KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

it is what I believe K meant when he talked about content.  Absent the stories the content is lessened, this is obvious.  What did he say, empty the contents?  Something like that, yeah.  Empty, yes, but better maybe not to fill and the pitcher dries up.

but is it the content that is a problem? or is it that it is busy? the mind doesnt seem to be in the way of what is happening, its just not letting it in. But its not in the way of what is happening anymore than a chair is in the way of a table.

pearl wrote:

All your life you will remain speculating as to what goodness is, what beauty is, but with an intellectual mind such as yours you will never meet it nor be so completely it... and not being of it you ask questions without meaning. Just drop all these questions first of all and see.

So you're saying that one has to drop questions in order to meet goodness. I don't know. Maybe you're right. Maybe it's the wrong way to approach life by asking questions.

Eden wrote:

Tom wrote:

I'm not sure I'd want to be temporarily good. So do you see the difficulty with this word?

If it is difficult why are you using it and starting a thread about it?  Pretty asinine I would say.  You are the only one here using the word still.  Some of us tossed it long ago.

What? The word 'disposition'? That's what we are talking about here; that's the difficult word. So I didn't bring it in, sorry. But if you mean instead the word 'goodness' then why have you tossed this word away? What's wrong with it that you reject it?

BobD wrote:

You need to determine what is "good" to you. Then...compare your idea of "good" with someone elses. Then...go to war for the sake of all that is your "good". And stomp the others "good" into the ground because it obviously is evil. "Good" God.

Yes, quite right. If it's just ideas we are dealing in then that is exactly what will happen every time.

LMP wrote:

I think that in a sense it is possible to talk of an origin. That which was broken may become whole again, in that sense. We experience the badness and intuitively know the goodness, so that division is known (at least to me).

Regarding the concept of goodness, is there a desire to do good and a fear of being sensitive at the beginning of it?

Is there desire to do good? And what is the relationship of fear to desire? I think this is a point well worth exploring. Can there ever be such a thing as the desire to do good? Isn't such a desire from the very start a self-centred motive?

Tom wrote:

So you're saying that one has to drop questions in order to meet goodness. I don't know. Maybe you're right. Maybe it's the wrong way to approach life by asking questions.

And maybe you will figure it out before your body is dead, and maybe you wont.  And maybe you will suffer and spread your suffering until you see the pattern for what it is.

As for "approaching life"...hmmm....who or what is it that is approaching life?  That's quite hilarious.

Tom wrote:

LMP wrote:

I think that in a sense it is possible to talk of an origin. That which was broken may become whole again, in that sense. We experience the badness and intuitively know the goodness, so that division is known (at least to me).

Regarding the concept of goodness, is there a desire to do good and a fear of being sensitive at the beginning of it?

Is there desire to do good? And what is the relationship of fear to desire? I think this is a point well worth exploring. Can there ever be such a thing as the desire to do good? Isn't such a desire from the very start a self-centred motive?

Reasonably, one type of goodness is that I want to do something good for you because you did something for me. Lets say you looked after my cat while I went for a trip. Now I have thoughts that I want to do something good for you. Or do we need a new name for this type of behaviour? Few people I know would call it self centered activity. Although I see it is about myself, the cat-self, and then your-self. Im not saying there is always desire to do good, just that there is such a thing considered to be good.

Tom wrote:

Egoism is no way forward - we know where it leads - so on that we are agreed. And we both say that egoism is the root of all mischief. Does this make us good human beings? Does this put an end to all egoism? Obviously not. So what does?

As for me, I’m definitive on that.
Our personal and collective way is exploring the ego, going to the ground of egoism, understanding its nature.
But it’s not the same as discussing what’s good what’s bad and what the goodness comes from. To me it’s similar to discuss the sex or angels. This discussing is running since human being can remember himself and no end on the horizon.
Exploring myself could be the only practice which might give positive result for the one and everyone.

But who is doing that when people are eager to discuss everything instead of doing that.
There are people even on this forum who openly reject necessity of self-understanding; reject Krishnamurti entirely.

I think we have to invest more resources into this point. We also need to recognize, when discussion is going into eternity – it’s just a waste of energy; the understanding is missing.
I’m sure we must be much more practical.

Let’s face, after all, egoism is based on the intellect and intellect is the base of the whole human civilization, as people believe very firmly.
So where is the place for goodness, again?

LMP wrote:

Reasonably, one type of goodness is that I want to do something good for you because you did something for me. Let's say you looked after my cat while I went for a trip. Now I have thoughts that I want to do something good for you. Or do we need a new name for this type of behaviour? Few people I know would call it self-centered activity. Although I see it is about myself, the cat-self, and then yourself. I'm not saying there is always desire to do good, just that there is such a thing considered to be good.

You help me out so I help you out, or vice versa. Do we really need to apply the word 'good' to this sort of thing? After all, in your example there's a reward involved in it: I am thinking of helping you only because you have already helped me. So it's more of a business transaction than anything else, isn't it?

Last edited by Tom (2012-04-28 07:25:42)

Tom wrote:

For a man or a woman to be a really good human being, where does it all begin? What is the origin of true human goodness. Does it start in the genes or in the DNA? Does it come from the correct application of will? Or does it descend out of the blue, out of nowhere?

K often talks about the flowering of goodness. But what's the seed of that flower?

I think it comes from a mind that is empty of thought.  But what is a mind without thought?  It seems to be the holistic functioning of the nervous system.  If that system is damaged - either by thought or by some physical injury - the quality of goodness may not come into full flowering.  It may no flower at all.  The world we have created seems to leave little room for goodness.  Yet it is bound to exist here and there.  Is there any goodness in me?  Only marginally, I should think - The inside looks much like the outside.  Do I care?  There is a lot of hesitation.  But if I care, out of that caring some flowering is likely to occur.  Willy-nilly, I'm in charge here and I'm responsible.  Can I say 'yes' to that?

hermann wrote:

I think it comes from a mind that is empty of thought.  But what is a mind without thought?  It seems to be the holistic functioning of the nervous system.  If that system is damaged - either by thought or by some physical injury - the quality of goodness may not come into full flowering.  It may not flower at all.  The world we have created seems to leave little room for goodness.  Yet it is bound to exist here and there.  Is there any goodness in me?  Only marginally, I should think - the inside looks much like the outside.  Do I care?  There is a lot of hesitation.  But if I care, out of that caring some flowering is likely to occur.  Willy-nilly, I'm in charge here and I'm responsible.  Can I say 'yes' to that?

You are saying that goodness comes from a mind that is empty of thought. Now this sounds very fine but suppose one has a mind that is filled with thought, that knows nothing or little about emptiness. Must that mind first be empty in order to be good? In other words, does goodness depend upon emptiness?