KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Hi, Mr. Brightside

I still think our problem is not inventing future political or economic structures for a new transformed society, but rather understanding what the transformation is.

I see you are eager to unleash our fantasy to make some bright projects in guessing what has K. meant introducing that idea of the World Government. Yet, before we would find ourselves have drowned into speculations let me tell you something.

You write:

Mr. Brightside wrote:

Krishnamurti belived "we are the world". The world is a manifestation of our inner workings. We are to blame for the world; humans, collectively, throught selfishness, etc, have created such a world.

If you still think, Krishnamurti believed in anything – put away all his books and forget him… or maybe better reread him with much more attentiveness. Even if you would understand everything what he is saying, it’s not yet enough to be transformed. Extraordinary personal action to achieve self-knowledge is needed. The self-knowledge is the door to another dimension of human consciousness completely unknown to them and incomprehensible for usual human mind.

Achieving this state of mind which is truth and love, being in there is transformation.

Mr. Brightside wrote:

The outer world which would be constructed based on our inner world (which, again, Krishnamurti said we need a revolution first, as this would change the outer), would have what structures? That is the question I am asking.

The main attribute of the transformed mind is seeing the natural common human values, seeing the truth.
Seeing is not believing – it’s completely different phenomenon of human mind which you can call also ‘understanding’. (That common proverb, you probably know: Seeing is Believing, is conditioned with human interpretation). Transformation is also transition from belief to understanding.

So preparing the new government for the new society is not preliminary theoretical construction of any kind of structures, but activation of the transformation itself.

Transformed people would know the true actions to form appropriate structures and governments, whatever it would be based on. If you are really able to see the common truth, not believed one, but the real, you never can be wrong.

Mr. Brightside wrote:

People who are following ideologies, also address the same issues you brought up, yet deny that they are following ideologies - "because I'm right - it's not an ideology"'; well, actually, it is.

Well, definitely right, so is the current situation. Therefore, there is nothing left to do as to prove the existence of the absolute truth for yourself.

Be free for any objections and questions if you are still interesting in the topic, no worries. Yet, deepest understanding of Krishnamurti Teaching is required not to drive our conversation into eternal verbal skirmish.

Cheers.

natura wrote:

Eden wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:

You're probably thinking I am missing the point. "Krishnamurti was talking about the transofrmation of the mind". Yes, I know that, and that is why it seems to contradict the idea of a world government - any government.

Do animals have government?  When a human mother gives birth to a child, does she govern the child?

By all my respect to Natural Philosophy, Eden, I have yet to say: Mother’s love based on instincts is still not the same as absolute love and truth we are talking here about using the Krishnamurti Teaching.

Which only proves that K's teaching is a pile of abstract intellectual bull$#!&.

natura wrote:

It’s absolutely questionable, btw, and controversial whether the animals have their ‘governments’ or not.

It's only questionable if you are totally blind, which apparently you are.

natura wrote:

Hi, Mr. Brightside

I still think our problem is not inventing future political or economic structures for a new transformed society, but rather understanding what the transformation is.

I see you are eager to unleash our fantasy to make some bright projects in guessing what has K. meant introducing that idea of the World Government. Yet, before we would find ourselves have drowned into speculations let me tell you something.

You write:

Mr. Brightside wrote:

Krishnamurti belived "we are the world". The world is a manifestation of our inner workings. We are to blame for the world; humans, collectively, throught selfishness, etc, have created such a world.

If you still think, Krishnamurti believed in anything – put away all his books and forget him… or maybe better reread him with much more attentiveness. Even if you would understand everything what he is saying, it’s not yet enough to be transformed. Extraordinary personal action to achieve self-knowledge is needed. The self-knowledge is the door to another dimension of human consciousness completely unknown to them and incomprehensible for usual human mind.

Achieving this state of mind which is truth and love, being in there is transformation.

Mr. Brightside wrote:

The outer world which would be constructed based on our inner world (which, again, Krishnamurti said we need a revolution first, as this would change the outer), would have what structures? That is the question I am asking.

The main attribute of the transformed mind is seeing the natural common human values, seeing the truth.
Seeing is not believing – it’s completely different phenomenon of human mind which you can call also ‘understanding’. (That common proverb, you probably know: Seeing is Believing, is conditioned with human interpretation). Transformation is also transition from belief to understanding.

So preparing the new government for the new society is not preliminary theoretical construction of any kind of structures, but activation of the transformation itself.

Transformed people would know the true actions to form appropriate structures and governments, whatever it would be based on. If you are really able to see the common truth, not believed one, but the real, you never can be wrong.

Mr. Brightside wrote:

People who are following ideologies, also address the same issues you brought up, yet deny that they are following ideologies - "because I'm right - it's not an ideology"'; well, actually, it is.

Well, definitely right, so is the current situation. Therefore, there is nothing left to do as to prove the existence of the absolute truth for yourself.

Be free for any objections and questions if you are still interesting in the topic, no worries. Yet, deepest understanding of Krishnamurti Teaching is required not to drive our conversation into eternal verbal skirmish.

Cheers.

You said:
"If you still think, Krishnamurti believed in anything – put away all his books and forget him… or maybe better reread him with much more attentiveness. Even if you would understand everything what he is saying, it’s not yet enough to be transformed. Extraordinary personal action to achieve self-knowledge is needed. The self-knowledge is the door to another dimension of human consciousness completely unknown to them and incomprehensible for usual human mind."

Semantics aside, this is what Krishnamurti said. In other words, I MAY be wrong on that point of "believing", but, Krishnamurti nevertheless said what he said - about the transformation of the mind; this is the point I am getting at. Anyway, I beg to differ on a few things here, but that isn't the point of my overall questions.

Back to the point: So, what you are saying is that transformed minds will then create such world structures, and not the world structures being there first before the transformed consiousness of humanity.

Yes, I understand that, but you haven't addressed my other questions, and statements. My question, then, is this: then what?

What would such structures look like with an enlightened, peaceful humanity? You're saying that with seeing things for what they are, the truth, etc., people will create structures not based on ideology? That's false. This is a question you haven't answered: what would the economic system be like? Any economic system would be based on ideologies. Capitialism is an ideology. There are countless ideologies within capitalism. Communism, socialism, anarchism, etc, are ideologies.

If you have a proposal for something that isn't based on an ideology, I would very much like to hear it; I have been researching for such a thing for years, and yet cannot see anything else where an economic system is ideological, except for, perhaps, hunter gatherer lifestyles.

If you believe in markets, you are basing that on ideologies, based on further ideologies, based on theories, then based on hypothesis (yet are unaware of the implications of such a thing, until you've thought about it, or done some research). If you believe in the state controlling the economic system, it is the same thing. If you believe in something smaller and simpler, then it simply cannot be applied to a world government.

Something simple and small can be used quite well - Buddhist economics is one example; however, it is, in the end, ideological, though ethically sound.

Please, if such an enlightend person came along, what system would then transpire? And, keep in mind, that this is just economics. There is also social issues. Keep in mind another thing: context.

Also, epistemologically speaking, it is very easy to err, and believe you are seeing the truth for what it is, when, in fact, you've (not you personally) been conditioned, yet don't even know it... ah, most people wouldn't know what I'm talking about here, so I won't even bother.

Again, if you have answers which are right, I would be very happy to hear them. This is a topic which I am eager to know more on.

natura, I think you and I agree that there is a singular subject such that if any two of us are not seeing the same thing when they look at it, there can be no meeting of the minds, as it were, and instead, we have a meeting of images in a joust, where the drawing of blood is the first order of business.

If the two contestants are both *drawers of blood*, the ensuing joust is a wonder to behold; insults fly off the collision, laden with a venom meant to maim. Great fun to watch.

If, in this matter of subjectivity, you and I are not looking at the same thing, regardless of the truth of the matter, if such truth is even applicable, is there any sense to meeting if first it is not determined that we are looking at the same thing?

Of course, in order to answer that question, that question must have legs, and to have legs, there must inherently be a meeting of the minds, as it were.

Have I sent you a message in the bottle? If so, what can it really mean, other than a way of saying hello?

You know, there is still time to buy into my UF franchise. The difference between believing and understanding indeed...

Hi, Natura,

natura wrote:

Still, you are driving your thoughts in circles trying to get to something rational.
That’s exactly the problem, that’s the whole sense of the new ‘ideology’ (if you cannot pass by this word without stumbling) that you never can create something new and good with your thought which is naturally dualistic and able to create destructive stuff only with absence of truth and inner and outer conflict.

Wait, are you saying truth isn't rational? Or, rather, rationality is limited? Even if I have limited knowledge, it doesn't mean what I say is necessarily wrong. I may guess something, and, it turns out it is correct.

natura wrote:

To get beyond the thought, to see the truth of real human values – that is the predominant task for any human being. The rest is a secondary matter.

He also said, don’t believe him, don’t take him verbally, but get find out the truth and transformation on your own. He was neither ordinary politician nor conventional economist. He spoke about spiritual matters: self-knowledge and absolute truth. 
Sorry, but I think you still need some more understanding of him.

No, I understand that. I said before, "Don't get me wrong, I'm not leaning on Krishanmurti". I am merely stating what he has said. Krishnamurti talked about not having followers in this sense, as it is like the blind leading the blind. "Find truth for yourself, rather than simply accepting doctrine" is what Krishnamurti would say.

First, I agree, and, by asking questions, and questioning you, I am first, finding things out for myself, and, second, not accepting things at face value. The second point, finding truth out for your self is different from "finding your own truth". Krishnamurti would have said this is silliness, and I would agree - I am not saying you believe this or not, but I am just saying. Just because I may say something, doesn't mean it represents the whole of what I may think, etc. It would have been best to say, "it might be possible that you don't understand Krish fully. Though, I admit, like everyone else, I make this fallacy all the time; one simply needs to be aware of such easily made mistakes in thought.

natura wrote:

Seeing and understanding the things each current moment of the life so as they are and adequate reaction on the situation would be alternative to any fixed up ideology whatever its name is.

I was trying my best to direct your attention to the essential difference between believing and understanding, but you return to it again and again.
I don’t know what to say. Maybe you give Krishnamurti a rest and then try again.

It may be true that we need to understand things, not believe them - that is not the point I am about to make. This is what really happens: people, from all walks of life, will say this exact thing here: "I understand it, not believe it", yet, all hold differing views, which means, most of them have to be wrong, and only one could possibly be right - though, in many circumstances, no-one is right. People believe they understand, when, they don't. Then there are other fallacies they make with such "understanding" which I would have addressed in the section I mentioned on epistemology, but, it's too complicated to talk about, without having to go way off topic... Take Eden, for example... sorry, but you were the closest person in the room (internet, that is).

natura wrote:

Denying any system at all as any system is creating ideology and appropriately a trap for single human being as well as for society.
However, ‘denying any system’ doesn’t mean at all physical destroying any already existing system neither extermination of any existing government as all previous revolutions were doing or trying to do.

Then, could one say: "Saying all ideologies is stupid, is stupid, as that said statement is an ideology!"?

I'm not denying the existance of systems... is that what you were saying?

natura wrote:

I think I know what you are talking about here.
In fact, you are trying to get the absolute truth with your intellect, with your logical instruments; by means of reasoning.
Sorry if I’m wrong; just see it for yourself. You might do it subconsciously; just be aware."

But, even Krishnamurti pointed out that things needed to make sense, and, by seeing they make sense, this is not the intellect? Are you denying intelligence? What you should say, as I said before, "Our intelligence is limited, but, there is still an inherent logical order of things". You, yourself, are arguing with reason; you are not blabbering gibberish, you are using your intellect, even if you either deny it, or ignore it, and/or are even unaware of it.

natura wrote:

No, sorry, Mr.Brightside, I definitely have no answers for prepared, fixed up and written down truth; don’t expect me to do that.
Moreover, I wouldn’t suggest you to look for such answers anywhere. They just don’t exist. There is no real truth which you can write down, read, hear and learn. Anytime it would be just another form of ideology, hence just a poor substitute with destructive consequences.

Answers don't exist independant of my being? This is false. If no answers exist indepdendant of my being, the I cannot say this, as I cannot universalise it outside my own being - truth must be relative, and, if this is the case, then the statement is false. Alternatively, if I can universalise it outside my being, then I am contradicting myself by saying that truth does, and does not exist outside my being.

It is, however, true to say that truth exists outside of my being, but it may be very hard to attain, or realise, or, whatever.

Second, your statement if truth cannot be written down, etc, is false, as that statement itself must therefore not be true, as you said it yourself. Otherwise, if it is true, then it contradicts it's own message; essentially, you are saying, truth can be written down and truth cannot be written down. This is simply false. You, yourself, are also saying, "it will be ideology". Essentially, you are saying, "we cannot say anything unless it is bound by ideology". This contradicts your previous statements on realising truth for what it is, independant of ideology.

Lastly, and this is the most important point of my post: you have, again,failed to address my questions directly about the structures of such a system. You may then say, "You (Mr. Brightside) are missing the point, as I do not have answers.

If this is the case, then, from your previous statements, you haven't, then, revolutionised your inner self to full realisation of what is, as you cannot give me answers to what the structures would look like. However, if you can see things for what they are, then you would be able to describe how such a world goverment would look like, instead of dodging the questions - intentionally or subconsciously. (I'm not trying to attack you, but I'm just trying to prod to get some proper answers to my questions).

Again, if such a world government existed, it would be based on ideologies. There would be an economic system, which would be based on ideologies. There would either be a democracy, or a dictatorship, both being ideologies... this is is what my initial point was: this contradicts Krishnamurti's message, and I was wondering, did Krishnamurti change his mind on such a world government, as he said that in the 1950s, and said nothing about it later on. Consider the fact he changed his message over the years.

My point, also, is not to say whether or not Krishnamurti right or wrong, or whether a world government is good or bad, etc; rather, there is a contradiction in the messages here. What is the truth? Again, I am not leaning on anyone for answers, and I critically engage with anyone (even Krishnamurti said to critically engage with things - again, I am not leaning on his words, I am just stating that he said this, and I happen to agree with him). Furthermore, there is truth independant of my being, so, yes, regardless of what is said, there is a right or wrong answer, we just have to discover that truth, and realise it.

Thank you.