KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Roots wrote:

The sun's rays travel the millions of miles to the earth only to get prevented from reaching us in the last few metres by cloud. If the entire world were always permanently covered with cloud, nobody would (disallowing flight) ever have experienced sunlight.

It's possible to think of the 'other' as sunlight.

This is to say that, due to a complete lack of experience, we can know nothing of it except - due to its effects on other things - that it is there. So it seems that, other than that it is there, it is quite proper to assume that we can know nothing of it.

But we can know about 'cloud'. And after all is said and done, if we want to experience the sun, all we need to know about is the cloud; because if we remove that factor, experience of the sun results.

We can know about the 'I'. And we can do something about the 'I'. That is not only all that is open for us to do, it is all we need to do.

We are also the 'I'. So what can the 'I' do about the 'I'?

Or is the key to be found in not knowing?

The mind that rejects knowledge is free?

hermann wrote:

The mind that rejects knowledge is free?

So following from my #8, this statement of yours would be incorrect I think herman.

An entity which is operating a 'rejection' is ipso facto analysing and judging and acting upon its assessments.

All is one, and the hard bit is that the observing factor is within, not without, that 'one'. This means that it cannot possibly assess (or hence judge) any situation with any hope of accuracy unless it is able to include itself (and the effects of itself within it all) in the said situation under analysis: which is an impossibility.

Therefore, it must, through understanding forego effort in the enterprize whilst not giving up the enterprize. In a nutshell, it must come to consciously understand that it (the evolving entity the human being) has not the faintest element of control within the movement. It is out of its hands. If it can do this, it is well an the way.

Double Dutch? Well, it's a toughie I'll give you that. We never were in control here hermann; eventually we come to see and understand it.

Roots wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

Roots wrote:

The sun's rays travel the millions of miles to the earth only to get prevented from reaching us in the last few metres by cloud. If the entire world were always permanently covered with cloud, nobody would (disallowing flight) ever have experienced sunlight.

It's possible to think of the 'other' as sunlight.

This is to say that, due to a complete lack of experience, we can know nothing of it except - due to its effects on other things - that it is there. So it seems that, other than that it is there, it is quite proper to assume that we can know nothing of it.

But we can know about 'cloud'. And after all is said and done, if we want to experience the sun, all we need to know about is the cloud; because if we remove that factor, experience of the sun results.

We can know about the 'I'. And we can do something about the 'I'. That is not only all that is open for us to do, it is all we need to do.

We are also the 'I'. So what can the 'I' do about the 'I'?

I think bruce, that it can know that it is there. And it seems to me that that is all it can do. But within that simple knowledge (of oneself) lies the key to its undoing, and hence the key to life.

Does this undoing take time?

Roots, old thingy, I really do agree with most of what you write; it's the conclusion that is the rub between us.

I guess the devil is in the details, and detail is that which one wags when they are pleased; well, not if you are a cat...

wilbro99 wrote:

Roots, old thingy, I really do agree with most of what you write; it's the conclusion that is the rub between us.

I guess the devil is in the details, and detail is that which one wags when they are pleased; well, not if you are a cat...

Good. Nice to hear we have some agreement. And if that should happen to extend to what action can and should be engaged in, the result, regardless of what we might each suppose it to look like, will, in practice, be the same.

willy: "Roots, old thingy, I really do agree with most of what you write; it's the conclusion that is the rub between us."

Roots: "Shall we see if we can iron some more out then willy? Is it possible for you to lay out what you see to be the difference in our conclusions. Truth is we pretty much all flap and founder about here. There's no doubt some are a bit more clewed-up than others but the whole lot put together wouldn't amount to all that very much really, methinks."

Roots, I'll lay down what I see as our in-common form, and you can take it from there. It will be my intent to keep the form in as general terms as possible, so as best to expose our difference at the place where I see us differing.

If what I lay out leads only to disputation, I'll pass; you and I have stirred that pot to the boiling point enough times, and, although I find it fun, I think I will pass this time.

Ok, to work:

However it came about, there is a creature loose upon this planet that has become aware to the point of finding itself in the world it has found itself in.

If I were that creature, I could say that I am aware of being in the world I find myself in. In fact, any of us could say the same thing.

The meaning of that finding is the issue here, and where each of us brings our own meaning to that finding. It is in what that finding means that you and I end up with meanings that do not commute.

Roots wrote:

… In other words there is the true and a wrong handle on the true. …

Ah, Roots, our difference in a nutshell. The person either has a true of false handle on the true. I say that the person, as the one who is to have either the true or false handle on the true has either a true or false grasp of itself as itself.

One of us says that to see the truth is the freeing factor, and the other of says that to see the false is the freeing factor.

Where you and I cross paths is our description of the false; we both are describing the same false, but we diverge on what the truth is.

This difference is the difference you and I jousted over a while ago.

Roots, all I am doing here is describing what I see as our difference; no aspersions are meant. If they show, they are unintended.

wilbro99 wrote:

willy: "Roots, old thingy, I really do agree with most of what you write; it's the conclusion that is the rub between us."

Roots: "Shall we see if we can iron some more out then willy? Is it possible for you to lay out what you see to be the difference in our conclusions. Truth is we pretty much all flap and founder about here. There's no doubt some are a bit more clewed-up than others but the whole lot put together wouldn't amount to all that very much really, methinks."

Roots, I'll lay down what I see as our in-common form, and you can take it from there. It will be my intent to keep the form in as general terms as possible, so as best to expose our difference at the place where I see us differing.

If what I lay out leads only to disputation, I'll pass; you and I have stirred that pot to the boiling point enough times, and, although I find it fun, I think I will pass this time.

Ok, to work:

However it came about, there is a creature loose upon this planet that has become aware to the point of finding itself in the world it has found itself in.

If I were that creature, I could say that I am aware of being in the world I find myself in. In fact, any of us could say the same thing.

The meaning of that finding is the issue here, and where each of us brings our own meaning to that finding. It is in what that finding means that you and I end up with meanings that do not commute.

I'll go with that. I think joe has just said something similar elswhere (on the effectively 'ban K' thread I think).

Roots, on your #22, I have no canned response at hand; give me some time to mull it over before I toss it back at you...

Roots, I see that I need more info to complete the task I have set for myself.

Would I be correct to say that your view of this matter is that we, as a species, have evolved to the point where the next step to the completion of *the universal plan for consciousness* is a step many have taken and that this step is the step you are speaking to?

Does the following site more or less capture what you are saying? Tweak as necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point