KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

joe wrote:

I think nirvana is a description of someone who is functioning absent the psychological complex, for the most part.  So in that sense no it is not an imagined state.

What you call ego death?

joe wrote:

However, I also think that the very idea of nirvana and what these men who supposedly attained it is the result of the telephone game of stories, meaning they are built up beyond the actuality through the retelling.

Possibly, yet unprovable.

joe wrote:

How is it useful, roots?  As proof to carry on a quest?

I'm not sure if this right or not. The word 'quest' seems out of place, but certainly something has to be done and I'm also certainly about doing that. I know that you appreciate the difficulty in talking about this because such goal as may be chased is the goal of there being no separated goal hunter or, hence, attainer.

If that proof is needed . . . .

We have to learn to a point joe. The process of ratiocinative 'learning' is not pointless in our evolutionary progress.

. . . then I say the game will never be caught.

Indeed; it seems to me that this is just to say the same as I have just said above. You see, we cannot mentally apprehend/comprehend 'the game', for the reason that we are in it.

roots wrote:

Indeed; it seems to me that this is just to say the same as I have just said above. You see, we cannot mentally apprehend/comprehend 'the game', for the reason that we are in it.

the game is us, roots...we are not in it, we are it.  The quest or the search belies a lack of understanding of the game that we are.  I do not discount learning and growing, that is not what I mean, but the search is based entirely on an identity, a thought structure, and so is doomed to forever be caught up in that identity until that person sees the search leads nowhere.  The practice of 'right living' is not a search or a means to an end, as so often comes across as your meaning, the practice of right living is a means to a means alone.

Last edited by joe (2012-03-23 08:16:21)

Roots wrote:

Indeed; it seems to me that this is just to say the same as I have just said above. You see, we cannot mentally apprehend/comprehend 'the game', for the reason that we are in it.

the game is us, roots...we are not in it, we are it.

We, as differenciated, are part of it joe: the moths and tigers are in it too.

The quest or the search belies a lack of understanding of the game that we are.

Isn't this to suggest there is nothing to be done? I don't think that's what K would say. Indeed at meetings he was always asking people to, 'do it now', 'try it'; and then he would ask the effect, which was that things immediately slow down.

However I understand what you're saying and driving at.

I do not discount learning and growing, that is not what I mean, but the search is based entirely on an identity, a thought structure, and so is doomed to forever be caught up in that identity until that person sees the search leads nowhere.

Indeed that would be the case. A dozen people may employ a dozen different ideas of 'search'. There is a problem with language (of course).

The practice of 'right living' is not a search or a means to an end, as so often comes across as your meaning, the practice of right living is a means to a means alone.

I think I would accept that. Language necessitates it still being literated as a 'means' of course.

joe wrote:

Roots wrote:

joe wrote:

just so I understand your view of me or the words I use anyway, what site do you think I should be on instead roots?

For quite some time I have observed your (and possibly willy's even more so) viewpoint(s) as essentially positivist, existentialist, philosophio/scientific. It has therefore seems to me that you might be better served by a site dealing in same.

This matter of your leanings appearing (to me) to be in that/those directions would not, of itself, constitute a reason (at all) for any supposition that you might be better served elsewhere, but the fact that you seem happy (and hence fixed) in them; as though you have both found your 'grail' there, and, naturally in such a circumstance, present it as preferential to K stuff (it seems to me).

It has just been my view and is as such 'throw-away' of course.

I think you may be right, we have found our 'happiness' in the ending of the search beyond what we actually are, yes.

No, because the mind is not content to leave it at that: something else must happen, to quench the thirst.

bruce sean wrote:

joe wrote:

Roots wrote:

For quite some time I have observed your (and possibly willy's even more so) viewpoint(s) as essentially positivist, existentialist, philosophio/scientific. It has therefore seems to me that you might be better served by a site dealing in same.

This matter of your leanings appearing (to me) to be in that/those directions would not, of itself, constitute a reason (at all) for any supposition that you might be better served elsewhere, but the fact that you seem happy (and hence fixed) in them; as though you have both found your 'grail' there, and, naturally in such a circumstance, present it as preferential to K stuff (it seems to me).

It has just been my view and is as such 'throw-away' of course.

I think you may be right, we have found our 'happiness' in the ending of the search beyond what we actually are, yes.

No, because the mind is not content to leave it at that: something else must happen, to quench the thirst.

are you speaking for yourself bruce? Is your mind not content to leave it at that and searches for something else to quench your thirst?

speaking for the human mind...quite a task, really, isn't it?

look in the mirror...no need to go anywhere, is there?

night, there is a mirror that in looking into it, one finally sees what one is doing.

Your posting, in general, tells me that you more than likely know of such a mirror.

joe wrote:

night wrote:

It's a stale metaphor. And mirror implies the idea of separation, of another. Junk it.

everything implies an idea of separation, but the mirror I am talking about is more about a reflection.

That can be useful therapy until that idea/sense of separation too bites the dust. It is not the end of the line.

joe wrote:

night wrote:

joe wrote:

everything implies an idea of separation, but the mirror I am talking about is more about a reflection.

That can be useful therapy until that idea/sense of separation too bites the dust. It is not the end of the line.

first, there isn't a line, a sphere comes closer but still doesn't get it...second, that idea/sense of separation never bites the dust, it is a needed part of our functioning.  I do not think our language is hooking up.

That sense is not needed at all except temporarily, as a stage of development. As for feedback/reflection from a (seeming) other, that can help when he/she is more sensitive about you than you are. If not, it doesn't help.

yes, the difference that opens up in a different way for each, and leaves us stuttering in response -- I must apply some wonk grease those gears, I must...