Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2022 14:44:02 GMT -5
Yeah because the internal narrative of himself as something other than this completely inclusive moment was turned off. It was only upon it's return, that he could firstly recognise that it had been gone and secondly give a description of "some workers outside drilling a hole in the road." We have discussed for years how acausal these states are. Who are "we"? And your discussion is conclusive? What do you mean by "internal narrative"? I would like to review your discussion if you would be kind enough to lay it out for review. Do you know how to use the Search function in this forum? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 1, 2022 14:46:48 GMT -5
Yeah because the internal narrative of himself as something other than this completely inclusive moment was turned off. It was only upon it's return, that he could firstly recognise that it had been gone and secondly give a description of "some workers outside drilling a hole in the road." We have discussed for years how acausal these states are. Who are "we"? And your discussion is conclusive? What do you mean by "internal narrative"? I would like to review your discussion if you would be kind enough to lay it out for review. Why not have a new one instead?  Thing is though, to my mind what abscissa was referring to there is the acausality of existential realization. Further, to my mind, the discussions about acausality were all premised on the possibility of existential realization. I'm not sure if you're on board with that notion of existential realization. I get the impression that you're not. Which is fine, btw.  |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 1, 2022 22:17:51 GMT -5
Who are "we"? And your discussion is conclusive? What do you mean by "internal narrative"? I would like to review your discussion if you would be kind enough to lay it out for review. Why not have a new one instead?  Thing is though, to my mind what abscissa was referring to there is the acausality of existential realization. Further, to my mind, the discussions about acausality were all premised on the possibility of existential realization. I'm not sure if you're on board with that notion of existential realization. I get the impression that you're not. Which is fine, btw.  You are right. I don't understand what is you guys mean by "existential realization". Please bring me up to speed. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 2, 2022 9:28:34 GMT -5
Why not have a new one instead? Thing is though, to my mind what abscissa was referring to there is the acausality of existential realization. Further, to my mind, the discussions about acausality were all premised on the possibility of existential realization. I'm not sure if you're on board with that notion of existential realization. I get the impression that you're not. Which is fine, btw. You are right. I don't understand what is you guys mean by "existential realization". Please bring me up to speed. A realization of limitlessness puts an end to all alienation. "Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear". There is a potential depth of experience similar to your rainbow, and afterward, nothing will ever quite look or feel the same again. The most common pointing to this can come off as denying your individuality and the phenomenal and social aspects of experience. This is because we are commonly conditioned to form a sense of false identity centered on those aspects. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 2, 2022 12:27:12 GMT -5
You are right. I don't understand what is you guys mean by "existential realization". Please bring me up to speed. "Object in the mirror are closer than they appear". There is a potential depth of experience similar to your rainbow, and afterward, nothing will ever quite look or feel the same again. The most common pointing to this can come off as denying your individuality and the phenomenal and social aspects of experience. This is because we are commonly conditioned to form a sense of false identity centered on those aspects. You may be associating my rainbow experience with conventional spirituality that abscissa said (in her post 74) has nothing to do with an inquiry into why people are crazy. Spirituality of the Krishnamurti kind does inquire into why people are crazy; not clinical craziness but fundamental craziness. Let me explain the distinction between the two.
I turned on the TV this morning and across the screen was the trooping of the colors, a splash of pomp and circumstance viewed probably across the entire western world: the platinum jubilee celebration of 75 years on the British Throne. This must be the mother of all anniversary celebrations by people who are not clinically crazy but fundamentally crazy. Do you get the drift?
It's impossible to wake up from delusion if you are the person at the center of all that conditioning for 75 years affirming that you are the Queen of England. None of us can wake up from our roles as Joe Blows, who are merely centers of their respective families and tiny circles of friends. Try imagining her being the Defender of the Faith, Head of the Commonwealth, and Monarch of the British realm when she sits on the throne in her bathroom clearing out her gut. Your body is the only ruler. If this reminder doesn't wake you up, nothing will.
My rainbow experience did only one thing. It rattled my perception of reality momentarily. It was an awakening to the cause of fundamental craziness: the perception of being a person, an observer separate from the observed.
I don't deny my individuality as a person in the world. Living in this world is like line dancing. I keep in step with every fundamentally crazy son of a gun on the planet. If I don't, folks like abscissa would tell me to see a therapist who would use psychology to inquire into why I act crazy.
Do I talk crazy?
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 2, 2022 13:28:17 GMT -5
You perceive Humanity as starduspilgrim does: a planet Earth inhabited by some 8 billion people of different nationalities and cultures in various countries.
When I visited the Krishnamurti Foundation of India, I met with a few "friends" in the front garden the moment I arrived. (Back in those early days when I was swept up by the Krishnamurti teaching, everyone welcomed me as a friend the way Christians would enthuse over a newcomer to their church.) Anyway, there was this Indian guy who told me that he was not an Indian. He said that nationalism was the cause of wars. I studied his dark skin, facial features, and mannerisms. I couldn't pick him apart from the natives of Tamil Nadu I ran into everywhere in Chennai. After some small talk, I turned to him and asked: "Are you an Englishman?" He replied "No". I said: "Then, you are an Indian." When the welcome chat was over and we finally got into the hall for a scheduled discussion, he caught up with me and chided: "You shouldn't have taken me by surprise like that."
So, what is your eternal timeless nature, snatch? stardustpilgrim is a male from Charlotte, NC. Assuming he has done better than my Indian acquaintance at the KFI and transcended the nationalistic and cultural conditioning, there is still the gender gap and physical crack of space and time - that separate him and others - to overcome. He hasn't succeeded in obliterating those divides if he sees “fundamental change in mankind” as an undertaking to be accomplished one person at a time.
Krishnamurti's method for fixing Humpty involves no gluing. I think he diagnosed the human problem as a perceptual defect that can be eliminated instantly through insight: fundamental transformation, he called it. Until then, Humpty sees itself not as a cracked egg but as a part of an egg broken into 8 billion pieces. Therefore, yours (and mine and stardustpilgrim’s too) is a false Humpty identity for which there is no enlightenment /salvation/eternal nature. It vanishes when the body dies.
Insight is a sudden realization, not of the truth but a false truth: an illusion perceived as reality. Krishnamurti said that there is no way to it. Obviously. Now you see it (false), now you don't (gone). It comes unbidden in a flash.
Illusion perceived as reality. Abscissa asked: “What is reality?” I told her but she dismissed my answer out of hand. Why? Is my way of life as a man, an American with a mom and dad, a wife and kids, a handphone, car, house, and bank account not conditioned by culture and perceived as real? How does one see that the nature of reality is illusory? “To see the truth in the false.” (Krishnamurti)
This is getting too long. Even I am getting bored with this sermon. Not necessarily. There is an emotional attachment to the not-true that held it in place, this has to be honestly and respectfully acknowledged and permitted to die off. This permission can only be granted by remaining present to the triggers that were previously accepted as valid. Emotion is like fire that burns when there is fuel (illusion). Insight is sudden death of the real (all triggers).
Did you ever watch the movie "Saturday Night Fever"? Father Frank gave up the priesthood. One day, Jesus was the God he worshipped, and the next just a man dying on the cross. How did he lose faith? Was it like falling out of love with someone?
How many triggers have to die off before the self is free of all attachments?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2022 16:05:40 GMT -5
Not necessarily. There is an emotional attachment to the not-true that held it in place, this has to be honestly and respectfully acknowledged and permitted to die off. This permission can only be granted by remaining present to the triggers that were previously accepted as valid. Emotion is like fire that burns when there is fuel (illusion). Insight is sudden death of the real (all triggers). Did you ever watch the movie "Saturday Night Fever"? Father Frank gave up the priesthood. One day, Jesus was the God he worshipped, and the next just a man dying on the cross. How did he lose faith? Was it like falling out of love with someone?
How many triggers have to die off before the self is free of all attachments? Emotion can be fire, yes, though it can also be water. You don't want to be free of emotion that would be a different kind of deadening. You want to be free to feel, without it being grabbed away by thoughts that try to own those feelings. Feelings belong in the moment and they are your best indicator of exactly what's happening. Does that make sense? I have watched Saturday Night Fever, yes, though I can't comment on the character of Father Frank. Were you given a faith that you've now lost? I don't believe in that kind of goal setting so I can't answer your question. The opportunity to change the next moment, is offered in each of the contractions (triggers). As the intensity to respond in a well worn and familiar way gets watered down, you'll notice that how you feel starts to free up. The experiences around you will, at times, feel more harmonious. Again, don't grab at them, don't try to hold them in place. Let that inner smile know that they mean something to you and let them go, they have their own way. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 2, 2022 23:15:06 GMT -5
Emotion is like fire that burns when there is fuel (illusion). Insight is sudden death of the real (all triggers). Did you ever watch the movie "Saturday Night Fever"? Father Frank gave up the priesthood. One day, Jesus was the God he worshipped, and the next just a man dying on the cross. How did he lose faith? Was it like falling out of love with someone?
How many triggers have to die off before the self is free of all attachments? I have watched Saturday Night Fever, yes, though I can't comment on the character of Father Frank. Were you given a faith that you've now lost? I don't believe in that kind of goal setting so I can't answer your question. The opportunity to change the next moment, is offered in each of the contractions (triggers). As the intensity to respond in a well worn and familiar way gets watered down, you'll notice that how you feel starts to free up. The experiences around you will, at times, feel more harmonious. Again, don't grab at them, don't try to hold them in place. Let that inner smile know that they mean something to you and let them go, they have their own way. Emotions, no; feelings,yes. The former is a deadly sin. The latter make life magical.
Look, I am not the walking dead on that other shore. This shore is where life is. If you can't feel pain, you are not alive. And then, there is the magic of feelings when one is seventeen. Infatuation, they call it. Have you ever experienced it? It's too late if you are nineteen, or even eighteen when innocence begins to fade and relationship can only be a sordid affair. I was lucky. I was seventeen and she was sixteen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2022 3:18:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 3, 2022 9:26:34 GMT -5
A realization of limitless puts an end to all alienation. "Object in the mirror are closer than they appear". There is a potential depth of experience similar to your rainbow, and afterward, nothing will ever quite look or feel the same again. The most common pointing to this can come off as denying your individuality and the phenomenal and social aspects of experience. This is because we are commonly conditioned to form a sense of false identity centered on those aspects. You may be associating my rainbow experience with conventional spirituality that abscissa said (in her post 74) has nothing to do with an inquiry into why people are crazy. Spirituality of the Krishnamurti kind does inquire into why people are crazy; not clinical craziness but fundamental craziness. Let me explain the distinction between the two. I turned on the TV this morning and across the screen was the trooping of the colors, a splash of pomp and circumstance viewed probably across the entire western world: the platinum jubilee celebration of 75 years on the British Throne. This must be the mother of all anniversary celebrations by people who are not clinically crazy but fundamentally crazy. Do you get the drift?
It's impossible to wake up from delusion if you are the person at the center of all that conditioning for 75 years affirming that you are the Queen of England. None of us can wake up from our roles as Joe Blows, who are merely centers of their respective families and tiny circles of friends. Try imagining her being the Defender of the Faith, Head of the Commonwealth, and Monarch of the British realm when she sits on the throne in her bathroom clearing out her gut. Your body is the only ruler. If this reminder doesn't wake you up, nothing will. My rainbow experience did only one thing. It rattled my perception of reality momentarily. It was an awakening to the cause of fundamental craziness: the perception of being a person, an observer separate from the observed.
I don't deny my individuality as a person in the world. Living in this world is like line dancing. I keep in step with every fundamentally crazy son of a gun on the planet. If I don't, folks like abscissa would tell me to see a therapist who would use psychology to inquire into why I act crazy. Do I talk crazy?
No, it doesn't sound crazy to me. But, what I said is that there is a depth of potential experience similar to your rainbow tale. I can recognize something in what you described: a subtly altered state of consciousness. These experiences come with a matter of degree, and some involve realizations that shift the existential perspective. This notion that "your body is the only ruler" is quite a limiting view, similar to any one of a number of existential beliefs. Absicca mentioned acausality, and that acausality is with regard to existential realization. As in, you cannot force such a realization, there is no cookbook or blueprint for it. But this is not a commutative operation, as we can certainly say what obscures such a realization, and existential beliefs do exactly that. And, perhaps most importantly, there are things one can do to precipitate these types of experiences, just no guarantees with respect to the realization. Sure, I can imagine being a monarch, and I can tell you, the social roles one plays are, unlike the existential beliefs, no such impediment to realization. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 3, 2022 10:52:30 GMT -5
No, it doesn't sound crazy to me. But, what I said is that there is a depth of potential experience similar to your rainbow tale. I can recognize something in what you described: a subtly altered state of consciousness. These experiences come with a matter of degree, and some involve realizations that shift the existential perspective. This notion that "your body is the only ruler" is quite a limiting view, similar to any one of a number of existential beliefs. Absicca mentioned acausality, and that acausality is with regard to existential realization. As in, you cannot force such a realization, there is no cookbook or blueprint for it. But this is not a commutative operation, as we can certainly say what obscures such a realization, and existential beliefs do exactly that. And, perhaps most importantly, there are things one can do to precipitate these types of experiences, just no guarantees with respect to the realization. Sure, I can imagine being a monarch, and I can tell you, the social roles one plays are, unlike the existential beliefs, no such impediment to realization. I agree. When Jim Carrey is not imagining being Truman Burbank in "The Truman Show" movie, he reverts to being Jim Carrey.
When you are not playing the social role as "laughter" in this forum as well as that other daily life social role in the real world, what role do you revert to?
This is a serious question and not a laughing matter, so please don't mess around. If you tell me, I will tell you what I revert to.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 3, 2022 11:13:43 GMT -5
No, it doesn't sound crazy to me. But, what I said is that there is a depth of potential experience similar to your rainbow tale. I can recognize something in what you described: a subtly altered state of consciousness. These experiences come with a matter of degree, and some involve realizations that shift the existential perspective. This notion that "your body is the only ruler" is quite a limiting view, similar to any one of a number of existential beliefs. Absicca mentioned acausality, and that acausality is with regard to existential realization. As in, you cannot force such a realization, there is no cookbook or blueprint for it. But this is not a commutative operation, as we can certainly say what obscures such a realization, and existential beliefs do exactly that. And, perhaps most importantly, there are things one can do to precipitate these types of experiences, just no guarantees with respect to the realization. Sure, I can imagine being a monarch, and I can tell you, the social roles one plays are, unlike the existential beliefs, no such impediment to realization. I agree. When Jim Carrey is not imagining being Truman Burbank in "The Truman Show" movie, he reverts to being Jim Carrey. When you are not playing the social role as "laughter" in this forum as well as that other daily life social role in the real world, what role do you revert to? This is a serious question and not a laughing matter, so please don't mess around. If you tell me, I will tell you what I revert to.
None, really. I just live. Seriously, I mean that. In retrospect, social roles are sometimes just a mundane and prosaic necessity, like when you interact with the IRS or the DMV. So that's like knowing how to tie your shoe. In the most important instances, say, in close relationships, I'd say the role is an after-the-fact description. It's not something I ever consciously play out as it's happening. Finally, at work, or, say, in a situation like a restaurant or an automechanic shop etc .., there can be some risk of loss, inconvenience or other pain involved if one doesn't respond to various stimuli as expected. So there can be some self-conscious adjustment, on a moment-to-moment basis, as things are happening, but that's generally, for the most part, rather minimal. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 3, 2022 11:25:09 GMT -5
No, it doesn't sound crazy to me. But, what I said is that there is a depth of potential experience similar to your rainbow tale. I can recognize something in what you described: a subtly altered state of consciousness. These experiences come with a matter of degree, and some involve realizations that shift the existential perspective. This notion that "your body is the only ruler" is quite a limiting view, similar to any one of a number of existential beliefs. Absicca mentioned acausality, and that acausality is with regard to existential realization. As in, you cannot force such a realization, there is no cookbook or blueprint for it. But this is not a commutative operation, as we can certainly say what obscures such a realization, and existential beliefs do exactly that. And, perhaps most importantly, there are things one can do to precipitate these types of experiences, just no guarantees with respect to the realization. Sure, I can imagine being a monarch, and I can tell you, the social roles one plays are, unlike the existential beliefs, no such impediment to realization. Cite me one existential belief (other than knowledge derived from the hard sciences) that claims your body is the only ruler. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 3, 2022 11:27:08 GMT -5
No, it doesn't sound crazy to me. But, what I said is that there is a depth of potential experience similar to your rainbow tale. I can recognize something in what you described: a subtly altered state of consciousness. These experiences come with a matter of degree, and some involve realizations that shift the existential perspective. This notion that "your body is the only ruler" is quite a limiting view, similar to any one of a number of existential beliefs. Absicca mentioned acausality, and that acausality is with regard to existential realization. As in, you cannot force such a realization, there is no cookbook or blueprint for it. But this is not a commutative operation, as we can certainly say what obscures such a realization, and existential beliefs do exactly that. And, perhaps most importantly, there are things one can do to precipitate these types of experiences, just no guarantees with respect to the realization. Sure, I can imagine being a monarch, and I can tell you, the social roles one plays are, unlike the existential beliefs, no such impediment to realization. Cite me one existential belief (other than knowledge derived from the hard sciences) that claims your body is the only ruler. Your body is the only ruler. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 3, 2022 12:02:13 GMT -5
I agree. When Jim Carrey is not imagining being Truman Burbank in "The Truman Show" movie, he reverts to being Jim Carrey. When you are not playing the social role as "laughter" in this forum as well as that other daily life social role in the real world, what role do you revert to? This is a serious question and not a laughing matter, so please don't mess around. If you tell me, I will tell you what I revert to.
I just live. Seriously, I mean that. In retrospect, social roles are sometimes just a mundane and prosaic necessity, like when you interact with the IRS or the DMV. So that's like knowing how to tie your shoe. In the most important instances, say, in close relationships, I'd say the role is an after-the-fact description. It's not something I ever consciously play out as it's happening. Finally, at work, or, say, in a situation like a restaurant or an automechanic shop etc .., there can be some risk of loss, inconvenience or other pain involved if one doesn't respond to various stimuli as expected. So there can be some self-conscious adjustment, on a moment-to-moment basis, as things are happening, but that's generally, for the most part, rather minimal. None? Really? I like that. Seriously. Don't fool around. This is real meditation, as Krishnamurti would say.
Ok, at the IRS, DMV, or the grocery store, you come on as whatever character you are expected to play in your reality show. You are acting consciously. In a close relationship with your father, mother or wife, you do what?
Me, I don't have personal relationships, neither in the real world out there nor here in cyber space where, as a rule, all interactions are out in open forum and none in personal messaging. It is not ethical. Lying cut both ways. If you are lying to your wife in a role as her husband, then you are corrupt. I am not trying to corner you. We are both figuring our way out of an existential web from which no one has escaped.
|
|
Thing is though, to my mind what abscissa was referring to there is the acausality of existential realization. Further, to my mind, the discussions about acausality were all premised on the possibility of existential realization. I'm not sure if you're on board with that notion of existential realization. I get the impression that you're not. Which is fine, btw. 
Thing is though, to my mind what abscissa was referring to there is the acausality of existential realization. Further, to my mind, the discussions about acausality were all premised on the possibility of existential realization. I'm not sure if you're on board with that notion of existential realization. I get the impression that you're not. Which is fine, btw. 