KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America
You are not logged in.
Announcement
Kindly be mindful of the following points regarding the forum. Dialogue is thinking together - it isn’t debate - and it's inquiring together without end point or agenda. People come into the dialogue from their own place of understanding, which is not going to be your place of understanding. We’re here to communicate together, learn together and gain insight into our own thought; to receive and share our observations, not impose our views on others. Address the comments in a polite, considerate manner. By all means, ask for clarification, but challenge the comment, not the commentator. We don’t know enough about the others to make those judgments and we’re here to learn about ourselves, not to correct another's perceived personality flaws. If a comment brings an emotional response, look at that. Do you feel the need to defend? To attack? Time for some looking inward. Self protection results in war. Besides, the war is in each of us. Stop that war, and the rest will take care of itself. (For some suggestions on the nature of dialogue, please click here)
Make friends across the globe, post your photos and videos, write a blog or start a discussion, just go to jkrishnamurti.ning.com
#151 2012-04-18 19:57:33
Re: Friends.
snguyen wrote:
No, I don't think so at all. I really like to keep the attitude very simple, conflict free. Then from there really talk, explore together. I want to learn and find out what it really means to be truly concerned for others, instead of competing, comparing, or opposing.
sure I understand, but it may yet be a reaction, Si. Do you see that? I asked earlier about conflict in your life because this is how it appears to me, underneath it all, that your desire for conflict free living is a reaction. If it is it will certainly keep repeating itself. Life is like that, kind and generous in letting us see ourselves.
Last edited by joe (2012-04-18 19:58:51)
Offline
#152 2012-04-18 19:59:09
- snguyen
- Member
- Registered: 2009-04-15
- Posts: 3336
Re: Friends.
And reaction, of course, we can watch them. Like you waited it out with RJ. I tell you that by the time I reply things already change in me. So, reactions rise and fall away.
Offline
#153 2012-04-18 20:00:10
Re: Friends.
snguyen wrote:
Now, if we cannot help each other, at least see why there are so much conflict, differences and isolation. That can be something to see.
what is there to see is not going to be found that way, really, is it? We are what is there to see.
Offline
#154 2012-04-18 20:04:23
- snguyen
- Member
- Registered: 2009-04-15
- Posts: 3336
Re: Friends.
joe wrote:
snguyen wrote:
No, I don't think so at all. I really like to keep the attitude very simple, conflict free. Then from there really talk, explore together. I want to learn and find out what it really means to be truly concerned for others, instead of competing, comparing, or opposing.
sure I understand, but it may yet be a reaction, Si. Do you see that? I asked earlier about conflict in your life because this is how it appears to me, underneath it all, that your desire for conflict free living is a reaction. If it is it will certainly keep repeating itself. Life is like that, kind and generous in letting us see ourselves.
Yes, you know that when I am full of conflict, I don't have joy and energy, and I will not talk easily. I will be easily angry, reactive. But I am finding that conflict is disappearing, in a way that I don't deserve and don't understand. It is so good. Otherwise, I have no point to talk about it. Rather I will have to look into it, with K's books.
Offline
#155 2012-04-18 20:13:10
- snguyen
- Member
- Registered: 2009-04-15
- Posts: 3336
Re: Friends.
joe wrote:
snguyen wrote:
Now, if we cannot help each other, at least see why there are so much conflict, differences and isolation. That can be something to see.
what is there to see is not going to be found that way, really, is it? We are what is there to see.
No, you see yourself in your own time, but you see another aspect of you in talking to me, same for me. So in talking together, if you do care for the other, does it not require you to have a lot of patience? Which means what? You don't possess things you talk about. Rather you just talk and listen, be present, and forget to renew yourself all the time...
Offline
#156 2012-04-18 20:15:53
- snguyen
- Member
- Registered: 2009-04-15
- Posts: 3336
Re: Friends.
Then you are learning, I am learning, understanding comes not just as insight, new knowledge but also passion for everything.
Offline
#157 2012-04-18 20:20:12
#158 2012-04-19 06:02:08
- Roots
- Banned
- Registered: 2011-03-13
- Posts: 6580
Re: Friends.
Gentlemen, both, thank you for an example of the sort of conversation the forum deserves.
Offline
#159 2012-04-19 08:48:49
Re: Friends.
joe wrote:
right, the possession belongs to an identity that believes in itself and lives within that storyline. Absent that identity there is just living.
Ok...i think we must to learn to absent them, as you mention, dont you think?
Offline
#160 2012-04-19 12:48:01
#161 2012-04-19 12:56:51
Re: Friends.
joe wrote:
hi Ekanta...I would say learning is part of it but seeing it *as it is happening* is the more important part.
Oh I see your point Joe, it is like putting in practise is it? Imcorporeted instead stay just with THE idea of learning...is that?
Thank you Joe for THE sharing and, yes, better to make it happening.
Offline
#162 2012-04-19 13:47:17
Re: Friends.
when we see that there is now a me and that me is attached to an idea, it tends to dissolve in that seeing. If we make a practice out of it the Me is the one making the practice. Not sure if this is making sense. Language can be tricky when what is native to one is not to the other.
Offline
#163 2012-04-19 14:07:12
- snguyen
- Member
- Registered: 2009-04-15
- Posts: 3336
Re: Friends.
joe wrote:
snguyen wrote:
No, I don't think so at all. I really like to keep the attitude very simple, conflict free. Then from there really talk, explore together. I want to learn and find out what it really means to be truly concerned for others, instead of competing, comparing, or opposing.
sure I understand, but it may yet be a reaction, Si. Do you see that? I asked earlier about conflict in your life because this is how it appears to me, underneath it all, that your desire for conflict free living is a reaction. If it is it will certainly keep repeating itself. Life is like that, kind and generous in letting us see ourselves.
First, I chose conflict for a topic because it is a main thing throughout K’s discussions and also in life. It is definitely a reaction, a result of confusion. So we start at the symptom and trace it out. Second, I am pushed to talk about conflict because a conflict free state of living opens the mind up for much more penetrating understanding into difficult things such as time, the self, the oneness.
Conflict is a reaction which is an activity of conditioning. This reaction is helpful in the way that it disturbs you and awakes you to the totality of life if you really trace it out all the way, because when you remain dividing life, conflict remains. Most people will ignore conflict or they already have their answers in many systems of idea, ideal, belief, ideology, theory, philosophy, or they will say that is life, carry on. We understand all that and put them aside. I want to go all the way and find out the truth of the matter, the actual state of life without conflict and not accept anything half way.
Conflict exists where there is a division between the observer and the observed. A division exists where there is an attachment to anything: money, family, experience, the self or id, choice, and time. And division exists because I am conditioned to divide life. All my life has been conditioned to go dividing and in this division I am making effort to become. Let’s say we see the truth of all this through our life. If it is really true so for me, then where I am standing here, where are time, space, heaven, god, and knowing? It is then a tremendous awakening to this indivisible whole of life.
But forget that indescribable picture for the moment, and come back to our reality here. How does true understanding reflect itself in our conduct, behavior, selfless patience, passion for life, and the energetic joy of talking to each other? If you have no conflict at all, the energy never runs out. Physically you need to rest, exercise for a healthy body. But be conflict free and the energy is never lost by friction. And to be free of conflict is to be free of the self, the I also.
I am inquiring, so please feel free to point out.
Offline
#164 2012-04-19 15:52:31
- snguyen
- Member
- Registered: 2009-04-15
- Posts: 3336
Re: Friends.
joe wrote:
when we see that there is now a me and that me is attached to an idea, it tends to dissolve in that seeing. If we make a practice out of it the Me is the one making the practice. Not sure if this is making sense. Language can be tricky when what is native to one is not to the other.
It makes sense, yes. Effort is the self.
But I wonder if we can ever see the now through thought, through the content of consciousness. The seeing with thought, through thought, is the past and always missing the seeing of the now. When we bring up something or when things are surfacing from the deep hidden background of consciousness, we say we are looking at the now which is happening, in a sense yes, but it really means we are looking at old things of the content.
Offline
#165 2012-04-19 16:16:43
Re: Friends.
Si, if you think of the conditioning as the button already pushed, then what you are observing is the reaction to the *button already pushed* condition, which means that you begin your observing with the after the fact reaction; and that because the *button already pushed* condition is the ground of those reactions.
Another way so saying that is that the *bap* condition is the meaning of the conditioned mind, or, in my terms, it signifies the presence of the reactive self.
If that words out messy, clear it up for me…
Offline
#166 2012-04-19 17:10:56
Re: Friends.
snguyen wrote:
joe wrote:
when we see that there is now a me and that me is attached to an idea, it tends to dissolve in that seeing. If we make a practice out of it the Me is the one making the practice. Not sure if this is making sense. Language can be tricky when what is native to one is not to the other.
It makes sense, yes. Effort is the self.
But I wonder if we can ever see the now through thought, through the content of consciousness. The seeing with thought, through thought, is the past and always missing the seeing of the now. When we bring up something or when things are surfacing from the deep hidden background of consciousness, we say we are looking at the now which is happening, in a sense yes, but it really means we are looking at old things of the content.
now here is where it gets interesting, Si...you bring up a good point, that content looking at content is just recycling, basically. However, I do not feel any person ever has been totally unconditioned, not K not you not me, noone. In talking to bruce in another thread this has begun opening up to me and boy I bet this could make for some good discussion. One of those topics that I can not get my head around completely, like seeing one side of the moon and mistaking it for the whole of it.
Offline
#167 2012-04-19 17:19:38
- snguyen
- Member
- Registered: 2009-04-15
- Posts: 3336
Re: Friends.
wilbro99 wrote:
Si, if you think of the conditioning as the button already pushed, then what you are observing is the reaction to the *button already pushed* condition, which means that you begin your observing with the after the fact reaction; and that because the *button already pushed* condition is the ground of those reactions.
Another way so saying that is that the *bap* condition is the meaning of the conditioned mind, or, in my terms, it signifies the presence of the reactive self.
If that words out messy, clear it up for me…
Yes, yes, that is true. True to me means I see it clearly as a fact and with joy of understanding. But you see, when we see clearly the whole structure, the whole composition, the layers of conditioning as habit, routine, ego (which are like and dislike, taste and preference), racial inheritance, unconscious memories of the individual and the collective... and when we see the fact about it all, is freedom not possible? Seeing has its action. On the other thread you thought surrender might do the job, but we must see what we surrender to. The mind then is silent because it understands now.
Offline
#168 2012-04-19 18:00:09
Re: Friends.
Good catch Si.
On the first point, about the seeing, I would directly say that seeing and understanding mean the same thing at that point.
On the second point, I added that other possibility because I wanted the discussion to go in the direction of that difference; just like you are doing.
Both points point to understanding, right Gate Keeper? Ha!
Offline
#169 2012-04-19 22:38:34
- snguyen
- Member
- Registered: 2009-04-15
- Posts: 3336
Re: Friends.
wilbro99 wrote:
Good catch Si.
On the first point, about the seeing, I would directly say that seeing and understanding mean the same thing at that point.
On the second point, I added that other possibility because I wanted the discussion to go in the direction of that difference; just like you are doing.
Both points point to understanding, right Gate Keeper? Ha!
Ha ha ha! Willy, I like the E Vibrator better. Can't stop a hard laugh on that one.
Offline
#170 2012-04-20 17:31:55
- snguyen
- Member
- Registered: 2009-04-15
- Posts: 3336
Re: Friends.
RJ wrote
Snuman, please recall a few days ago, when you asked me to talk with you, and I replied oh, at least 3 or 4 times, that I was very willing, very open etc, and then of course asked you what you wanted to talk about, also repeatedly.
I really didn't know what you wanted but it seems that you did finally get to the point when you asked me 'are you serious, is this a constant movement (this meditation) or some knowledge that you pull out now and again' (words to that effect).
I replied to you something to the effect that 'yes I am serious and constant, punctuated by moments of incredulity and hilarity'.
which seemed to end the conversation
but here we are again and I can't help but feel that you have entirely read me around the wrong way.
The moments of incredulity and hilarity come when I stop trying to go to it my friend. They are what is real, this so-called 'seriousness' is our joke of an effort to go beyond what is (why would we want to do that?)
The seriousness that you seek so much that you would rather make a separate place to go for it's antidote is what is in the way, it is not the way.
Si
Yes RJ, I got your point. It is a lot of fun for me actually. If you were here you would see how hard I can laugh with you. Always think of you as a special friend, a correct mind, and a guy who dares. However, I don't fail in 'going beyond' but only intensify it and in turn it intensifies me. And I don't read you wrong as long as you talk with me and vice versa. I hate the kind of grim face seriousness, no, not at all. I am always recently ready to erupt like a bursting bubble of laughter, alongside with this flame of energy that makes me sound serious.
I don't send you email for I want to be free from a lot of things for my inquiry at the moment. Hope you can join as you wish in the forum here.
Offline
#171 2012-04-22 16:27:20
#172 2012-04-22 17:35:34
Re: Friends.
Haa sweety
Offline