KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

night wrote:

natura wrote:

night wrote:

Practice - interesting topic. As I see it, at the core we are already complete, already love, already infinite consciousness. In that sense, there is nothing to do, there is nothing to become, no effort to become love, etc. The doing is optional, and it is to see to what degree one is moved to convey that love into the world of forms, and in what way. That conveying of love is an art unique to each. And like any art form, practice allows the nuances to come through.

night, you have basically no idea what my thread ‘Addiction’ is all about, have you?

Your massages there were pretty nice, though…

...but to say ‘doing is optional’, etc…

What's up natura, did you eat the wrong thing? Or did I hit a nerve.

If you don't like what I say, feel free to throw it away, no hard feelings ;-)

those are all fairly well-worn choices Night
it reads as
'you disagree with me so therefore

a) there is something wrong with you (you ate the wrong thing)
b) I have helped you see your own fault (I hit a nerve) or
c) You simply have a baseless and irrational reaction to me (throw it away if you don't like it)'

how about trying a fourth option
d) perhaps you have a point of view that I would understand better if I asked you to help me better understand you

this option will of course be impossible to someone who thinks that they 'know', because why then would they ever need to 'ask'...

night wrote:

As I see it, at the core we are already complete

We are complete, alright: completely broken up!

night wrote:

RJ wrote:

night wrote:

What's up natura, did you eat the wrong thing? Or did I hit a nerve.

If you don't like what I say, feel free to throw it away, no hard feelings ;-)

those are all fairly well-worn choices Night
it reads as
'you disagree with me so therefore

a) there is something wrong with you (you ate the wrong thing)
b) I have helped you see your own fault (I hit a nerve) or
c) You simply have a baseless and irrational reaction to me (throw it away if you don't like it)'

how about trying a fourth option
d) perhaps you have a point of view that I would understand better if I asked you to help me better understand you

this option will of course be impossible to someone who thinks that they 'know', because why then would they ever need to 'ask'...

Amusing, even with a smiley you still take exception. And there are many more options even. You are reading too much in my post. It was not about listing them all down and try to plug all the holes like a legal document. And why be always conciliatory all the time? If someone is (for example) an ass, why not say it? A kick in the groin can sometime be more love than a pat in the back. Of course, someone who tells you that you are an ass could himself be totally reacting to his own traumas.

In the end, it is about whether you trust who gave you the feedback, or not.

you feel like someone holding their own head high
it's very like the sense I get when I talk with strongly religious people (or anyone who is thoroughly enough convinced with themselves)
they have their view of the world and every comment, every conversation, is laced with it

it's all just a bit...
suffocatingly boring
painfully pontificatory

oh, I just glanced at the top of your post again instead of finding more epithets like I should'a, damn this tendency to threes!

WTF does putting a smiley face on a post have to do with how I should respond to it?
Are you 12 years old? Are you someone who thinks you can say whatever you like to someone but so long as you are smiling then you're still 'in control'?
I am taking exception to what reads as an irritating smugness and superiority.

You are looking like yet another person with their ego trapped in the vice like grip of thinking you know and this strangling out of 'it's all one and perfect' new age dishwash is getting increasingly trite.

night wrote:

In the end, it is about whether you trust who gave you the feedback, or not.

Why trust another when one can look for themselves?
  And has it any value what another says about oneself if one is not looking?
  And if one is looking, are they seeing it because another has pointed something out, or because they are seeing the truth of it, themselves?

night wrote:

natura wrote:

night wrote:

Practice - interesting topic. As I see it, at the core we are already complete, already love, already infinite consciousness. In that sense, there is nothing to do, there is nothing to become, no effort to become love, etc. The doing is optional, and it is to see to what degree one is moved to convey that love into the world of forms, and in what way. That conveying of love is an art unique to each. And like any art form, practice allows the nuances to come through.

night, you have basically no idea what my thread ‘Addiction’ is all about, have you?

Your massages there were pretty nice, though…

...but to say ‘doing is optional’, etc…

What's up natura, did you eat the wrong thing? Or did I hit a nerve.

If you don't like what I say, feel free to throw it away, no hard feelings ;-)

No, not at all...

just nothing is up...

...I thought it could be

pearl wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

night wrote:

Maybe your mind is (broken up).

There is but one mind.

Not one or two minds, but mind.  Just mind.  And what is mind sir, as you understand it?

There is the brain, with its patterns. You may be a good dancer, I may play tennis, so our patterns may be different. That's not the mind yet.
   And I believe I exist, as an entity, and you do the same, suppose. And the entity comes into being through the same patterns, regardless of the brain-it sustains itself through the same patterns, whether one lives in Europe or Africa.

RJ wrote:

night wrote:

RJ wrote:

those are all fairly well-worn choices Night
it reads as
'you disagree with me so therefore

a) there is something wrong with you (you ate the wrong thing)
b) I have helped you see your own fault (I hit a nerve) or
c) You simply have a baseless and irrational reaction to me (throw it away if you don't like it)'

how about trying a fourth option
d) perhaps you have a point of view that I would understand better if I asked you to help me better understand you

this option will of course be impossible to someone who thinks that they 'know', because why then would they ever need to 'ask'...

Amusing, even with a smiley you still take exception. And there are many more options even. You are reading too much in my post. It was not about listing them all down and try to plug all the holes like a legal document. And why be always conciliatory all the time? If someone is (for example) an ass, why not say it? A kick in the groin can sometime be more love than a pat in the back. Of course, someone who tells you that you are an ass could himself be totally reacting to his own traumas.

In the end, it is about whether you trust who gave you the feedback, or not.

you feel like someone holding their own head high
it's very like the sense I get when I talk with strongly religious people (or anyone who is thoroughly enough convinced with themselves)
they have their view of the world and every comment, every conversation, is laced with it

it's all just a bit...
suffocatingly boring
painfully pontificatory

oh, I just glanced at the top of your post again instead of finding more epithets like I should'a, damn this tendency to threes!

WTF does putting a smiley face on a post have to do with how I should respond to it?
Are you 12 years old? Are you someone who thinks you can say whatever you like to someone but so long as you are smiling then you're still 'in control'?
I am taking exception to what reads as an irritating smugness and superiority.

You are looking like yet another person with their ego trapped in the vice like grip of thinking you know and this strangling out of 'it's all one and perfect' new age dishwash is getting increasingly trite.

Ok, RJ. What are you after?

night wrote:

natura wrote:

night wrote:

In the end, it is about whether you trust who gave you the feedback, or not.

I think I got it.

You are still thinking it’s all about trust.

Alright, then wait for Redeemer.

Not at all. You can also sit on a rock in the mountains by yourself.

Sure I can, but doing what inwardly?

Do you mean to say doing nothing?

Can you inwardly do ‘nothing’, basically?
How can you answer this question other than looking into yourself?
Can you?
Don’t think about that very much, we have more than enough written down theories around here. I’m getting tired from long reading and writing.
Just try doing it, find out the answer and tell me, can you or not doing nothing.

And don’t take offences so easily this time. I’m not at all out here to hurt you. And my digestion is still OK.

natura wrote:

night wrote:

natura wrote:

I think I got it.

You are still thinking it’s all about trust.

Alright, then wait for Redeemer.

Not at all. You can also sit on a rock in the mountains by yourself.

Sure I can, but doing what inwardly?

Do you mean to say doing nothing?

Can you inwardly do ‘nothing’, basically?
How can you answer this question other than looking into yourself?
Can you?
Don’t think about that very much, we have more than enough written down theories around here. I’m getting tired from long reading and writing.
Just try doing it, find out the answer and tell me, can you or not doing nothing.

And don’t take offences so easily this time. I’m not at all out here to hurt you. And my digestion is still OK.

No offences taken, natura. But if you are being lazy in reading the responses maybe I will call you on it. As for doing 'nothing', yes surely that is possible, and go for it if that's where you like to dwell. But not everyone likes to dwell there, some prefer to dance. No one is saying to not look into yourself. But the fact is you probably have many blind spots (like most human beings, including myself) and the fact is also that those close to you will see those blind spots often times much more easily that you ever can, and then why not take that as a help? That's up to you.

night wrote:

RJ wrote:

night wrote:

[Ok, RJ. What are you after?

good answer,
less than you'd think

I am answering your question, even though it looks like I'm doing it with a question

when was the last time you felt you had a true conversation between equals?

if it's in recent enough memory, please describe something of it, the substance perhaps because that may be represented whereas how the other may have felt can be only known to them.

if you aren't satisfied with my response to your ?, ask again, perhaps you could help by defining the paramaters in your 'search engine' more invitingly.

if on the other hand you are satisfied, or don't really care to know much more,
then your turn, what are you after Night?

Good points. Let me see if I can answer a few here. I will be direct, which is the style I favor usually, while recognizing that not all like and favor it. You talk about 'conversation between equals': what does it mean, that I can't call you on your non-sense or vice-versa? Surely not. What is equal, the knowledge or just the person. Is a stupid man my equal ? - I see he is at the core, I feel that, but on the surface I will teach that person. And in some other dimension perhaps that man is more intelligent and he may teach me. In short, there is nothing equal about body-minds, they come in billions of variations and capacities, yet the equality is in it (as the witness of all things) unrelated to capacity.

I find some people (esp. K lovers) like to talk 'hand-in-hand', without any confrontation. A kumbaya of sorts. That is fine, although to me that is rather boring - feels like a chat between snoring philosophers, no spice in that dance. Love is not the absence of confrontation. And this is unrelated to so-called 'talking together'.  One can spar with heart, a friendly combat. Or one can also chit-chat with dry intellect and no heart connection - insipid mockery. One can politely insult someone, or use crass language to bring joy.

I asked you what you are after because you interjected in the conversation and started getting pissed - apparently I was not meeting some standard of yours. I am not after anything but I do find that the only way to live fulfilled is to give of oneself fully, which include sharing one's realizations. Even if the gift is rejected.

it's good to hear more of your voice (as distinct from your 'philosophy', no offence intended but I just find it really hard to hear someone from a pulpit) and I appreciate the directness of your response.

It sounds as if the answer to the question of
"when was the last time you felt you had a true conversation between equals?"
is, not lately, not really.

so my next question to you is, what does 'love' mean to you in relationship?

but please get back to me whenever you wish, I think Natura's line of conversation with you above promises more juice than my dessicated and dehydrated old 'chestnut'.

bruce sean wrote:

pearl wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

There is but one mind.

Not one or two minds, but mind.  Just mind.  And what is mind sir, as you understand it?

There is the brain, with its patterns. You may be a good dancer, I may play tennis, so our patterns may be different. That's not the mind yet.
   And I believe I exist, as an entity, and you do the same, suppose. And the entity comes into being through the same patterns, regardless of the brain-it sustains itself through the same patterns, whether one lives in Europe or Africa.

Sure, but that's not the entirety of mind, the patterns all still being within the realm of thought and time, which is naturally limited. There is something else taking place when the entity is no longer, or let's say where the entity has never taken root, I mean a totally different kind of movement which is the mind too.

RJ wrote:

night wrote:

RJ wrote:

good answer,
less than you'd think

I am answering your question, even though it looks like I'm doing it with a question

when was the last time you felt you had a true conversation between equals?

if it's in recent enough memory, please describe something of it, the substance perhaps because that may be represented whereas how the other may have felt can be only known to them.

if you aren't satisfied with my response to your ?, ask again, perhaps you could help by defining the paramaters in your 'search engine' more invitingly.

if on the other hand you are satisfied, or don't really care to know much more,
then your turn, what are you after Night?

Good points. Let me see if I can answer a few here. I will be direct, which is the style I favor usually, while recognizing that not all like and favor it. You talk about 'conversation between equals': what does it mean, that I can't call you on your non-sense or vice-versa? Surely not. What is equal, the knowledge or just the person. Is a stupid man my equal ? - I see he is at the core, I feel that, but on the surface I will teach that person. And in some other dimension perhaps that man is more intelligent and he may teach me. In short, there is nothing equal about body-minds, they come in billions of variations and capacities, yet the equality is in it (as the witness of all things) unrelated to capacity.

I find some people (esp. K lovers) like to talk 'hand-in-hand', without any confrontation. A kumbaya of sorts. That is fine, although to me that is rather boring - feels like a chat between snoring philosophers, no spice in that dance. Love is not the absence of confrontation. And this is unrelated to so-called 'talking together'.  One can spar with heart, a friendly combat. Or one can also chit-chat with dry intellect and no heart connection - insipid mockery. One can politely insult someone, or use crass language to bring joy.

I asked you what you are after because you interjected in the conversation and started getting pissed - apparently I was not meeting some standard of yours. I am not after anything but I do find that the only way to live fulfilled is to give of oneself fully, which include sharing one's realizations. Even if the gift is rejected.

it's good to hear more of your voice (as distinct from your 'philosophy', no offence intended but I just find it really hard to hear someone from a pulpit) and I appreciate the directness of your response.

It sounds as if the answer to the question of
"when was the last time you felt you had a true conversation between equals?"
is, not lately, not really.

so my next question to you is, what does 'love' mean to you in relationship?

but please get back to me whenever you wish, I think Natura's line of conversation with you above promises more juice than my dessicated and dehydrated old 'chestnut'.

Guess I need to work on my style here.

Well I was trying to express that to me 'equals' in only true for the amorphous (i.e. that which can witness things, senses, dreams, etc.), but when it comes to what can take form in the human being (physical capacity, mental capacities, knowledge, thoughts, sensitivity, body proportions, etc.) there is no such thing as equal because of each being is endowed with these in varying degree. Anyway, perhaps you mean here "equal" as "having the sense of sameness with".

That sense of "sameness with" happens often with close friends, who tend to be less guarded with me that people who have never met me. Much more rarely do I met someone new who is not guarded, and get that sense of equals: it takes both sides to feel unguarded to get sense.

About love in relationship. In short, it means to me: live so unprotected that you connect to everything, whether to another human being or this cell phone or my left knee. It is really the same to me as 'equal' above. And love flows only when one is unprotected. Living unprotected might have dire consequence. I only got to understand that this is the only way to live because living protected/enclosed became unbearable to me. And so it seems that for most people that only when things become unbearable is there a jump. If it was so easy to live like that, unprotected, everyone would do it. I see it as a normal development of a human being, although many times it seems that this development is arrested or slowed down.