KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Hey magnetic there, made the cheese cake today, finally!  I remembered you like cheese cake, and it really came out great and a big chunk of it is your's, topped with straw berries and blue berries...have some....there ya go...Enjoy! :-)

bruce sean wrote:

LMP wrote:

I think that Krishnamurti is very good at initially pointing out that there is an error in our thinking. He makes that clear and the freedom he is talking about seems throbbing in him and that is convincing too. But when it comes to the later parts it becomes impractical and lots of time is spent not really getting the message.

There is no later. One either understands the whole thing at once or they can forget it...or begin again afresh.

May I ask why you do not recognize that another talked about what you naturally talk about. Is it because it is more important to start again afresh?

antelope wrote:

CB wrote:

Is it possible even to believe in Krishnamurti?

Listening to Krishnamurti I don't really hear any knowledge per-se being conveyed, making it difficult to believe in. Believe what? Just a series of "utterances," along with repeated exhortations to just listen to them fully without comparing or abstracting or memorizing or analyzing or accepting or denying or suchlike barriers.

why then creating this forum?

I found this question harder than the first one. I think its because its possible to enjoy it. We are free to sit in front of the computer and just be conscious of it, but to be taken in by a forum like this is better.

antelope wrote:

CB wrote:

Is it possible even to believe in Krishnamurti?

Listening to Krishnamurti I don't really hear any knowledge per-se being conveyed, making it difficult to believe in. Believe what? Just a series of "utterances," along with repeated exhortations to just listen to them fully without comparing or abstracting or memorizing or analyzing or accepting or denying or suchlike barriers.

why then creating this forum?

Perhaps it has a social or community-type value, as far as connecting people from different places who share some common background or interests...a chance to converse, debate, chit-chat, gossip, share things and clarify ones language, talk about deeper or uncommon topics that might be more difficult to do with local neighbors at home...I don't know, or just for good intellectual entertainment?!

RJ wrote:

pearl wrote:

RJ wrote:

also an excellent question Pearl

this is frighteningly fraught with flippant flubberdubbery but, in a nutshell, because the one thing anyone genuinely intent on the 'being' part of human needs to be afraid of is arrogance.

The arrogance of I know.
of I am right
of I am there already

so beguilingly convincing can be the little deviant devil within who cajoles and convinces that all is well with the 'me' and the 'mine'. So intent on its own gratification is the ego that it will literally blind a person to the being of another if that is what its satisfaction costs

how does this relate to your question?

if you do not revere those who have gone before (and to revere in this case may simply mean to listen, openly, so to know when someone is speaking firstly their own truth but also that which is true for us all) however sure you may be of your way you may be sure you will find a way to mislead yourself, and others

do we need yet more historical and current examples to see it?
so many asshole egoists talking from on high
so very few who know the way from below

RJ, if you can phrase your sentences a little more simplistically my simple brian would be able to comprehend, but for now, I still ask myself and others why do you/I believe in anything?  Some believe they are far more sensitive than others, and some believe they are more intelligent, more powerful, beautiful, or ugly, etc.  Not just that, there are plenty of beliefs...I could point out.  And I question why do you believe in another, or yourself?  You have not answered it.  But you are not obligated to.  I'm just wondering with you and all, not bothering about being right, or sounding high.  Hope you're having a great day!:-)

it's that word 'in' again Pearl

to believe in someone is very different to believing someone.
the first makes you a follower, the second a listener

I listen to Krishnamurti, I believe he is telling his truth and also frequently touches on universal human truths.

this doesn't mean I have to make him 'more' than me in some way but at the same time it gves me permission to really get out of the way and let another person in.



the occasionally obscure language is not a deliberate ploy to impress or obstruct. Essentially we are all talking about something that is beyond words, in fact it is beyond our mind's ability to comprehend it, so there is always then that paradox of having nothing but words and minds to communicate to each other. That is why I sometimes weave other images into my language. English is a good tongue for 'doing' it has great flexibility as a language of action.

However 'Being' on the other hand it really struggles with. Music can be better here, so can dance, art, touch, all potentially much better to approach the inexpressible with but all still nearly impossibly hard to convey across the barriers of time, space and the belief in separation. Sorry about that.

Don't be sorry, it makes sense what you say about langauge.  Most people diss langauge as an invention of thought, that, with language thought came into existence, but I don't share their sentiments.  It is possible to use language and communicate without the interference of thought language being just a means to communicate.  Language is not an obstruction and does not have to be a barrier for understanding.

As for the "in" word, I did ponder about it prior to my first post on this thread and it made no difference as to how the question was put in this context, like "believing krishnamurti".  One might, or not might not believe Krishnamurti, but end up believing one's own sentiments, thoughts to be true.  So I asked why believe anything.  That was the point.  Listening to someone, seeing with them has nothing to do with believing them.  Not believing someone does not make one arrogant, it only means you are totally on your own, learning, observing, seeing, finding out for yourself in which alone humility, goodness, virtue can flower.  There is really no more arrogant mind than the one that believes, or disbelieves.  Believing someone does not neccessarily mean you are listening to them. On the other hand it is only a mind that is empty of all beliefs whatsoever whether it be in K, or even in oneself, that is actually listening, doubting, inquiring and finding out... and therefore being transformed.  I don't need to believe that the sun is shinning, or that I am alive.  These are facts beyond questions, beliefs.  I see it, however I believe when I don't know.  But, what's wrong with not knowing?  Surely I can take it from there, can't I and so can anyone else.  :-)

Last edited by pearl (2012-02-02 11:31:54)

You bring a good point about arrogance here RJ in your post.  I see not a single grown adult in the real world who is free of arrogance (which is but born of out ignorance) whether rich or poor, highly learned or an illiterate, beauitful or ugly all have this arrogance built into the psyche which reveals itself from time to time from beneath the well culitvated demeanors.   In the spiritual circles too, the more the man has understood the more the arrogance, pride, vanity.  A mind that is seeped in arrogance, pride, vanity has no depths, no beauty how ever learned, how ever experienced, how ever famous or anonymous.  Maybe we could begin a new thread on this topic.

pearl wrote:

You bring a good point about arrogance here RJ in your post.  I see not a single grown adult in the real world who is free of arrogance (which is but born of out ignorance) whether rich or poor, highly learned or an illiterate, beauitful or ugly all have this arrogance built into the psyche which reveals itself from time to time from beneath the well culitvated demeanors.   In the spiritual circles too, the more the man has understood the more the arrogance, pride, vanity.  A mind that is seeped in arrogance, pride, vanity has no depths, no beauty how ever learned, how ever experienced, how ever famous or anonymous.  Maybe we could begin a new thread on this topic.

Perhaps I am barging in here, as I am probably not part of the "we" you had in mind...but might I ask you a question?  Is analyzing ignorance and its infinite forms and manifestations truly the highest way you can offer the world your energy and light? Perhaps it is, I am just asking.

Isn't the term "ignorance" is just a more dualistic way of expressing that which is simple pattern recognition in the body.  When the body recognizes/discerns certain patterns, it is no longer ignorant of them, and so the patterns change or end. Right? Ignorance has billions of manifestations...why take one of them(this manifestation called arrogance) and analyze it? Why give it importance?

Every human being is ignorant of various patterns.  I discern new patterns everyday, as do we all, whether it is weather patterns, ocean patterns, patterns of civilization, patterns in sleep, patterns in taste, patterns in digestion, patterns of the moon, muscular patterns, patterns of all types. 

Analysis is another form of closure isn't it? A kind of movement separating myself from that which is being analyzed, a movement which separates life into that which 'is love' and that which 'isn't love'--a movement fragmenting life into that which is arrogance, and that which isn't. What would happen with your energy if you saw clearly that it is all one seamless expression of love impossible to analyze or fragment?

RJ wrote:

pearl wrote:

RJ wrote:

it's that word 'in' again Pearl

to believe in someone is very different to believing someone.
the first makes you a follower, the second a listener

I listen to Krishnamurti, I believe he is telling his truth and also frequently touches on universal human truths.

this doesn't mean I have to make him 'more' than me in some way but at the same time it gves me permission to really get out of the way and let another person in.



the occasionally obscure language is not a deliberate ploy to impress or obstruct. Essentially we are all talking about something that is beyond words, in fact it is beyond our mind's ability to comprehend it, so there is always then that paradox of having nothing but words and minds to communicate to each other. That is why I sometimes weave other images into my language. English is a good tongue for 'doing' it has great flexibility as a language of action.

However 'Being' on the other hand it really struggles with. Music can be better here, so can dance, art, touch, all potentially much better to approach the inexpressible with but all still nearly impossibly hard to convey across the barriers of time, space and the belief in separation. Sorry about that.

Don't be sorry, it makes sense what you say about langauge.  Most people diss langauge as an invention of thought, that, with language thought came into existence, but I don't share their sentiments.  It is possible to use language and communicate without the interference of thought language being just a means to communicate.  Language is not an obstruction and does not have to be a barrier for understanding.

As for the "in" word, I did ponder about it prior to my first post on this thread and it made no difference as to how the question was put in this context, like "believing krishnamurti".  One might, or not might not believe Krishnamurti, but end up believing one's own sentiments, thoughts to be true.  So I asked why believe anything.  That was the point.  Listening to someone, seeing with them has nothing to do with believing them.  Not believing someone does not make one arrogant, it only means you are totally on your own, learning, observing, seeing, finding out for yourself in which alone humility, goodness, virtue can flower.  There is really no more arrogant mind than the one that believes, or disbelieves.  Believing someone does not neccessarily mean you are listening to them. On the other hand it is only a mind that is empty of all beliefs whatsoever whether it be in K, or even in oneself, that is actually listening, doubting, inquiring and finding out... and therefore being transformed.  I don't need to believe that the sun is shinning, or that I am alive.  These are facts beyond questions, beliefs.  I see it, however I believe when I don't know.  But, what's wrong with not knowing?  Surely I can take it from there, can't I and so can anyone else.  :-)

excellent Pearl

you put the 'free' in 'spirit'

I simply looked and there it was/is.  :-)

Eden wrote:

pearl wrote:

Eden, you're completely missing the point as usual these past days.

Perhaps. Seems to me the only reason you would bring up arrogance or violence or the infinite manifestations of ignorance is that deep down you yearn to connect with a mature human being of total integrity, which you have yet to encounter. 

Had you encountered such a human being I doubt the two of you would sit around the tea table and chat about the ignorance in the world ;-)

Am I closer to the point now? ;-)

It has nothing to do with yearning but learning, looking, observing...are we not free to do that?  It shouldn't bother others that I look into the human mind that is arrogant, or violent, or immature.  I look at these things just as I look at a joyful, loving child who doesn't hold back, or the lovely, naked winter trees in all their dignity.

And to answer your second question, ofcourse if I met another free humanbeing we'd surely sit at the table and have a wonderful heartfull laughter at the arrogant, ignorance of the human mind, not in a mean way but because it is utterly ridiculous.  Maybe you find it offensive but it's just my weird sense of humor that not many may understand. It's a part of who I'm, this looking, laughing, inquiring, pondering, diving deep.  You calling it as "analysis" shows you do not know, or care to look, or even feel with another as you profess to be able to.

I get this sense from you that you are still yearning for something, someone, this yearning to feel into another's, or to fill your empty heart.  You might have a girl friend but, you like most are still seeking which may mean you don't really love her and neither does she other than some sorta attachment, it is evident.  This whole thing about your girl friend and loving might just be a farce, just another silly sentiment your conditioned mind latches onto, nothing true, or deep about it, or is there?  For if you really felt so deepley loved then you won't have the need to feel into anothers heart any more.  So it's time you see and look into why you are dishonest and play games with yourself.

Here comes another arrogant pompous a** mr night, the "know it all".  ;-)

antelope wrote:

?

?

how ya doing antelope, jumping much?

...and i'm afraid you're just not owning that otherworldly lingo these days.

2 dolla big holla

Nice editing mags