KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

BobD wrote:

sng said in his first sentence: "This question must eventually come up to me, to anyone who really wants to understand life completely."

It seems the answer is in the need to "want" anything the ego thinks it doesn't already have. The ego is already in operation, rendering the whole thing impossible by already creating the condition of "wanting".  Just one sentence like the one above renders the whole thing useless.

I used the word want normally. A lot of people don't want to go into everything but they want a quick shortcut to truth. Not them, but me. It is an inquiry and it does not have to raise the ego all the time. Why do you seem to talk much about the ego, doubt?

snguyen wrote:

RJ,

We must know very well of what to do, how to be, real significance of relationship, and each one knows himself and then base on that we can create a relationship that does not generate conflicts. So, does it not start with the individual? If we put together a bunch of people who for the name of togetherness but actually depend, then conflict must ensue.

okay, I kind of get where you are going, or coming from

this as a supplemental question?

what is it about Asiatics and conflict anyway?

historically and currently, the Asian peoples seem by far the best at avoiding conflict, they are generally speaking far more law abiding, courteous and respectful than their African, European and Arabic counterparts, for example.

then, historically and currently, the pressure cooker eventually explodes into the most heinous examples of genocide, repression and general insanity you can get. e.g. go North Korea, right now.


I think that if you want to get together with people and avoid conflict then join a choir.
Even then you can guarantee the coffee break will be full of intrigue and the soloists will be comparing each other's applause.

what exactly do you have against conflict anyway?
don't your children still argue with you and each other even to this day, and if not, why not? are they trying to be like someone else and so cannot bear to be themselves?

we are not herding animals, we are primates learning how to handle our heads,

snguyen wrote:

RJ  "I thought your question at the beginning was genuine, open. Looking at the genorisity of the responses of others that would seem to be the unanimous impression. But then when you went to reply you seemed to be answering yourself, and then finished with the line I have quoted just above... 

I hope you will correct me because I hope I am wrong but this looks awfully like 'Inquiry a la mode de Tom'.
Also loosely summarised as 'asking questions in order to inveigle your fellows into committing themselves to listening to what it was you meant to say but had to firstly gather an audience to make it worth your while'

I am all for the Socratic method but when the subject at hand is the inexpressible I prefer my boat-fellows to leave their maps, portends, entrail-reading and general Tom-foolery at the shore. We sail by the stars and these be unknown constellations.

3rd ?: what do you know? "


My question is genuine to me, but you might interpret it if we don't go into it further. You seem to quickly draw conclusions. Really quickly man. And you know, the images you employ in your language is too much for me. Why do you think in terms of so much comparison and associative images?

Again, the question of knowing. First, there is no hurt here right, about your knowing and my knowing? I know that two people or more can only create a creative society when they each are free. And to be free, you don't need to belong to any creed, group, or organization. That is what I do to myself. Second, I saw deeply in myself before I brought up this thread was that and is now that I am feeling an answer to the question about human relationship. When the mind is really empty, the heart is filled with a passion of love, and that is it, but no relationship is possible through images. And I said I might be wrong which means the inquiry is going on.

We have a long way to talk with each other RJ.

ok Snu, now you have got me feeling sorry for you. I can see you furrowing your brow at what the hell I am saying, let alone asking, let alone what you are supposed to reply!

You asked "Why do I think of so much etc. etc"

good god man! what kind of a question is that!!

why do you get out of bed in the morning?

you can't ask someone why they think the way they do, they just do!

you know if you wanted to talk with yourself you could have employed a mirror and a tape recorder!


as to the rest, yeah ok, it's awfully reminiscent of the kind of things K says.

I don't have a problem with that per se, but you know about the view that all the dogs in the dog-sleigh get except for the lead one right?

oooops, imagery

umm, try this one
q: what do you get if you follow someone too closely?
a: an asshole's view of the world.

hey but if we are going to pick on each other's language then how about this one
'no relationship is possible through images'
it's K, it's you? I don't know, in either case it sounds like another impossible ideal. Another reason to castigate yourself for having a brain in the first place. What do you think these little squiggly symbols you are looking at right now are, they are images mate, images that comprise words that comprise thoughts that comprise communication.

No relationship is possible without images, perhaps unless you are at that moment engaged in eating what you are relating to, or mating with it, that is.

snguyen wrote:

BobD wrote:

sng said in his first sentence: "This question must eventually come up to me, to anyone who really wants to understand life completely."

It seems the answer is in the need to "want" anything the ego thinks it doesn't already have. The ego is already in operation, rendering the whole thing impossible by already creating the condition of "wanting".  Just one sentence like the one above renders the whole thing useless.

I used the word want normally. A lot of people don't want to go into everything but they want a quick shortcut to truth. Not them, but me. It is an inquiry and it does not have to raise the ego all the time. Why do you seem to talk much about the ego, doubt?

I'm talking to me...not you nguyen. Isn't it ego that assumes I must be talking at you? I talk about ego because ego is the elephant in the room that demands attention. If you have extracated that elephant in your own room...great...more power to you. I'm happy for you. I don't know what you are referring to when you say doubt. Maybe you could expand on that point and I can give you an answer.

RJ wrote:

snguyen wrote:

RJ  "I thought your question at the beginning was genuine, open. Looking at the genorisity of the responses of others that would seem to be the unanimous impression. But then when you went to reply you seemed to be answering yourself, and then finished with the line I have quoted just above... 

I hope you will correct me because I hope I am wrong but this looks awfully like 'Inquiry a la mode de Tom'.
Also loosely summarised as 'asking questions in order to inveigle your fellows into committing themselves to listening to what it was you meant to say but had to firstly gather an audience to make it worth your while'

I am all for the Socratic method but when the subject at hand is the inexpressible I prefer my boat-fellows to leave their maps, portends, entrail-reading and general Tom-foolery at the shore. We sail by the stars and these be unknown constellations.

3rd ?: what do you know? "


My question is genuine to me, but you might interpret it if we don't go into it further. You seem to quickly draw conclusions. Really quickly man. And you know, the images you employ in your language is too much for me. Why do you think in terms of so much comparison and associative images?

Again, the question of knowing. First, there is no hurt here right, about your knowing and my knowing? I know that two people or more can only create a creative society when they each are free. And to be free, you don't need to belong to any creed, group, or organization. That is what I do to myself. Second, I saw deeply in myself before I brought up this thread was that and is now that I am feeling an answer to the question about human relationship. When the mind is really empty, the heart is filled with a passion of love, and that is it, but no relationship is possible through images. And I said I might be wrong which means the inquiry is going on.

We have a long way to talk with each other RJ.

ok Snu, now you have got me feeling sorry for you. I can see you furrowing your brow at what the hell I am saying, let alone asking, let alone what you are supposed to reply!

You asked "Why do I think of so much etc. etc"

good god man! what kind of a question is that!!

why do you get out of bed in the morning?

you can't ask someone why they think the way they do, they just do!

you know if you wanted to talk with yourself you could have employed a mirror and a tape recorder!


as to the rest, yeah ok, it's awfully reminiscent of the kind of things K says.

I don't have a problem with that per se, but you know about the view that all the dogs in the dog-sleigh get except for the lead one right?

oooops, imagery

umm, try this one
q: what do you get if you follow someone too closely?
a: an asshole's view of the world.

hey but if we are going to pick on each other's language then how about this one
'no relationship is possible through images'
it's K, it's you? I don't know, in either case it sounds like another impossible ideal. Another reason to castigate yourself for having a brain in the first place. What do you think these little squiggly symbols you are looking at right now are, they are images mate, images that comprise words that comprise thoughts that comprise communication.

No relationship is possible without images, perhaps unless you are at that moment engaged in eating what you are relating to, or mating with it, that is.

Haha RJ, I chose the option you offered, that is, to lose myself. Simple and less headache for me.

tree wrote:

tree wrote:

the barrier is only imagined

snguyen wrote:

The barrier is imagined but many things are also imagined. Therefore, I really want to go step by step, each step reflects a fact in you and in me, and then go forth and see what happens. .

snguyen wrote:

...if we look at one fact at a time, the potential conflict is always there for there are more facts to be looked at in future. So the inquiry after facts is actually a fragmenting process and that is fine because if one works hard and not just seem to, eventually one comes down to a total sum of all fragments where one sees very clearly and integrally that there is only one fact. This one fact is that it is absolutely impossible for any change at all but the fact itself. This fact is the totality of life as one knows it, including everything in one’s consciousness. The moment the inquiry moves again it breaks this one fact into many fragments and conflict arises again.  from Conflict #91

That is why for you, we don't need to talk. Pictures. But for me, when I talk, it is still one thing, one root thing at a different angle.

snguyen wrote:

tree wrote:

tree wrote:

the barrier is only imagined

snguyen wrote:

The barrier is imagined but many things are also imagined. Therefore, I really want to go step by step, each step reflects a fact in you and in me, and then go forth and see what happens. .

snguyen wrote:

...if we look at one fact at a time, the potential conflict is always there for there are more facts to be looked at in future. So the inquiry after facts is actually a fragmenting process and that is fine because if one works hard and not just seem to, eventually one comes down to a total sum of all fragments where one sees very clearly and integrally that there is only one fact. This one fact is that it is absolutely impossible for any change at all but the fact itself. This fact is the totality of life as one knows it, including everything in one’s consciousness. The moment the inquiry moves again it breaks this one fact into many fragments and conflict arises again.  from Conflict #91

That is why for you, we don't need to talk. Pictures. But for me, when I talk, it is still one thing, one root thing at a different angle.

ok

snguyen wrote:

BobD wrote:

snguyen wrote:

I used the word want normally. A lot of people don't want to go into everything but they want a quick shortcut to truth. Not them, but me. It is an inquiry and it does not have to raise the ego all the time. Why do you seem to talk much about the ego, doubt?

I'm talking to me...not you nguyen. Isn't it ego that assumes I must be talking at you? I talk about ego because ego is the elephant in the room that demands attention. If you have extracated that elephant in your own room...great...more power to you. I'm happy for you. I don't know what you are referring to when you say doubt. Maybe you could expand on that point and I can give you an answer.

Yes, doubt is a big factor. I doubt a lot of things that carry a hidden motive not seen at the moment but it shows in another situation. It can be a flatter disguised as a sincere praise but the next moment it turns into bitter hate when things do not go its way. Doubt becomes a very good factor to help look carefully over and again. But to a certain point when you are very rather clear about what is going on within yourself, you don't doubt what presents to you anymore because there is much less contradiction.

Really...can you be any more cryptic?  Spit it out nguyen. What the hell are you trying so hard not to say?  Are you afraid of my motives? Are you afraid I am going to all of a sudden jump out of a hole and eat you? I really don't know what you are getting at but it seems obvious that you are putting entirely too much thinking into it. That can't be good...can it?  Spit it out. Are you here for you or me?  If you doubt my sincerity...say so. Just stop all the disrespectful pussy footing around. Its very phony. Don't fear the reaper...talk to me.  You may find this hard to believe but...I'm not a violent person. lol. Really! Its true.

snguyen wrote:

pearl wrote:

snguyen wrote:

Why do I have this barrier, this separation, this very clear feeling about people that I call strangers as opposed to family members? That is on the aspect of everyday living together under the same roof. How about truth and the seeker of understanding? On this aspect, does the ambition for more or less understanding not also divide people in my view into the understanding and the confused, and only me is the sole seeker who understands? As long as there is division, truth cannot flower. Division is isolation, and there the feeling of love cannot fill the earth because it is blocked by fear of isolation.

Why is this impenetrable feeling of strangers?

When you are vulnerable, open and sensitive you are so to the whole of life, not just to your family, your particular group and or country men.  When and if you do truly love your children, you would love all children, all things of the earth and never hurt any creature.  But you see, that man there with his children he doesn't love his children, although he says he does, his love is rooted in attachment, possession, control, fear,  dependency, security and so he doesn't understand what it means to love anyone although he pretends he is...  A mind that is full of love, sensitivity, beauty is incapable of violence, brutality, division towards strangers, or to friends, it makes no distinctions.  Hello snyugen, thanks for sharing your observations which I find sincere and thoughtful and full of a quiet wisdom.  Look forward to reading more from you.  Much love to you and your's.

Thanks for visiting, Pearl, and I wonder where do you get a lot of energy? ;-)

Do you mean how am I not dull, lethargic and lazy on this forum? ;-)

kirsten wrote:

snguyen wrote:

kirsten wrote:

yes..
essential to feel through, it's at the core of our being,
the 'me' and the 'other', the familiar and the stranger..
to exist, the identification, the alienation and isolation.

So you accept everything which is what is? But I am not sure if I accept everything and be at peace with all of them. If I can be completely at peace with them all, then it is fine.

no, it is not about accepting.. but seeing what is as it is, is the first thing to do.

This is maybe the formula, to accept and see what it is...

snguyen wrote:

Really Bob, it is so funny that posting is full of misunderstanding. I was not doubting you but I said doubt in general, in human when he watches himself, you and me. But to a certain point, I don't doubt much any more. Long ago I did not say "big" things like I do now, whatever it may mean to people. Long ago what I wanted to look at was fear. Now I can talk about love and silence without a doubt. That is what it was meant.

OK. I can take that at face value. Another example of why this forum is so valuable to me in seeing my own images. And you are correct...it's absolutely hilarious. In a serious way of course...

edit: We are, after all, strangers to our ego's. Another reason I speak of the ego so much.

Last edited by BobD (2012-02-26 13:55:04)

Until one is free of the sense of a separate self, basically all one is doing all day long is fidgeting, mentally or physically, to validate that sense of self. Pretty hard to feel into another when one is fidgeting.