KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

I started to read the link that eden provided about this deida fellow. At some point I may look further even though all the signs of sales and marketing hooks are there. I immediately put it on the back burner when I read:

"Perhaps you've heard of David Deida. Maybe you've flipped through or bought one of his books, listened to him on a tape or CD, or even seen him at one of his entertaining evening talks. You've been inspired by his model of relationship and want to dive more deeply into his offerings. You're ready to explore the promise of a third-stage life.

My advice? Don't do it.  How come? You're not ready. I'm not kidding. You're really not." 

Then he goes on to say why you're not ready. Which really isn't important in the writers eyes. It is a classic sales strategy known as a "take away". The effect of the take away makes people want something all that much more. It's no different than a sales person purposely questioning his potential buyers qualifications to own an expensive product or a unique product or even something they never really wanted or needed in the first place. lol I used the take away VERY effectively during my 30 years in the sales game and I can spot it from a mile away.  The ego says..."What do ya mean I'm not qualified? Whaddya mean I'm not ready?"  I'll show you...I'll take 2! Naturally...the only qualification for owning it is paying for it, or in this case following it to the next logical step of buying all the books to become educated enough to be qualified. Before you know it...you are the proud owner of something you never needed in the first place....but it sure is pretty!

Look what I can do! I can come on to a message board and flaunt my newly purchased enlightenment to these poor schleps that purchased all these stupid "K" books. I have the true path to enlightenment. But whether he knew it or not (if he did...it was brilliant)  "K" exercisied the "Take-a-Way" to perfection.  The "K" take-a-way being the dissolution of the Order of the Star and the proclamation that he wanted no followers.  Presto Change-o! Instant followers! Here...let me sign my book for you son! LOL.

Most gurus are natural sales people. They only polish the front of their shoes because they really don't give a shit what you think of them when they are leaving the room with your allegiance and your money. LOL. God I love it! 

But honey! I had to buy it!

Why!

Because the sales guy said....oops! Well I got it now...might as well show it off to my friends...

You are now going back to truth. And I said let's forget about it, because it is self-evident. If it's not, that's because the false is still there, in one shape or another.

  So instead, we can only look at the false: this is not an option, it's not a matter of 'picking one'. There is only one, at any given time: if the false is there, you can't pick the truth; and if the truth is there then it's finished, for the false has vanished.

  So the false is the only thing we can be concerned with. And I did explain that falsness is total, complete. That implies, logically even, that any action we employ must be also false. This is not complicated: you either see it or you don't. If you don't, then you see that from the false one can see some things, but not others. Which means you introduce partial seeing.

  So which is it? Do you see blindness as being total or partial?

  In response to #226.

Last edited by bruce sean (2012-02-29 18:32:46)

Unfortunately, Robert, I don't have the air fare to get there, so if you would wire me the money, I would gladly offer you a chance to get in on the ground floor of what surely must become a towering financial adventure...

bruce sean wrote:

You are now going back to truth. And I said let's forget about it, because it is self-evident. If it's not, that's because the false is still there, in one shape or another.

  So instead, we can only look at the false: this is not an option, it's not a matter of 'picking one'. There is only one, at any given time: if the false is there, you can't pick the truth; and if the truth is there then it's finished, for the false has vanished.

  So the false is the only thing we can be concerned with. And I did explain that falsness is total, complete. That implies, logically even, that any action we employ must be also false. This is not complicated: you either see it or you don't. If you don't, then you see that from the false one can see some things, but not others. Which means you introduce partial seeing.

  So which is it? Do you see blindness as being total or partial?

  In response to #226.

the question keeps alive the hope of an actual conversation but I am afraid the answer may not lead us any further into one

Literally, blindness is always a matter of degree
Figuratively, which I have to assume is how you are asking and that 'blindness' is being used symbolically to infer whether we can 'see' or not, figuratively speaking then I accept that it is an all or nothing affair.

Likewise I am perfectly happy to accept that something cannot be both true and false at the same time.

Have we established some common language to move on with?

I am not a non-dualist Bruce, nor will my dust be when it quite literally is 'one with everything'
nothing would have quite happily stayed nothing if it visibly hadn't of become ______ thing

so, it is safe to continue if this is the vein you wish to open...

...you were saying...?

bruce sean wrote:

Aah, I'm not speaking symbolically, figuratively. Nothing is seen, period.

  We can see the trees, our faces, more or less normal perception there.

  But I'm talking of seeing as in understanding things, understanding attachment, or conflict, you name it. And I'm saying that all this understanding is connected-the understanding of one fragment is connected to the understanding of any other. One cannot understand this fragment but not its 'neighbour'. A fragmentary understanding is an intellectual one.

  And when I say 'nothing is seen', I mean that: nothing is actually understood, except perhaps words. And the understanding of words alone is not conducive to action. True understanding is always active, never passive-it has its own action. So, the understanding of the past clears the past, no other action is needed.

  And we were talking of darkness, which we said is total. This is a tremendous thing to see, perhaps the only one. Because when I see that, what happens? What am I to do after I see that?

What are you to do after you see that?

Rhetorical questions (where you aren't interested in a person's answer but just want to get their attention by pretending you want to know so that you can then bombast them) are just bad manners when amongst adults.

You asked, do you want me to answer it?

The answer is yes (would it help if I said please), please.

And while I am pleading, please dont just ask me again and expect me to talk for you until I either hit the right button or explode in frustration. You are not my teacher nor am I your student. Once again, I am listening to you and this is what is known as a written invitation...

speak your mind.

that's good Bruce,
perfectly comprehensible
I understand what you are saying completely and my sense of things would be that quite a few other people here also understand exactly what you are talking about even if the language we might use to describe that awareness may differ and the 'what happens next' is even more variable.

ok, now I believe the question you were asking was
"what am I to do when I see that?"

and I have in turn been asking you to answer it for yourself

please continue...

And we were talking of darkness, which we said is total. This is a tremendous thing to see, perhaps the only one. Because when I see that, what happens? What am I to do after I see that?

bruce sean wrote:

Continue with what, if I may ask? Beyond that, there are no words.

continue with your thought, what are you to do after you see that?

bruce sean wrote:

You are going back. Which means you haven't seen it. After doing nothing you're asking what is one to do??!!

  After 'doing nothing', there is nothing to continue. There is no continuation, ever, and everything is fresh, new.

what is the point of this conversation?
why are you evading the very question that you put to yourself?

why are you here?

bruce sean wrote:

You are going back. Which means you haven't seen it. After doing nothing you're asking what is one to do??!!

  After 'doing nothing', there is nothing to continue. There is no continuation, ever, and everything is fresh, new.

Is that the form in which confirmation came to you that you are in line with reality? That everything is fresh, new?

(right, grab a shovel)

Now see RJ, there is surety, and there is surety.