KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

The picture I get of this forum is that it is a place we come to where the subject on the table is what it means, to understand.

Since the only thing we can validly bring to this place is our understanding of what it means to understand, this is the place where the monads meet to talk of shoes, and ships, and stuff like that.

It's like we come aboard, each wearing our own understanding as the face we present to others, and where we spend out time looking for faces we agree with and arguing with faces we disagree with.

Then we collect into groups of recognition, where some groups even question the right of other groups to be aboard; like those whose face is anathema to our own understanding should be made to walk the plank.

In essence, this place is a joke. It is only proper that court jesters and comedians come in and mess things up from time to time.

edit changed nothing but appearance.

Last edited by wilbro99 (2012-03-26 23:37:13)

wilbro99 wrote:

The picture I get of this forum is that it is a place we come to where the subject on the table is what it means, to understand.

I would have said that the 'subject on the table' is the true.

Since the only thing we can validly bring to this place is our understanding of what it means to understand, this is the place where the monads meet to talk of shoes, and ships, and stuff like that.

Surely the only thing we can validly bring here is our understanding, and never mind the addition of stuff like what that might mean. Given - as all who touch it know - there is a true (which is what the site is all about), any additional factor to 'our understanding' will just make for unnecessary complication.

It's like we come aboard, each wearing our own understanding as the face we present to others, and where we spend out time looking for faces we agree with and arguing with faces we disagree with.

This must be the outlook of such as do not hold with a true. These will inevitably hold with philosophies as alternatives, and as a consequence find nothing but frustration here, either that or they will just chose to play games here of course.

Then we collect into groups of recognition,  . . . .

Any who manage to touch on the real thing do not collect into groups: there collectivety in the thing is a given natural. K came across some but did he ever 'join'? . . . .  Nope!

My daily calendar is a quote from Sam Keen today, thought it was apt...

"We have to move from the illusion of certainty to the certainty of illusion"

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspa … unreal.htm

joe wrote:

I never have understood why you claim the site is about 'the true'.  It does not say it in the forum guidelines, this forum is about 'the true'.  This is your own projection, roots.  The idea of 'the true' is what is being clung to, still.

Apart from anything else, K said it's 'a fact'. I tell you the same on my own account. Of course (and to repeat) if you insist on calling throught the wall of your darkened room to tell others in lighted rooms that their sightedness is just a trick of their mind(s), that's up to you.

K's Notebook: June 28th 1961:

"But there is a sacredness, untouched by any symbol or word. It is not communicable. It is a fact."

Last edited by Roots (2012-03-29 08:08:16)

Roots, try not to mistake what I am saying for what you think I mean.  I can get lost in the wonder of a dewy morning as easy as the next guy, so it is not that I am really disputing here.

To make a claim about what the site is about is surely just a thought that does little but divide "what is."

you are still mistaking what you think I mean for what I am actually saying...

joe wrote:

I never have understood why you claim the site is about 'the true'.  It does not say it in the forum guidelines, this forum is about 'the true'.  This is your own projection, roots.  The idea of 'the true' is what is being clung to, still.

You posted the above at #104. I answered it at #109 and at #112. I have looked back over these and feel that if you think they don't constitute answers then the onus must surely be upon you to explain why not; otherwise I am likely to just go on trying to address something add-infinitum and you may just keep saying - as you appear to - that I'm not hearing you right. Do you, for example, see my #112 as misrepresentative of a proper and purposeful approach to the forum for a member? (I'm not asking you to judge as such, just really whether or not you think that statement valid).