KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

BobD wrote:

And in reality...the only thing that BobM and I have in common is that we are both called bob and we were both in AA at one time. Other than that, the similarities are on the same level as matter is to anti-matter. lol

I have confused only the names, Bob, not the content.

He had problems with Troy who banned him several times and several times he registered himself again under different nicknames.
So seeing your name here I thought you were him and I, actually, didn’t touch very often your messages.

ah nice experiment with the name and the content and the image and interpretations.

yes bobmichael has been soaring around at my website sometimes almost begging to be banned because for him that's the proof truth and light always being rejected by the fallen man which is everybody except him ofcourse.. but we didn't ban him and so he signed off himself several times and came back and repeated it several times till finally he didn't came back for a long time and now the website is gone.. but he may be on a yahoogroup with werner and others and also he felt being appreciated at a genius-group, so i guess he's soaring around alright.. and still looking for some souls to start his spiritual body of enlightenment with.. funny chap.

oh look ! found one.. good old days.. around the christmastree

natura wrote:

BobD wrote:

My apologies. The claim about not being stuck in the ego most of the time I am assuming. 

I guess what I mean by that is simply that most of the time, I don't take myself too seriously. And usually am not too concerned about the state of the world as it relates to the "self" interests.  Every now and then though...I do attach to the egotistical nature of my unenlightened being.  Although...I do understand the subjective nature of the traps I am capable of falling into on occasion.

Hell...I don't even know if that makes any sense.  Sometimes I wish I had the "wonk" factor. LOL

That’s another confusing.

I thought you meant that you were losing your sense of ego and dropping out into another dimension sometimes.

It could be called that. Sort of a non-reactive, non personalized dimension.

first we started at the ning-network, similar as what we were used to at jkrishnamurti-ning,
but they announced the free websites would be closed, you could only keep up when paying.
then someone recommended the grouply-network, and i was able to transfer the ning to that,
for free, i prefered that, as soon as money gets involved things tend to change you know.
but all of the sudden also the grouply stopped the free websites, without an announcement,
and our grouply-network was taken out of the air.
it's ok.. all is temporarily anyway.

BobD wrote:

natura wrote:

BobD wrote:

My apologies. The claim about not being stuck in the ego most of the time I am assuming. 

I guess what I mean by that is simply that most of the time, I don't take myself too seriously. And usually am not too concerned about the state of the world as it relates to the "self" interests.  Every now and then though...I do attach to the egotistical nature of my unenlightened being.  Although...I do understand the subjective nature of the traps I am capable of falling into on occasion.

Hell...I don't even know if that makes any sense.  Sometimes I wish I had the "wonk" factor. LOL

That’s another confusing.

I thought you meant that you were losing your sense of ego and dropping out into another dimension sometimes.

It could be called that. Sort of a non-reactive, non personalized dimension.

But, Bob, the dimension of Krishnamurti we are talking about here is not just a sort of something.
It’s a dimension of truth and love.
Being in there is some very special experience you would never confuse with anything…

BobD wrote:

The Krishnamurti dimension?

.
Yes, Krishnamurti dimension, which is sad to be love and truth.
That’s the reason we are here and not at Yoga-group at the moment, right?

BobD wrote:

How could any but Krishnamurti discuss something so subjective and transient at best?

.

I don’t think even he would start that sort of discussions.

BobD wrote:

How would one know about anothers so called dimension?

.

Yes, that’s a question.
But we have to answer it, anyway. Otherwise, the talking about truth will ever remain only talking and the human mischief and suffering will last into eternity.

BobD wrote:

I've been in many different states in my time some of drugs and alcohol, some of sadness, some of happiness, some of blissful such as various deeper states associated with Vipassana meditation.

.

So you mean you have an extensive spiritual experience; OK.
But if we all would have been in a state of alcohol intoxication, I suppose, we would know what it is, wouldn’t we?

BobD wrote:

I don't think it useful to speculate on what Krishnamurtis 'state' was.

.

Neither do I.

BobD wrote:

It could have been a serious case of sensationalism for all I know.

.

For all I know, It was much above any possible range of human senses, anyway.

BobD wrote:

And thats not much.

.

Sorry, what exactly is not much, Bob?

BobD wrote:

All that one can do is attempt to look in the direction that another feels a need to point to. It certainly doesn't mean that each individual will see the same meaning.

.

We have to see ‘the same meaning’, we have to find out our genuine common human values; otherwise, as I said, our future is looking out pretty gloomy.

Anyhow, it is a potential material for a thread to discuss.

"Sorry, what exactly is not much, Bob?"

What I know is "not much".

Jeez, is this what you call experimenting, gossipping about Bob Micheal, K forums?  Don't ya have something better to do with your lives, natura, and kirsten than bicker about Bob M, gossip, bitch, preach to BobD about K's dimension!  How superficial!

No nasty buckets here, don't know what you're talking about!  I was serious in asking why this gossip about bob M and Troy etc.  Did any of these guys really ever get acquainted with what K shared.  Even if they did, they shows such poor understanding in the way they pretend to inquire and bicker.  Not serious at all.

natura wrote:

kirsten wrote:

…as soon as money gets involved things tend to change you know…

Oh, yes, they tend to change a lot…

kirsten wrote:

but all of the sudden also the grouply stopped the free websites, without an announcement,

I recognize the handwriting of the old Kinfonet. Troy’s  appearing was cheerful and promising for me…
No, yet he’s gone

kirsten wrote:

it's ok.. all is temporarily anyway.

Sure as hell it is.

So they decided to go industrially.
Well, let’s see the outcome.
We never will see the income of course, bat the outcome will show up soon, I think. Somehow, I start to notice already the traces of policy like that.

So you mean they are making experiments down here? Do they?
Or they just drop this forum as unprofitable business?

i don't think the kfa will drop this forum, natura.

and the network i mentioned at grouply.com had nothing to do with a k-organization, it's just a server where you could start a social website for free, but indeed they go for profit now.. nevermind, bobmichael had left anyway, others are here and at kfa-ning and at kinfonet and at facebook-k-groups.. we all bump into eachother here and there and everywhere.

but what i tried to say when starting this thread is, considering this particular place is closed for new members, we could take it as an experiment and watch our own behaviors within relationships which are old and how to look at them anew.. or something.. or whatever.. i don't know.. what are we to do here ? hehe ok let's pirouette and show eachother some unexpected sides of us ? hmm.. flipflop riedberger doubletwist hopla.. !!

wilbro99 wrote:

Someone mentioned it earlier, but i thought I would mention it again.

They closed the new member door to keep the spammers out; too much trouble controlling them if that door is open.

It seems like a step of convenience to me, but who knows.

I think an interesting idea is to begin looking at the way we who are inside this forum tend to break apart into groups and sub groups, complete with with outliers.

That would be fascinating.

But normally I see as à group, not much different people answer THE quotes

BobD wrote:

natura wrote:

BobD wrote:

"Sorry, what exactly is not much, Bob?"

What I know is "not much".

Alright, it has been nice to talk to you, anyway.

You may get to the point some day where...not a whole lot of discussion is necessary.

That's fine, Bob