KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

I don't get it. Why is everyone attacking one another?

Mr. Brightside wrote:

I don't get it. Why is everyone attacking one another?

well.. we are the world.

ha yes as everybody is beans

hehe got that sentence right ?

beans wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:

I don't get it. Why is everyone attacking one another?

For some, it fills the emptiness.

But, beans fill the emptiness; thus they are out for you! Little do they know that there is a sale on all beans, half price as the local supermarket... they're really filling - no more empty feelings, and ravenous actions!

What the world needs - more beans!

Mr. Brightside wrote:

Hi,

I just found this out. Krishnamurti, in the book, "Education and the Significance of Life", says, "We have to create a world government which is radically different, which is not based on nationalism, on ideologies, or force" (p.57 - from an ebook).

This book, I think - correct me if I'm wrong - was written in the 1950s, and published in the 80s?

If so, did Krishnamurti advocate world government? Did he change his views over time?

I thought he wouldn't have advocated such an entity. A world government is a very large authority, and can only exist based on ideologies. Democracy is an ideology, too. Force? To govern, means you have a force to enforce the policies - that is force... I cannot reduce that to anything simpler. A world government seems to be a contradiction of Krishnamurti's ideas.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that nationalism is a problem, and is fundamentally selfish. If Krishnamurti advocated a world government what would he have thought of as the best one?

The idea just seems to contradict him on every level. If I HAD to label Krishnamurti, I would say that, based on his ideas on simple living, he would have been a green anarchist, but, again, I know he would have dismissed the title; I'm just saying, if I somehow HAD to lablel him, that is where he would be.

Thoughts?

Hi Mr. Brightside,

Now look at the postages from #2 to #58 and tell me, please,

who needs that government you and Krishnamurti are talking about?

I was on some political forums too. I’m not sure there is a difference.

oh man, just when you think it couldn't get any worse...
the Australians start talking to each other

right then, I'm off to get myself committed.

Mr. Brightside wrote:

Hi, Natura, thanks for replying. I, too, am from Australia.

Hi Mr. Brightside, nice to meet a countryman in such remote and lonely place.
Our neighbour is grumbling something about that, probably afraid, Australia will attack NZ.   

Mr. Brightside wrote:

Regarding your post, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please elaborate? Cheers.

Well, there is an awful lot to elaborate, actually.
A pretty slack support of the topic you’ve come up with, first of all. People don’t seem have much interest in that.

Anyhow, trying to stir it up,
so you say:

“The idea just seems to contradict him on every level.”

Personally, I don’t see any contradiction between his teaching and the idea about world government; quite the contrary.
His central point is a global mental revolution and as any other revolution in human society it supposed to require a government complying with new conditions.

I have a suggestion you might be interested to read and make a comment.
There have been tendencies in the world to consider the UNO as a World Government. The organization itself is refusing this title, though has many special attributes to be it.
On some special occasion Krishnamurti was invited there and gave a speech. The text is placed on the site Krishnamurti Australia:

http://www.krishnamurtiaustralia.org/ar … _peace.htm

Though it’s not exactly about formation a new government, but rather about the World Peace, yet it might have some connection to your questions.

Anyway, it’s my favourite political document.

Last edited by natura (2012-04-11 23:47:24)

natura wrote:

Eden wrote:

I think now would be a good time to make some generalizations about Australians.  Where's pearl? Maybe she can chime in.

You love her so much that you obviously cannot live a minute without her bright, chiming voice.

Natura, ha ha ha, I too love her but never thought of her! Is love a thought, or is it a state of happiness without objects?

I cannot say that I love you, but I lose myself and go there, and you lose yourself and be there, and that is the sea of love.

Now now...settle down bitches.

natura wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:

Hi, Natura, thanks for replying. I, too, am from Australia.

Hi Mr. Brightside, nice to meet a countryman in such remote and lonely place.
Our neighbour is grumbling something about that, probably afraid, Australia will attack NZ.   

Mr. Brightside wrote:

Regarding your post, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please elaborate? Cheers.

Well, there is an awful lot to elaborate, actually.
A pretty slack support of the topic you’ve come up with, first of all. People don’t seem have much interest in that.

Anyhow, trying to stir it up,
so you say:

“The idea just seems to contradict him on every level.”

Personally, I don’t see any contradiction between his teaching and the idea about world government; quite the contrary.
His central point is a global mental revolution and as any other revolution in human society it supposed to require a government complying with new conditions.

I have a suggestion you might be interested to read and make a comment.
There have been tendencies in the world to consider the UNO as a World Government. The organization itself is refusing this title, though has many special attributes to be it.
On some special occasion Krishnamurti was invited there and gave a speech. The text is placed on the site Krishnamurti Australia:

http://www.krishnamurtiaustralia.org/ar … _peace.htm

Though it’s not exactly about formation a new government, but rather about the World Peace, yet it might have some connection to your questions.

Anyway, it’s my favourite political document.

Yes, I read that a while ago.

The problem here is, to create a world government, will wither be a dictatorship, or a democracy. If the latter, then you will have competing parties, with various ideologies. Krishnamurti said all ideologies are idiotic... it seems to contradict what he said. I'm not leaning on Krishamurti's words, I'm just saying, this is what he said.

The environment may be damaged here and there by humans, but it is far less worse than the usual media would have you believe. Nature has survived far worse situations in the history of the earth.

Transformation of the mind is moment-by-moment, not a one-time-and-done deal. Attention fluctuates throughout the day, and constant dedication is necessary.

natura wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:

natura wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:

Hi, Natura, thanks for replying. I, too, am from Australia.

Hi Mr. Brightside, nice to meet a countryman in such remote and lonely place.
Our neighbour is grumbling something about that, probably afraid, Australia will attack NZ.   


Well, there is an awful lot to elaborate, actually.
A pretty slack support of the topic you’ve come up with, first of all. People don’t seem have much interest in that.

Anyhow, trying to stir it up,
so you say:

“The idea just seems to contradict him on every level.”

Personally, I don’t see any contradiction between his teaching and the idea about world government; quite the contrary.
His central point is a global mental revolution and as any other revolution in human society it supposed to require a government complying with new conditions.

I have a suggestion you might be interested to read and make a comment.
There have been tendencies in the world to consider the UNO as a World Government. The organization itself is refusing this title, though has many special attributes to be it.
On some special occasion Krishnamurti was invited there and gave a speech. The text is placed on the site Krishnamurti Australia:

http://www.krishnamurtiaustralia.org/ar … _peace.htm

Though it’s not exactly about formation a new government, but rather about the World Peace, yet it might have some connection to your questions.

Anyway, it’s my favourite political document.

Yes, I read that a while ago.

The problem here is, to create a world government, will wither be a dictatorship, or a democracy. If the latter, then you will have competing parties, with various ideologies. Krishnamurti said all ideologies are idiotic... it seems to contradict what he said. I'm not leaning on Krishamurti's words, I'm just saying, this is what he said.

You are reasoning about moving in usual scopes of human mind.
What Krishnamurti is talking about, proposes transformation of this mind.

Have you understood his speech?

Global, deep crisis is obvious and catastrophe in shortest future is imminent. The planet, human environment, is unscrupulously ruined for sake of insatiable greed and fear. The end is visible with naked eye now. No way further unless human being would change their idiotic ideologies. First of all, the principle ‘To kill and to be killed’, ‘To eat and to be eaten’ which currently dominates globally in all spheres of politic and economy.

Hi, Natura,

What I am trying to say is, a world government would be, I think, based on our old way of thinking. Yes, I understand Krishnamurti was talking about an inner revolution - a revolution of the mind.

But, think about a world government for a second. To have such an entity, there would be a major economic system. What economic system woud take place? All economic systems are based on ideologies. Even if we are all to agree on something, then that doesn't mean it's not an ideology. Let's say everyone agrees to capitalism. Then, we have all agreed to an ideology.

You're probably thinking I am missing the point. "Krishnamurti was talking about the transofrmation of the mind". Yes, I know that, and that is why it seems to contradict the idea of a world government - any government.

Krishnamurti belived "we are the world". The world is a manifestation of our inner workings. We are to blame for the world; humans, collectively, throught selfishness, etc, have created such a world.

The outer world which would be constructed based on our inner world (which, again, Krishnamurti said we need a revolution first, as this would change the outer), would have what structures? That is the question I am asking.

In such a world government, even if we are all peaceful human beings who can get along, etc, we are still fundamentally lost. From this, the structures we have created have then affected our inner worlds, which then, in turn, affect the outer.

Perhaps I am missing the point, and you'll have to explain to me why, but, if you believe in a world government - what exactly would it be based on? Democracy, something else? What economic system?

You might be thinking, "We have to transform our minds". Yes, again, I understand, this doesn't mean that no outer world will not form. Then what? These are, in the end, based on ideologies. You may be thinking that, "what I believe in is right, and therefore an ideology". Ah, well, so many others who are ideologically conditioned, think exactly the same thing.

You noted problems of the environment and killing. How do we solve them? Changing our minds? Yes, good, but you propose structures at the same time. What would they be like? People who are following ideologies, also address the same issues you brought up, yet deny that they are following ideologies - "because I'm right - it's not an ideology"'; well, actually, it is.

Mr. Brightside wrote:

You're probably thinking I am missing the point. "Krishnamurti was talking about the transofrmation of the mind". Yes, I know that, and that is why it seems to contradict the idea of a world government - any government.

Do animals have government?  When a human mother gives birth to a child, does she govern the child?