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

Weird. That confuzzled me. Page 71 over there, and top of page 4 over here. These are hella long pages.218231-dawn.jpg

 

 

Edited by monkey_mine
to save a pillow from the old place
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@POWOTE,

 

we can pick up where we left off here sir.  that is, when you are ready.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only big concern about moving to a new forum was that the krishnamurti thread would be lost, thank god these worries have been assuaged.

0

Share this post


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

not gloomy at all sir.  it's that the speaker is trying to convey the metaconcept through the syntax of dialog.  and it is a relatively difficult thing to convey.   

certainly @duncan has showed the capacity to discern universally and not subjectively.  when the new forum was shown to be mechanically inferior, the original was restored.  likely the new forum will be mechanically sound and thus allow for the unfolding of the winner.  it's just the speaker cannot discern how to back up the thread so it is reproducible for continuation.  and what is continuation?  certainly that which continues end, decays.  and the metaconcept does not decay.  so there is a contradiction.  and the contradiction is the self.  the contradiction, is the speaker.   

and, then there is the matter of preconception.  if the speaker looks to environment, in this case the new forum, through a certain ideation, a certain authority, in this case that this thread carries some importance, then the speaker does not see what is reality.  so for the speaker to move the thread over is to have his behaviour corralled by preconception.  preconception is contradiction.  and contradiction is the speaker.  contradiction is the self.  to be free from contradiction is to meet reality.  so the very act of conveying the metaconcept destroys reality for the speaker.  is that not it sir? 

You said this on the we love duncan thread. Does the speaker have doubts that he can convey the metaconcept through dialogue? I have doubts that we are doing anything more than spinning our wheels. Every time I come up with an answer, you come up with a new question. I can't tell if we are making progress toward the metaconcept.

Your attempt to convey the metaconcept puts you in contradiction. The metaconcept, exists outside of language and time, yet you try to bring it into language and time through the mechanics of this forum. You knew you were getting into contradiction when you first set this up. The competitive challenge with prize money, the psychedelic Krishnamurti, the role of "the speaker". 

And now you have apparently entered new territory of contradiction. Not an abstract contradiction, nor one difficult to discern. This one is very easy to discern.

I suggested we could l still discern a winner in December. That is my question for the moment. Will we still get to the metaconcept and discern the winner by December?

At the shroomery, where you also 3 days ago started the KRISHNAMURTI challenge, you say this-

7 hours ago, DinduNuffin said:

ATTENTION:  SIRS AND SIRSETTES:  

who's up for a challenge?  a KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!!!  just read 1 book by KRISHNAMURTI and then eat 1+ foot of psychoactive cactus or its equivalent - legally, of course.  then explain your experience.  the smartest brain thoughts win the BIG BIG MONEY.  the contest closes 1 year from today.  in the meantime we will discern.

And this-

 

7 hours ago, DinduNuffin said:

right now the prize money is around $3,200 dollars.  the speaker will add to it bi weekly until someone wins the challenge.  so by the time the contest closes the prize money will be around $5,000.  

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23534181/fpart/1/vc/1

So are you breaking your promise to this forum? Because it does not look like you have money to run both contests. And if we get to the metaconcept here by December, won't people at the shroomery lose interest in discerning the metaconcept, (as their challenge ends August 2017) when they find out about this thread? 

That's what I call a contradiction.

Edited by monkey_mine
because you know, for like clarity
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@HRossPerogan

ah sir!  will it be option #1, #2, or #3 today?  

sir how does one bring about right interest, while remaining in the realm of reality?  

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@POWOTE,

indeed sir.  so we see that THE KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE is an elaborate riddle full of contradictions, and that it requires a group in communion to solve it.  with no communion there can be no discernment, as discernment can only occur in relationship and never in isolation.  the challenge highlights the nature of duality, conflict, contradiction which are the self.  that is, the self is contradiction.  so we must see in ourselves contradiction to bring about self knowledge.  self knowledge, mechanically not analytically, reveals reality.  

***SPOILER ALERT SIRS and SIRSETTES***

so the way KRISHNAMURTI conveyed the metaconcept is not through answering questions, not through authority.  authority whether inwardly or outwardly destroys reality.  he never actually said yea or nay to any direct question.  he did this because to assert an answer, to represent one side is to misunderstand the entire movement of a problem.  a problem is an interaction, a relationship, an action, and to argue in favour of an answer is to focus in on only one area of an integrated interaction.  we see this with the left and the right, the muslim and the christian, the nationalist and the separatist.  they do not integrally perceive the problem so they vehemently assert an answer. these are gross external examples, but there are many more subtle examples inwardly.  that is, how one authoritatively defines the self through ideation, comparison, approximation.  to see the whole problem and not just represent a specific answer is to understand.

so instead of directly answering questions, meditate or don't meditate, approximate or don't approximate, marry or don't marry, believe or don't believe, he instead illuminated verbally the integral nature of these problems.  that is, he described how each problem relates integrally to the other, showed the mechanical structure on all sides of the issue, never advocating for one particular outcome.  the result of this process eventually builds in one's mind a network of understood problems - not solutions - probably a few hundred, which are no longer answered authoritatively, but instead understood integrally.  when there are enough of these, eventually they will link/connect together and you will see that everything we are discussing is one integrated concept.  no answers.  just one integrated problem.  when this occurs, if you are like the speaker, it will be BY FAR the most profound psychedelic experience of your life - and you will be completely sober.

for the speaker, it took reading awakening of intelligence as a 15 year old boy, then 15 years of consideration and a re-read for the metaconcept to click into place.  it was comparatively the most profound and beautiful moment of understanding in the life of the speaker.  that is why I, which is contradiction, am compelled to share it, which is approximation.  

you see sir, money and time took on very different meanings to me after discerning the metaconcept.  money is of very little value, and time is an illusion.  so I plan on initiating and communally discerning as many KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE winners as my time and financial restrictions can afford.  it will not stop here on the DTFH forum. and that means this whole effort is then preconception, seeking, becoming, which destroy reality!  so the question then becomes, why is the speaker, who is conscious of the reality destroying effects of compulsion, continuing to seek this transmission of the metaconcept?  and that brings about the question of what is right interest.  

so if I have answered adequately the questions you posed: sir, how does one bring about right interest while remaining in the realm of reality?    

 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir, when you said time is illusion, that clicked something in me. I haven't hit nirvana yet, but I realize a lot of the fears that I have are in worry that I won't accomplish this by age x. Or that I have to use my spry body before it deteriorates. Or that if I get imprisioned, then I have wasted time. 

 

Interesting. Time is an illusion, but there are certain things that need to be done. I notice that when I am at home, I tend to feel as if things are in a rush. Time is being wasted.  I can't lay in bed and just enjoy the comfort of the bed. I can't enjoy the rays of the sun coming through the window. It's only when I am tripping on LSD or am in someone else's bed.  But this I. I am strengthening the self. Now I am criticizing this and that. Oh sir.

 

Idiot sir, does anything need to be done?

Edited by tyqo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lolol @DinduNuffinholy shit dude.

Also, how did you earn the title 'advanced member'? just from creating this mega thread?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tyqo said:

I'm assuming from the number of posts.

indeed, sir! I have discerned that for myself in the time since i had left my last comment.

hopefully that doesn't inspire shit posting all over every single thread for some ego driven desire to be like the highest lil subname

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mike said:

indeed, sir! I have discerned that for myself in the time since i had left my last comment.

hopefully that doesn't inspire shit posting all over every single thread for some ego driven desire to be like the highest lil subname

Right. I was worried about that, and it probably will happen. But I think there are going to be a core group of people who will frequent and will probably down vote poor quality posters. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@tyqoi typed out and then deleted 3 different responses, cuz none of them came out sounding right.                                                                                                              so i will just agree

Edited by mike
***CAME!!!!!***
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tyqo @mike

it seems it was the total number of posts that labelled the speaker as an advanced member.  but surely the self, which is a movement of relationship, of contradiction, cannot be encapsulated by a term.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DinduNuffin said:

@tyqo @mike

it seems it was the total number of posts that labelled the speaker as an advanced member.  but surely the self, which is a movement of relationship, of contradiction, cannot be encapsulated by a term.  

if that is so, why are you bragging??

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, tyqo said:

Sir, when you said time is illusion, that clicked something in me. I haven't hit nirvana yet, but I realize a lot of the fears that I have are in worry that I won't accomplish this by age x. Or that I have to use my spry body before it deteriorates. Or that if I get imprisioned, then I have wasted time. 

 

Interesting. Time is an illusion, but there are certain things that need to be done. I notice that when I am at home, I tend to feel as if things are in a rush. Time is being wasted.  I can't lay in bed and just enjoy the comfort of the bed. I can't enjoy the rays of the sun coming through the window. It's only when I am tripping on LSD or am in someone else's bed.  But this I. I am strengthening the self. Now I am criticizing this and that. Oh sir.

 

Idiot sir, does anything need to be done?

@tyqo

certainly you are doing it now sir!  the process of finding reality is the process of understanding the self.  that includes all the parts that one hides from through the processes of justification, rationalization, condemnation, or identification.  those uncomfortable parts of the self cause discomfort only when they are condemned.  and when they are not condemned, but instead looked at earnestly, plainly, there is not pain, but understanding.  

now, can one, in actuality, reach nirvana?  that is, can a state of consciousness be approximated or encapsulated by a term?  certainly that is what the mind would like to do. it would like to rummage around in the past for the purpose of approximating the present.  and it would like to rummage around in the past to predict and approximate the future.  anything to avoid remaining the in the state of acute relationship that is experiencing.  

have you noticed this before sir?  that the moment one is not acutely experiencing, the mind begins digging through experience, which is memory, to approximate the self? that the mind, seeking security, seeking to define virtue, dives into the pool of experience to build preconception.  but can nirvana exist in the now or in the future as an encapsulation?  as a term, or a conclusion?  and why does the mind look to escape the present, or integration, or relationship, to approximate?  why is not the mind comfortable acutely experiencing?  

certainly there are times when the mind is comfortable experiencing outside of the self.  in the time of crisis.  the moment of understanding.  the moment of love.  the moment of intense expressive anger.  it is in these moments that the self is not.  that is, the self is not being established/refurbished.  then, the moment of crisis concludes, and the mind is left idle.  so it then begins to approximate.  to identify.  to condemn.  to rationalize.  it breaks up experiencing with terming and storage of experiences.  but are those labelled and encapsulated experiences reality?  is reality segregated and encapsulated by terms?  does reality have many beginnings and endings?  or is reality a movement to which we are integrated?  

then there is the problem of time?  sir what is time, fundamentally?  

 

 

0

Share this post


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

@tyqo

certainly you are doing it now sir!  the process of finding reality is the process of understanding the self.  that includes all the parts that one hides from through the processes of justification, rationalization, condemnation, or identification.  those uncomfortable parts of the self cause discomfort only when they are condemned.  and when they are not condemned, but instead looked at earnestly, plainly, there is not pain, but understanding.  

now, can one, in actuality, reach nirvana?  that is, can a state of consciousness be approximated or encapsulated by a term?  certainly that is what the mind would like to do. it would like to rummage around in the past for the purpose of approximating the present.  and it would like to rummage around in the past to predict and approximate the future.  anything to avoid remaining the in the state of acute relationship that is experiencing.  

have you noticed this before sir?  that the moment one is not acutely experiencing, the mind begins digging through experience, which is memory, to approximate the self? that the mind, seeking security, seeking to define virtue, dives into the pool of experience to build preconception.  but can nirvana exist in the now or in the future as an encapsulation?  as a term, or a conclusion?  and why does the mind look to escape the present, or integration, or relationship, to approximate?  why is not the mind comfortable acutely experiencing?  

certainly there are times when the mind is comfortable experiencing outside of the self.  in the time of crisis.  the moment of understanding.  the moment of love.  the moment of intense expressive anger.  it is in these moments that the self is not.  that is, the self is not being established/refurbished.  then, the moment of crisis concludes, and the mind is left idle.  so it then begins to approximate.  to identify.  to condemn.  to rationalize.  it breaks up experiencing with terming and storage of experiences.  but are those labelled and encapsulated experiences reality?  is reality segregated and encapsulated by terms?  does reality have many beginnings and endings?  or is reality a movement to which we are integrated?  

then there is the problem of time?  sir what is time, fundamentally?  

 

 

@DinduNuffin

Time. Time. Time. Time. Time.

What is a second? What is a minute? What is an hour? 

What is a few days from now? These are labels we attribute to define a period of time. But what is this period? A passing moment? Isn't this something real? Isn't a second at the very least, a speck of sand falling through an hour glass? But then there are different types of hour glasses that allow sand to fall at different rates. So we approximate a second.

Time is an approximation of what in relation to the self?

Time is thought which is experience which is memory. Does this mean Time is memory? What is the implication? That our labels for these periods of time are our memory? 

Labeling time is clearly a construction of the mind. What about the movement of the sun? That is a physical phenomenon that people use to track the time. Is this not also time? But it is a label we give. The movement of the sun.

We have things that must be done in a timely manner.  Our physical body deteriorates. Dust collects. All of this happens how? It happens through time, but it also just happens. The physical body deteriorates not according to time, but by physical processes in the body. Dust collects to due dust particles stacking on top of each other. Things that must be done in a timely manner are often constructions of human thought once again. 

Fundamentally, time is thought supposedly. But I am not sure I understand the magnitude of this statement, nor do I understand how this leads to it being an illusion.

 

0

Share this post


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

@POWOTE,

indeed sir.  so we see that THE KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE is an elaborate riddle full of contradictions, and that it requires a group in communion to solve it.  with no communion there can be no discernment, as discernment can only occur in relationship and never in isolation.  the challenge highlights the nature of duality, conflict, contradiction which are the self.  that is, the self is contradiction.  so we must see in ourselves contradiction to bring about self knowledge.  self knowledge, mechanically not analytically, reveals reality.  

***SPOILER ALERT SIRS and SIRSETTES***

so the way KRISHNAMURTI conveyed the metaconcept is not through answering questions, not through authority.  authority whether inwardly or outwardly destroys reality.  he never actually said yea or nay to any direct question.  he did this because to assert an answer, to represent one side is to misunderstand the entire movement of a problem.  a problem is an interaction, a relationship, an action, and to argue in favour of an answer is to focus in on only one area of an integrated interaction.  we see this with the left and the right, the muslim and the christian, the nationalist and the separatist.  they do not integrally perceive the problem so they vehemently assert an answer. these are gross external examples, but there are many more subtle examples inwardly.  that is, how one authoritatively defines the self through ideation, comparison, approximation.  to see the whole problem and not just represent a specific answer is to understand.

so instead of directly answering questions, meditate or don't meditate, approximate or don't approximate, marry or don't marry, believe or don't believe, he instead illuminated verbally the integral nature of these problems.  that is, he described how each problem relates integrally to the other, showed the mechanical structure on all sides of the issue, never advocating for one particular outcome.  the result of this process eventually builds in one's mind a network of understood problems - not solutions - probably a few hundred, which are no longer answered authoritatively, but instead understood integrally.  when there are enough of these, eventually they will link/connect together and you will see that everything we are discussing is one integrated concept.  no answers.  just one integrated problem.  when this occurs, if you are like the speaker, it will be BY FAR the most profound psychedelic experience of your life - and you will be completely sober.

for the speaker, it took reading awakening of intelligence as a 15 year old boy, then 15 years of consideration and a re-read for the metaconcept to click into place.  it was comparatively the most profound and beautiful moment of understanding in the life of the speaker.  that is why I, which is contradiction, am compelled to share it, which is approximation.  

you see sir, money and time took on very different meanings to me after discerning the metaconcept.  money is of very little value, and time is an illusion.  so I plan on initiating and communally discerning as many KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE winners as my time and financial restrictions can afford.  it will not stop here on the DTFH forum. and that means this whole effort is then preconception, seeking, becoming, which destroy reality!  so the question then becomes, why is the speaker, who is conscious of the reality destroying effects of compulsion, continuing to seek this transmission of the metaconcept?  and that brings about the question of what is right interest.  

so if I have answered adequately the questions you posed: sir, how does one bring about right interest while remaining in the realm of reality?    

 

 

 

 

Indeed sir. Indeed.
 
Quote

"he never actually said yea or nay to any direct question."

 

Certainly he did. 

 
g h

A: May we relate here just for a moment, love to education?

K: Yes.

How could he function otherwise? "Krishnamurti, are you going to speak at Ojai tomorrow? K: Let's look into it..." Sometimes he had to just say yes or no. When I read your reply above I noticed you did not say yes or no to my direct question, and I wondered why. After thinking about it a while, I decided that you did answer adequately.

Quote

"so if I have answered adequately the questions you posed: sir, how does one bring about right interest while remaining in the realm of reality?"

I see this as a juicy question. In the past several months, I have thought about how curiosity drives me. I think we have curiosity as an innate quality that drives us as children, but gets covered up or replaced by other drivers as we become mature adults. I think right interest must include this innate curiosity, but it must also include caring or compassion, because we are not just robots. I have an interest in my fellow humans, in their welfare. I think this is also an innate quality of humans.

If I define it in this way though, then I wind up with something to aspire to. An ideal to live up to. Perhaps we should define right interest by negation instead.

Why am I interested in this dialogue? Well, I have an interest in winning the challenge. That outcome would give me pleasure. I would like to win some money. I would like the pleasure and gratification of having people choose me for having the best brain thoughts in this challenge. Is that right interest? 

No. That is self interest. That gratifies and supports my self. Those interests do not get me closer to understanding the self and the metaconcept. So I think "Those are two things that are not right interest. If I can see all the factors that are not right interest, then what will be left through negation will be right interest." Or maybe I don't have to see them all in the particular, but to see the difference, and recognize right interest when it appears. Like when I see a question as juicy. 

This question is juicy and I want to go into it. Not for future rewards, but for the reward right now of inquiring. What is this? How does this work? I am learning something as I inquire. The reward is intrinsic not extrinsic. 

Edited by monkey_mine
because it wasn't purty enuff
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) the division between thought and language, or the experiment 
2) the social/environmental disintegration that you experience through the nullification of thought
3) the matter of thought suppression vs self understanding/discernment as a means of bringing about a quiet mind. 
4) the speaker's day. chronologically and then psychologically. 
5) how does one freehave in daily life, in relationship?

 

Mr. the speaker sir, might we continue, (if I  have answered your last question adequately) on your list of questions?  I think we finished with #5, so perhaps you could continue up your list with #4.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mike said:

lolol @DinduNuffinholy shit dude.

Also, how did you earn the title 'advanced member'? just from creating this mega thread?

Now you're an advanced member @mike! I am only a newbie! 

I only have two points. You have seven. I have points envy.

This forum is tough on my self esteem.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sirs,

the matter of right interest:

to find out what is right interest we must discern both what is right, and what is interest.   not the particular, subjective definition of right or interest but right interest fundamentally.  to understand a problem is not to adhere to one particular, but rather to see the problem integrally, mechanically.  that is understanding.  perhaps if we discuss first focus we will find out what is right interest.  now what is focus sir?  isn't it that the self, which adopts a multitude of interests based on internal or external aggrandizement, acquisition, narrows in one particular?  that is, the self, which weaves into the past and future through the present, for the purpose of approximation, finds security in one avenue of consideration.  approximation of the current/past self, or approximation of the self that one should like to become are both brought about through consideration of the past.  it is the contrast between present/past and future approximations that drive activity, which is interest.  that which drives interest if focus.  so focus is activity.  activity is a movement of the past.  the past is subjectivity and therefore not actuality.  that is, thinking based in the past, is adhering to one particular and therefore misunderstanding the integrated movement, which is reality.  so right interest cannot be self interest, whether that interest is of past or future approximation.  

then there is the matter of what is right.  not right subjectively, but right abstractly, mechanically, fundamentally.  clearly, the speaker has a certain area of concern.  a certain focus.  he comes to you sirs with a certain rhetoric.  an objective.  now is that objective based in the past?  is that objective based in subjectivity?  let's together find out. sirs in the memory of the speaker, which is time, there are both encapsulated experiences of KRISHNAMURTI and PSYCHOACTIVE CACTUSES.  mind, looking to encapsulate the past by terming, reviews experiences in the present.  it is the combination of experiences that create novel ideation, that create each of our particular metaphorical KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGEs.  that is, each one of us moves through environment collecting a slightly different subjective approximation, based on our slightly different network of experiences.  that is, we tunnel our way through reality, building inside us a subjective approximation of what is real.  that is, we understand reality the way a worm, who understands only his particular tunnel, understands the earth.  so the particular subjectivity can never meet reality.  

so therefore we must find out what is right not in the realm of the particular, not in the realm of subjectivity, but rather what is right mechanically.  so then right, becomes not an end in itself, but rather a means of discernment.  that is, right is not an answer in itself but rather a mechanism.  so our problem has become how to describe what is right as a mechanism.  

so we see that each particular subjective approximation sees only their particular worm hole, and not the entire integration.  however, we as humans interact.  we communicate.  sometimes in conflict and sometimes in communion.  communion, or earnest communication is the most efficient way of bringing about integrated discernment.  that is, if the cheese holes could communicate sirs, inevitably they would find the cheese which is themselves.  the cheese holes are not separate from the cheese, just as we are not separate from reality, and the means are not separate from the ends.      

so then in summation, right interest is interaction, or activity, that facilitates the highest form of communication, which is communion, thereby engendering discernment of the integration. that is, right interest, mechanically, is interest that brings about communal interaction which brings about novel ideation, or integrated discernment.  and that is the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE sir.  at least... fundamentally.    

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