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
#176 2012-05-28 22:44:47
- Eden
- Member
- From: Hawaii
- Registered: 2009-05-08
- Posts: 5508
Re: Love:
bruce sean wrote:
No: the higher self is an abomination. You are mixing everything, putting all the terms into one bowl, and giving them the same meaning. This intellectual simplification means very little.
simplification, aka total negation.
Offline
#177 2012-05-28 22:46:37
Re: Love:
Eden wrote:
joe wrote:
Eden wrote:
I like to mix up my words, else I be accused of being stuck to a label. God, The One, The Uni-verse, Love, Higher Self, All-that-is, Source, The Otherness, Life, The Infinite.
Nitpickers, take your pick.ha pick any of em, doesn't matter too much to me eden...they all stink to high heaven, pardon the pun.
The stink is in the eye of the beholder.
and so is the shine young padowan, so is the shine...
Offline
#178 2012-05-28 22:47:38
Re: Love:
bruce sean wrote:
joe wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
The source of all things.
who said there was a source of all things?
Yes, we must discover it first, so inquiry is necessary.
wait, even that line is horse hockey...discover what?
Offline
#179 2012-05-28 22:47:45
- bruce sean
- Member
- From: Los Angeles
- Registered: 2009-08-13
- Posts: 12155
Re: Love:
No, intellectual simplification is meaningless: one has less terms, less meanings, perhaps only one, but underneath it, it's just a concept.
Offline
#180 2012-05-28 22:50:35
- bruce sean
- Member
- From: Los Angeles
- Registered: 2009-08-13
- Posts: 12155
Re: Love:
joe wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
joe wrote:
who said there was a source of all things?Yes, we must discover it first, so inquiry is necessary.
wait, even that line is horse hockey...discover what?
Discover if there is a source or not: is that too much to ask when there are so many wars going on? Does it lack relevance to ask that?
Offline
#181 2012-05-28 22:53:45
Re: Love:
bruce sean wrote:
joe wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
Yes, we must discover it first, so inquiry is necessary.wait, even that line is horse hockey...discover what?
Discover if there is a source or not: is that too much to ask when there are so many wars going on? Does it lack relevance to ask that?
no it does not lack relevance but it is certainly not a top of the list kind of question. Follow your logic out and you will discover that we are the source of it all--the pain, the happiness, the agony and the joy. We are not the source of the trees, no, until we are compost. All the wars or whatever else you want to point to can be traced right back home, no need to look further than that for a source.
Offline
#182 2012-05-28 22:55:18
- bruce sean
- Member
- From: Los Angeles
- Registered: 2009-08-13
- Posts: 12155
Re: Love:
So you are saying there's no need to talk about this, since you already have the final word. Is there anything you can go into, without knowing the final result?
Offline
#183 2012-05-28 22:56:14
#184 2012-05-28 22:57:26
Re: Love:
what I am saying bruce, should you care to know the reality instead of the imagination, is that pointing or looking for a "Source" has always been a fools errand.
[edit capitalized and quotationed(?) Source, since that is how it is being viewed and used]
Last edited by joe (2012-05-28 23:17:30)
Offline
#185 2012-05-29 02:12:12
- Eden
- Member
- From: Hawaii
- Registered: 2009-05-08
- Posts: 5508
Re: Love:
joe wrote:
what I am saying bruce, should you care to know the reality instead of the imagination, is that pointing or looking for a "Source" has always been a fools errand.
[edit capitalized and quotationed(?) Source, since that is how it is being viewed and used]
"A Source" and "Source" are two very different matters. You are just playing semantics and sounding like an ass. "Source" how I used it is interchangeable with All-that-is. Does "All-that-is" or the "Infinite" imply a source?
Nitpicking and whining will only attract nit pickers and whiners.
Offline
#186 2012-05-29 02:15:38
- Eden
- Member
- From: Hawaii
- Registered: 2009-05-08
- Posts: 5508
Re: Love:
(not that there is anything wrong with that)
Offline
#187 2012-05-29 07:25:53
Re: Love:
Eden wrote:
joe wrote:
what I am saying bruce, should you care to know the reality instead of the imagination, is that pointing or looking for a "Source" has always been a fools errand.
[edit capitalized and quotationed(?) Source, since that is how it is being viewed and used]"A Source" and "Source" are two very different matters. You are just playing semantics and sounding like an ass. "Source" how I used it is interchangeable with All-that-is. Does "All-that-is" or the "Infinite" imply a source?
Nitpicking and whining will only attract nit pickers and whiners.
well I see that is how you are taking it but again I tell you I am not picking nits here. Pick any of those words and they imply something. Forget using those words in this context and they imply nothing. I would say I was aiming more for Bruce than you with the comment though, as he believes in a source that is pure or something like that.
Offline
#188 2012-05-29 07:34:27
- Roots
- Banned
- Registered: 2011-03-13
- Posts: 6580
Re: Love:
RJ wrote:
hey, this is even better!
I'm starting to feel the love me old Don:))
And will that lead you to suppose it's only just arrived or will it move you to have a better look at yourself?
Offline
#189 2012-05-29 17:30:18
- RJ
- Member
- From: New Zealand
- Registered: 2011-01-29
- Posts: 2807
Re: Love:
Roots wrote:
RJ wrote:
hey, this is even better!
I'm starting to feel the love me old Don:))And will that lead you to suppose it's only just arrived or will it move you to have a better look at yourself?
rather deepened it (the first question)
what do you want me to look at better or change? (to the second)
Offline
#190 2012-05-30 15:23:06
Re: Love:
Eden asks, "Does 'All-that-is' or the 'Infinite' imply a source?"
Will ponders and comes up with this answer:
Yes, if the infinite *is* all that is, and there were no *infinite is* to hold the all-that-is in place, then there is nothing; therefore, the source of everything, all-that-is, that is, is the presence, reified, of course, of an *infinite* that holds all.
Look it over, Eden. Can you find otherwise in the premise you set up as supporting your question? Try thinking of all-that-is, without qualification, and see what you come up with. Let me know. It might lead to an interesting dialogue, who knows…
Offline
#191 2012-05-31 21:56:43
- bruce sean
- Member
- From: Los Angeles
- Registered: 2009-08-13
- Posts: 12155
Re: Love:
joe wrote:
what I am saying bruce, should you care to know the reality instead of the imagination, is that pointing or looking for a "Source" has always been a fools errand.
[edit capitalized and quotationed(?) Source, since that is how it is being viewed and used]
Aah, now you're talking of that part of imagination which blocks perception, not to be confused with 'Einstein's imagination'.
I was rather talking of a mind whose perception is not colored by imagination, the only one which can go to the very source.
Offline
#192 2012-05-31 22:01:20
- bruce sean
- Member
- From: Los Angeles
- Registered: 2009-08-13
- Posts: 12155
Re: Love:
joe wrote:
whhhhhhaaat? How did you get from there to there?
Because you simply use 'labels', like, no that's not it or yes, that's it, you've got that right or you've got it wrong.
How about going step by step, and refraining from saying things like 'this is nonsense' from the very start, or this leads nowhere, I don't want to talk about it.
Can we not not stop at the very step, and instead try to go to the next one? After all, no authority implies that either of us can be wrong.
Offline
#193 2012-05-31 22:06:40
Re: Love:
joe wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
joe wrote:
wait, even that line is horse hockey...discover what?Discover if there is a source or not: is that too much to ask when there are so many wars going on? Does it lack relevance to ask that?
no it does not lack relevance but it is certainly not a top of the list kind of question. Follow your logic out and you will discover that we are the source of it all--the pain, the happiness, the agony and the joy. We are not the source of the trees, no, until we are compost. All the wars or whatever else you want to point to can be traced right back home, no need to look further than that for a source.
I thought I would just re-post this from just above and ask you to apply what you are saying to what I actually said here.
Offline
#194 2012-05-31 22:11:07
- bruce sean
- Member
- From: Los Angeles
- Registered: 2009-08-13
- Posts: 12155
Re: Love:
Ok. I would say that putting one's house in order does not equate with coming upon the source.
Offline
#195 2012-05-31 22:12:57
#196 2012-05-31 22:54:46
- bruce sean
- Member
- From: Los Angeles
- Registered: 2009-08-13
- Posts: 12155
Re: Love:
Is the house in order, firstly? I hope you don't mind me asking that.
Offline
#197 2012-05-31 23:00:53
#198 2012-06-02 17:35:45
- bruce sean
- Member
- From: Los Angeles
- Registered: 2009-08-13
- Posts: 12155
Re: Love:
I was suggesting that only a mind which can perceive reality as it really is can come upon this.
How shall we approach this source? What do we know? We only know what this source is not: thought.
Offline