Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Truth, Reality and Actuality


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 35 in total
Thu, 09 Jun 2011 #1
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

In the book, "Truth and Actuality" K speaks of three things - truth, actuality and reality. I understand his use of these three terms as follows:

Truth is the all.

Actuality is manifestation

Reality is that put together by the mind

This is not the common meaning of those terms. This is K's usage. The Oxford dictionary puts it as follows:

Reality comes from the Latin 're,' meaning 'thing.' The real is the thing.

Actuality is what is actual, now. As in, 'it acts.' When you ask if something is actual you are asking if it is happening now.

For example we can say that rain is real. But is rain 'actual?' Is it actually raining?

Truth. Both the actual and the real are true but they refer to different things. Reality is general truth while actuality is present truth, truth in action. It is concrete, now.

In addition the Oxford dictionary pointed me to Kant's division between the noumenal and the phenomenal.

The noumenal is truth, whether reality or actuality.

The phenomenal is the mind's interpretation of truth and its construction of idea around it.

I think that the dictionary has given me better linguistic tools than K (in the book mentioned) in this regard.

But that book is a collected selection made by someone who wanted to stress a certain thing. K's teaching has to be taken as a whole, which is not an act of selection but one of understanding.

In any case, I would welcome any discussion on the above points, which are mostly aboput the relationship of the word to what lies behind it, the phenomenal to the noumenal, of knowledge to truth.

The dictionary says nothing ofTruth after all, it is only a dictionary, not a philosophy.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Jun 2011 #2
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 649 posts in this forum Offline

I understand K's use of the words truth, actuality, reality, God, what is, all to be pointing at the same thing, which is not a thing, cannot be said, and only comes to a mind that is silent, not forced silent, but naturally silent.

He is not necessarily stuck on using words in a particular way. When speaking with various people, he may begin from their various starting points. But inevitably, he always points to the unknown, which is another word that indicates...

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 09 Jun 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jun 2011 #3
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

idiot ? wrote:
But inevitably, he always points to the unknown, which is another word that indicates...

. . . that when one finds oneself talking about things one knows nothing of it is a good point to . . .

Actually I just read a talk K gave in 1953 where he uses the term 'reality' as a synonym for God. His terminology constantly changed, which is why the insistence on one fixed meaning is inappropriate and pedantic. Which is a trap I fall into as much as anyone else. It's something to be watchful about in one's approach to words.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jun 2011 #4
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

idiot ? wrote:
But inevitably, he always points to the unknown, which is another word that indicates...

. . . that when one finds oneself talking about things one knows nothing of it is a good point to . . .

Actually I just read a talk K gave in 1953 where he uses the term 'reality' as a synonym for God. His terminology constantly changed, which is why the insistence on one fixed meaning is inappropriate and pedantic. Which is a trap I fall into as much as anyone else. It's something to be watchful about in one's approach to words.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jun 2011 #5
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
In the book, "Truth and Actuality" K speaks of three things - truth, actuality and reality.

Paul,

It is a long time since I read this book.I understood the three words as follows-

Reality- whatever is taking place.It can be an illusion but to the person who is having the illusion it is taking place.

Actuality- That which is factual, not illusory. For example self is a reality.We have a sense of self,we act out of self concern.But self is not an actuality.It has no factual existence.

Truth- Truth I generally understand as actuality.It can be said to be seeing actuality as actuality & seeing illusion as illusion.

You are right, in earlier writings he used the term reality to mean truth.So we have to be mindful of this change in terminology when we read K.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Jun 2011 #6
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Individuality, this consciousness, this limited self-consciousness, is a fact in life. It is a fact in your life, isn't it? It is a fact, but it has no reality.

This is today's quote by K.Here When K says it has no reality I understand it to means it has no factual existence-that is, it's not an actuality.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Jun 2011 #7
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
This is today's quote by K.Here When K says it has no reality I understand it to means it has no factual existence-that is, it's not an actuality.

Yes, K is describing 'individuality' as having no reality. The talk is from the 30's I think. He was using 'reality' in the common way, as meaning that which is part of the flow of all and everything. Thought is misrepresenting things when it invents individuality because we are not individuals. To become an individual with respect to society means to separate from the flow of that society. To separate from the flow of society is to enter the flow of reality. This is because the flow of society is the flow of illusion.

We should always ask, individuated with respect to what, to society or to reality?

But it is clear that here, K counterposes the real, as phenomena, to that invented by thought. Later in his teaching he sometimes used the word 'real' to denote that which was beyond the phenomenal, the all one, or god. Still later he used the word 'real' to denote that which has been created by thought. Three completely different usages. Yet his vision was consistent throughout. This is one good reason not to sloganze K or to take the usual aphorisms at face value. They are tools for enquiry, often presented as mild shocks to make you question.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Jun 2011 #8
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
To become an individual with respect to society means to separate from the flow of that society.

You mean from the flow of that reality?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Three completely different usages. Yet his vision was consistent throughout. This is one good reason not to sloganze K or to take the usual aphorisms at face value.

Yes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Jun 2011 #9
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Paul Davidson wrote:
To become an individual with respect to society means to separate from the flow of that society.
You mean from the flow of that reality?

Well, in so far as it is a thought-constructed reality, yes. But you cannot separate from the actuality of having to combine with others to work and make a living, for example. One does not have to separate from the physical reality and go live in a cave.

The point is, Kapila, as always, not to get to hung up on the words but to understand what is being discerned. In this case we separate from the flow of illusion but not from the physical flow of the world in which human beings are also real, actual. One still has to do what is necessary in order to live, and co-operation with others is part of this. One has to decide how to co-operate and what one's actual needs are, not merely accept the conventional wisdom. One can live modestly and refrain from conflictive roles as far as possible.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 Jun 2011 #10
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Well, in so far as it is a thought-constructed reality, yes.

Oh Christ, I understood your post #7. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Fri, 17 Jun 2011 #11
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Oh Christ, I understood your post #7. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No need to address me so formally, Kapila.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jun 2011 #12
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Hope Ropa wrote:
would a jar of water think of itself as a jar filled with water

stay with the fact that it is water.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jun 2011 #13
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Hope Ropa wrote:
A "spiritual" person

Long - hair holds fire, holds the drug, hold sky and earth. Long- hair reveals everything, so that everyone can see the sun. Long- hair declares the light.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jun 2011 #14
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Oh Christ,

Paul Davidson wrote:
No need to address me so formally, Kapila

Ha, ha, ha!! That's really a nice one!!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jun 2011 #15
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
No need to address me so formally, Kapila

LOL

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jul 2011 #16
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Everything you are, is truth. Everything you are not, is false.

If you are false, you are what you are not.

So, how to drop the whole thing?

Is not this preoccupation with oneself - what one is and what one is not - the factor which gives strength to the false and makes it real?

And yet, if one can strip away all the false ideas of what one is (can one?) then what will be left? It is a journey into the deep unknown. I am tempted to say, "a journey without a journeyer."

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Tue, 26 Jul 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #17
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

I am constructing an example to unerstand the words under discussion.

I have asked a friend to come to my house for a discussion on something urgent.He was to come on a car,and I was to pick him up from the main road which is one way and a bussisy one.At appointed time I was on main road at agreed spot.To the much of confussion, a car past me without stoping where I am suppose to stand. Turned back and the car is raceing. I know that was my friend's car.I left the place in disguest.The friend was equally disguest that I was not there at the spot, which he took it as a delibrat on my part. I took his mising me on the spot as purposefull.It appears that he returned back after covering the large distance due to the one way trafic.We were to discuss a issue which was an emotional issue.

What is the reality,actuality, and the truth in this posting?

nothing

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #18
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Kamarajugadda,

The first thing to say is that much of what hapened did so under the 'law of accident,' which is that events generally do not go the way we expect them to go. And we get very disgusted with the way the actual 'acts.' We want events to correspond to general laws and our plans are always based upon generalities - "you stand there and I will pass here and we cannot avoid meeting."

But actuality is what acts and it always escapes us because it is too 'concrete', too 'grown together.' Too many unknown factors congregate in each event.

The traffic was thick and moved too fast. This was an 'external' factor not taken into consideration

Both parties were pre-occupied with the emotional issue they had to discuss. This was an 'internal' factor not taken into consideration.

Actuality is always more complex than the general realities with which we plan. It can be, for us, quite disgusting!!

But, if we pay attention, we can limit the law of accidents to unavoidable things. It must be a combination of self-knowledge and worldly wisdom. We need both things to avaoid the avoidable in this world.

And of course, without an understanding of the necessity for, or the deficit of, such inner and outer attention, we easily fall into dispute, imagining bad intention when it was accident, as you and your friend did. I think this is the cause of many a quarrel and even some wars.

To understand the necessity of the accidental in life takes some of the heat out of human relationships. To avoid preventable mishap seems to be part of right action.

The unknown should always be allowed for in each event. "Always expect the unexpected!" (I cannot recall if this is a quote from 'Sherlock Holmes' or 'Inspector Clouseau')

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Tue, 13 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #19
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
The unknown should always be allowed for in each event. "Always expect the unexpected!" (I cannot recall if this is a quote from 'Sherlock Holmes' or 'Inspector Clouseau')

Dear Paul Davidson,

It is news to me that this posting is a quote from the above references.we shall acknowldge the same if it is so.I have no information.

Paul Davidson wrote:
But, if we pay attention, we can limit the law of accidents to unavoidable things. It must be a combination of self-knowledge and worldly wisdom. We need both things to avaoid the avoidable in this world.

This is what I was trying to get at:paying attention to the actual hapenings in the present,I was grapling with the words Trueth, Actuality, and reality .I was thinking of some constuct,trying to make out the same.

The fact:1)both the friends were Emotionally involved in some incident,and disturbed.2)both wanted to settle things in their own way, which they themselves were not sure.

The actuals: 1)both made effort to meet with a doubt.2)both hurt each other,3) both were victums of 'law of accident'

The reality:1)both were emotinally involved in the issue,2) both had a doubt abovt their meeting's out come.

Could they have payed attention to their senate feelings?Perhaps they could have saved the trouble of hurting each ther.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #20
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
It is news to me that this posting is a quote from the above references.we shall acknowldge the same if it is so.

Well, Oscar Wilde made such a statement, "To expect the unexpected shows a thoroughly modern intellect." I suspect he was speaking tongue in cheek. To be 'thoroughly modern' in Wilde's terms clearly refers to the unguarded hubris of modernity.

But please look at this video as an excellent example of what is otherwise called, "The law of unintended results."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLpAH2r138

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Sep 2011 #21
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

To find out what is the truth, actuality, or reality of a past record could not be that defficult,but to realise it instantly during the process of thinking is what we are unable to realise at the intelectual level.To cut through the intelectual level to actual understanding,our own intelectuality is becoming a hardle, to have the complete attention.What is the way out except awareness coming to our rescue?

If that is the situation,we most likely to fall into a trap of grace, hope, expectaion, and finally a subtle form of prayer, behind which the self most likely to take selter.Is there any other way apart from the the self finding itself helpless, and giving up its very nature of self projection,so that the passion is at its fullswing, so that understanding is there?

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Sep 2011 #22
Thumb_deleted_user_med Muad dhib Ireland 175 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I started getting some understanding without searching for it at all when the thinking was smashed by it self inflicted pain...nothing else was left..and when one thing is left what do you do ? well ! you just take it.

I say it here with care ,but it may be the only way out we have , there may be no other way than being utterly disturb..

In what I know , there is no other way....I must insist but the hope that there is a soft way which is to go into the all explanations ,self, ego , past,memory , centre , unknown and so on ,prevents me to get the tough way as john put it.
Again explanations for me are just there to give me the idea of my own functioning, but as a method ( k said no method, no how ????) it is just useless...
look the world is misguided by the most brilliant intellectual of the planet....and so what ?

They too have no single clue....there is one subject.....suffering(disturbance ) , it leads us or to insanity or to understanding...we choose insanity , or the dark side and the little understanding that I have about that tells me to stay with suffering , then I will learn without searching for a solution, this came when I took suffering and nothing else , got lucky to have nothing else, I have got that point , try and you will see that it is impossible if done with the thinking , with all those thoughts trying to catch the other one, you may go bizarre by doing that!

All this is impossible to do using the intellect only ( with a goal) , totally impossible , we then need a catalyst when the intellect has reached its limits.....
you know what a catalyst is : it is a necessary "mean" of an experience which is not found in the result , its helps during the experience so is absolutely fundamental.. even if the catalyst does not appear in the result ,without it nothing is ever going to happen...we do not want to be disturb , OK fine ! this is mankind situation...we try everything but we absolutely do not want to be disturb...as long as there is the hope that by analysing my mind's functioning , the miracle will come to me, nothing is ever going to happen...

When you read k and you know what I say here ( about disturbance ) that I learnt by myself , (sorry but this is fact and not arrogance) ,then it is all in k's writing too...but hard to be found , and even if found it is far from being enough as words are indeed useless without some real acting beyond thinking in this matter and was in buddha and others old writings too, there is nothing new, it was and is all there already, but the forest of k tips for life can be too wide and it is easy to be lost in it...

He may have had to do it that way....this is what I think :)

let me make a comparison : the thinking , the analysing about the mind we all go through, if I can compare that with a guy who makes some plans for the house then the guy never actually build the house but stay into the analytical but useless field ,this is what we mentally do... is my view !
then at some stage a doing/acting is needed, this is what we are missing: a doing....which one is it? this is my sayings here ,it is very simple, very simple indeed...be the pain....well buddha and k agree with that before me, and before them others too <:@).....
Ref are necessary for the intellect....

In real life it has an impact like on people I can meet who are having hard time in this world and in their world, the others won't ever listen anyway...we want cheap and pleasurable enlightment :)..well if there was a way I would buy it right now of course! me too I tried that easy way ,this is why I can say....:)

Are you ready to be an outsider to the normal world ?

Dan.....

This post was last updated by Muad dhib (account deleted) Mon, 26 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Sep 2011 #23
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Muad dhib wrote:
Are you ready to be an outsider to the normal world ?

Is that really possible if I am to be unconditioned always?I need to answer few more things in your posting which I shall be doing in due course.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Sep 2011 #24
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Surely we cannot be ready or we would be there 'already.' So, something is stopping us. There is that which is saying yes. The yes is in the conscious part. But there is also that which is saying no and digging its heals in. Mostly, the no is in the unconscious part. Now, is there a chance we can get these two fellows together to thrash it out? Or, probably hypocrisy has become somewhat comfortable for us. Hear the voice inside which now yells out, "No it hasn't." But please assure it I said 'comfortable,' not 'acceptable.'

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Sep 2011 #25
Thumb_deleted_user_med Muad dhib Ireland 175 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul interesting post I find..

already when the idea of business , money , competition is deeply felt so understood as wrong which needs a good outer awareness + inner sensitivity, and that you foreseen that the voluntary working together in equal sharing is the only way in intelligence then you already are an outsider.
Today the society is too strong .Well yesterday too :)

In the daily facts then it is necessary in such a world to find a way to eat and get a shelter ok, in any world including the most intelligent too....so let us do it.

it starts in the mind obviously ,....then I survive , and see from there..

I often say to me or others that ,the so called inner way remains the same anyway whatever are the outer conditions..
less pressure from society will obviously ease my entire life, but it is not that who is going to push me through the right door...
Life has just nothing in common with our expectation for it, and this secret thought being hidden in the not conscious , is bringing confusion....and complexity.

I will be moving soon to the south of france I think...I need to talk with the mountains...

Dan.....

This post was last updated by Muad dhib (account deleted) Mon, 26 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Sep 2011 #26
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Muad dhib wrote:
I will be moving soon to the south of france I think...I need to talk with the mountains...

That's fine Dan. It's when they begin to talk back you need to worry!

But I still say it's the Massive Central of your ego you need to address (la meme pour moi)

Hey, did you notice that Rick keeps complaining he hears the self in what I write? For heaven's sake, where else would I be writing from? Ego is not a bit-part act. It ain't pick and choose! You can't come down from the mountain. You are the damn mountain.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Mon, 26 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Sep 2011 #27
Thumb_deleted_user_med Muad dhib Ireland 175 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
It's when they begin to talk back you need to worry

well I recently have felt "something" here in Ireland coming from some rocks in a mountain part ..some "force"....master Ioda was hidden maybe?

Paul Davidson wrote:
But I still say it's the Massive Central of your ego you need to address (la meme pour moi)

je comprends bien..I have been living in the Massif central too by the way :)

Paul Davidson wrote:
Hey, did you notice that Rick keeps complaining he hears the self in what I write? For heaven's sake, where else would I be writing from

No I did not noticed that..we won't kill this ego anyway that would be suicide , we may find our ways to function in an holistic whole way...

Dan.....

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Sep 2011 #28
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

Your post #1:

"Truth is the all.

Actuality is manifestation

Reality is that put together by the mind . . .

Actuality is what is actual, now. As in, 'it acts.' When you ask if something is actual you are asking if it is happening now. . . .

Truth. Both the actual and the real are true but they refer to different things. Reality is general truth while actuality is present truth, truth in action."

Truth, for me is what IS, and "what is" is the present moment, the immediate moment, now. There is no other "present" than the immediate moment -- all else is the past or a projected future. Truth, for me, is in neither of these conditions.

Actuality, I would agree, is manifestation. That which is manifested, created, I would call Reality. Reality is created in the immediate moment, and this immediate moment, as I see it, is the Real. The Real is timeless; Reality is caught in sequence and time.

So there is, as I see it, no division of truth into "general" and "present" truth. Truth is possible only with what IS -- the present moment. What you term as "general" truth I see as fact. A fact --i.e., the known, the created, the already manifest -- cannot once again be truth.

True action takes place only in the present, obviously. What we term as "action" is movement by the manifest as re-action and inertial action. Such action is mechanical and evolutionary. True action, action in the present moment, is through intelligence and love. True action cannot be known, that is, it cannot be remembered and it is not the product of memory.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 26 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Sep 2011 #29
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Max, your points are well taken.

K pointed to our habit of seeing truth as something 'out there' or beyond. He countered this impression, as have others such as Jesus, by saying truth is within. I see there is merit in that counter-position.

But, looking at it from my perspective as a human being, I have to see that truth is also mind, a state of mind when it is an open mirror. No, I am not happy with that metaphor. Mind is awareness, is it not? And is that awareness running with the flow or against it?

Truth is neither inner or outer but when mind is in the flow - IS the flow. Truth is true relationship between the mirror and that which it is mirroring, in seamless unity - a dance of forms like smoke and flame.

For us, the smoke is often either trying to escape the flame or else choke it.

Oh God, can one not describe it simply, without poetry?

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Mon, 26 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Sep 2011 #30
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
For us, the smoke is often either trying to escape the flame or else choke it.

Oh God, can one not describe it simply, without poetry?

The mists that were spread about have become transparent; guide us safely across them. You, our charioteer, must protect us from injury. Soon, Indra, soon make us winners of cows.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 35 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)