KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

joe wrote:

I guess my take is that it looks to me that roots still implores an investment in an endless well.

There are a number of things to address here methinks:

The employment of the word 'implore' is, I'm obliged to suppose, a baiting because it cannot be understood as other than some sort of appeal to A.N.Other, with which you must surely by now know I do not hold. Such baiting arises from a supposition on your part of your knowing better, which supposition has evidenced itself in the past undentable; which in turn renders any address of the issue pointless.

That said, the 'well-spring' of life must itself be alive and a lot more intelligent than you and I put together must it not Joe? Or would your particular brand of science hold with magic, i.e. that something - in this instance life, and intelligent life at that - can come from nothing?

Last edited by Roots (2012-03-12 07:21:52)

joe wrote:

when I say implore I am speaking to your fervent belief in a "true".  Your conception of this "true" I do not share, nor do I share the image of what you think I hold it as.  I am sorry, I have an early meeting so will have to get back to this later.

So what say you of this 'well-spring'?

joe wrote:

Roots wrote:

joe wrote:

when I say implore I am speaking to your fervent belief in a "true".  Your conception of this "true" I do not share, nor do I share the image of what you think I hold it as.  I am sorry, I have an early meeting so will have to get back to this later.

So what say you of this 'well-spring'?

What can I say?  The 'well-spring' is but a notion to me.  Do I see that life is ever springing forth?  Yes, I do.  Do I give meaning to something larger than consciousness?  No, I do not.  Is there something sentient that is larger than consciousness?  I do not know, maybe.

For what it's worth then, the following have been deliberately selected to show no alteration in his stance throughout; or at least from age 40 to 85. Indeed how could there be? Anybody who has been even remotely touched by it knows that it can never change: it is just simply the truth, singular.

Eddington, Pennsylavia, 12th June 1936
"They will say  . . . . . .  that the 'I', the ego, the individual, is something permanent in itself and has an eternal quality."     "When this process, sustaining itself through its volitional activities of craving, ceases, there is that which may be called reality, truth, bliss."

Bombay, 27th Feb. 1955
"Such a culture obviously cannot lead man to the realization of that which is the supreme."

Madras, 15th Dec. 1974
" . . . .  then in that silence there comes that which is indestructable, which is sacred. In the coming of that which is sacred then life becomes sacred, everything becomes sacred because you have touched that thing that is sacred."

From 'The Ending of Time', 2nd April 1980
David Bohm: "Then whatever it is; the beyond emptiness and silence."

K: "Beyond all that. There is beyond all that. All that is something, part of an immensity."

Bohm: "Yes, well even the emptiness and silence is an immensity, isn't it? The energy itself is an immensity."

K: "Yes, I understand that. But there is something much more immense than that. Emptiness and silence and energy are immense, really immeasurable. But there is something  -  I am using the word, greater, than that."

Last edited by Roots (2012-03-13 08:34:47)

Could someone please explain in swedish the nature of the disagreement?

What in the youth and my magical thinking seemed so awesome is not seen that way absent the magical thinking.  It is just life living.

The utopia, the otherness, or at least the freedom that is creative and not dependent on time, is hidden in sorrow, in what is, like fear, conflict, ignorance of life as a whole. There can’t be any freedom up there when you yourself are in conflict with life, and conflict results immediately when you inquire away from the sorrow of life, the sorrow that makes you inquire into a projection. As long as you haven’t understood sorrow completely and ended it, the inquiry away from it has no meaning. But when you end sorrow, the new inquiry has no motive and therefore no direction, no time.

How can I inquire into sorrow and fear if I don’t open all doors to them? I am them and they are me. Sorrow and fear exist in isolation between me and the neighbors. To understand and clean up all that, to clear up all conflicts, open the door to a state of no conflict and its creative happiness.

There is a conflict in your life that makes you look for the other. Looking for the other only prolongs and increases the conflict. And then suddenly, with some hint or insight, you uncover the source of the conflict. The beauty of insight is that, the moment you see with insight, the conflict is also dispelled and no future action is required at all. No time. Then the true otherness is that state of living without conflict. The answer is inside the problem. When we look away from the problems, we look at projections created by the problems, but freedom is found in being directly with the problems. Do we have problems in our life? Or don’t we know we have problems?

wilbro99 wrote:

LMP, here is a form I see re-presenting the difference.

There is a transcendental where the part integrated into the whole, which creates the sensation of oneness, and there is a transcendental where the whole differentiates into parts, which is the sensation of dissolution, of coming apart.

The integration moves from one of many to one and back to one of many. The transcendental is the sense of having been made whole, then losing that wholeness.

The differentiation takes the whole apart and returns it to the same whole.

The first is recorded in history as the Apolline catharsis and the second is recorded in history as the Dionysian catharsis.

The first moves from a particular quality and returns to the same particular, while the second moves from a whole quality and returns to the same place.

That ordering is my experience of the two ways of the transcendental.

Another could say that the first is the real and the second the pseudo-release.

That difference is the difference between the way of the Roots and the way of the willy. He and I order the two differently, which defines the transcendental in incommensurate terms.

Fundamentally flawed willy.

Look at it like this: for billions of years there was only one thing, viz. the real. Plants and fish and animals (which is to say consciousness) never saw a problem because there wasn't one. Then, hey presto, self consciousness, and a different ball game altogether.

There is not and never was a 'transcendental'; only a real and a recently introduced glitch. When the owner of the glitch manages to see the nature of the glitch, and that it belongs to him and nowhere else at all, he has started to sort the glitch out. When he has sorted out his glitch he goes back to the garden, and all is (for him) the same as it ever was when there was only the real. The only difference being that this time, unlike the circumstance of the ordinary conscious (the animals etc.) the self conscious entity knows exactly what has occurred, and that he has become an integrated part of the real.

You will see that the mistake you make is to suppose that the glitch is the real (see the 1936 quote in #31), and then you compound the error by supposing that there is no real.

Last edited by Roots (2012-03-14 08:21:12)

LMP wrote:

Could someone please explain in swedish the nature of the disagreement?

Sadly Lief, you have the advantage of us. All I can do is apologize for our enforced discourtesy.

Last edited by Roots (2012-03-14 08:30:54)

joe wrote:

Roots wrote:

joe wrote:

so you are taking him at his word then, of something larger, greater, whatever?  Since for you it still lives in the land of belief that is your choice, to take it at face value.  Fair enough. I read all but the last quote differently than you are, though.

The subject of that last quote, what he is calling the greater, is nothing but the real: the true or truth.

If you would care too, see my #39.

You hold, as you have always held, that for me it can be nothing but belief; me taking another at their word on a subject I can know nothing first-hand about. If you don't mind me saying so, it is like a man calling through the wall of a darkened room (which is all he has ever experienced) to a man next door in a lighted room, and telling him that his sightedness is just a trick of his mind.

But it is by your own admission that the "I" is still in place, so I am not saying anything other than what K would have said.  The "I" does not see, it obfuscates.

I do not know what begins to see. It is an operation and development of evolution. Eventually the monad (to stay with Leibniz) begins to become aware of its condition, circumstance and true nature. When it reaches that state of embryonic realization, its next step is for itself to take up the baton of its own development; to be the cause of it; of itself actually. I am alpha and omega (but really just 'I AM'). And I still do not hold with any 'other', just in case you think that represents a shake.

wilbro99 wrote:

LMP, here is a form I see re-presenting the difference.

There is a transcendental where the part integrated into the whole, which creates the sensation of oneness, and there is a transcendental where the whole differentiates into parts, which is the sensation of dissolution, of coming apart.

The integration moves from one of many to one and back to one of many. The transcendental is the sense of having been made whole, then losing that wholeness.

The differentiation takes the whole apart and returns it to the same whole.

The first is recorded in history as the Apolline catharsis and the second is recorded in history as the Dionysian catharsis.

The first moves from a particular quality and returns to the same particular, while the second moves from a whole quality and returns to the same place.

That ordering is my experience of the two ways of the transcendental.

Another could say that the first is the real and the second the pseudo-release.

That difference is the difference between the way of the Roots and the way of the willy. He and I order the two differently, which defines the transcendental in incommensurate terms.

all right, where do I sign? (joke)

The appoline/dionysian catharsis really gave me something. That wont tell you what it gave me but I feel you pointed me to an understanding of the problem. It would take me ages to go into my understanding of it and Im afraid I would much confuse you.

If I may instead subject you to a simplistic spiritual test? Which group of words (1,2,3 below) does reasonably begin to describe your own shifts in identity (assuming you had one) you can chose all three or none if you wish also. Its not a trick question, but for me to understand better, if it doesnt amuse you at all just ignore it all pls. For me personally if I had to answer for myself I would go for nr 2, with an interest in nr 3, but rather clueless about nr 1. Sry if you find it a stupid question, but it relates to how I find people talking differently.

1. conscious space, awake nothingness, transcendent, there, liberation, unlimited, no beginning, no end
2. oneness, intimacy, richness, texture, love, closeness, here, no separation, transrational, selfjustifed, obvious
3. No self. No ownership. Being. Existing.

thx

Hi, LMP. glad it helped.

I would say that #2 is my shtick.

LMP wrote:

RJ wrote:

a school disco
the married woman, heavy on her feet, in charge of turning the lights up and down
frowns at those children dancing less than demurely
she wishes they would get it over with so she could leave
or perhaps even better, really step over the line
so she could do something

a cattle sale
the well-fed farmer, stock in surplus, no need to attend but there for long habit
squints at the bustling buyers, the heaving heifers
the rising and falling of the auctioneers voice and gavel are as familiar as his slippers
but the wheeling day ahead looms long
and he wishes he had somewhere else he'd rather be

All I can think of is that the farmer should go for the married woman, if thats what he wants. There were quite a few subtle feelings in your few lines here. I want to move them but they seem stuck where they are.

I know, I know it's hopeless LMP

I would just come out and say what I really thought but then the immaterial moderator might rematerialise and then it's curtains Rabid Jujitsu-san

what am I trying to say?

oh dear

it's the appalling self-fulfilling futility of arguing about 'what-is' as if it
a) might help anyone and
b) I am drawing such a blank right now, someone, anyone, help me, what was the point of the 99/10ths of the above conversation?

This life we have, for nothing, oh my Dog...

I just have this sense that if (not when, if) someone, anyone starts to get in touch with 'what is' beyond their all-consuming mind, senses, wishes, fences, then there is a natural impulse to bring light, love and laughter into the lives of those around them.
meaningless, endless, pointless bickering about correct states of consciousness seems so demeaning to all involved, all who are clearly clever men, all who seem dearly, fairly in the dark.