KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

The best a person can hope to do is to evidence – in clear language and to the best of their ability - ideas as logically tenable or otherwise, and hope that the ‘owner’ of an idea might weigh the argumentation impartially; or even that support for robust argumentation and clear logic and rationality may be lent from abroad on the forum. (But most here are reluctant - outside of cliques - to even constructively take sides; they lack sufficient confidence in their own deductive capacities. For this reason discussions tend to culminate in just ‘one person’s word against another’s’. Given such a situation, if any individual should have an eye rather to maintaining their social standing (or forum ‘street cred’) than sorting ‘wheat from chaff’, then ‘taciturn’ and ‘smoke screen’ tactics will win the day for them (albeit superficially) and they’ll romp home. However, there is always a cost to error, and in these circumstances it will always be the perceived credibility of K and the forum which must stand forfeit. Duplicity - in whatever form or measure - will always exact a price from somewhere.

Let’s adjust our mirrors a little to get a better view of what’s going on. We are living in the delineated area. We can see outside but in distortion, our thoughts and actions being out of sync with the real. Effectively we cannot see ‘inside’ (which would be insight) because whatever we perceive of that activity (i.e. within the habituated state) is misread as authentic and bona fide when in fact it is not.

From there, it would be natural to suppose that K and his ilk live outside of the delineated area and that the line thus divides (as it were) ‘them’ from ‘us’. But they don’t, and it doesn’t, because in reality there is no division. They (i.e. K and co.) live in the entire area, and from where they stand there is no delineation. The delineation, replete with us and the conditioned activity, viewed from the perspective of K and co. is no more. So, despite that we – still viewing from our perspective and creating and maintaining the pseudo duality - are still there behind the line, the line is not.

Such then are the issues that constitute the activity within the ‘football pitch’ area and to which the operative is blind. They are the practices of the ‘I’ which dominate and thus maintain in blindness and bondage the ‘common o’ garden’, everyday human being. They prove virtually impossible to counter, principally because they fall constantly beneath the operatives own radar. (Incidentally, I have also noticed that the more intellectually capable an operative, the cleverer and more subtle the shenanigans of the ‘I’ to maintain its activity in concealment from him.*1)

For the sighted these are frustrating affairs to behold because their subtlety renders everybody - operatives and sighted observers alike - impotent. Each ends up standing in their metaphorical respective corner shouting at the other. This sad practice I have myself been engaged in with certain individuals here for more than a year; trying and trying and trying to bring about a resolution of the situation to little avail; the induced blindness and deafness are consummate, scripture is quite right on it (after all, what else might they be discussing if not the plight of human kind?)

So then, what might people think about what I am seeing and have drawn here? Do you think I have excluded something from the cosmic inventory? Or added too much? What of my suggested causes of expansion and contraction of the ‘I’ area? If it can be expanded or contracted through deliberately directed activity, then could it become - as K suggests - eliminated altogether? And then, with that area purged, and the newly purged entity viewing a cosmic inventory which, hence, has changed to become singular (viz. ‘the real’), are they then objective? Or are they still subjective? Or might such talk have then become meaningless?



*1 Logically - it will be seen - this has to be so, because the first requirement of the ‘I’ is for its practices to go unseen by its ‘owner’, and cleverer operatives would easily spot a less sharp ruse. Once observing, the owner will react to his own subversion profoundly, and through his natural and automatic actions bring about the ‘I’s undoing; such is insight. But the ‘I’ seems to be aware of this and maintains due vigilance century upon century through the millennia.

Last edited by Roots (2012-06-26 08:41:38)