KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Eden · 2012-02-21 17:57:31

tree wrote:
where questions and answers are not
what is?

let's enquire

tree · 2012-02-21 18:03:05

LMP · 2012-02-21 18:14:22

Tom wrote:
LMP wrote:
Ok, let's not have a point of view. Would you like to suggest something.
The danger in any suggestion is that one translates or interprets what is being suggested and so makes an image of it. Therefore can we first see that all points of view are useless in this area of our life? In some other areas of life our points of view are useful; but here they are not useful.

I can go with that points of views are useul, but that they will not do 'the other area' justice. Is that ok for you?

beans · 2012-02-21 20:02:55

Tom wrote:
beans wrote:
It's our responsibility to deal with ourselves first, which is not a one-time deal as it takes constant maintenance if to run properly - you know that old thingy about the mote in the eye. Then the right action in any given moment will be apparent, and if it's still a bit cloudy, there's the next moment. Sometimes it becomes obvious that one is caught in a pattern with another, so walking away and clearing one's head is the right action.
Currently, we have several 'saviors' working the forum. One of them is even specializing, if you can imagine that!
It is up to them what they do. Do you want to stop them doing it?

Patterns will repeat, it's what they do, Tom. There's wanting to change something and then there is action. Do you want them to stop doing it?

pearl · 2012-02-21 20:05:44

Tom wrote:
pearl wrote:
Tom wrote:

Then show it to me or explain it to me or communicate it to me exactly what you mean by all this. You are saying something revolutionary to a world that is concerned only with their own little corner. What is your relationship to that world, to that society?
Its relationship to the world is through and in inquiry.
Which is what we are doing here.

And I suggest that it is not inquiry that you are doing here, but quiet the contrary, no inquiry at all.

bruce sean · 2012-02-21 20:10:47

Tom wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
Ha, ha, sorry, I thought you understood, Tom. Ok, I'm not obviously saying that there is a 'true belief'. I was only pointing out a fact: that when people believe in god, they actually believe in themselves, they reaffirm themselves. So the main point of this is that there are not two beliefs: I believe in god, one, and I believe in myself, two. It's the same belief, which is the reaction of the self being afraid of not-existing, so it reinforces itself by believing in a million things.

Next step now: is there a subject which exists independently of belief? Any belief - for they're all the same. Or when belief is non-existent, there is no subject either? This is a subtle point many don't understand.
I think I've got it though. You are saying that a belief gives one a sense of identity, a sense of existence. And is there a subject or a self independent of its beliefs? Is that it?

In other words, can there be a subject who doesn't believe? Or, if there is a subject 'it' must believe? And conversely, if there are no beliefs where is the subject?
Don't use the word 'self' just yet, because that gives an answer right from the start. Some may say there might be a subject who is not the self, and who doesn't believe. Is that possible?

Tom · 2012-02-22 00:20:32

Eden wrote:
Tom wrote:
Eden wrote:
"Looking together" is another one of your absurd concepts.
No, I say that unless we look together there is no whole picture, that's all. But I don't know what it means to look together.
brilliant! the bullshit gets thicker.

But I don't know what it means! Do you? You must know what it means because you react so strongly to the idea of it. But what are you reacting to? It's only the idea of it, the image you have created for yourself and then you react to it. It's like you're saying that death is an absurd concept - it is absurd as a concept; anything is absurd as a concept - but you can't just dismiss death as a concept.

Last edited by Tom (2012-02-22 00:22:58)

Tom · 2012-02-22 00:44:35

LMP wrote:
I can go with that points of views are useful, but that they will not do 'the other area' justice. Is that ok for you?

It's good to have a point of view about the physical world; otherwise we wouldn't survive more than an hour or two. In the physical environment, our acts of judgement, evaluation and speculation are necessary for bodily survival: a car may be coming round the next bend of the road, which is an act of speculation based upon previous experience and knowledge. But inwardly, is speculation necessary at all? Inward speculation, it seems to me, is not about bodily survival; it is more about psychological survival, about keeping alive the sense of a self. When the self speculates, it gives to itself a sense of purpose and a sense of its own existence; but its own existence, the whole existence of the self, may be nothing else but speculation. So while the self is busy speculating upon all the various components of the inward field of living, it is probably a diversion from having to face this fundamental question about whether it even exists at all.

I said this is complicated stuff. I hope I'm putting it simply so far.

Tom · 2012-02-22 00:51:58

tree wrote:
your so-called 'enquiry' is but a game of scrabble. wake up, sir!

No, I'm awake and I want to listen to you. Don't you see? I want to listen to what you have to say. But because you don't engage with me, I am left having to do all the talking, which becomes the sermon.

You have as many scrabble letters on your rack as I have but you are keeping most of them to yourself. Why not use them all? Why not play the game properly? Once we have played the game properly, then we can put it aside and move on to the next game, which may be infinitely better. Scrabble is a rather limited game, but you're playing your version of it too here.

Tom · 2012-02-22 00:55:04

beans wrote:
Patterns will repeat, it's what they do. There's wanting to change something and then there is action. Do you want them to stop doing it?

I don't mind what they do. My wanting them to stop won't stop them.

Last edited by Tom (2012-02-22 00:57:14)

Tom · 2012-02-22 01:02:58

pearl wrote:
And I suggest that it is not inquiry that you are doing here, but quite the contrary, no inquiry at all.

Which means you have a pattern of enquiry already in your head; otherwise you wouldn't be able to judge this thread. At the same time, you'll probably say that truth is a pathless land perhaps because you heard K say such a thing. Yet right now you are saying there is a path to the truth. So it becomes very difficult to work out exactly what you're saying.

Tom · 2012-02-22 01:08:52

bruce sean wrote:
In other words, can there be a subject who doesn't believe? Or, if there is a subject, 'it' must believe. And, conversely, if there are no beliefs where is the subject? Don't use the word 'self' just yet because that gives an answer right from the start. Some may say there might be a subject who is not the self and who doesn't believe. Is that possible?

No, it's not possible. It's just a shift of words. It's a way of transcending the problem of the subject/self by using a linguistic device. It's like saying there might be a subject who is not the subject.

tree · 2012-02-22 01:15:53

Tom wrote:
tree wrote:
your so-called 'enquiry' is but a game of scrabble. wake up, sir!
No, I'm awake and I want to listen to you.

as you are aware, there is no message
listen to the birds

tree · 2012-02-22 01:24:46

conference of the birds

tree · 2012-02-22 01:33:48

Tom · 2012-02-22 01:46:50

tree wrote:
Tom wrote:
tree wrote:
wake up, sir!
No, I'm awake and I want to listen to you.
as you are aware, there is no message. listen to the birds

I get it, sir. You really want to give me the sermon. Your sermon may be much shorter, far less words, beautiful images and all that, but it is still a sermon nevertheless. And at the end of a sermon what are you left with but a lot of platitudes?

Last edited by Tom (2012-02-22 02:01:10)

pearl · 2012-02-22 01:51:46

Tom wrote:
pearl wrote:
And I suggest that it is not inquiry that you are doing here, but quite the contrary, no inquiry at all.
Which means you have a pattern of enquiry already in your head; otherwise you wouldn't be able to judge this thread. At the same time, you'll probably say that truth is a pathless land perhaps because you heard K say such a thing. Yet right now you are saying there is a path to the truth. So it becomes very difficult to work out exactly what you're saying.

Well, sir there is no confusion here about the fact that all paths, all ways are misleading, including the one you are building up. I sense in it a subtle dishonesty, or it may just be that you are confused and so unclear as to what you are saying, or what the other is saying. You seem to employ a sort of an elementary teacher attitude in to the thread forgetting that it's not an elementary class, but an inquiry forum. Just reminding you that this is not inquiry. That much is clear. This doesn't mean I'm propogating any methods, or know a better way. But I can see this is wrong, rather misleading. That is all. Now you can carry on sir. Did not mean to interrupt your inquiry.

tree · 2012-02-22 01:53:57

Tom wrote:
tree wrote:
Tom wrote:

No, I'm awake and I want to listen to you.
as you are aware, there is no message. listen to the birds
I get it, sir. You really want to give me the sermon. Your sermon may be much shorter, far less words, beautiful images and all that, but it is still a sermon nevertheless. And at the end of a sermon what are you left with but a lot of platitudes?

make of it as you will

Tom · 2012-02-22 02:01:27

tree wrote:
Tom wrote:
tree wrote:

as you are aware, there is no message. listen to the birds
I get it, sir. You really want to give me the sermon. Your sermon may be much shorter, far less words, beautiful images and all that, but it is still a sermon nevertheless. And at the end of a sermon what are you left with but a lot of platitudes?
make of it as you will

Do you know, the other day we were at the seaside and we saw a huge flock of birds, thousands and thousands of them, all gathering and swirling together in harmony as one massive entity, not one of them knocking into another, not one of them steering a separate direction. So there is a message and the message is very clear: we humans beings can't do that even for a few seconds, we are lesser creatures than birds. This too is a platitude if we just leave it as that. But I want to know why we haven't got that same harmony, that same beauty and simplicity of living. We are not in harmony and I want to know why. Don't tell me to listen to the birds. I have done that and they are asking me the same question. And those birds have no answer to our problem; don't let's deceive ourselves about it. The answer to our problem lies only in us, in the quality of our gathering.

So I am still waiting to listen to you. Don't palm me off with the birds.

Tom · 2012-02-22 02:05:22

pearl wrote:
Well, sir there is no confusion here about the fact that all paths, all ways are misleading, including the one you are building up. I sense in it a subtle dishonesty, or it may just be that you are confused and so unclear as to what you are saying, or what the other is saying. You seem to employ a sort of an elementary teacher attitude to the thread forgetting that it's not an elementary class, but an inquiry forum. Just reminding you that this is not inquiry. That much is clear. This doesn't mean I'm propogating any methods, or know a better way. But I can see this is wrong, rather misleading. That is all. Now you can carry on, sir. Did not mean to interrupt your inquiry.

This is not my enquiry; this is our enquiry. If it is wrong, change it.

tree · 2012-02-22 02:07:05

Tom wrote:
tree wrote:
Tom wrote:

I get it, sir. You really want to give me the sermon. Your sermon may be much shorter, far less words, beautiful images and all that, but it is still a sermon nevertheless. And at the end of a sermon what are you left with but a lot of platitudes?
make of it as you will
Do you know, the other day we were at the seaside and we saw a huge flock of birds, thousands and thousands of them, all gathering and swirling together in harmony as one massive entity, not one of them knocking into another, not one of them steering a separate direction. So there is a message and the message is very clear: we humans beings can't do that even for a few seconds, we are lesser creatures than birds. This too is a platitude if we just leave it as that. But I want to know why we haven't got that same harmony, that same beauty and simplicity of living. We are not in harmony and I want to know why. Don't tell me to listen to the birds. I have done that and they are asking me the same question. And those birds have no answer to our problem; don't let's deceive ourselves about it. The answer to our problem lies only in us, in the quality of our gathering.

So I am still waiting to listen to you. Don't palm me off with the birds.

expectation and demand

LMP · 2012-02-22 02:12:52

Tom wrote:
LMP wrote:
I can go with that points of views are useful, but that they will not do 'the other area' justice. Is that ok for you?
It's good to have a point of view about the physical world; otherwise we wouldn't survive more than an hour or two. In the physical environment, our acts of judgement, evaluation and speculation are necessary for bodily survival: a car may be coming round the next bend of the road, which is an act of speculation based upon previous experience and knowledge. But inwardly, is speculation necessary at all? Inward speculation, it seems to me, is not about bodily survival; it is more about psychological survival, about keeping alive the sense of a self. When the self speculates, it gives to itself a sense of purpose and a sense of its own existence; but its own existence, the whole existence of the self, may be nothing else but speculation. So while the self is busy speculating upon all the various components of the inward field of living, it is probably a diversion from having to face this fundamental question about whether it even exists at all.

I said this is complicated stuff. I hope I'm putting it simply so far.

Inward speculation sounds to me like an act, something that is being done. Now you implied that abstracting a car around the bend can be useful, to be cautious, it is not clear if there is a car or not, but abstracting a self cannot possibly have the same relevance since the one doing it obviously is present.

pearl · 2012-02-22 02:14:17

Tom wrote:
pearl wrote:
Well, sir there is no confusion here about the fact that all paths, all ways are misleading, including the one you are building up. I sense in it a subtle dishonesty, or it may just be that you are confused and so unclear as to what you are saying, or what the other is saying. You seem to employ a sort of an elementary teacher attitude to the thread forgetting that it's not an elementary class, but an inquiry forum. Just reminding you that this is not inquiry. That much is clear. This doesn't mean I'm propogating any methods, or know a better way. But I can see this is wrong, rather misleading. That is all. Now you can carry on, sir. Did not mean to interrupt your inquiry.
This is not my enquiry; this is our enquiry. If it is wrong, change it.

Who is it to change anything. Seeing that it is wrong is the beginning. Did you ever pause and see that every single thing you do is wrong, completely disorderly? The way we relate to others, the way we talk, the way we engage in meaningless pursuits...day after day...?

awareness · 2012-02-22 02:17:09

Tom wrote:
awareness wrote:
oh no, it works.
It works for you to stay with what is. And so? Are we meant to applaud you, copy you or what else?

no need for applaus, it has no value. its your work to prove, what k had said, nothing else. it is your problem, if you prolongate it.

beans · 2012-02-22 06:24:57

Tom wrote:
tree wrote:
Tom wrote:

No, I'm awake and I want to listen to you.
as you are aware, there is no message. listen to the birds
I get it, sir. You really want to give me the sermon. Your sermon may be much shorter, far less words, beautiful images and all that, but it is still a sermon nevertheless. And at the end of a sermon what are you left with but a lot of platitudes?

Well, you're on the nose with this one anyway, Tom.

Tree's message is the anti-message message, he just hasn't gotten the message yet.

:-)

KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Announcement

#501 2012-02-21 17:57:31

Re: What is patience?

tree wrote:

#502 2012-02-21 18:03:05

Re: What is patience?

#503 2012-02-21 18:14:22

Re: What is patience?

Tom wrote:

LMP wrote:

#504 2012-02-21 20:02:55

Re: What is patience?

Tom wrote:

beans wrote:

#505 2012-02-21 20:05:44

Re: What is patience?

Tom wrote:

pearl wrote:

Tom wrote:

#506 2012-02-21 20:10:47

Re: What is patience?

Tom wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

#507 2012-02-22 00:20:32

Re: What is patience?

Eden wrote:

Tom wrote:

Eden wrote:

#508 2012-02-22 00:44:35

Re: What is patience?

LMP wrote:

#509 2012-02-22 00:51:58

Re: What is patience?

tree wrote:

#510 2012-02-22 00:55:04

Re: What is patience?

beans wrote:

#511 2012-02-22 01:02:58

Re: What is patience?

pearl wrote:

#512 2012-02-22 01:08:52

Re: What is patience?

bruce sean wrote:

#513 2012-02-22 01:15:53

Re: What is patience?

Tom wrote:

tree wrote:

#514 2012-02-22 01:24:46

Re: What is patience?

#515 2012-02-22 01:33:48

Re: What is patience?

#516 2012-02-22 01:46:50

Re: What is patience?

tree wrote:

Tom wrote:

tree wrote:

#517 2012-02-22 01:51:46

Re: What is patience?

Tom wrote:

pearl wrote:

#518 2012-02-22 01:53:57

Re: What is patience?

Tom wrote:

tree wrote:

Tom wrote:

#519 2012-02-22 02:01:27

Re: What is patience?

tree wrote:

Tom wrote:

tree wrote:

#520 2012-02-22 02:05:22

Re: What is patience?

pearl wrote:

#521 2012-02-22 02:07:05

Re: What is patience?

Tom wrote:

tree wrote:

Tom wrote:

#522 2012-02-22 02:12:52