KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Ekanta wrote:

pearl wrote:

Ekanta wrote:

Of couse not, they are linked, we are alone and together, very simple no complication

Yes, a mind that is alone and so with all, has no need to ask of, or seek out togetherness as it is complete within itself.  In general, seeking of togetherness, or love only indicates to the lack of the thing being sought, demanded.  Not saying this is you, but just looking at it from an impersonal point.  Hope all is well out there, Ekanta.  Have a great evening/night.

Sure and be vulnerable is one of the greats beauty in the world...the intelectual field, helps to develop the mind, but the real think is to love...to be inteligent, observing and be vulnerable and open , that is so nice...I still love make friends, and seqe together, as K alwya saymin his discourse, lets see together, see beyond
Ual...I just working in a song now with my producer, is being all inspired also by gurdjeff
Good night to every one
Thank you,
Ekanta

What you call vulnerability is not vulnerability as I see, ekanta.  A mind that is seeking, accumulationg, demanding can hardly be vulnerable.  What you call vulnerability is but sentimentality, and sentimentality is another form of violence.  You might all get together in a beautiful place but yet with a mind that has never penetrated it's own depths.  The place outisde maybe beautiful but inwardly still distorted, broken up.  What's the point?  Well, I see no point.  But carry on with your ideas.  Good luck to you.

Ekanta wrote:

pearl wrote:

Ekanta wrote:

Sure and be vulnerable is one of the greats beauty in the world...the intelectual field, helps to develop the mind, but the real think is to love...to be inteligent, observing and be vulnerable and open , that is so nice...I still love make friends, and seqe together, as K alwya saymin his discourse, lets see together, see beyond
Ual...I just working in a song now with my producer, is being all inspired also by gurdjeff
Good night to every one
Thank you,
Ekanta

What you call vulnerability is not vulnerability as I see, ekanta.  A mind that is seeking, accumulationg, demanding can hardly be vulnerable.  What you call vulnerability is but sentimentality, and sentimentality is another form of violence.  You might all get together in a beautiful place but yet with a mind that has never penetrated it's own depths.  The place outisde maybe beautiful but inwardly still distorted, broken up.  What's the point?  Well, I see no point.  But carry on with your ideas.  Good luck to you.

Dear Pearl

You are very welcome to decide to meet on Brazil...why not...is a beautifull place, loot of Nature, and be together is fantastic...

I reLly like you, and please do not juldge me, what I am or What I am not...if people like to meet in the beautifull place, wish the best for them, do not call a ugly place in side...neautifull places is to be enjoyed, is there to us, to every one, depths? This is you, this is not me, you right the post, not me, I talk about my vulnarability in wich I learned to accept and love...so lets wish the best to people and do not juldge with out any fundament..big hug, Ekanta

natura wrote:

kirsten wrote:

kfa is doing an experiment with us,
this forum is closed for new registrations..
so here we are, trapped as rats in a cage.

so now
we can throw a party or start eating eachother

hmm.. is there really a difference between those ?
looks like that is going on for some time already..

how about applying the experiment onto ourselves ?

yeah wouldn't that be nice

So what is your practical alternative suggestion, Kirsten, if you see that the forum is grossly overloaded with quarrels, personal attacks and discussions which have nothing to do with Krishnamurti?

I think have to do it with

People on the forum too.... :-)

Related to humans, trees , rocks ,etc. Even the field of dreams which occupy our lay down time.Now that sets you back a notch or two. Can we experiment with relations? Obviously  there is  relations on an energetic level.

Right, Bob, you can do turn into it.

But the beauty of a butterfly is very volatile and yet transient.

Krishnamurti’s matter is much deeper, isn’t it.

BobD wrote:

Not much deeper than the fact that Krishnamurti, me, the caterpillar, the butterfly, and even the depth, or lack there of...are all the same.  Oh yeah...the chimp too. The one difference being...there is no longer any 'matter' called Krishnamurti.

As much as I know you from your messages for several years now, I think you’ve mentioned that you were some kind of initiated from ‘caterpillar’ state which I understand your meaning as just an ordinary human that needs their legs for moving on the earth to ‘butterfly’ which is different dimension supposed to be for flying in there.

What I mean referring to Krishnamurti is another dimension – the last stage of human being at all. That’s what I meant as a special ‘matter’, and that’s what K was talking about.

Not sure you understand me well, but anyway, would be suitable to say it here.

farmer wrote:

Related to humans, trees , rocks ,etc. Even the field of dreams which occupy our lay down time.Now that sets you back a notch or two. Can we experiment with relations? Obviously  there is  relations on an energetic level.

And maybe that energy relation is even better ba ause to meet other can bring much more confusion...so just meet THE other budha maybe can be very Nice, maybe

kirsten wrote:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hp … 1694_n.jpg

observing..

Nice one, very nice

kirsten wrote:

observing..

I know it’s not allowed to compare on Krishnamurti forum; just cannot quench the question.

So who is more evolved and civilized, I ask myself looking at them two pictures?

natura wrote:

BobD wrote:

Not much deeper than the fact that Krishnamurti, me, the caterpillar, the butterfly, and even the depth, or lack there of...are all the same.  Oh yeah...the chimp too. The one difference being...there is no longer any 'matter' called Krishnamurti.

As much as I know you from your messages for several years now, I think you’ve mentioned that you were some kind of initiated from ‘caterpillar’ state which I understand your meaning as just an ordinary human that needs their legs for moving on the earth to ‘butterfly’ which is different dimension supposed to be for flying in there.

What I mean referring to Krishnamurti is another dimension – the last stage of human being at all. That’s what I meant as a special ‘matter’, and that’s what K was talking about.

Not sure you understand me well, but anyway, would be suitable to say it here.

Well..natura...actually no. I have never said that I was the proverbial caterpillar. And any reference in the past would have been nothing more than what I was trying to do here...just a little light hearted fun that Kirsten's post brought out of me...at the expense of some new age ideas.  I don't take any of this too seriously...except when the ego is at stake. lol