KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

sds · 2012-04-08 21:55:22

beans wrote:
sds wrote:
Whats up Beans?

Still watching and enjoying that Mooji video satsang?

I have heard a lot of bad things about him from many, how he is a charlatan, a fake, not the real deal. Be careful with him......
I found Mooji interesting, and watched a few of the videos on Youtube. Well, I don't really care what others say about him and there is no way harm can be done....as I'm not looking to him for authority, just watching to see what his understanding is.

Yes, that is the key part, as long as you are not looking to him as an authority, you are safe. Glad you are not falling for his schick...

sds · 2012-04-08 21:58:18

beans wrote:
sds wrote:
beans wrote:

Ah, so he could be your unintentional guru, if you understand what is meant.
Of course, and vice versa too. Of course the Great Eden would never accept such a silly statement like that.

By the way Beans, I forget, are we friends or enemies It has been a while since we talked. I would like to be up to date....
LOL, well sds, if you follow the pack mentality, then it follows I must be your enemy, but if we start fresh constantly without the past, then I'd say we're friends. :-)

Sure, lets start fresh. We are friends, not enemies. That is what I thought too.

I was serious in my asking though. So many on here prefer conflict over peace.

I do not follow the pack mentality on here and am my own person. I like and respect you, and am reading your posts without the past nor with any memory of our past dealings.

beans · 2012-04-08 22:01:15

Great, well, never let it be said that nothing was accomplish on the K forum :-)

About Mooji, his schtick is not so different from mine...it's really not too much different from what K had to say, despite his get up and guru accoutrements.

RJ · 2012-04-08 23:37:23

may you achieve all that your schtick is capable of

Eden · 2012-04-08 23:46:23

sds wrote:
I just cant help but react to him....

Indeed, you can't help it.

sds wrote:
He brings out the fiery side of me.

A "side" that is always there, whether someone brings it out or not. Such is the nature of the two-sided mind.

sds · 2012-04-08 23:50:35

Eden, I am still watching and observing the interactions between you and Pearl. Very interesting, indeed.... You just cant seem to help it either.....

wilbro99 · 2012-04-08 23:55:09

beans wrote:
...About Mooji, his schtick is not so different from mine...it's really not too much different from what K had to say, despite his get up and guru accoutrements.

Pretty much second that, beanZ.

Eden · 2012-04-09 00:11:33

sds wrote:
Eden, I am still watching and observing the interactions between you and Pearl. Very interesting, indeed.... You just cant seem to help it either.....

Things are very rarely what they seem.

As for the interactions between pearl and I...there is no such thing really as her only interaction thus far is with her own story of me and her own projections. It would be a bit of a stretch to call that interaction as she is only interacting with her own imagination thus far.

sds · 2012-04-09 00:27:18

I also found it interesting reading Pearls exchanges with Bruce lately, and some of your comments that you interspersed within their exchange. Some of them made me laugh.

It is all rather interesting and entertaining reading this forum and some of the exchanges that go on in here. And how quickly they change from so called meeting of minds to having no connection or meeting at all.

wilbro99 · 2012-04-09 00:44:34

sds: "... And how quickly they change from so called meeting of minds to having no connection or meeting at all."

Yes, fascinating, isn't it? What's your theory?

Mr. Brightside · 2012-04-09 00:48:02

sds wrote:
Mr Brightside,

Please do not let Eden get to you.

He is not the typical K person on this forum.

He believes he has gone beyond K and that K missed many things.

Most on here think he is smug, arrogant, deceiving himself, lost, aggressive, etc

I have tried to talk to him several different times, to actually have a conversation or dialogue with him, but it is impossible it seems.

So please do not take it personally what he says to you. Read him, try to see what he is pointing to, but do not take it too seriously or personally....

And keep asking questions if you have them. They are not immature or wrong. Doubting, questioning, investigating is what K was all about. Thanks for being here and your questioning....

Oh, good, it's not just me who thinks that. Phew. Thanks.

Don't worry, I don't take it personally; hence the the jokes - you have to have a laugh at the superiority people think they have... it's one of the best ways to not let the ego dominate... have a laugh! lol.

But, does anyone have any comments on my first post?

Mr. Brightside · 2012-04-09 00:50:20

BobD wrote:
Yes Mr. Brightside...you should be grateful that you have finally found the truth from eden. Pull up your bootstraps and go forward my son. Spread the word!

Lol, yeah, I'm truly enlightened now with his words! I will create another religion, and spread the truth of Eden's words!

pearl · 2012-04-09 00:52:28

sds wrote:
I also found it interesting reading Pearls exchanges with Bruce lately, and some of your comments that you interspersed within their exchange. Some of them made me laugh.

It is all rather interesting and entertaining reading this forum and some of the exchanges that go on in here. And how quickly they change from so called meeting of minds to having no connection or meeting at all.

Says the gossip gal/guy of the forum to another dumb bimbo!

pearl · 2012-04-09 00:57:12

Mr. Brightside wrote:
BobD wrote:
Yes Mr. Brightside...you should be grateful that you have finally found the truth from eden. Pull up your bootstraps and go forward my son. Spread the word!
Lol, yeah, I'm truly enlightened now with his words! I will create another religion, and spread the truth of Eden's words!

Funny, you give too much credence to eden's words as though he is anything funny, he's just a bored, conceited pussy.

sds · 2012-04-09 01:04:23

Mr. Brightside wrote:
Hi,

I just found this out. Krishnamurti, in the book, "Education and the Significance of Life", says, "We have to create a world government which is radically different, which is not based on nationalism, on ideologies, or force" (p.57 - from an ebook).

This book, I think - correct me if I'm wrong - was written in the 1950s, and published in the 80s?

If so, did Krishnamurti advocate world government? Did he change his views over time?

I thought he wouldn't have advocated such an entity. A world government is a very large authority, and can only exist based on ideologies. Democracy is an ideology, too. Force? To govern, means you have a force to enforce the policies - that is force... I cannot reduce that to anything simpler. A world government seems to be a contradiction of Krishnamurti's ideas.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that nationalism is a problem, and is fundamentally selfish. If Krishnamurti advocated a world government what would he have thought of as the best one?

The idea just seems to contradict him on every level. If I HAD to label Krishnamurti, I would say that, based on his ideas on simple living, he would have been a green anarchist, but, again, I know he would have dismissed the title; I'm just saying, if I somehow HAD to lablel him, that is where he would be.

Thoughts?

I think you are right in your understanding of K and his approach.

I think K was not so much referring to a physical world government but a radical shift, change, transformation in human consciousness, in mankind, inwardly, which would automatically change society outwardly.

We would do away with nationalism, war, divisions, and see that we are all human beings and act and live from there. That would be the society or government if you want to call it like that. There might be structures or organizations or whatever you would like to call it, but it would be very different than it is now.

It would no longer be based on division or self interest, but on humanity as one, as a whole.

I do not think he supported democracy nor communism nor any of the other forms of government. He saw the limitations and corruption in all of them.

He definitely resonated with environmentalism, preserving nature, simplicity, vegetarianism, etc. But you cannot say he was any of them, a card carrying member, but he had some affinity to some of these approaches.

I think you answered your own question in this post and are accurately understanding where K was coming from.

Eden · 2012-04-09 01:08:53

wilbro99 wrote:
sds: "... And how quickly they change from so called meeting of minds to having no connection or meeting at all."

Yes, fascinating, isn't it? What's your theory?

No theory is needed when it is seen as it is....and at that point it is not particularly fascinating either.

wilbro99 · 2012-04-09 01:22:33

yes Eden, those poor unwarshed souls, smell 'em through the screen, you can.

Absolutely disgusting!

[edit is in brackets]

Mr. Brightside · 2012-04-09 01:39:16

sds wrote:
Mr. Brightside wrote:
Hi,

I just found this out. Krishnamurti, in the book, "Education and the Significance of Life", says, "We have to create a world government which is radically different, which is not based on nationalism, on ideologies, or force" (p.57 - from an ebook).

This book, I think - correct me if I'm wrong - was written in the 1950s, and published in the 80s?

If so, did Krishnamurti advocate world government? Did he change his views over time?

I thought he wouldn't have advocated such an entity. A world government is a very large authority, and can only exist based on ideologies. Democracy is an ideology, too. Force? To govern, means you have a force to enforce the policies - that is force... I cannot reduce that to anything simpler. A world government seems to be a contradiction of Krishnamurti's ideas.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that nationalism is a problem, and is fundamentally selfish. If Krishnamurti advocated a world government what would he have thought of as the best one?

The idea just seems to contradict him on every level. If I HAD to label Krishnamurti, I would say that, based on his ideas on simple living, he would have been a green anarchist, but, again, I know he would have dismissed the title; I'm just saying, if I somehow HAD to lablel him, that is where he would be.

Thoughts?
I think you are right in your understanding of K and his approach.

I think K was not so much referring to a physical world government but a radical shift, change, transformation in human consciousness, in mankind, inwardly, which would automatically change society outwardly.

We would do away with nationalism, war, divisions, and see that we are all human beings and act and live from there. That would be the society or government if you want to call it like that. There might be structures or organizations or whatever you would like to call it, but it would be very different than it is now.

It would no longer be based on division or self interest, but on humanity as one, as a whole.

I do not think he supported democracy nor communism nor any of the other forms of government. He saw the limitations and corruption in all of them.

He definitely resonated with environmentalism, preserving nature, simplicity, vegetarianism, etc. But you cannot say he was any of them, a card carrying member, but he had some affinity to some of these approaches.

I think you answered your own question in this post and are accurately understanding where K was coming from.

Yes, I also believe we need to come together and unite as one world, but a world government seems to radical, and oppressive.

Krishnamurti said something about post offices once, and how they are structures, but neutral.

Interestingly, if anyone has read Robert Monroe's works, there is a point in his journey where he meets "the most advanced" human on the planet. Here is what was said:

"I can give you what you call a ROTE about that, about a plan
that doesn't involve communism or socialism, capitalism or
dictatorship."
"They say it can't be done."
"That is what makes it worth the effort. It needs a unified
worldwide human endeavor. This will happen through
recognized necessity, not through religions, race, or political
beliefs, or force of arms."
"Necessity is severe stuff. The world would have to be in
rough shape."
"That is the reason for waiting. The time will come."
"But worldwide, humans have never agreed on anything."
There was a sudden surge of energy, similar to what I
had felt previously. As it faded, I knew the ROTE was in
place, ready to be unrolled when the time was right. I had one
more question for Heshe." (Ultimate Journey, p.54).

Thoughts?

sds · 2012-04-09 01:45:18

I dont quite folllow Mr Brightside, your sharing of Robert Monroes ROTE. It sounds interesting and possible, but I cannot really comment.

Like I said in the previous post, I think you are understanding K pretty well and get the gist of what he was pointing at.

Mr. Brightside · 2012-04-09 02:05:16

sds wrote:
I dont quite folllow Mr Brightside, your sharing of Robert Monroes ROTE. It sounds interesting and possible, but I cannot really comment.

Like I said in the previous post, I think you are understanding K pretty well and get the gist of what he was pointing at.

Oh, it's just something to think over. There isn't any need to know about it, I just thought I'd throw it in there... yeah, I was meant to link into it, then I got distracted on something, and then it came out such.

Is Eden just testing us?

bruce sean · 2012-04-09 02:13:41

Mr. Brightside wrote:
Hi,

I just found this out. Krishnamurti, in the book, "Education and the Significance of Life", says, "We have to create a world government which is radically different, which is not based on nationalism, on ideologies, or force" (p.57 - from an ebook).

This book, I think - correct me if I'm wrong - was written in the 1950s, and published in the 80s?

If so, did Krishnamurti advocate world government? Did he change his views over time?

I thought he wouldn't have advocated such an entity. A world government is a very large authority, and can only exist based on ideologies. Democracy is an ideology, too. Force? To govern, means you have a force to enforce the policies - that is force... I cannot reduce that to anything simpler. A world government seems to be a contradiction of Krishnamurti's ideas.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that nationalism is a problem, and is fundamentally selfish. If Krishnamurti advocated a world government what would he have thought of as the best one?

The idea just seems to contradict him on every level. If I HAD to label Krishnamurti, I would say that, based on his ideas on simple living, he would have been a green anarchist, but, again, I know he would have dismissed the title; I'm just saying, if I somehow HAD to lablel him, that is where he would be.

Thoughts?

More theory?

sds · 2012-04-09 04:30:56

pearl wrote:
sds wrote:
I also found it interesting reading Pearls exchanges with Bruce lately, and some of your comments that you interspersed within their exchange. Some of them made me laugh.

It is all rather interesting and entertaining reading this forum and some of the exchanges that go on in here. And how quickly they change from so called meeting of minds to having no connection or meeting at all.
Says the gossip gal/guy of the forum to another dumb bimbo!

Like you dont gossip or are so different? Get real....

pearl · 2012-04-09 04:39:11

Bugger off creep!

sds · 2012-04-09 04:43:42

pearl wrote:
Bugger off creep!

What is wrong with you Pearl? Are you feeling okay tonight? You sure came here tonight with an attitude.

pearl · 2012-04-09 04:47:29

Watch out, it's you who came here seeking something, gossiping about pearl and asking eden this and that about pearl. Get a life.

KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Announcement

#26 2012-04-08 21:55:22

Re: world government

beans wrote:

sds wrote:

#27 2012-04-08 21:58:18

Re: world government

beans wrote:

sds wrote:

beans wrote:

#28 2012-04-08 22:01:15

Re: world government

#29 2012-04-08 23:37:23

Re: world government

#30 2012-04-08 23:46:23

Re: world government

sds wrote:

sds wrote:

#31 2012-04-08 23:50:35

Re: world government

#32 2012-04-08 23:55:09

Re: world government

beans wrote:

#33 2012-04-09 00:11:33

Re: world government

sds wrote:

#34 2012-04-09 00:27:18

Re: world government

#35 2012-04-09 00:44:34

Re: world government

#36 2012-04-09 00:48:02

Re: world government

sds wrote:

#37 2012-04-09 00:50:20

Re: world government

BobD wrote:

#38 2012-04-09 00:52:28

Re: world government

sds wrote:

#39 2012-04-09 00:57:12

Re: world government

Mr. Brightside wrote:

BobD wrote:

#40 2012-04-09 01:04:23

Re: world government

Mr. Brightside wrote:

#41 2012-04-09 01:08:53

Re: world government

wilbro99 wrote:

#42 2012-04-09 01:22:33

Re: world government

#43 2012-04-09 01:39:16

Re: world government

sds wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:

#44 2012-04-09 01:45:18

Re: world government

#45 2012-04-09 02:05:16

Re: world government

sds wrote:

#46 2012-04-09 02:13:41

Re: world government

Mr. Brightside wrote:

#47 2012-04-09 04:30:56

Re: world government

pearl wrote:

sds wrote:

#48 2012-04-09 04:39:11

Re: world government

#49 2012-04-09 04:43:42

Re: world government

pearl wrote:

#50 2012-04-09 04:47:29

Re: world government

Board footer