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

The 'natural' state of mind is silent awareness, without judgement or discursive thought, it rests in observation.

This is total equanimity; from this view to 'practice' equanimity is less of an act and more of an relaxation, a dropping away of the mental activities of striving for control.

 

To be caught in labels or another's metaphor (or tradition) could be detrimental, but how can you be caught by those things if you realize the map is not the territory?

 

 

Should we prefer 'correct' perception over preconception?

What correct perception is, is a preconception. It feels as though that process recurses endlessly.

Irregardless, perception on many levels requires preconception.

 

Isn't the question then what to do with preconception?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, WhatDidIForget said:

The 'natural' state of mind is silent awareness, without judgement or discursive thought, it rests in observation.

This is total equanimity; from this view to 'practice' equanimity is less of an act and more of an relaxation, a dropping away of the mental activities of striving for control.

is that the natural state sir?  have a look around you?  is that what you see?  silent awareness?  because the speaker sees exploitation, fear, pride, jealously, hate, and so on.  sure, there are some chinese and retarded people living in bliss, perceptually, but most of us are in conflict internally.  so surely the natural state is to pin labels.  to approximate.  to criticize.  to predict!  always to predict!  the most cunning man is the man who best predicts!  he who can exploit!  so naturally the mind evolved this way.  the speaker puts that it is, in fact, unnatural to teach the human mind dispassionate self awareness.  but it is also a necessary and unavoidable progression of the cognition, collectively.  you can see it happening sir.  we are getting to it.  

Quote

To be caught in labels or another's metaphor (or tradition) could be detrimental, but how can you be caught by those things if you realize the map is not the territory?

what does this mean?  this, the map is not the territory.  you must excuse, the speaker has not read any of the great books. 

Quote

Should we prefer 'correct' perception over preconception?

What correct perception is, is a preconception. It feels as though that process recurses endlessly.

Irregardless, perception on many levels requires preconception.

requires preconception?!  oh by jove sir!  how can preconception be correct when there is not yet conception!  the speaker puts that preconception is never a component of perception, but only a component of prediction, which is a form of fragmentation.       

Quote

Isn't the question then what to do with preconception?

sir, what is the result of trying to do something with preconception?   

Edited by DinduNuffin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You point to the products of society and say this tells you what is natural?

Silent awareness is what is left when no thoughts continue.

 

'the map is not the territory' -> concepts cannot be reality

 

The brain is organized in a top down and bottom up fashion.

You can see this for yourself in the behavior of your own brain.

 

The perception of the world required to act in the world requires the use of preconception.

 

10 hours ago, DinduNuffin said:

sir, what is the result of trying to do something with preconception?

Magic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Quote

 

control sir?  surely there cannot be equanimity when there is suppression?  and the moment there is control there is suppression.  suppression implies intent.  and intent implies preconception.  and we know that as long as there is preconception there is not a quiet and receptive mind.  and this is where we disagree good sir.  you are suggesting that the mind can become still through of process of training, control, practice, and conversely, the speaker puts that the mind is quiet and receptive only when there is not the resonance of control.    

by jove sir!  when an aspect of the self is avoided, that is, condemned, repressed, shamed, there is naturally a relative association, a memory.  when that aspect is re-encountered it is done so through the residue of association.  and if that association is plagued with condemnation then there is no clarity, receptivity.  but what if there is no condemnation tied to the thought.  no avoidance sir.   is the self image sculpted then?  the speaker puts that it is not. 

if our discussion here on this thread is unsavoury, we could finish our discussion on the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE thread.  we were getting to it.  

 

I've quoted this from the other thread as you suggested.

Now, the point that I'm really trying to get across and have been for quite some time is that these things such as avoidance, you attach to that the repression etc but really that's not how I see it at all. As I mentioned, it's not avoidance, it's just a shift from conflict from illusory perception into seeing things as they are, the mechanism that triggers that is recognition of conflict itself, it's pretty automatic, it's not done out of shame or anything like that as you put it, it's simply a recognition that one is experiencing conflict and then a spotlight illuminates it. Now what is it illuminating, what is this doing? It is not condemning it, it is accepting it, and doing so eliminates it, the elimination is sort of a byproduct of the illumination and not the intent.

As I said, think of the chipping away at the block and how I say it was always the block, it's the dualistic perception that limits it to something that requires chipping away at but once illuminated you see it was always the block. That is the nature of non-duality, and this is the purpose of the middle way, have you heard that phrase "the middle way"? When Buddha is sitting under the bodhi tree to meditate he is given guidance on how to meditate, a string too tight is useless, as is a string that is lax, the key is finding the middle way. Now what does that mean? Well, what you suggest I would say is a string too tight, that is complete negation with the absence of any thought or approximation. The issue with this is that it's limiting non-duality to a specific state when non-duality encompasses all, in actuality non-duality is also the approximation but it is conditioning that muddies it, and this is what I mentioned I've been finding with drugs, to me drug use is a string too tight, it's too much of non-approximation that creates an associative link between that and non-duality which is contrasted against my regular state and inadvertently creates dualities. The middle way is to remain aware of something such as the breath but not too much as to stop thinking, it is this way that blends the state of non-duality with what the conditioned mind erroneously deems dualities, and is what I referred to recently as "dampening the contrast between what is considered non-dual and dual". I know this to be true as I've mentioned having experienced states where I the embodied being is in thought, yet the transcendental self remains detached not associating the self approximations of the mind to the actual self. And it is that which can be sustained through focus, though it is not something that you do with a particular thought or anything, it's beyond that, you just find yourself on a wave I guess and with focus you can surf it, that's the only way I can describe it though it's all the finger pointing to the moon shit, I'm sure you know what I mean.

Edit: Wouldn't be complete if I didn't throw a quote from the BG in there haha:

BG Chapter 5, Verse 8-9

A person in the divine consciousness, although engaged in seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, moving about, sleeping, and breathing, always knows within himself that he actually does nothing at all. Because while speaking, evacuating, receiving, opening or closing his eyes, he always knows that only the material senses are engaged with their objects and that he is aloof from them.

That's essentially the result of the middle way. These are activities that require self approximation and yet the transcendental self remains detached, in a state of awareness that all it perceives is merely a reverberation, in other words an observer.

Edited by Karmor
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2017 at 10:41 AM, Karmor said:

I've quoted this from the other thread as you suggested.

Now, the point that I'm really trying to get across and have been for quite some time is that these things such as avoidance, you attach to that the repression etc but really that's not how I see it at all. As I mentioned, it's not avoidance, it's just a shift from conflict from illusory perception into seeing things as they are, the mechanism that triggers that is recognition of conflict itself, it's pretty automatic, it's not done out of shame or anything like that as you put it, it's simply a recognition that one is experiencing conflict and then a spotlight illuminates it. Now what is it illuminating, what is this doing? It is not condemning it, it is accepting it, and doing so eliminates it, the elimination is sort of a byproduct of the illumination and not the intent.

good sir, the moment there is acceptance or denial there is identification and so the self concept is refurbished.  the moment one see's themselves as conflicted and so in need of change there is naturally shame and repression.  shame in the false encapsulation of the self.  and repression of a fragment of conditioning.  it is only when there is awareness of the self that is not labelled as mine or not mine, bad or good, up or down, that the relative self concept is not refurbished.  and that sir, is our fundamental disagreement.  the speaker puts that there cannot be a movement toward reality, or quietude, or meditation, or love, which, to me, are all the same function mechanically, so long as there is an additional modality of thought.  and that is simply because, the moment an additional modality of thinking is, the mind is not quiet, not creative or receptive, but instead the mind is operating under a field of predetermination.  that is, it can only see and function under a pattern.  when expectation is not met, there is anger, frustration, and when expectation is met, there is gratification, naturally.  anger is just emphasis.  just the pressure of confusion.  and gratification is merely confirmation.  and if we are looking with either the expectation of gratification or the fear of invalidation, then we see not what is actual.  can we not agree on this simple fact sir?  that the moment there is a process governing perception, there is a movement away from quietude?  put differently, is it not true that the expectation of a pattern, is an additional process of thought?  fragmentation sir?  

On 5/5/2017 at 10:41 AM, Karmor said:

As I said, think of the chipping away at the block and how I say it was always the block, it's the dualistic perception that limits it to something that requires chipping away at but once illuminated you see it was always the block. That is the nature of non-duality, and this is the purpose of the middle way, have you heard that phrase "the middle way"? When Buddha is sitting under the bodhi tree to meditate he is given guidance on how to meditate, a string too tight is useless, as is a string that is lax, the key is finding the middle way. Now what does that mean? Well, what you suggest I would say is a string too tight, that is complete negation with the absence of any thought or approximation. The issue with this is that it's limiting non-duality to a specific state when non-duality encompasses all, in actuality non-duality is also the approximation but it is conditioning that muddies it, and this is what I mentioned I've been finding with drugs, to me drug use is a string too tight, it's too much of non-approximation that creates an associative link between that and non-duality which is contrasted against my regular state and inadvertently creates dualities. The middle way is to remain aware of something such as the breath but not too much as to stop thinking, it is this way that blends the state of non-duality with what the conditioned mind erroneously deems dualities, and is what I referred to recently as "dampening the contrast between what is considered non-dual and dual". I know this to be true as I've mentioned having experienced states where I the embodied being is in thought, yet the transcendental self remains detached not associating the self approximations of the mind to the actual self. And it is that which can be sustained through focus, though it is not something that you do with a particular thought or anything, it's beyond that, you just find yourself on a wave I guess and with focus you can surf it, that's the only way I can describe it though it's all the finger pointing to the moon shit, I'm sure you know what I mean.

Edit: Wouldn't be complete if I didn't throw a quote from the BG in there haha:

BG Chapter 5, Verse 8-9

A person in the divine consciousness, although engaged in seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, moving about, sleeping, and breathing, always knows within himself that he actually does nothing at all. Because while speaking, evacuating, receiving, opening or closing his eyes, he always knows that only the material senses are engaged with their objects and that he is aloof from them.

That's essentially the result of the middle way. These are activities that require self approximation and yet the transcendental self remains detached, in a state of awareness that all it perceives is merely a reverberation, in other words an observer.

perhaps you think that the speaker is preaching some sort of philosophical anarchism?  perhaps you have framed what the speaker is saying as a form of escape reserved only for the highbrow intellectual.  and in light of this, perhaps you find some security in this system, in your books, in your bhagavad gita.  but it is all in search of what?  quietude?  receptivity?  to find out what is meditation?  oh sir, you need not look in some book to find out what is meditation!  all you will find in that book is predetermination.  and if you look to life through any system of predetermination, you will be subject to its disruptive responses.  so quietude is not to be found in the bhagavad sir.  or any book.  only more processes.  more interference.  quietude, or receptivity is only to be found within the sir or the sirsette.  

perhaps you would try putting away your gita sir?  and then perhaps you would try one book by KRISHNAMURTI and then one CATUS?  hmm?  sir?  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DinduNuffin said:

good sir, the moment there is acceptance or denial there is identification and so the self concept is refurbished.  the moment one see's themselves as conflicted and so in need of change there is naturally shame and repression.  shame in the false encapsulation of the self.  and repression of a fragment of conditioning.  it is only when there is awareness of the self that is not labelled as mine or not mine, bad or good, up or down, that the relative self concept is not refurbished.  and that sir, is our fundamental disagreement.  the speaker puts that there cannot be a movement toward reality, or quietude, or meditation, or love, which, to me, are all the same function mechanically, so long as there is an additional modality of thought.  and that is simply because, the moment an additional modality of thinking is, the mind is not quiet, not creative or receptive, but instead the mind is operating under a field of predetermination.  that is, it can only see and function under a pattern.  when expectation is not met, there is anger, frustration, and when expectation is met, there is gratification, naturally.  anger is just emphasis.  just the pressure of confusion.  and gratification is merely confirmation.  and if we are looking with either the expectation of gratification or the fear of invalidation, then we see not what is actual.  can we not agree on this simple fact sir?  that the moment there is a process governing perception, there is a movement away from quietude?  put differently, is it not true that the expectation of a pattern, is an additional process of thought?  fragmentation sir?  

perhaps you think that the speaker is preaching some sort of philosophical anarchism?  perhaps you have framed what the speaker is saying as a form of escape reserved only for the highbrow intellectual.  and in light of this, perhaps you find some security in this system, in your books, in your bhagavad gita.  but it is all in search of what?  quietude?  receptivity?  to find out what is meditation?  oh sir, you need not look in some book to find out what is meditation!  all you will find in that book is predetermination.  and if you look to life through any system of predetermination, you will be subject to its disruptive responses.  so quietude is not to be found in the bhagavad sir.  or any book.  only more processes.  more interference.  quietude, or receptivity is only to be found within the sir or the sirsette.  

perhaps you would try putting away your gita sir?  and then perhaps you would try one book by KRISHNAMURTI and then one CATUS?  hmm?  sir?  

What is fragmentation, in actuality? What is shame, anger, gratification? How are these different, fundamentally, from quietude, mechanically? The moment you discern the nature of these as being different it is you that creates the duality, after all the dualistic perception of reality is known to be illusory for a reason. Duality is a product of conditioning only, it isn't limited, it is the limiter.

I don't need the BG, I don't need Krishnamurti and I don't need a cactus, I let my experiences guide me and I'm telling you what I know is true through experience. You are saying non-duality can only be experienced through specific actions, namely to move away from thought, from approximation, is that not authoritative? Is that not an image? I am telling you these things because you can experience it for yourself, I'm not asking you to take my word for it, and if you do not wish to do so then that's fine, believe what you will. But I don't know how you think I'll be convinced that thought is limited to dual perception when I have experienced otherwise, and given that quote from the BG it appears I'm not the only one. You know the self is not the mind, you know the self is not thought, why then would thought limit the experience of self? Take chanting, can you explain to me how chanting induces non-dual experiences within your paradigm? Because to me it does not seem possible by your reasoning yet there's loads of people who can vouch for it, how?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Karmor said:

What is fragmentation, in actuality? What is shame, anger, gratification? How are these different, fundamentally, from quietude, mechanically? The moment you discern the nature of these as being different it is you that creates the duality, after all the dualistic perception of reality is known to be illusory for a reason. Duality is a product of conditioning only, it isn't limited, it is the limiter.

Sir, shame is thought.  You can follow it.  Anger is thought.  And you can follow it.  Gratification is two fragments of thought resonating - expectation and interpretation.  Quietude sir, is the absence of thought.  Is that not so sir?  

Quote

I don't need the BG, I don't need Krishnamurti and I don't need a cactus, I let my experiences guide me and I'm telling you what I know is true through experience. You are saying non-duality can only be experienced through specific actions, namely to move away from thought, from approximation, is that not authoritative? Is that not an image? I am telling you these things because you can experience it for yourself, I'm not asking you to take my word for it, and if you do not wish to do so then that's fine, believe what you will. But I don't know how you think I'll be convinced that thought is limited to dual perception when I have experienced otherwise, and given that quote from the BG it appears I'm not the only one. You know the self is not the mind, you know the self is not thought, why then would thought limit the experience of self? Take chanting, can you explain to me how chanting induces non-dual experiences within your paradigm? Because to me it does not seem possible by your reasoning yet there's loads of people who can vouch for it, how?

Now sir, it comes as no surprise that chanting makes the upper layers of consciousness silent. Just as does isolating ones self from relationship. For it is relationship that elicits the permutations of perception, the permutations of thought.  

but if we can't see this sir, then there is confusion, conflict.  And so there naturally comes an effort to quiet it. Perhaps we learn a certain mantra a certain chant. And we find out that with its repetition the eddy of the mind, that little pocket of recent experience, is filled not with our own projections, not our fears, our anxieties, but rather repetition, a pattern sir.  And obviously the self ceases to be.  Naturally.  That is, until the chant is over. And again begins the process of identification, condemnation and rationalization which refurbish the self and so fuel conflict, duality.  Unless this process is dispassionately understood!  Then there is quiet.  Receptivity.  

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DinduNuffin said:

Sir, shame is thought.  You can follow it.  Anger is thought.  And you can follow it.  Gratification is two fragments of thought resonating - expectation and interpretation.  Quietude sir, is the absence of thought.  Is that not so sir?  

Now sir, it comes as no surprise that chanting makes the upper layers of consciousness silent. Just as does isolating ones self from relationship. For it is relationship that elicits the permutations of perception, the permutations of thought.  

but if we can't see this sir, then there is confusion, conflict.  And so there naturally comes an effort to quiet it. Perhaps we learn a certain mantra a certain chant. And we find out that with its repetition the eddy of the mind, that little pocket of recent experience, is filled not with our own projections, not our fears, our anxieties, but rather repetition, a pattern sir.  And obviously the self ceases to be.  Naturally.  That is, until the chant is over. And again begins the process of identification, condemnation and rationalization which refurbish the self and so fuel conflict, duality.  Unless this process is dispassionately understood!  Then there is quiet.  Receptivity.  

 

Right, think of this, how do you know non-duality? I don't mean intellectually, I mean cognitively, you are aware of it right? Because if you was not aware of it experientially you would not know when you're situated in it right? That bliss you feel, that integration you experience, there is measurement there right, there is relation correct? That's what senses are you see, senses are measurement, relation, and without it there is no perception. So mechanically there is still some measurement taking place when situated in non-duality else you would not be able to know it, yet it does not disturb it, and why is that? Because the self is beyond it. The self is beyond thought too, you are not thought, and what is thought? Measurement, relation, it too is a sense just like all the others that do not disturb the perception of non-duality. However, conditioning does! So if you are conditioned into identifying the self as the mechanism that is thinking, individually, then you are going to experience dualities, BUT, if you know that the self is not thought, thought can remain and the self situated in non-duality remains undisturbed. The thoughts themselves that manifest can approximate, as relation is still possible when experiencing non-duality.

You know what love is, it is connection right? It is unification. And still, you can experience love when the senses are engaged with discernment, that is how recognition works. You see something familiar, something that you identify with and you can experience love, like the joy someone experiences when they see a family member for the first time in a while, at that moment they are measuring and relating reality through the senses to be able to recognise the person from everything else but they are still connected to it to be able to feel love.

So no, the second there is thought there is not separation, not entirely. Thought itself is not even separate, it's not birthed from its own ether, it's a result of reverberation as is everything else. You think it works differently to the other senses, that it's different from everything else in reality? No, reality is non-dual, therefore everything within it is equal when perceived from that non-dual perspective. Unless of course you are conditioned.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

sir by jove.  the moment you 'know' non duality it is no longer non duality!  the moment you know anything, it is labelled memory.  and when a memory is considered there is conflict, duality.  naturally.  so there is no state of non duality outside of self approximation.  surely we are together on this.  

now sir, what do you mean 'you are not thought?'  sir is this statement not in direct opposition to reality?  certainly you are thought sir.  

 

and yes.  they talk about love, don't they sir?  the buddhist.  the christian.  the left.  the right.  they are all talking about love!  but can anyone really talk about love sir?  hmm?  to the speaker it seems that the moment one talks about love, it ceases to be love and becomes a process of self definition.  a refurbishment of the past and so the self.  for if there were truly love in the mind there would not be the regurgitation of memory onto the palate of perception!  instead there would be receptivity!  and that is meditation to the speaker!  that is bliss!  but most of us are preaching our particular way of finding love.  he will sell you his KRISHNAMURTI, and you will sell him your bhagavad!  and we will both end up broke psychologically!  for it is only when we look at one another outside of our systems that we will find communion.  and that is love sir. 

 

Edited by DinduNuffin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No one would ever read all of what I wrote. Put succinctly: 

Not:

Illumination > No Mechanism > No Thought

Illusion > Mechanism > Thought

Rather:

Illumination | Illusion > Mechanism > Thought

Edited by Karmor
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Karmor,

now sir, have you ever considered why it is that you are compelled to write so exhaustively?  so thoroughly?  or why you are compelled to write at all?  surely that is a question of great significance.  and if we look to the question actually, and without the perversions of subjectivity, we see that you are compelled to write such responses for yourself and not for the speaker.  for if we were to remove the speaker from this conversation and immediately replace him with some other speaker, you would still quote the bhagavad, wouldn't you sir?  you would still be so compelled.  so obviously you are not quoting the bhagavad to gratify the speaker, but rather to gratify yourself through validation.  

but validation is not actualization, is it sir?  in fact, to seek validation is to become handicapped by ideals.  and that is our fundamental disagreement here sir.  you are suggesting that to find tranquility there must be authority, ideals, practice, tradition.  the speaker puts that tranquility is only found in the complete absence of these things.  the speaker puts that tranquility is found outside the restrictions of the bhagavad, outside of KRISHNAMURTI or CACTUSES.   sir the speaker puts thought must come to an end for there to be tranquility/receptivity, and you are saying that tranquility/receptivity is a relative, approximative state that can be accessed through goal setting/practice/tradition etc.  

may we first agree that this is our fundamental incongruence sir?   that we represent two opposing vectors?  one, an addition of preconception - the bhagavad etc, and one the negation of preconception, the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE.  is that not so sir?    

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dindu,  I have 33 posts, I don't mind putting some effort into making myself clear, I'm not going to comment on the validation stuff, let's just leave that there. Many times we've mistaken each other's meanings so why not make sure you get the context, isn't that reason enough to be thorough?

Anyway, it doesn't matter, you never address the actual point I'm making, if you don't want to that's fine but understand the conversation can never move forward.

What is to observe? Maybe if you can answer that you'll see where I've been coming from this whole time. Papa bless.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Karmor said:

Dindu,  I have 33 posts, I don't mind putting some effort into making myself clear, I'm not going to comment on the validation stuff, let's just leave that there. Many times we've mistaken each other's meanings so why not make sure you get the context, isn't that reason enough to be thorough?

Anyway, it doesn't matter, you never address the actual point I'm making, if you don't want to that's fine but understand the conversation can never move forward.

What is to observe? Maybe if you can answer that you'll see where I've been coming from this whole time. Papa bless.

sir, had you left the long form previous post up the speaker would have addressed it.  otherwise the speaker addresses all points.  now, the speaker may not say the thing that brings you gratification, that brings you validation, but it makes it no less significant what the speaker says.    

and good sir, you did not acknowledge the question put by the speaker: 

may we first agree that this is our fundamental incongruence sir?   that we represent two opposing vectors?  one, an addition of preconception - the bhagavad etc, and one the negation of preconception, the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE.  is that not so sir?    

if you could yay or nay sir...  

 

and @Karmor there is no reason to feel uncomfortable talking about our need for validation/gratification.  but, if you find it unsettling, that is, if you find yourself eluding that sense of condemnation in the confrontation of your need for validation, we need not use 'you' as an example.   that is, we need not exemplify 'your' posts about the bhagavad just to make some point about the need for validation.  we can just as easily use the speaker.  we can just as easily use the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE.

the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE is not about you, is it sir?  not about any of the sirs, even @monkey_mine.  in fact, the only reason the speaker started the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE is for his own gratification.  for his own validation sir.  that is, obviously the speaker knows none of you.  so he came here not for you.  he came here for himself.  is that not true sir?  did not the speaker come here for himself?  for his own validation?  

 

 

to observe?  sir to answer the question adequately we need to split 'observation' into two categories.  one category is observation free of expectation, and the other category is observation with expectation.  

now, if that satisfies good sir, perhaps you could acknowledge the above question about our fundamental conflict?  

 

 
Edited by DinduNuffin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dindu, you're right, this isn't about me. Whatever you think you can extrapolate about me is deflecting what this is about, that's what you did with the whole validation thing and that's exactly why I don't want to address it. For me this has always been about the truth, objectively, as much of it we can define anyway, it is there that we have our disagreement and it's there I'm here to discuss. 

For your point, "an addition of preconception", I would say nay. There is no preconception when situated in non-duality but that doesn't mean there is no thought, this is where I think we differ, you think thought is a result of preconception and therefore creates duality by nature, I think thought can exist when one is situated in non-duality. What is the truth? Well, that's why I brought up observation...

Observation does not need to be split as there is no duality when it comes to observation, whether you observe non-duality or dualities observation itself remains the same, it's just pure awareness, it does not mix with anything. Awareness itself requires measurement and relation, and thought is a sense just the same as all the others.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, Karmor said:

Dindu, you're right, this isn't about me. Whatever you think you can extrapolate about me is deflecting what this is about, that's what you did with the whole validation thing and that's exactly why I don't want to address it. For me this has always been about the truth, objectively, as much of it we can define anyway, it is there that we have our disagreement and it's there I'm here to discuss. 

The truth is sir, you have attached to your DTFH persona a psychedelic monkey face, and to the speaker there is a psychedelic KRISHNAMURTI face.  and we both seek gratification  whether it be through negation or the adoption of principles or preconceptions, fundamentally it is the same.  Fundamentally, it is seeking gratification/validation.  

Quote

For your point, "an addition of preconception", I would say nay. There is no preconception when situated in non-duality but that doesn't mean there is no thought, this is where I think we differ, you think thought is a result of preconception and therefore creates duality by nature, I think thought can exist when one is situated in non-duality. What is the truth? Well, that's why I brought up observation...

By jove sir!  The moment you encapsulate an experience as 'non dual' you have built it against a relative image -the self!  Duality.  A labelled experience does not represent reality, rather it skews it. This is fragmentation sir. The building of the self image.  

Quote

Observation does not need to be split as there is no duality when it comes to observation, whether you observe non-duality or dualities observation itself remains the same, it's just pure awareness, it does not mix with anything. Awareness itself requires measurement and relation, and thought is a sense just the same as all the others.

It is not necessary to split observation if you are but a grammaphone to an ideology sir.  A grammaphone to 'non duality.'  But if we are to look freely, receptively, creatively, then we must discern what divides observing through the self image from clear, direct observation.  There is a split here sir, whether or not you associate with it any significance, there is a divide.  Do you see it sir?  It is necessary that we see this divide before we can build it into a greater concept.  And we will never get there if we just quote others.  So let's talk, actually sir.  Let's get to it!  

Edited by DinduNuffin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sirs, phase two of the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE is nearing blast off.  so are you ready sirs?  are you ready to get to it?  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just jizzled my nizzled

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2017 at 9:05 PM, tyqo said:

I just jizzled my nizzled

now sir the speaker has moved to the forest by the lake.  PEYOTE is plentiful here, and it is about to get more plentifuller good sirs...  here, there is no one around to judge or compare.  and so guests of the speaker are free to take CACTUS and watch SUNSETS.  so stay tuned sirs and sirsettes...  there is much more to come.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now