KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America
You are not logged in.
Announcement
Kindly be mindful of the following points regarding the forum. Dialogue is thinking together - it isn’t debate - and it's inquiring together without end point or agenda. People come into the dialogue from their own place of understanding, which is not going to be your place of understanding. We’re here to communicate together, learn together and gain insight into our own thought; to receive and share our observations, not impose our views on others. Address the comments in a polite, considerate manner. By all means, ask for clarification, but challenge the comment, not the commentator. We don’t know enough about the others to make those judgments and we’re here to learn about ourselves, not to correct another's perceived personality flaws. If a comment brings an emotional response, look at that. Do you feel the need to defend? To attack? Time for some looking inward. Self protection results in war. Besides, the war is in each of us. Stop that war, and the rest will take care of itself. (For some suggestions on the nature of dialogue, please click here)
Make friends across the globe, post your photos and videos, write a blog or start a discussion, just go to jkrishnamurti.ning.com
#1 2012-06-10 08:48:30
- Roots
- Member
- Registered: 2011-03-13
- Posts: 6555
The Monkey on Our Back
If a man’s ego causes him to lie, is the man lying? If yes then he is culpable; if no then where does the buck stop? But whether yes or no the result is the same: psychological turbulence (angst), and with the distancing from reality (i.e. from the true), distancing from freedom.
Most here think themselves to be, at heart, honest and upright souls; but we are not. If we were then we would be free (in the nirvana condition etc.). Ignominy and the like are all that separate us from that state.
We live with our personal selves at centre and that is precisely what keeps us from our dream of freedom and reality. This is even simpler than it sounds: patently if a person lies then they separate themselves from the truth, don’t they? The problem is that the ego is so dominant that we don’t even suspect it, after all, we’re honest and upright souls at heart aren’t we?
As an ‘entity’ (albeit pseudo – though its impact cannot to be denied) the ego is divisive, duplicitous, delusional, devious and amoral. It introduces therefore an injurious and destructive implication and potency. The extent to which we live in its sway to that extent must we share its attributes, and thus shower injurious effects. As individuals our egos employ our own intellects as it were against us, and because we hardly even suspect its operation, it has our hearts also; i.e. we love ourselves.
Possessing then the heart of its (the 'I's) embodying personage, such personage is blinded to its existence and is hence acquiescent and thus subservient to it. We live separated from one another and at one with it; it is us, which is why we can never outwit it. (K taught e.g., ‘when you are jealous, you are jealousy; jealousy is not a thing separate from you.’) In other words jealousy and its kin are the ego at one with the embodying personage. Only the ‘I’ can manifest ignominy.
When the ego is challenged (which challenge it always perceives as threat on account of the fact that it itself, consisting entirely in error devoid of propriety rationality, holds any such rationality anathema and thus fears its approach or proximity) it has at its disposal only three possible types of response: (i) it can keep silence and hope to circumvent the threat by the cessation of inquiry: (ii) it can be abusive of the challenger with the object of utilising the resultant distraction and disassociation to evade the threat: or (iii), it can misrepresent the challenge, which is to say pretend something slightly different has been proffered and cause confusion by answering that; afterwards employing the confusion as a smoke-screen to evade the threat.
There is a another, more damning ploy available to the egos of cleverer intellects in lieu of responses of the latter two categories. This ploy recognises the old adage that ‘attack is the best form of defence’. The trick requires that offerings be presented in baroque, flamboyant and deliberately obscure language and contain a lacing of seeming logic. The resultant perplexing uncertainty make the presenter appear intellectual - even learned - despite the post being nothing more than obfuscation, screening ignorance. In the hands of intellects of suitable bent we might say, ‘bullshit baffles brains’. Given the necessarily unformulated nature of the subject matter of the site, the forgoing is a comparatively easy thing for cleverer intellects to achieve, but it is insidious and damaging.
Offline
#3 2012-06-10 12:02:41
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
Hi R00ts, it is good to see you back aboard. I have always enjoyed our search-for-the-truth colloquies.
Your little note to me in the thread of idiots, which I quote below, tells me that this thread is dedicated to me, and that the fourth sin you have added to your prior three (running from the truth message, abusing the messenger of the truth message, and abusing the message of the truth message), is willy specific, a sin you had tagged some time ago as *intellectual bullshit*.
My intent is to return to the thread of idiots and pick up where our colloquy left off. Hope to see you there. It will be great to once again to do battle with the messenger from All.
Roots wrote:
As I've said to you before willy, you are always the first one fooled by your stuff. . . . . . far too fond of appearing clever, and unconcerned about actually finding out.
The way you write would be anathema to K, . . . I've said why at 'The Monkey on Our Back'.
For as long as you believe your own posts (the like of 604, 611, 615 and 616 here), well, so long will you budge not one jot from your slumber.
Offline
#4 2012-06-13 06:45:21
- Roots
- Member
- Registered: 2011-03-13
- Posts: 6555
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
wilbro99 wrote:
. . . . , and that the fourth sin you have added to your prior three (running from the truth message, abusing the messenger of the truth message, and abusing the message of the truth message), . . . .
Hi Willy.
Do you really think it's an addition? I think it's just a different approach; one which recognises the validity of 'attack being the best form of defence'. Surely it's just an earlier application of the last two isn't it? I'd say the three have all the posts covered but whatever.
I'll address your 'Idiots' thread posting shortly, I just don't want to make a glib response to it and as you know my online time is very limited.
Be well.
Last edited by Roots (2012-06-13 09:20:35)
Offline
#5 2012-06-13 10:23:52
- awareness
- Member
- Registered: 2011-09-03
- Posts: 4038
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
if i may ask, roots, why is your online time very limited?
Offline
#6 2012-06-13 10:37:09
- LMP
- Member
- From: Sweden, City: Helsingborg
- Registered: 2010-12-26
- Posts: 997
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
awareness wrote:
if i may ask, roots, why is your online time very limited?
He's in a public library to get online.
Offline
#7 2012-06-13 10:50:22
- awareness
- Member
- Registered: 2011-09-03
- Posts: 4038
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
LMP wrote:
awareness wrote:
if i may ask, roots, why is your online time very limited?
He's in a public library to get online.
ah no, the question goes deeper
Offline
#8 2012-06-13 11:03:51
- LMP
- Member
- From: Sweden, City: Helsingborg
- Registered: 2010-12-26
- Posts: 997
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
ok, I just thought you didnt know that
Offline
#9 2012-06-13 11:07:40
- awareness
- Member
- Registered: 2011-09-03
- Posts: 4038
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
LMP wrote:
ok, I just thought you didnt know that
yes, thanks, i could only imagine it, but why? so it is another question. Do you see it?
Offline
#10 2012-06-13 11:10:25
- LMP
- Member
- From: Sweden, City: Helsingborg
- Registered: 2010-12-26
- Posts: 997
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
awareness wrote:
LMP wrote:
ok, I just thought you didnt know that
yes, thanks, i could only imagine it, but why? so it is another question. Do you see it?
yes, and I know a little bit more about it because he has told us about it previously, but thats not my story to tell
Offline
#11 2012-06-13 11:50:50
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
Hi R00ts, over time, you have become my most cherished opponent in the lists; the jousting is between two knights of presence, one wearing the colors of the All and the other wearing the colors of the particular.
Pick up one of those inexpensive lap tops and let's entertain the troops more often...
Offline
#12 2012-06-15 06:02:25
- Roots
- Member
- Registered: 2011-03-13
- Posts: 6555
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
awareness wrote:
LMP wrote:
ok, I just thought you didnt know that
yes, thanks, i could only imagine it, but why? so it is another question. Do you see it?
Sorry if I'm being a bit obtuse awareness, but I'm not spotting the 'other question'. Care to help me out a little more on this?
Offline
#13 2012-06-15 07:57:37
- awareness
- Member
- Registered: 2011-09-03
- Posts: 4038
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
Roots wrote:
awareness wrote:
LMP wrote:
ok, I just thought you didnt know that
yes, thanks, i could only imagine it, but why? so it is another question. Do you see it?
Sorry if I'm being a bit obtuse awareness, but I'm not spotting the 'other question'. Care to help me out a little more on this?
ok, the one question is the technical one. the internet needa a telefone-provider, a connector, which might be not in every village or in the jungle, perhaps.
now, is this limited online-time a result of your personal life, an avoidable or unavoidable circumstance? is it the result of the own personal circumstances, an if yes, who was the creator?
Offline
#14 2012-06-16 05:48:03
- Roots
- Member
- Registered: 2011-03-13
- Posts: 6555
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
awareness wrote:
Roots wrote:
awareness wrote:
yes, thanks, i could only imagine it, but why? so it is another question. Do you see it?Sorry if I'm being a bit obtuse awareness, but I'm not spotting the 'other question'. Care to help me out a little more on this?
ok, the one question is the technical one. the internet needa a telefone-provider, a connector, which might be not in every village or in the jungle, perhaps.
now, is this limited online-time a result of your personal life, an avoidable or unavoidable circumstance? is it the result of the own personal circumstances, an if yes, who was the creator?
Ah, I see. Yes. Thank you. Fact is a short while ago I limited and/or restricted myself in a number of ways, perfectly consciously and by free choice. Not being online at home (though I have a computer) is one of those choices, along with having no television and such like stuff. Basically taking out distractions. I'm happy with it; I think it works, some, in the way I hoped and intended.
Offline
#15 2012-06-16 05:52:17
- awareness
- Member
- Registered: 2011-09-03
- Posts: 4038
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
Roots wrote:
awareness wrote:
Roots wrote:
Sorry if I'm being a bit obtuse awareness, but I'm not spotting the 'other question'. Care to help me out a little more on this?ok, the one question is the technical one. the internet needa a telefone-provider, a connector, which might be not in every village or in the jungle, perhaps.
now, is this limited online-time a result of your personal life, an avoidable or unavoidable circumstance? is it the result of the own personal circumstances, an if yes, who was the creator?Ah, I see. Yes. Thank you. Fact is a short while ago I limited and/or restricted myself in a number of ways, perfectly consciously and by free choice. Not being online at home (though I have a computer) is one of those choices, along with having no television and such like stuff. Basically taking out distractions. I'm happy with it; I think it works, some, in the way I hoped and intended.
thats ok, there is nothing, what cannot wait a week ore more ( i mean internet, tv, radio). when i went on holiday as a young man, it was astonishing, that nothing really happened while i was absent:-)
Offline
#16 2012-06-16 06:51:31
- Roots
- Member
- Registered: 2011-03-13
- Posts: 6555
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
awareness wrote:
Roots wrote:
awareness wrote:
ok, the one question is the technical one. the internet needa a telefone-provider, a connector, which might be not in every village or in the jungle, perhaps.
now, is this limited online-time a result of your personal life, an avoidable or unavoidable circumstance? is it the result of the own personal circumstances, an if yes, who was the creator?Ah, I see. Yes. Thank you. Fact is a short while ago I limited and/or restricted myself in a number of ways, perfectly consciously and by free choice. Not being online at home (though I have a computer) is one of those choices, along with having no television and such like stuff. Basically taking out distractions. I'm happy with it; I think it works, some, in the way I hoped and intended.
thats ok, there is nothing, what cannot wait a week ore more ( i mean internet, tv, radio). when i went on holiday as a young man, it was astonishing, that nothing really happened while i was absent:-)
Ha, ha. I know, nothing changes. The national and international news is just like a soap opera; if you miss it for a month you can just pick it up where you left off and you haven't missed s thing.
Be well awareness
Offline
#17 2012-06-16 09:46:49
- awareness
- Member
- Registered: 2011-09-03
- Posts: 4038
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
Roots wrote:
awareness wrote:
Roots wrote:
Ah, I see. Yes. Thank you. Fact is a short while ago I limited and/or restricted myself in a number of ways, perfectly consciously and by free choice. Not being online at home (though I have a computer) is one of those choices, along with having no television and such like stuff. Basically taking out distractions. I'm happy with it; I think it works, some, in the way I hoped and intended.thats ok, there is nothing, what cannot wait a week ore more ( i mean internet, tv, radio). when i went on holiday as a young man, it was astonishing, that nothing really happened while i was absent:-)
Ha, ha. I know, nothing changes. The national and international news is just like a soap opera; if you miss it for a month you can just pick it up where you left off and you haven't missed s thing.
Be well awareness
same for you roots
Offline
#18 2012-06-17 07:22:52
- Roots
- Member
- Registered: 2011-03-13
- Posts: 6555
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
wilbro99 wrote:
. . . the jousting is between two . . . , one wearing the colors of the All
In your view me . .
. . . and the other
I.e. you
wearing the colors of the particular
But the 'all' you have me pegged as arguing from depends whether within that all you are including or excluding the subjective. If you're including it (as your soul mate Joe has just stated very determinedly [at 637 ' .. idiots .. '] that he does) then that is not where I'm coming from. If you're excluding it (which I doubt), well then that might be different. Personally, when what is under investigation are matters of truth I can't understand why anybody would want to include as factors anything pseudo; unless of course that pseudo is the place from which they themselves are coming.
Also, to work from the particular (which is the same as 'subjective' and therefore [also] pseudo) automatically (as I have explained to you several times before) intro's duality and thus (inevitable) a transcendent; the very thing you claim never to allow yet do so in perpetuity.
Last edited by Roots (2012-06-17 07:37:56)
Offline
#20 2012-06-19 05:40:34
- Roots
- Member
- Registered: 2011-03-13
- Posts: 6555
Re: The Monkey on Our Back
joe wrote:
the transcendent is all a matter of the posit...good luck figuring that one out, roots.
I can't, and neither could anybody else, it doesn't mean anything, and you should ask yourself why you come out with stuff like that.
Offline