KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Jayaraj wrote:

You know K told Professor Allan Anderson that he never went through all the suffering.Any of what human beings go through. I think he told Dr. David Bohm too that.

This may mean a different thing altogether. TS was formed some 20 years before K was born even. It was to organize the world for the coming world teacher. Before K declared he realized truth Dr. Annie Besant was giving talks about a coming world teacher. they expected the Maithreiya consciousness to blend with K's. And K himself at the time of his death was saying, 'The other won't let go of the body.I wonder why?' So what does all this mean? There was K's consciousness & also the blending of the what K was describing as the 'other'.

So I think the secret of his statement that he never went through any of that could lie there.
The 'other'. Some Pandith J...(I forget the name) told K that it is stated in some accient Tibetan writings that Maitrieya would talk trough a body called Krishnamurti. Was it the same being who was manifesting in Jesus to preach, but failed because Jesus got killed?

Anyway how did this other come to all this? Did he go through suffering & then end it? Or was he brought up withought developing a self so realized truth without going through suffering?(He tried that you know-he started schools) Well I know this is like fiction. But I think K's statement can have implications which we cannot easily unravel.

i remember only, k said, he knew no one, who went the direct way. it does not matter, anyway, both ways are there. the story about maitrieya we forget better, as k himself said, that was a time ful of self-illusions.

Jayaraj wrote:

You know K told Professor Allan Anderson that he never went through all the suffering.Any of what human beings go through. I think he told Dr. David Bohm too that.

This may mean a different thing altogether. TS was formed some 20 years before K was born even. It was to organize the world for the coming world teacher. Before K declared he realized truth Dr. Annie Besant was giving talks about a coming world teacher. they expected the Maithreiya consciousness to blend with K's. And K himself at the time of his death was saying, 'The other won't let go of the body.I wonder why?' So what does all this mean? There was K's consciousness & also the blending of the what K was describing as the 'other'.

So I think the secret of his statement that he never went through any of that could lie there.
The 'other'. Some Pandith J...(I forget the name) told K that it is stated in some accient Tibetan writings that Maitrieya would talk trough a body called Krishnamurti. Was it the same being who was manifesting in Jesus to preach, but failed because Jesus got killed?

Anyway how did this other come to all this? Did he go through suffering & then end it? Or was he brought up withought developing a self so realized truth without going through suffering?(He tried that you know-he started schools) Well I know this is like fiction. But I think K's statement can have implications which we cannot easily unravel.

I didn't read all that, but you are interpreting stuff. You accept certain statements, and choose to ignore statements which contradict those very statements. And the truth is, they're not important, since what is beyond emptiness doesn't belong to a single person,  or a special group of people,but is 'available' to anyone.

Edit: By the way, I think what you said in the beginning was actually said to Bohm; and the opposite of that was said to the person you mentioned!

Last edited by bruce sean (2012-04-23 21:44:39)

bruce sean wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

I won't agree with that, sorry. The brain is not a container for emptiness. Emptiness is not confined within the brain, it is really limitless. Then what is the brain? To me, it is an instrument. What do you say, sir?
  And next, what is beyond 'mere' emptiness?

OK, emptiness is not confined within the brain. Now when the content is emptied what is there? There is just the universe, right? So the expression of the universe is in emptiness. So space itself contains emptiness. And the brain & the senses are cognizant of this space.

So then what is beyond space sir?

That is what we're asking.


  Emptiness is energy. Now, what happens to that energy?

No sir, what is beyond emptiness? Emptiness is space we said. Now that is. emptiness has expression. That is, vastness. So what is beyond expression? And what is the nature of the brain that that goes beyond expression?

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

OK, emptiness is not confined within the brain. Now when the content is emptied what is there? There is just the universe, right? So the expression of the universe is in emptiness. So space itself contains emptiness. And the brain & the senses are cognizant of this space.

So then what is beyond space sir?

That is what we're asking.


  Emptiness is energy. Now, what happens to that energy?

No sir, what is beyond emptiness? Emptiness is space we said. Now that is. emptiness has expression. That is, vastness. So what is beyond expression? And what is the nature of the brain that that goes beyond expression?

Emptiness has expression? What would that be?

  I must insist: emptiness is energy. What happens to that energy?

PS: My answer is just this side of Eden:

bruce offerz: "I must insist: emptiness is energy. What happens to that energy?"

Insist all you want brucey baby, but before I can answer your question I need a form that fits the question. The first form that comes to mind goes like this:

Emptiness is energy and that energy, in filling itself at once, creates the everywhere and nowhere that it takes time to connect.

It is the infinite expansion called scaling that allows for movement of time within it, where the expansion we see is time trying to connect that which remains to be connected.

So there, my fellow Angelino, that is what happens.

[place cavernous chuckle here]

bruce sean wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

You know K told Professor Allan Anderson that he never went through all the suffering.Any of what human beings go through. I think he told Dr. David Bohm too that.

This may mean a different thing altogether. TS was formed some 20 years before K was born even. It was to organize the world for the coming world teacher. Before K declared he realized truth Dr. Annie Besant was giving talks about a coming world teacher. they expected the Maithreiya consciousness to blend with K's. And K himself at the time of his death was saying, 'The other won't let go of the body.I wonder why?' So what does all this mean? There was K's consciousness & also the blending of the what K was describing as the 'other'.

So I think the secret of his statement that he never went through any of that could lie there.
The 'other'. Some Pandith J...(I forget the name) told K that it is stated in some accient Tibetan writings that Maitrieya would talk trough a body called Krishnamurti. Was it the same being who was manifesting in Jesus to preach, but failed because Jesus got killed?

Anyway how did this other come to all this? Did he go through suffering & then end it? Or was he brought up withought developing a self so realized truth without going through suffering?(He tried that you know-he started schools) Well I know this is like fiction. But I think K's statement can have implications which we cannot easily unravel.

I didn't read all that, but you are interpreting stuff. You accept certain statements, and choose to ignore statements which contradict those very statements. And the truth is, they're not important, since what is beyond emptiness doesn't belong to a single person,  or a special group of people,but is 'available' to anyone.

Edit: By the way, I think what you said in the beginning was actually said to Bohm; and the opposite of that was said to the person you mentioned!

I am not quite sure I am interpreting. Basically it is this.When K said he didn't go through all that, I think it means he came to all that without developing a self & suffering & then ending it. It means he didn't take the so called wrong turn. He said there was just vulnerability.So a person who is egotistic,who has developed the self  cannot make the statement that he came to it direct. He said the Buddha had to go through all that-suffering etc and come to it.

You mean the statement was not made to Professor Allan Anderson? I'll check it up.

awareness wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

awareness wrote:

i remember only, k said, he knew no one, who went the direct way. it does not matter, anyway, both ways are there. the story about maitrieya we forget better, as k himself said, that was a time ful of self-illusions.

Ha, ha, dear sir,I think the story about Maitheiya you can find independently if you have gone all the way. Without going by what K said!

I better not say anything more about that sort of thing!-there's a whole group of people here who are saying I am a mad fellow-they are doing that to rob something-I'll be playing into their hands if I start discussing this sort of thing!

it sounds so, that you are afraid of the meaning others. its anyway not important how you call something, but to come back to this energy: it is the light, the flame, the colours...

Colours you say?

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

You know K told Professor Allan Anderson that he never went through all the suffering.Any of what human beings go through. I think he told Dr. David Bohm too that.

This may mean a different thing altogether. TS was formed some 20 years before K was born even. It was to organize the world for the coming world teacher. Before K declared he realized truth Dr. Annie Besant was giving talks about a coming world teacher. they expected the Maithreiya consciousness to blend with K's. And K himself at the time of his death was saying, 'The other won't let go of the body.I wonder why?' So what does all this mean? There was K's consciousness & also the blending of the what K was describing as the 'other'.

So I think the secret of his statement that he never went through any of that could lie there.
The 'other'. Some Pandith J...(I forget the name) told K that it is stated in some accient Tibetan writings that Maitrieya would talk trough a body called Krishnamurti. Was it the same being who was manifesting in Jesus to preach, but failed because Jesus got killed?

Anyway how did this other come to all this? Did he go through suffering & then end it? Or was he brought up withought developing a self so realized truth without going through suffering?(He tried that you know-he started schools) Well I know this is like fiction. But I think K's statement can have implications which we cannot easily unravel.

I didn't read all that, but you are interpreting stuff. You accept certain statements, and choose to ignore statements which contradict those very statements. And the truth is, they're not important, since what is beyond emptiness doesn't belong to a single person,  or a special group of people,but is 'available' to anyone.

Edit: By the way, I think what you said in the beginning was actually said to Bohm; and the opposite of that was said to the person you mentioned!

I am not quite sure I am interpreting. Basically it is this.When K said he didn't go through all that, I think it means he came to all that without developing a self & suffering & then ending it. It means he didn't take the so called wrong turn. He said there was just vulnerability.So a person who is egotistic,who has developed the self  cannot make the statement that he came to it direct. He said the Buddha had to go through all that-suffering etc and come to it.

You mean the statement was not made to Professor Allan Anderson? I'll check it up.

To that guy he made quite the opposite statement. That is what I'm saying: you are choosing certain statements and dismiss others, or perhaps don't even hear them, because the mind has already decided on what he is suppossed to say.

  And to the statement that you 'quoted', made to Bohm, there was an explanation which you missed, and you can only know that when it happens to you, otherwise you will not hear it.

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

No sir, what is beyond emptiness? Emptiness is space we said. Now that is. emptiness has expression. That is, vastness. So what is beyond expression? And what is the nature of the brain that that goes beyond expression?

Emptiness has expression? What would that be?

  I must insist: emptiness is energy. What happens to that energy?

Expression?.. well space.

Well sir, we said when the the content is no more then there is only the universe. The brain is cognizant of this universe, with it's vast space & so on.

Now energy would be what constitutes the universe, is that correct? Then the brain, the body which is part of the universe cannot be cognizant of this energy , right? Because it is what puts together the brain as well as the universe. So energy is really beyond emptiness because energy is before manifestation, which is before expression.

However we do say emptiness is energy. Because it is what constitutes it.

What do you mean when you ask what happens to that energy? I don't quite follow the question.

Alright, let's put it differently.

  First, back to emptiness' expression: when you say it's space, again you are dividing the two-emptiness and energy. I say they're one and the same: space IS emptiness.

  Now, you've read statements about the so-called 'ground'. Can you tell me what it is? What is it that you understand it is? Because it is my understanding that without actually 'knowing' it, 'being' it, your choice of words, one can't quite talk about it, even when reading from another. So let's give it a try.

bruce sean wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Emptiness has expression? What would that be?

  I must insist: emptiness is energy. What happens to that energy?

Expression?.. well space.

Well sir, we said when the the content is no more then there is only the universe. The brain is cognizant of this universe, with it's vast space & so on.

Now energy would be what constitutes the universe, is that correct? Then the brain, the body which is part of the universe cannot be cognizant of this energy , right? Because it is what puts together the brain as well as the universe. So energy is really beyond emptiness because energy is before manifestation, which is before expression.

However we do say emptiness is energy. Because it is what constitutes it.

What do you mean when you ask what happens to that energy? I don't quite follow the question.

Alright, let's put it differently.

  First, back to emptiness' expression: when you say it's space, again you are dividing the two-emptiness and energy. I say they're one and the same: space IS emptiness.

  Now, you've read statements about the so-called 'ground'. Can you tell me what it is? What is it that you understand it is? Because it is my understanding that without actually 'knowing' it, 'being' it, your choice of words, one can't quite talk about it, even when reading from another. So let's give it a try.

I don't know whether this gets us anywhere. Emptiness is space & space the brain can be cognizant of. I said that. Now an object takes some space. Outside of it there is empty space. Now energy is through the object,because the object is made of energy- as well as through empty space. Therefore energy is before manifestation.

OK.Please talk about this ground. Let's then try the blind explaining the colour of milk!!

Jayaraj wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

I am not quite sure I am interpreting. Basically it is this.When K said he didn't go through all that, I think it means he came to all that without developing a self & suffering & then ending it. It means he didn't take the so called wrong turn. He said there was just vulnerability.So a person who is egotistic,who has developed the self  cannot make the statement that he came to it direct. He said the Buddha had to go through all that-suffering etc and come to it.

You mean the statement was not made to Professor Allan Anderson? I'll check it up.

To that guy he made quite the opposite statement. That is what I'm saying: you are choosing certain statements and dismiss others, or perhaps don't even hear them, because the mind has already decided on what he is suppossed to say.

  And to the statement that you 'quoted', made to Bohm, there was an explanation which you missed, and you can only know that when it happens to you, otherwise you will not hear it.

It is not that I ignore certain statements sir. It is that I don't see those apparently contradictory statements to be really contradictory.And I am aware K changed his description time & again in order to describe it better.You cannot go by the description.Understanding requires investigating while reading, seeing beyond the word.

If you can be specific about the statement I am supposed to have missed then I can comment on it.

He made the OPPOSITE statement, sir, that's all-that he DID go through all that: if you don't ignore it, it is there. It has a different meaning when one says 'I haven't been through all that'-it's not a contradiction with its opposite, it only seems so.
  I'm afraid you'll only know why one can make such a statement even though one went through all that only when it's a fact to you.
  And until then, it doesn't mean much anyway: what matters is your brain, not another's.

awareness wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

awareness wrote:

it sounds so, that you are afraid of the meaning others. its anyway not important how you call something, but to come back to this energy: it is the light, the flame, the colours...

Colours you say?

yes

That's still manifest sir. Light has particles-photons or whatever. Is there unmanifested energy? Since you say you are enlightened when does love come into being sir?

Sir, why do you operate as awareness if you say you are enlightened. When you first joined I realized that you are very familiar with K's teachings. Then you made many many contradictory statements. Looked intentionally to me. Why? Or may be I am mistaken there.Were you trying to prove something?

What is your name please? Why this hide & seek? I do not think an enlightened person would operate the way you did sir.

When K was here there was a TV interview with the Minister of State. K said before it ended 'As this is a TV interview I would like to say that anybody can come & meet me', turning his head & facing the camera.

What does this mean? If a person is enlightened then that person would want other people to make maximum use of him. So such a person will make his identity & way to contact known.

Not having compassion, not really having something valuable to give people only makes us come with various arguments to support activity which are really irresponsible not seeing it as irresponsible.

Forgive me if I've hurt you sir. That's not my intention-just observing facts.