, 

    Yes, but what is the significance? Why repeatedly assert this point?



    Significance, points, assertions, all images in the speakers mind. Sir.
  • @destroya, 

    Sirs, this is bound to occur in a conversation of this nature. Some will miss the subtleties. Some will be so wrapped up in their self images that they will be compelled to refurbish them. asserting their misinterpretations to whoever will listen. In this case the speaker. Sirs let's observe the self image protecting itself in @destroya, then we can watch it in ourselves.
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya, 

    Sirs, this is bound to occur in a conversation of this nature. Some will miss the subtleties. Some will be so wrapped up in their self images that they will be compelled to refurbish them. asserting their misinterpretations to whoever will listen. In this case the speaker. Sirs let's observe the self image protecting itself in @destroya, then we can watch it in ourselves.



    Subtleties, self images, compulsion, all images in the speakers mind
  • @noizemonk, 

    Indeed, sir. why sir, does one look to authority? Under what circumstances does this responsibility shift back onto the individual?
  • @destroya, 

    Sirs, pay close attention. One of two things will surely occur, @destroya, will give up this nonsensical echoing, running away, rationalizing to himself that the speaker is this or that, or he will discern his actions are born of frustration and fear, and open himself up to intelligent dialog. He will see without the image. But first he must grasp this concept. 

    Two subjective interpretations are being presented. One is discernable. The other is born of fear, and frustration.
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya, 

    Sirs, pay close attention. One of two things will surely occur, @destroya, will give up this nonsensical echoing, running away, rationalizing to himself that the speaker is this or that, or he will discern his actions are born of frustration and fear, and open himself up to intelligent dialog. He will see without the image. But first he must grasp this concept. 

    Two subjective interpretations are being presented. One is discernable. The other is born of fear, and frustration.



    Fear, frustration, grasping, nonsensical, all images in the speakers mind, trapping him in a gigantic philosophical bubble
  • @destroya, 

    Go on sir. Give validity to the speaker while exposing your frightened self image.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-06 21:40:58
  • Dindu's tightening the strings, I like it.
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya, 

    Go on sir. Give validity to the speaker while exposing your frightened self image.



    Validity, frightened, images in the speakers mind.
  • @destroya, 

    Giving up eh? It not quite as easy as non duality? That's ok. just watch how your self image compels you, limits you. You could be outside going for a walk but you're here, compelled to refurbish the idea that you are more clever than the speaker. What drives that compulsion? 
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-06 21:52:08
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya, 

    Go on sir. Give validity to the speaker while exposing your frightened self image.



    I like how you get to hide behind a persona and pick at other people's identities from a safe vantage. Its really cool and spiritual and cool. 

    @destroya Your cage match with Dindu is fucking great, keep ducking and weaving my man, you're doing great. 
    Post edited by Dr_Feelgood at 2016-01-06 22:21:05
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya, 

    Giving up eh? It not quite as easy as non duality? That's ok. just watch how your self image compels you, limits you. You could be outside going for a walk but you're here, compelled to refurbish the idea that you are more clever than the speaker. What drives that compulsion? 



    Giving up, cleverness, compulsion, images in the speakers mind
  • @shinymonkey, 

    Indeed sir. Lets watch how it plays out.
  • @dr_feelgood, 

    This is not a cage match sir. It's not even a discussion. Assertions and irrational projections impede dialog. Sir, if not fear, then what motivates @destroya to continue this 'cage match' as you suggest?
  • @destroya, 

    Yes they are images. but why run from intelligent conversation? Give the speaker another hint?
  • Diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick

















    Eat it
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya, 

    Yes they are images. but why run from intelligent conversation? Give the speaker another hint?



    People running from conversations, needing hints, all images in the speakers mind
  • @destroys, 

    Another hint sir? Still can't discern...
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroys, 

    Another hint sir? Still can't discern...



    Discernment, failure of discernment, perceived hints and necessities of hints, images in the speakers mind
  • @destroya, 

    did you want to repeat that once again sir?
  • Repetition is key to understanding
  • The speaker don't think it be like it is, but it do.
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • 19232,

    To rephrase, sir. Repetition is a factor in memory. Memory, together with concept allow for understanding.
  • @weedmasterp,

    what should we discuss next sir? You decide.
  • @DinduNuffin An interesting paradox, indeed! Let us go into it brah.
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!!!! WIN BIG MONEY!!!
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole "WIN BIG BIG MONEY" seems like the sign out front of my barber shop that reads "free haircuts tomorrow" Fawk yourself Arnel.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!!!! WIN BIG MONEY!!!
  • Don't try to get into a music nerdoff with reggae, I was raised on this shit mannnn
     
  •  


    can you listen without the image?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-07 00:31:48
  • @dr_feelgood,

    reggae sir???!!!
     
  • HHHMMMM?!!!? SSIIRRRR!!!!
     



    INNDDEEEEDDD!!!
  • it happened just the other day sir. 
     
  • Ahh I can't hate anybody that likes sugar minot. Why did it take us 1200 posts to finally fall in love Dindu? <3
  • shall we go deeper sirs?
     

     
  • We shall, go deeper, sire 
     
  • @19232,

    sir, the speaker is almost there, but must be sure. will you rephrase?
  • deeper still,
     


  • I'm so deep inside you Dindu, you have no idea.
  • Ahh then you posted a U2 song and threw our love away.
  • @dr_feelgood, 
    sir, that is the only U2 song the speaker has discerned. 
     
  • @19232,

    sir, could we get back into it? we were coming to it. where were we?
  • image
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • real original @weedmasterp.. replacing krishnamurti's eyes and lips with fish vaginas.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-07 02:16:48
  • @sirs,

    if we could sirs, @19232 has put a question.
  • He's not the only one with questions, @DinduNuffin.
    LongPlay_ said:

    Origin of dindu's handle is highly suspect
    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dindu-nuffin

    KnowYourMeme said:

    Dindu Nuffin is a pejorative term that originated on /pol/ to mock and criticize black people during the numerous riots throughout 2014 and 2015. The phrase “dindu nuffin” is derived from a bastardization of the phrase “didn’t do nothing”, a plea for innocence often used in reference to unarmed black men killed by police. One of the most famous instances of the usage of this phrase can be found in a comic. (The comic: http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/961/056/e27.jpg)


    image
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • @weedmasterp,

    indeed. but in this case the speaker is a 'dindunuffin' as he is repeatedly subject to attacks and persecution because of his unpopular, but discernible stance on the dissolution of the self image. furthermore, the title reiterates the fact that the speaker did not do nuffin, in that he did not assert a belief or a preconception. the speaker dindunuffin but ask questions. furthermore, the name dindu nuffin, sounds like it could be an indian guys name. 
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-07 02:44:47
  • The fact you have chosen a moniker which is sourced directly to internet trolling communities makes your general intentions on this forum highly suspect
     
    I did the LBRP and all I got was this T shirt
  • @longplay_,

    sirs, the question has been put: does that fact that the speaker has chosen a moniker which is sourced directly from internet trolling communities make the speaker's intentions suspect? go into it sir?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-07 02:43:47
  • Yes, it suggests the speaker's chosen company is that of trolls, and perhaps is such himself
    I did the LBRP and all I got was this T shirt
  • @longplay_

    or does it suggest that the speaker:

    speaker is a 'dindunuffin' as he is repeatedly subject to attacks and persecution because of his unpopular, but discernible stance on the dissolution of the self image. furthermore, the title reiterates the fact that the speaker did not do nuffin, in that he did not assert a belief or a preconception. the speaker dindunuffin but ask questions. furthermore, the name dindu nuffin, sounds like it could be an indian guys name. 

     
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @longplay_

    or does it suggest that the speaker:

    speaker is a 'dindunuffin' as he is repeatedly subject to attacks and persecution because of his unpopular, but discernible stance on the dissolution of the self image. furthermore, the title reiterates the fact that the speaker did not do nuffin, in that he did not assert a belief or a preconception. the speaker dindunuffin but ask questions.
     



    It suggests nothing of the sort

    The speaker chose this name prior to being attacked, or even before post zero
     
    I did the LBRP and all I got was this T shirt
  • DinduNuffin said:

    the speaker dindunuffin but ask questions.

    Starting with a contest announcement in all caps then declaring a monetary prize in excess of fifteen hundred dollars to be allegedly awarded at your discretion according to some as yet unspecified set of criteria. Okay brah.
    DinduNuffin said:

    the total right now is 1,500 dollars. the speaker will add 25 dollars to the pot each week until the winner is announced. the contest deadline is december 19, 2016.

    DinduNuffin said:

    this is no joke.

    DinduNuffin said:

    furthermore, the name dindu nuffin, sounds like it could be an indian guys name.


    image
    Post edited by WeedmasterP at 2016-01-07 03:18:49
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @monkey_mine, 

    Indeed. You are correct sir. The speaker has skipped over a question, sirs. A question has been put regarding clarification of belief, discernment and choice. Please sir, the speaker will adjust his rhetoric to reflect your interpretation. It was a fair and discernible assessment. If you would put the question, sir? 

    There is a paradox sirs, indeed. The speaker says don't listen to krishnamurti but is represented by a psychedelic krishnamurti. There is a method to this maddness sirs rest assured. 



    Indeed @DinduNuffin, POWOTE has many questions. Let's see if we can have a real dialogue. This writer will refer to himself as POWOTE. Since you do not use the "I" pronoun, why should POWOTE? POWOTE does not think the word "I"describes this entity properly. POWOTE made this word which stands for PART(S) OR WHOLE OF THIS ENTITY. 
    The "I" of identity consists of many parts. At different points in time, different parts assume dominance. Thus the acronym POWOTE more accurately reflects reality than the word "I". When writing, such as now, part or parts assume dominance. When falling down stairs, the whole person falls. So this word can represent the whole person, or fragments.
    POWOTE WILL ALSO WRITE IN E-PRIME.
    E-PRIME CAN REDUCE OBFUSCATION AND PREVENT EROS.
    CHECK THIS THREAD FOR FURTHER EXPLANATION, IF DESIRED.
    http://duncantrussell.com/forum/discussion/comment/316722#Comment_316722
    ALSO POWOTE WILL USE ALL CAPS AT TIMES FOR NO APPARENT REASON.

    Now to a few of the questions: POWOTE says- How do you know the difference between belief and discernment? According to POWOTE'S discernment, you still have beliefs.

    Also, when it comes to choice do you mean to say that you don't have to choose, because you discern right action in each moment?


    Also why have you associated Krishnamurti with psychedelics? Krishnamurti had nothing good to say about psychedelics. Does this tie in to your metaconcept?




     
    Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. 

    Declassify your pineal gland and unbuttplug your mind!
  • @POWOTE,

    sirs, three questions have been put to the speaker. 

    1. How does the speaker know the difference between belief and discernment? According to POWOTE'S discernment, the speaker still has beliefs.

    2. when it comes to choice does the speaker mean to say that one does not have to choose, because he discerns right action in each moment?

    3. why has the speaker associated Krishnamurti with psychedelics? Krishnamurti had nothing good to say about psychedelics. Does this tie in to the metaconcept?


    the speaker has palpated the gap between belief and discernment. observed it in himself over time. the speaker has no beliefs. if this seems contrary to a particular action, we'll go into it. 

    there will be times when the mind is forced into choice through the want of survival, of physiological need. understanding fully the nature, the structure of action, is the seed of wisdom sir. 

    with regard to legal mushroom consumption, krishnamurti never used psychedelics, yet he formed an opinion. is this the operation of belief or discernment?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-07 08:49:29
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @endymion, 

    Sir, please, let's have a discussion?



    Oh. I read about this....


    MU!

    Did I win? 
     
  • "The bad news is, we're it. The good news is, we're enough."
  • I did the LBRP and all I got was this T shirt
  • Read the book of life and ate some shiitake. Ended up going to the hospital for an allergic reaction.
1

Share this post


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

    sir, what shall we discuss today?
  • @noizemonk,

    sir, most challengers will feel tremendous pressure to step back and metaphorically jerk off their self image. through rationalization or labelling the speaker. but who are they stepping away from if not themselves?
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @endymion,

    sir, what shall we discuss today?



    You mean MU wasn't the answer? Damnit. I was sure that was it. 

    I'll get back to with... wait... is it silence. Should I .. here:


    [cricket chirp]

    [minutes pass]


    [@Endymion holds out hand for money]
    Post edited by endymion at 2016-01-07 11:54:06
  • @preschooldropout,

    indeed sir. shiitakes mushrooms must be thoroughly heated before ingestion. the book of life is a collection of snidbits. toilet reading sir. while it is a gentle introduction to the works of krishnamurti, it is unlikely this particular combination will allow one to win the BIG BIG MONEY.
  • @endymion,

    could we discuss fear sir?
  • I mean... You can do whatever you want. It's your challenge.
  • @endymion,

    sir the speaker will make no assertions. assumption. the speaker requires dialog to move across a chain of independently discernible facts. what is fear, sir? fundamentally?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-07 15:53:37
  • Fear, sirs?
  • An emotion.
    You've got the butterflies all tied up
    Don't make me chase you
    Even doves have pride
  • @ theloniousmuff, 

    An emotion. Indeed. We have discerned emotion to be composed of thought. For thought to express different emotions, anger, fear, sadness, and so on, it must do so mechanically, through reason, interpretation. So what is the mechanism which produces fear?
  • Ruminative/Anticipatory thought or adrenaline/cortisol.
    You've got the butterflies all tied up
    Don't make me chase you
    Even doves have pride
  • Also the identification with a self mainly composed of thoughts and habits, combined with a threat scanning/response system that hijacks the imagination to fill the space left by the annihilation of predators, and so on.
    "The bad news is, we're it. The good news is, we're enough."
  • @theloniousmuff, 

    Indeed, sir. Rumanative/anticipatory thought are a part of fear. But there must be more? For one does not ruminate blankly. From where is the substance, or content of rumination derived?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-07 20:45:18
  • @noizemonk, 

    Sirs, did you hear what was said? Fear may emerge when there is identification of the self, thoughts, habits, and so on, combined with a threat scanning response system. Fear exists when this system hijacks the space left by the annihilation of predators. May we go into this? 

    Sir, what is a threat?
  • I'm starting to get deja vu of a thread I made nearly four years ago, "Do you actually think you exist?"
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • @weedmasterp,

    do you think the speaker is promoting dissolution of the ego? suppression of thought?
  • I thought the speaker was promoting mushrooms and Krishnamurti. What @noizemonk said about self image, threat response, etc prompted me to remember that old thread.
    it is what it is, it ain't what it's cracked up to be
  • @weemasterp,

    not promoting, sir, challenging. the speaker is definitely not advocating for elimination of the self image. or elimination of the ego or emotion. these things are necessary. they are tools. the speaker would rather not get into krishnamurti per se but would like to have this conversation with@weedmasterp after he gives 'awakening of intelligence' a try. it's not buddhism. not a theory. it's an approach to questioning. a way of approaching problems. resolving conflict. living together etc. 
     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-08 00:12:03
  • @19232,

    is this the new one? sir, culture demands a theme song! this is going to contrast a lot of images. 
     
  • Dindu please stop you are destroying this forum
  • destroya said:

    Dindu please stop you are destroying this forum



    I think he's using this forum as a platform for some kind of social experiment. But I didn't sign a consent form for dis shit..
  • @destroya,

    do you really feel that way? what is it? why? the speaker is 'different' from yourself? diversity in thought should be encouraged so long as it is non judgemental and open. the speaker has not attacked a single person on this forum and values all of your input.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-08 00:37:31
  • @spacebanana,

    if you guys hang with it long enough it will make sense. but it's tricky. this is the eye looking at the eye. if you just keep telling yourselves the speaker is an asshole that's all he'll ever be.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-08 00:40:07
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya,

    do you really feel that way? what is it? why? the speaker is 'different' from yourself? diversity in thought should be encouraged so long as it is non judgemental and open. the speaker has not attacked a single person on this forum and values all of your input.



    "The speaker" is singlehandedly trashing this forum.
    Post edited by destroya at 2016-01-08 00:50:31
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya,

    how?



    Posting in every thread referring to this thread with extremely long boring posts
  • @destroya,

    sir, the speaker has the same right as yourself to post relevant comments. this is not spam. it's not derogatory. if anything, it's adding some form of depth to the forum. everything exists now that was here before the speaker showed up. if the speakers posts are being interpreted as long and boring maybe the problem is not that they are there, but that you are reading them? 

    the truth is, there is something that brings you back here. whether it's the satisfaction you'll get if you prove that pesky speaker wrong, or a deep seated subconscious hunch that there is something here, you come back. 

    we both have a right to our comments provided we follow the rules. is there a rule the speaker has infringed on or just the self image?
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya,

    sir, the speaker has the same right as yourself to post relevant comments. this is not spam. it's not derogatory. if anything, it's adding some form of depth to the forum. everything exists now that was here before the speaker showed up. if the speakers posts are being interpreted as long and boring maybe the problem is not that they are there, but that you are reading them? 

    the truth is, there is something that brings you back here. whether it's the satisfaction you'll get if you prove that pesky speaker wrong, or a deep seated subconscious hunch that there is something here, you come back. 

    we both have a right to our comments provided we follow the rules. is there a rule the speaker has infringed on or just the self image?



    Multiple wrong assumptions. Good day to u sir.
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @destroya,

    sir, the speaker has the same right as yourself to post relevant comments. this is not spam. it's not derogatory. if anything, it's adding some form of depth to the forum. everything exists now that was here before the speaker showed up. if the speakers posts are being interpreted as long and boring maybe the problem is not that they are there, but that you are reading them? 
     



    @destroya 's persona uses words sparingly. You post three or four paragraphs of irrelevant bullshit at a time to every thread you touch. Also, @LongPlay_ and @WeedmasterP have already outted your trolling intentions.
    Post edited by Dr_Feelgood at 2016-01-08 02:56:59
  •  
    DinduNuffin said:

    @POWOTE,

    sirs, three questions have been put to the speaker. 

    1. How does the speaker know the difference between belief and discernment? According to POWOTE'S discernment, the speaker still has beliefs.

    2. when it comes to choice does the speaker mean to say that one does not have to choose, because he discerns right action in each moment?

    3. why has the speaker associated Krishnamurti with psychedelics? Krishnamurti had nothing good to say about psychedelics. Does this tie in to the metaconcept?


    the speaker has palpated the gap between belief and discernment. observed it in himself over time. the speaker has no beliefs. if this seems contrary to a particular action, we'll go into it. 

    there will be times when the mind is forced into choice through the want of survival, of physiological need. understanding fully the nature, the structure of action, is the seed of wisdom sir. 

    with regard to legal mushroom consumption, krishnamurti never used psychedelics, yet he formed an opinion. is this the operation of belief or discernment?




    POWOTE says let's look into it. First some relevant Krishnamurti quotes on the subject-

    Why should one not take drugs?
    K......You may have a tremendous and explosive experience through one of these drugs, but will the deep-rooted aggression, bestiality and sorrow of man disappear? If these drugs can solve the intricate and complex problems of relationship, then there is nothing more to be said, for then relationship, the demand for truth, the ending of sorrow, are all a very superficial affair to be resolved by taking a pinch of the new golden drug. 

    ----------------

    Q: We don't answer in defence. We can see it has such and such action on us, but we don't need to be dependent.

    K: He says, we can see its action but we need not be dependent. But you are dependent when that stimulation wears out and you need more stimulant, which means you are dependent. I may take LSD one morning and get a kick out of it, take a trip and whatever it is, and it lets me down and I have to pick it up again the day after tomorrow. So I depend on it. Now I am asking why the human mind depends - listen to this, please - on sex, on drugs, on alcohol, or on any form of stimulation outwardly. This is all psychological. Right? Coffee, tea may be physiological because we eat wrongly, we live wrongly, we overindulge and so on and so on, we need certain forms of stimulation. But why do we want to be stimulated in any other way, psychologically? Is it because in ourselves we are so poor? Yes. Is that it? Because we have not the brains, the capacity to be something entirely different, and not be dependent on all this? Then if you are dependent, alcohol, coffee, tea, drugs - drugs are much more serious than alcohol - or tea, or coffee, because drugs,from what I have been told - I haven't taken them - from what I've been told by doctors who have gone into this pretty thoroughly, that it destroys the brain cells.

    Q: Doesn't alcohol?

    K: Wait. It destroys brain cells, alcohol may do it gradually, take a number of years, but the drugs are very, very serious because it affects your future generation, your children. So if you say, 'Well, I don't mind what happens to my grandson, I want to indulge in drugs' - that is the end of the argument. But I am saying, what happens to your mind when you depend on something, whether it be coffee, tea, sex, anything you like, waving a flag?

    Q: I lose my freedom.

    K: You not only - you see you say these things but you don't live it. Do you? Does it destroy freedom? Doesn't it, when you depend on something, doesn't it make you a slave to alcohol - you must have your drink, your martini, whatever you take. So gradually your mind becomes dull through dependency. And therefore it has been established, long ago, in India, that any religious man who is really religious will never touch any of this. But sir, you don't care. You say, 'Well, I need stimulation'. You know I met a man once who took a lot of drugs, LSD and he said I go to the museum after taking LSD and I see colours more brightly, everything stands out more sharply, there is beauty. But his mind becomes gradually destroyed, he may see the lovely light of a sunset, but his mind is going, gone, finished. After a year or two he is just a thoughtless entity. Now if you like all that kind of stuff, go to it. But if you don't like it, put it completely away from you. I think that is enough, don't you?

    ---------------

    Q: What happens when you take a drug and it so disrupts your conditioning, it just disturbs the ego structure so much that you, as you have been and led your life, are not anymore, and you can see the world through a different set of eyes.

    K: So you take drugs, marijuana or LSD or some other kind, there are so many of them, that it disrupts, breaks down for the time being your ego structure - that's what he is saying - and at that moment you see something totally different. And after a certain period that disappears and you take to drugs again.

    Q: What if you incorporate this experience into your day to day consciousness and no longer need to take the drugs.

    K: So, that is, you are incorporating what you have experienced through drugs in your daily life. You are all so childish, sorry!



    -------------

    So to experience something original when the brain is crowded, occupied, you take drugs to experience something fantastic - you do, not that the speaker has taken any drugs, but he has talked to many of the people who have taken drugs. They have certain experiences which are projected by their own conditioning, by their own desire, will and so on, of which they are unconscious, only the chemical alters their focus, and sometimes it does great harm. If one has taken drugs for a couple of years then your brain is gone.
    Post edited by monkey_mine at 2016-01-08 04:46:24
    Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. 

    Declassify your pineal gland and unbuttplug your mind!
  • Wow did Krishnamurti really say that stuff? What an ignoramus.
  • DinduNuffin said:

    with regard to legal mushroom consumption, krishnamurti never used psychedelics, yet he formed an opinion. is this the operation of belief or discernment?



    POWOTE LOVES THIS QUESTION. POWOTE wishes someone had asked Krishnamurti that! Krishnamurti would have probably answered "discernment". Krishnamurti had a great friendship with Aldous Huxley who wrote "The Doors of Perception". He had other friends who used psychedelic drugs. He apparently observed deleterious effects in some people. We all have observed this. We have seen drug "burnouts" with muddled thinking. He talked about seeing it in people he personally met, but POWOTE lost that quote. So he has discerned evidence. Yet Krishnamurti also seems to have adopted the propaganda of the 60's. So POWOTE sees Krisnamurti's stance as both discernment and belief. That takes care of my response to question 3, Now POWOTE has to take a break because his computer has become uncooperative.
    Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. 

    Declassify your pineal gland and unbuttplug your mind!
  • destroya said:

    Wow did Krishnamurti really say that stuff? What an ignoramus.



    yeah buddy

    http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/krishnamurti.html
    Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. 

    Declassify your pineal gland and unbuttplug your mind!
  • monkey_mine said:

     

    destroya said:

    Wow did Krishnamurti really say that stuff? What an ignoramus.



    yeah buddy

    http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/krishnamurti.html


    Ignoramus exposed heh
    Post edited by destroya at 2016-01-08 05:37:11
  • Krishnamurti, he had the fear.
    Of drugs and could not take them himself.
    He put the faith in those old teachers that told him never to do a drug, and then he believed those who told him they were harmful.
  • Characters are always more or less flawed. You can't find a person, even the "most enlightened one", who you couldn't criticize in some way. Celebrities get praise one day and get scolded or dismissed later on. That's just the nature of the ego.
  • To continue with responses to questions one and two,
     
    DinduNuffin said:

    there will be times when the mind is forced into choice through the want of survival, of physiological need. understanding fully the nature, the structure of action, is the seed of wisdom sir.



    So would you say that most of the time you don't choose, except for emergency situations?


     
    DinduNuffin said:

    the speaker has palpated the gap between belief and discernment. observed it in himself over time. the speaker has no beliefs. if this seems contrary to a particular action, we'll go into it.



    Indeed, let's go into it: "the speaker has no beliefs". Let's look at definitions-

    From Mirriam Webster-

    Full Definition of belief
    1
    : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
    2
    : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
    3
    : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
    --------------

    or this one from Oxford on-line:

    Definition of belief in English:
    noun

    1An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists:
    his belief in the value of hard work
    a belief that solitude nourishes creativity

    1.1Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction:
    contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language
    "we’re prepared to fight for our beliefs"

    1.2A religious conviction:
    Christian beliefs
    "I’m afraid to say belief has gone"
    local beliefs and customs

    2(belief in) Trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something:
    a belief in democratic politics
    "I’ve still got belief in myself"

    ---------
    When the speaker says he has no beliefs, it can mean different things with slightly different definitions. So would you say that under this definition: "An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists" that you do have some beliefs?

    Also when it comes to assertions we have this-
     
    WeedmasterP said:

     

    DinduNuffin said:

    Sir, the speaker makes no assertions.

    This is an assertion.
     
    DinduNuffin said:

    @weedmasterp, 

    Sir, the speaker makes no assertions. The speaker makes discernments. ...
     



    And here POWOTE has a common definition for the word "assertion" (again from Oxford on line)

    Definition of assertion in English:
    noun

    1A confident and forceful statement of fact or belief:
    [WITH CLAUSE]: his assertion that his father had deserted the family

    The statement "The speaker makes no assertions" sounds confident to POWOTE. Compare it to a less confident statement: "The speaker thinks that maybe he does not, usually, for the most part, make assertions". Do you palpate the difference?

    Do you think that under this definition, sir, that you do make assertions?

    And finally, just to jump ahead a couple of squares please add 2 questions into our list:

    5) Have you ever gotten institutionalized or treated, by medication or other means for mental illness such as Bipolar Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Schizophrenia, or other mental disorders?
    Please answer honestly.

    6) How much time has elapsed since the last time you tripped on mushrooms or other hallucinogenic substances?


     
    Post edited by monkey_mine at 2016-01-08 07:01:16
    Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. 

    Declassify your pineal gland and unbuttplug your mind!
  • Yeah, POWOTE takes that (stripping the gurus) with more than a grain of salt. POWOTE admires Krishnamurti greatly for what he went through and accomplished. Imagine getting taken in by powerful Theosophists such as Leadbeater and Blavatsky and having them tell you, as a teenager that "You are the WORLD TEACHER". Then training you and presenting you to the world. How could it not fuck you up?

    He could have ridden that gravy train for years but he threw it away to pursue his own truth.
    Post edited by monkey_mine at 2016-01-08 07:19:46
    Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. 

    Declassify your pineal gland and unbuttplug your mind!
  • one more question. #7. You said this on the gratitude thread- 
    DinduNuffin said:

    @spacebanana,

    look, 'the speaker' is not making any points. the speaker is the reverberation of experience, nothing more. ...meaning this is a regurgitation. independently discernible fact observed by the speaker after understanding linguistically, but regurgitated. 

    getting to that point where every moment is 'gratitude' is the meta concept!! there you go, ruined the surprise. either way you first have to build this whole monkey bar mechanical concept string to see it. this is not bullshit. this is not buddhism. this has somehow eluded the spiritual community to everyones detriment. but it's tricky! 
    ...
     



    Does @spacebanana win? 
    You got gratitude as a meta concept from Krishnamurti? How does that work? 
    Okay that makes 9 questions. POWOTE will stop now.
    Post edited by monkey_mine at 2016-01-08 07:44:28
    Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. 

    Declassify your pineal gland and unbuttplug your mind!
  • @dr_feelgood,

    it only appears irrelevant if one does not understand the significance.
  • @destroya,

    krishnamurti did indeed say all of that! indeed sirs! is this finally shedding a little light on the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE? 
     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-01-08 08:54:13
  • @19232,

    indeed sir! indeed! an assumption! a belief! a contradiction! now, sir, we know that beliefs are driven by 'wants', why did krishnamurti want to proliferate this view of psychedelics?