KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

I think it's a very insidious trick of the insecure mind (i.e., our human mind) to declare anything 100% this or 100% that. It's an embracing of fantasy or wishful thinking.

When the acknowledged 'knowers' - the JC's, Buddha's etc. - have spoken (historically, and to include K) do they, in your view, express doubt with regard to that what they deliberate upon?

The biggest problem with your thread opening question here is its own logical absurdity; or let's just call it inherent irrationality.

You see Pablo, unless there exists a 'per se' true, there is no point not only in this particular forum but any serious talk, discussion, dialogue whatsoever, anywhere, ever; there is nowhere to go; nothing to aim at.

But if there exists a per se true (which I tell you there does) then some must 'know' it, must they not? Because if none know it (or, more correctly, 'are' it, or have any relationship to it whatsoever, then it itself is not  . . . .  cannot be.  . . . .  Do you see that?

Now, if we accept the logic of  the existence of 'knowers', or such as have some real relationship to what is 'true', how might we (reasonably) expect those people to communicate? Would we expect them to communicate as though they do not know? In other words, we we expect them essentially to lie? No, of course we would not; and they don't. What they do is talk in terms of absolute.

Contrary to your suggestion of such activity being insidious and evidencing insecurity of mind (which supposition itself is just more logical absurdity and further evidence of irrationality [genuinely no slight intended]), such activity evidences, when excercised by proper authority, the very opposite of those things, vis. honesty, and a security that might be called sublime.

Last edited by Roots (2012-09-06 06:37:05)

Roots wrote:

You see Pablo, unless there exists a 'per se' true, there is no point not only in this particular forum but any serious talk, discussion, dialogue whatsoever, anywhere, ever; there is nowhere to go; nothing to aim at.

Nowhere to go, nothing to aim at ... isn't this what Buddha was talking about, Krishnamurti too?

But if there exists a per se true (which I tell you there does) then some must 'know' it, must they not? Because if none know it (or, more correctly, 'are' it, or have any relationship to it whatsoever, then it itself is not  . . . .  cannot be.

If there is an all-inclusive Truth (Brahman), then yes not only some but all are it, by definition. But that doesn't mean that this Truth is 'knowable' by the human brain/mind.

Now, if we accept the logic of  the existence of 'knowers', or such as have some real relationship to what is 'true', how might we (reasonably) expect those people to communicate? Would we expect them to communicate as though they do not know? In other words, we we expect them essentially to lie? No, of course we would not; and they don't. What they do is talk in terms of absolute.

Yes. If someone believes wholeheartedly that they know Truth, then they will talk about it like I might talk about gravity. But it doesn't mean they're right. My experience of gravity is accurate: I'd fall downward if I jumped off this chair. But my knowledge of gravity (anyone's knowledge) is not anywhere near 100% accurate. 

Contrary to your suggestion of such activity being insidious and evidencing insecurity of mind (which supposition itself is just more logical absurdity and further evidence of irrationality [genuinely no slight intended]), such activity evidences, when excercised by proper authority, the very opposite of those things, vis. honesty, and a security that might be called sublime.

For this to be true, two things would have to be true: Truth exists, and it can be known fully (not just intimated) by the human brain/mind. The jury's out on both of these for me.

On a personal note, could you talk a bit about your knowledge of Truth? How you came to it, how you know it to be real, what it is, etc.?

Roots wrote:

beans wrote:

Glory!

If it was meant for me, I can't get sound in the public libraries so all I got was the weired floating head/face image. Is it you?

Here ya go, roots-tootin:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His day is marching on.
I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on."
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Since God is marching on.
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
While God is marching on.
He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave,
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
Our God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.

beans wrote:

Roots wrote:

beans wrote:

Glory!

If it was meant for me, I can't get sound in the public libraries so all I got was the weired floating head/face image. Is it you?

Here ya go, roots-tootin:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:

blah

blah

blah

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.

Ok. I appreciate the effort, but; and . . . ? I have to assume there's a message in there somewhere(?) Is it that you still think I'm in the usual meaning of the term, religious? If so I'd advise medicare.

Realization: 'The universe' is an absolute term. When we speak of the universe, we mean everything that exists. Doesn't get more absolute than that.

Ditto for: 'nothing.'

Perhaps an appropriate question might be:

Do you believe in the universe?

Or:

Do you believe in nothing?

follow the question and do it yourself, pabs...

;-) ok then...

Let the poking begin!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr_DTozbH8E

natura wrote:

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

Realization: 'The universe' is an absolute term. When we speak of the universe, we mean everything that exists. Doesn't get more absolute than that.

Ditto for: 'nothing.'

If I may ask you Pablo, what do you exactly mean putting these two notions together, connecting them with the ‘Ditto’?

Just that both are absolutes, when used in their pure (rather than conversational) way.

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

Perhaps an appropriate question might be:

Do you believe in the universe?

Or:

Do you believe in nothing?

There is also another question, Pablo. Certainly, it goes beforehand.
Are you a believer?
If yes, have you ever considered the nature of belief and believing?

There are things I believe in, yes. Some consciously, and no doubt some unconsciously.

How about you Natura?

As for whether I've explored the nature of belief ... many times. But I'm always ready for another look. :-)

natura wrote:

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

natura wrote:

Are you a believer?
If yes, have you ever considered the nature of belief and believing?

There are things I believe in, yes. Some consciously, and no doubt some unconsciously.

But believing is only a poor substitute for direct perceiving, experiencing and following knowledge. Isn’t it?

I don't know about "poor substitute" but believing is speculation, whereas direct perceiving and experiencing are what Krishnamurti might call facts. I don't know what you mean by "following knowledge."

natura wrote:

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

As for whether I've explored the nature of belief ... many times. But I'm always ready for another look. :-)

And what do you mean by the ‘look’?

Whatever kind of look you'd like to take. :-)

natura wrote:

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

I don't know what you mean by "following knowledge."

I mean, after direct experience the mind comes to the business and keeps it in the memory as knowledge.

Can you give me a couple of examples of what you mean by knowledge based on direct experience?

natura wrote:

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

natura wrote:

And what do you mean by the ‘look’?

Whatever kind of look you'd like to take. :-)

I’m using a king of looking which I call meditation.
And you?

I try to fathom the essence of what I'm looking at.