KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Serious inquiry? How would I define such a act? The first answer that come to mind is cleverly; such that the structure would, by necessity, be the same whether that inquiry is with another or with oneself.

Why do I think that? It stands to reason that is this thing called self-inquiry is to be shared with another, the line of communication between self to self and self to other must be the same line, else the information cannot be shared.

I am not saying that there is a master line, only that the self to self communication of any two participants must be on the same line if those two are to communicate. That does not judge the correctness of the line, only that the line must be the same line if communication is to take place.

The line of communication is language, which means that corresponding self to self lines speak the same language, and that if serious inquiry is to take place, each must understand that language. If there is the use terms within the language that may be reflected upon as one being the meta of the other, that language must devise a way to get around that misunderstanding.

My solution to such a quandary would be to order a 6-pack of UF, and live it up. Seriously!

[yet again, the edit is captured by this pair of brackets]

Last edited by wilbro99 (2012-05-15 19:58:49)

...Why, one might ask, since beans didn't explain....

Well, to get "on the same page" as someone who is filled to the brim with awareness, one must be on the same line, as willy has said. So one must position oneself in the same way, find space and have a cup of awareness.

And something like the opposite of that would apply eventually to communicating with someone who is full of themselves.

Unless of course one is very talented and then all bets are off.

Last edited by beans (2012-05-15 22:01:32)

Beans, I think there can be joking & some fun & so on. But just because we discuss here & express diverse views it doesn't mean we are enemies. That woud be absurd. And what is the need to insult each other-you are not doing that- & then say your image is getting hurt! This must be done in a friendly spirit I feel. But most of this is automatically included if what Willy said is met isn't it?

Last edited by Jayaraj (2012-05-15 22:39:29)

What are my ideas sir? I thought I was speaking here what I see!!

The good, the bad, and the ugly.

Eden wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

What are my ideas sir? I thought I was speaking here what I see!!

You are always speaking what you see....fragmentation.

No sir, if you see then it is not fragmented. If it is fragmented then you have not seen.

Leave me aside for the moment. What's the topic sir?

Jayaraj wrote:

Beans, I think there can be joking & some fun & so on. But just because we discuss here & express diverse views it doesn't mean we are enemies. That woud be absurd. And what is the need to insult each other-you are not doing that- & then say your image is getting hurt! This must be done in a friendly spirit I feel. But most of this is automatically included if what Willy said is met isn't it?

Yes, Jayaraj. It doesn't mean the parties are enemies, but people tend to react when their beliefs are challenged and take the other person as a threat. Especially when the central belief that is the idea of who they think they are, is challenged.

That's it - it can only be done in a friendly way if the person is aware/present and observing. That quiet observation must be there, otherwise it's just more verbal warfare and fancy language designed to build or protect the self.

beans wrote:

Eden wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

What are my ideas sir? I thought I was speaking here what I see!!

You are always speaking what you see....fragmentation.

If one sees the egoic reactions of a person, then one is seeing fragmentation.

A prism fragments light into the spectrum. A brain full of ideas fragments life into parts, separate movements, me and the other, etc.  It's easy to see it as it happens and it is as plainly obvious as a rainbow on your kitchen wall.

beans wrote:

Eden wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

What are my ideas sir? I thought I was speaking here what I see!!

You are always speaking what you see....fragmentation.

If one sees the egoic reactions of a person, then one is seeing fragmentation. But one won't be able to see those egoic reactions in themselves or another for what they are, as long as there is the blindness of belief in "no fragmentation".

Quiet wrong.  It's easy to see the egoic reactions of others but most hard to see your own, What say you?  And seeing so would be the beginning of what you might say, a serious inquiry, but thus far your serious inquiry is just a facade and not serious whatsoever!

Eden wrote:

beans wrote:

as long as there is the belief in "no fragmentation".

I've never heard of this belief.  What is it exactly, and who believes it? Seems like a figment of your imagination.

It is very clearly a belief you hold. That all the mess in the world which is actually due to fragmentation is in actual fact part of the order of the universe. 'No fragmentation' is your belief sir, which runs through all your arguments.

How many universes there are? That's purely a scientific question. There is this universe with all the galaxies & so on. Is there only one like this? Ha, ha, I won't try to answer that.

But you are only asking this out of your theory that the universe is in order. To say that the society is in disorder for you is fragmentation.Because to you society is part of univeral order.

I've said this before sir:

     Thought thinks there is psychological time. There is nothing like that. And this illusion is causing all the mess in the world.

      Now how is that function of thought part of universal order?- because thought is acting taking into a notion that is totally not there in reality.

joe wrote:

again though beans, I would take exception to that generality.  I am not against being friendly but I was raised in a very driven environment and tend to respond more to someone pushing me than someone being nice and friendly.

At the core is violence or lack of violence, regardless of the face on it. What happens to someone who is repeatedly told they are defined by the label "psychotic", or "asshat"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h-O1R7iXqk
disclaimer to prevent squawking - was posted on another forum recently.

Last edited by beans (2012-05-16 20:34:39)