KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

natura wrote:

pearl wrote:

Don't fool yourselves that you are speaking from "no center".  If bruce or another has no center then why are you busy defending him, talking for him?  As for the forum it would do very well without patronizing, sidekicks and psuedo gurus who claim all sorts of rubbish things that K exactly warned about and pointed to.

Thanks, pearl

couldn't be said more correctly,

especially that part I like most: ‘Don't fool yourself that you are speaking from "no center".’

Isn't it the danger K warned about, thinking we are speaking from "no center".  It is the greatest trap infact, another belief, knowledge.  And then there is no more learning but authority and self aggrandizement, which is the very end of inquiry.  But K talked about the possibility of inquiry.  That's what I'm interested in.  Yet the ground here seems not fertile enough for such a possibility to sprout except ocassionally, inspite of the great oppurtunity being presented. Thanks.

natura wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

The answer you want can come only from your questioning, from  beating your brains out, so to speak, rather than from a quote.

Well, not exactly from quotes, no.

But from beating your brains out!?

At any rate, this is a flagrant contradiction and ignoring of Krishnamurti. I may say, of my personal knowledge and experience, too.

As last thing condemned Krishnamurti ‘beating the brains’.

The real answer to any question as well as solution of any problem comes up in a quiet mind.

Any kind of beating and torture, any violence (might be inner or outward, compelled or voluntary) provokes appropriate reaction sharpening conflict and destruction.

I really don’t see any point to come to a forum to try to spread own teaching – exact opposition to the original and impose on it the do-it-himself statements with such insistence.

Are you really so brain-beaten, bruce?

I did say 'so to speak', didn't I? Don't take it literally. To constantly pursue the stream of awareness takes some courage, again so to speak. To ignore the non-facts when the whole world lives with them, and instead to pursue the fact, to remain true to the fact, that takes tremendous 'courage'. Real discipline. No matter how people may treat you, no matter how badly you live you don't betray the facts. Then how you live doesn't matter that much-whether you drive a car or not, whether you eat today or not. Truth makes no compromises whatsoever.

joe wrote:

Natura...I think Bruce meant something different than came across with his 'brain beating' words.  My take is that he meant one must continually see what is happening in the brain (brain beating), but better let him explain before we jump to conclusions one way or another, yes?

I meant it, Joe, as turning to oneself to find answers, not to another, as that is much easier. To keep looking inwardly, to listen to oneself. Even when no answers are coming to keep looking-no tension as that expression would literally imply.
You see, I wouldn't use that phrase again, say, today. But in that context, at that time, it seemed appropriate to me, that's all.
I would never suggest tension, except to say that in attention there is a slight tension, because when we want to understand something, the mind is not completely relaxed. A certain (slight) tension is present.
  In fact, today I was explaining how vital is not to resist, to a group of people. Even to the false, no resistence. In  other words, to walk away from the false WITHOUT resistence.

bruce sean wrote:

BobD wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

I feel it's wrong to say 'I'm free'. But freedom is a fact for a stupid person called bruce. Otherwise he wouldn't open his mouth.

Why would you feel it is wrong?

Because freedom doesn't haver an owner. Freedom is freedom, not 'I'm free'.

I don't think that if you lived in freedom, you would have a need to point out the obvious... that most people don't. And you definitely wouldn't have a need to ask "Why" most don't. So...although you may have been living in freedom when you pointed out that most don't...you certainly weren't living in freedom when you asked "why". Of course...I don't know whether you are or aren't at the time you read this post, as I'm sure you are like most and step in and out of the illusion of freedom of the mind.

The concern you talk about seems rather shallow, superficial if I may say so, the concerns of thought.  I'll tell you why.  Someone who truly cares for others makes no big deal nor gives a hoot of announcing how much he is concerned for others, and in the absence of true compassion, talking becomes more important than the living of it, doing it, being it, and that is propoganda.  Natura said it in his own way.  Even Hitler thought he was concerned, but did exactly the opposite.

Last edited by pearl (2011-12-01 19:58:48)

BobD wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Freedom is freedom, and the illusion of freedom is the illusion of freedom. There is no stepping in or stepping out. There is no stepping.

  Now, why shoeldn't one ask a most natural question: why most people never tasted freedom? Those, very few, who did taste it are concerned with the rest, simply beacuse they realize they are the rest, not apart from it. So how come something which comes so naturally to the few is avoiding so completely the most, even though, basically we are not different from each other?

Being in freedom...they realize that freedom is all there is. Whether others realize it or not would be of no consequence or concern to them. So...to ask "why?" is a statement of the entrapped

Bob, stupid minds ask stupid questions.  Now bruce has confessed he is stupid.  I'm not calling him stupid fyi.  He thinks being stupid makes him free. lol.

pearl wrote:

BobD wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Freedom is freedom, and the illusion of freedom is the illusion of freedom. There is no stepping in or stepping out. There is no stepping.

  Now, why shoeldn't one ask a most natural question: why most people never tasted freedom? Those, very few, who did taste it are concerned with the rest, simply beacuse they realize they are the rest, not apart from it. So how come something which comes so naturally to the few is avoiding so completely the most, even though, basically we are not different from each other?

Being in freedom...they realize that freedom is all there is. Whether others realize it or not would be of no consequence or concern to them. So...to ask "why?" is a statement of the entrapped

Bob, stupid minds ask stupid questions.  Now bruce has confessed he is stupid.  I'm not calling him stupid fyi.  He thinks being stupid makes him free. lol.

Lol...I actually think that he is pretending to engratiate himself to me. Whatever the case may be...it's all good

bruce sean wrote:

When one does propaganda, every word or phrase which seems to deviate from the subject of propaganda is seen as a threat to it. That threat then creates a reaction of defending the material which is being propagated.

Well, yes, I do it. I’m living the teaching of Krishnamurti, though didn’t read him since long.

And I see him until the bottom line and sometimes over. I see also he is inevitable for any human being and the whole humanity.

If someone wants to call it ‘propaganda’,

they definitely may on their own responsibility.

natura wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

When one does propaganda, every word or phrase which seems to deviate from the subject of propaganda is seen as a threat to it. That threat then creates a reaction of defending the material which is being propagated.

Well, yes, I do it. I’m living the teaching of Krishnamurti, though didn’t read him since long.

And I see him until the bottom line and sometimes over. I see also he is inevitable for any human being and the whole humanity.

If someone wants to call it ‘propaganda’,

they definitely may on their own responsibility.

Anything which is not truth-not its image-IS propaganda. The words another uses, or has used are very much replaceable, not 'inevitable' as you concluded, once and for all: they only seem that way. But actually, nothing is set in stone!

Last edited by bruce sean (2011-12-01 23:35:32)

bruce sean wrote:

pearl wrote:

BobD wrote:

Being in freedom...they realize that freedom is all there is. Whether others realize it or not would be of no consequence or concern to them. So...to ask "why?" is a statement of the entrapped

He thinks being stupid makes him free. lol.

Is this what I think? Or is it your interpretation?

  Freedom, like intelligence, is not personal.

  By 'stupid' I meant not being clever, and also limited. And the limited cannot ever reach the limitless.

bruce sean wrote:

But freedom is a fact for a stupid person called bruce

A stupid mind is a dull mind, fearful mind and  a therefore a limited mind.  A stupid mind and freedom don't go hand in hand for it takes an immensely alert mind to be free in every moment.

Don't divide those, it's the same...one thing. Bruce is stupidity, stupidity is bruce according to what you have said.

Last edited by pearl (2011-12-01 21:24:30)

No, no. Not quite.

  Suffering itself is energy-the energy of friction, making that energy move in opposite directions, all the time. When there is no friction, what takes place? Does that energy disappear?

Last edited by bruce sean (2011-12-01 23:38:34)

When he's sleeping he doesn't exist, so what does that mean?

  The post I've responded to was just deleted, so never mind.

Last edited by bruce sean (2011-12-01 23:41:47)