KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

you continue to be a source of worry to me Joe,
here is someone openly asking you to show yourself and you once again retreat behind a defensive cloud of stoicism. that was not a conversation, it was an interview.

Get in touch with your feminine side mate, your inner child, your goo.
you must be tired of playing cops and robbers no?

4 years of grilling everyone who makes any claims to spiritual experience because you must expose their projections to save them from themselves... isn't is stale yet?

you keep saying you want to 'enquire' with me but I keep demuring because your version of enquiry is actually just a process of gradually interogating your victims...

more poetry, less policeman.

RJ wrote:

you continue to be a source of worry to me Joe,
here is someone openly asking you to show yourself and you once again retreat behind a defensive cloud of stoicism. that was not a conversation, it was an interview.

Get in touch with your feminine side mate, your inner child, your goo.
you must be tired of playing cops and robbers no?

4 years of grilling everyone who makes any claims to spiritual experience because you must expose their projections to save them from themselves... isn't is stale yet?

you keep saying you want to 'enquire' with me but I keep demuring because your version of enquiry is actually just a process of gradually interogating your victims...

more poetry, less policeman.

oh gosh, I am sorry RJ, did I not answer correctly?  It is easy to say you are demuring because of who you think I am but isn't that just a wee bit convenient?  I answered Kio as honestly as I could. While you are here do you care yet to answer why you come here and what your motivation is?

RJ wrote:

condescension doesn't suit you Joe, you are too nice to get the necessary bitter edge.

I have volunteered exactly why I'm here several times including yesterday, just not as part of one of your q & a's, I can't help it if you have poor listening skills. Pay attention!

I am sorry I do not follow all the threads...do me a favor and just say it here if you don't mind.

RJ wrote:

what do I get in return for doing you a favour?

p.s. spell favour properly, with a 'u', you non-metriculated Imperialist!

I have no idea what you will get and I will spell favor the way my momma taught me too, thank you.  Seriously though, I offer you nothing for answering the question.

wilbro99 wrote:

RJ wrote:

joe wrote:

oh gosh, I am sorry RJ, did I not answer correctly?  It is easy to say you are demuring because of who you think I am but isn't that just a wee bit convenient?  I answered Kio as honestly as I could. While you are here do you care yet to answer why you come here and what your motivation is?

condescension doesn't suit you Joe, you are too nice to get the necessary bitter edge.

I have volunteered exactly why I'm here several times including yesterday, just not as part of one of your q & a's, I can't help it if you have poor listening skills. Pay attention!

Yes, ha, paying attention only collects dust when it is standing still.

At any rate, my motive fro what I am about to write is your comment about a bitter edge. It kicked off several lines of thought, each one with light in it, so I'll begin with the first one I remember.

Ah yes, remember, I remember you asking of myself the question joe is asking you, and of my answering it directly, and not in code.

And that reminds me of another one of this lines of thought; the bitter edge. Ok, this was the first line of thought, and the motive for responding here as I am responding. This bitter edge opens up to a pun; you had bitter not open that can of worms.

I do not play that bitter edge as I see you playing it, and you are playing it. I, being a player, recognize the game, and I play it for the fun of it, not the necessity of it; for me it is the bittersweet taste of irony, and I see nothing sweet in your way.

Ok, that is the reading of RJ I offer RJ in a wily-willy sort of way. I would say something about the grindstone wielded by the poseurs, but I shant.

Back to joe's question. I answered that question of motive directly, damned if I didn't, and more than once. It is a fun question to answer directly, and I suggest that you would feel much better if you simply got it off your chest.

1) I did already
2) Irony is bittersweet?
3) Does it take a poseur to knows your a poseur?

I cannot say no to you old boy:) especially when you get so stern... ooooooooh there's still salt in that crust!

follow the money back a litle ways if you really need or want to know why I'm here.

sds, I have a tad over four more years to go before I reach that 90 mark.

A word of advice, sds, from an old fart. The mind is a funny four letter word; it is capable of becoming like a child again, but with all of the bells and whistles it has acquired along the way of getting old.

suzakico wrote:

joe wrote:

suzakico wrote:

So, you want no-desire in life?
and that corresponds to no-choosing?

no, that is not quite it...if I want no desire it is already too late isn't it? What I am saying is that the pain seen in another, just as the clouds that form in the sky, is impossible to ignore if the eyes are open to what is there.  If I choose to ignore it it does not make the clouds disappear nor the pain, it only means I have chosen to disengage from what is there, and desire is what made that choice.  Is that any clearer?

No.
But it is you to answer and if you do diligently and truthfully, that is all I am curious about - at least for now.
So, let's leave it with that.

Good day,
Kio

FYI, This is a copy of what I wrote yesterday at my blog Re: Lester Levenson:

As if to summarize all, in part 4 of the video, he points five characteristics of "The Free State" namely,  Imperturbability, Desirelessness, Effortlessness, Actionlessness, and Witnessing!  He even says, "You won't be disturbed even if you are killed."  (Please note that these expression may be felt as counter intuitive. Yet also note, Tao Te Ching says, "The truth often sounds paradoxical" (78).)

My explanation for each of five are:
-  Imperturbability:  Pointing the core of our existence being absolute, nothing can affect that.  When we sense that (I am that), there we find the eternal peace.  (If we know that everything is impermanent, then "we" are at the point that "something" i.e., "I am" is realizing that!  That, I see, is what Imperturbability is about.)
-  Desirelessness:  Pointing to no self.  If we seek for anything, we cannot be one with what we are seeking for. In Tao te Ching: "Ever desireless, one can see the mystery." (1)
-  Effortlessness:  When nothing is sought (no seeking mind), you are liberated without any effort.  In Tao te Ching: "The Tao of the sage is work without effort." (81)
-  Actionlessness:  So, there is no need for action.  Let it be as it is. In Tao te Ching: "The sage goes about doing nothing." (2)
-  Witnessing:  Simply witness everything happening as it should.  No need to interfere.  Witness however has to be so only with calm and quiet mind.  Or, you can call it as "choiceless observation" (Krishnamurti).  This leads to "I am" or "Imperturbability" as mentioned above.

To characterize "Imperturbability and Witnessing," I coined the term "Mirror Mind" or in Vipassana, this is "Equanimity and Awareness."  I found Desirelessness, Effortlessness, and Actionlessness, support that but bring subtler nuances.  As noted above, only point I would like to add (or question) is we can think but "thoughts has to come from within - as if flowing from the heart, not from ego."  He is close to Advaida School whereas I seem to take Middle Way as suggested in Mahayana Buddhism although I view that the boundary is vague - as if where you put the emphasis.  Of course, we should be pragmatic and not academic and that the question is for each to answer - in conducting his life.

susakico, what is your intention? to compare theoretical philosophies and religions and mix them into something, which is not anymore unrecognable, to call it the own "creation" by inventing new words to bring your books under the people?

awareness wrote:

susakico, what is your intention? to compare theoretical philosophies and religions and mix them into something, which is not anymore unrecognable, to call it the own "creation" by inventing new words to bring your books under the people?

Right if you follow the words, you get lost.
So, let's be careful and have a good journey!
Kio

Kio, on this two truth business, it just has never has made sense to me. Perhaps my difficulty is that I do not know what the answer to the question of what truth is other than to say it is what one thinks it is. I don't know.

Whatever the truth is, to say that there are two of them when I cannot even find one of them creates a conundrum I cannot fathom. Maybe it takes faith, or belief, I just do not know.


joe, on that making sense business, I cannot make sense of anything that I cannot find the words to express. If I know something that cannot be put into words, I do not know it.

Perhaps that is a limitation on my part, but if I cannot say what it is I understand, I do not understand it.

wilbro99 wrote:

Kio, on this two truth business, it just has never has made sense to me. Perhaps my difficulty is that I do not know what the answer to the question of what truth is other than to say it is what one thinks it is. I don't know.

Whatever the truth is, to say that there are two of them when I cannot even find one of them creates a conundrum I cannot fathom. Maybe it takes faith, or belief, I just do not know.


joe, on that making sense business, I cannot make sense of anything that I cannot find the words to express. If I know something that cannot be put into words, I do not know it.

Perhaps that is a limitation on my part, but if I cannot say what it is I understand, I do not understand it.

Ahhh this is interesting, but tricky... not sure if we are connecting..."here"

[If I know something that cannot be put into words, I do not know it.

Perhaps that is a limitation on my part, but if I cannot say what it is I understand, I do not understand it.]

After pondering a bit, I think I will let Tao te Ching speak:
"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."

Re: two truths
I am very hesitant to get into this either.  I went through those sutras in Japanese, and I only "understood" it in intuition, nothing else.  I am also hesitant to use the word like Two Truth.  It was not said like that in Japanese, but oh well...

I leave it with that.  It is a murky business and I have not found anyone I can communicate on this.  An exception may be a locksmith... possibly.

It may be that K used words to lead people to show the limitation of words (opposite of Zen - more or less) and what is beyond.  However, in this process, people got lost and got busy in interpreting K's words, and not seeing where they pointed.  When they got stuck, they played with more words searching for the experience it is pointing to which they could not see.  This is not how you learn swimming as you cannot learn swimming in the classroom.

Zen approach is different - not to say that it is successful for everyone.  At least, it throw people into the pond to see if they go through the process and find the solution by themselves - the only way it can happen.  Either way, it may be the road less traveled.  The eye in the needle....