KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

kirsten · 2010-07-29 13:52:38

because.. to come back to the topic of this thread..
what is the dialogue K referred to about if not that ?

hermann · 2010-07-29 23:45:12

K wrote:
if you don't escape and you see the absurdity of escaping

Intellectually I see the absurdity of escaping. And that's all. Is that a good place to start looking?
It probably is because it does provide a certain depth of dimension for my looking to explore. It invites exploration.
Whereas if I try to look at just my behavior, there is only resistance. I draw a blank. What about k saying don't name it? To call it 'escape', isn't that a kind of naming?
Everything I do seems to constitute an escape, and the exploration of that perspective may be the most effective corrective.
Seeing that everything I do constitutes an escape may be the only hope of stopping the degenerative process of the conditioned life.
But where are the results? Or is it that I'm only telling myself, not actually seeing, how my life is only a concatenation of escapes? Am I trying to force myself to see something that I judge to be true but that I continue to resist seeing? Am I only driven by a desire to see results?

hermann · 2010-07-30 00:23:16

pauld wrote:
hermann wrote:
pauld wrote:

Why not? This train runs only from London to Edinburgh.
This - after deleting most of my post - just reads like a slap in the face.
That is the entire point. You are reading it, interpreting it and now we have another obstacle to climb. None of your post has been deleted. That is your prerogative alone to delete your post. I am however responding to just one part of it. That's surely standard protocol here. You can read it like a slap in the face if you wish but it's not meant to be. If we were talking together in the same room at the same time it wouldn't come across as a slap in the face.

The tone of your responses here almost suggests that you that you're intent on proving that no real communication can happen on the internet.

Andrew · 2010-07-30 10:39:32

4Q529 wrote:
The statement is utterly absurd in and of itself.

One does not "see" 'intellectually'.

One either "sees" or does "not see".

If you are talking about the intellect, you are not talking about "seeing" anymore.

You have instantly stepped into the realm of "understanding" or, more likely, "disunderstanding".

Can you 'intellectually' see a sunset or a beautiful woman?

There is "seeing" and then there is the "intellect".

Such things cannot be combined.

Everything else you say in your statement is based upon the "sand" of that absurdity; and, as such, can easily be disregarded.

4Q529

4Q,
When I read your posts, I both appreciate them, and wince. Your perceptions have great clarity. And yet, they are often transmitted to others on spears that are hardened, sharp, cutting; not merely cutting of conditioning, but cutting of the flesh, as it were. Is one aware of this? Is the heart hardened? Is perception complete?

retnajothi · 2010-07-30 10:55:18

4Q529 wrote:
hermann wrote:
K wrote:
if you don't escape and you see the absurdity of escaping
Intellectually I see the absurdity of escaping.
The statement is utterly absurd in and of itself.

One does not "see" 'intellectually'.

One either "sees" or does "not see".

If you are talking about the intellect, you are not talking about "seeing" anymore.

You have instantly stepped into the realm of "understanding" or, more likely, "disunderstanding".

Can you 'intellectually' see a sunset or a beautiful woman?

There is "seeing" and then there is the "intellect".

Such things cannot be combined.

Everything else you say in your statement is based upon the "sand" of that absurdity; and, as such, can easily be disregarded.

4Q529

I don't see anything absurd in the statement "Intellectualy I see the absurdity of escaping"
here the 'see' means he knows.Why do you jump at he word see.Look carefully and you will see the meaning.

pauld · 2010-07-30 13:10:41

Gordo wrote:
PD - “Yes, starting from not knowing, what is the self?”

Why do you ask for a conclusion or description? I‘m not interested in that, there’s enough of those already. I’m asking whether it’s possible for there to be seeing, awareness, observing or whatever, of the rising, activity and such of this thing we call the self.

So what is the self? You call it that, but what is it? I'm not calling for a description or a conclusion. What is the self?

pauld · 2010-07-30 13:17:09

hermann wrote:
pauld wrote:
hermann wrote:

This - after deleting most of my post - just reads like a slap in the face.
That is the entire point. You are reading it, interpreting it and now we have another obstacle to climb. None of your post has been deleted. That is your prerogative alone to delete your post. I am however responding to just one part of it. That's surely standard protocol here. You can read it like a slap in the face if you wish but it's not meant to be. If we were talking together in the same room at the same time it wouldn't come across as a slap in the face.
The tone of your responses here almost suggests that you that you're intent on proving that no real communication can happen on the internet.

No, communication can happen here. I'm saying only that it is limited communication. And can we go beyond the limited?

pauld · 2010-07-30 13:22:52

hermann wrote:
pauld wrote:
I don't quite follow. Why should a dialogue between two human beings ever be limited? What limits it?
Isn't it bound to be limited as long as the participants are limited? Unless one could turn the dialogue into the means to transcend that limitation.

That's what I'm getting at. What limits us? Here we are limited to words, which are quickly misinterpreted. So a lot of our energy here goes into putting the right words, explaining, explaining, crafting the sentence that can't be read two ways and so on. And also sometimes to make a point we don't need words. Sometimes our silence says more than our words. Not the silence of someone going missing on-line for two days or saying they are silent now or any of that rot, but actually just to be silent together because we've reached a point where words can no longer help or where words no longer matter.

Last edited by pauld (2010-07-30 13:25:56)

pauld · 2010-07-30 13:24:53

natura wrote:
pauld wrote:
What do you mean, self-understanding?
Good question; very rich one.

However, my personal understanding and position doesn’t differ from the one of Krishnamurti. Therefore, please, be patient if you would read now similar words what you already read many times, probably, during your over seven years long acquaintance with his teaching.
Maybe (and I hope that) you would be touched by something what was slippering off your attention before...

I was just about to write a comprehensive message about how I see this extraordinary important matter, but now I think step-by-step could be better.

Look, for example, Hermann writes:
hermann wrote:
...Why not question your own reactions?
Can you observe and see them -- your own reactions?

Who observes them?

tree · 2010-07-30 13:33:38

pauld wrote:
What limits us?

your definitions and descriptions, your requirements and your fears limit you. the unlimited is obviously everywhere at all times in spite of your words, nothing special is required, only dropping these strange notions such as 'meeting in a new way'

Andrew · 2010-07-30 15:36:59

4Q529 wrote:
Andrew wrote:
4Q,
When I read your posts, I both appreciate them, and wince. Your perceptions have great clarity. And yet, they are often transmitted to others on spears that are hardened, sharp, cutting; not merely cutting of conditioning, but cutting of the flesh, as it were. Is one aware of this? Is the heart hardened? Is perception complete?
I am cutting the flesh, the flesh of the "self", whose only goal is the pleasure of self-preservation. I have no respect for that flesh whatsoever because I see it as a beast which has become so enraged it will annihilate this civilization if given the chance.

The 'thinker' is another beast, as Krishnamurti has very effectively pointed out.

But it is not the only beast.

There are mostly two kinds of language on this group: language of the 'thinker' and language of the "self". And, because Krishnamurti has done such a very good job at dismantling the deceptions of the 'thinker', pauld and hermann--just two of the most obvious examples--have taken the 'fall back position' of the language of the "self", which is no less dualistic and vicious than the dualisms of the 'thinker'.

So, I have no more respect for the flesh of the "self" than Krishnamurti had for the flesh of the 'thinker'.

In a number of mandalas in the cultures of the East, there is a figure of someone swinging a sword over his head. The sword is sharp. It is for the purpose of cutting through the attachments of 'thinker' and "self".

Is my heart hardened at this?

Of course it is. It has to be.

Is perception complete?

Whatever that means.

I have no idea.

4Q529

I am understanding what you're saying. By the question "is perception complete," I mean is perception whole, or total - is nothing beyond view, perhaps sheltered in shadow?

Gordo · 2010-07-30 16:10:46

PD - “Yes, starting from not knowing, what is the self?”

GW - “Why do you ask for a conclusion or description? I‘m not interested in that, there’s enough of those already…”

PD - “So what is the self? You call it that, but what is it? I'm not calling for a description or a conclusion. What is the self?”

GW - So are the two of us, and whoever else, going to take this walk together or is one or the other going to direct which way the others go?

Don’t ask me ‘what is the self’. I don’t know and you said you too were starting from not knowing. Are you interested in finding out together or telling others what to do?

Gordo · 2010-07-30 18:53:01

Paul, I’ve heard you say more than once ‘we are not together, and we need to be together’. That being so, is it possible for this togetherness happen here? It isn’t going to happen when one asks another question after question. All that does is drag the other all over the map ending up nowhere. That’s typical of a place like this but is it the only way to use a place like this?

What happens when the two of us ask ourselves the same question at the same time? I mean a question for which neither of us honestly knows the answer? For example, let’s ask the question below, with interest and attention, staying with it as long as possible then come back together and share what is noticed.

What is wrong with right now, this moment, and this moment, and this moment….?

tree · 2010-07-30 19:22:42

yes, the present is the silence in which all of this appears, silence permits all

tree · 2010-07-30 19:37:17

sea worm

natura · 2010-07-30 19:38:33

pauld wrote:
natura wrote:
pauld wrote:
What do you mean, self-understanding?
Good question; very rich one.

However, my personal understanding and position doesn’t differ from the one of Krishnamurti. Therefore, please, be patient if you would read now similar words what you already read many times, probably, during your over seven years long acquaintance with his teaching.
Maybe (and I hope that) you would be touched by something what was slippering off your attention before...

I was just about to write a comprehensive message about how I see this extraordinary important matter, but now I think step-by-step could be better.

Look, for example, Hermann writes:
hermann wrote:
...Why not question your own reactions?
Can you observe and see them -- your own reactions?
Who observes them?

YOU must observe them.
You, my dear friend having the name Paul who responses sometimes my messages since many years already, who says he has interest in Krishnamurti teaching, who has life, his body, appearance, brain and healthy ability to use it.
Just you.

So again, the same question:
Can you observe and see them -- your own reactions?

If not, why couldn’t you?

Last edited by natura (2010-07-30 19:46:47)

retnajothi · 2010-07-30 19:44:18

I don't know whether it is possiblle for this togetherness can happen in this forum It might be possible in the mechanical field.It might be also possible in the field of seeing truth.But in this forum I am not sure whether we know what is being discussed.

As Mr.Paul questions "who observes the reactions?"If it is "I"who is the "I"?I is the self again.Can self observe the self.It cannot.Is it not?At this moment if this is understood the self ceases.And what is left is mind becomes empty.When it is empty ihe entity is not.
It is a legitimate question to ask who observes the reactions.But there is no self to answer.Silence is the answer.

tree · 2010-07-30 19:53:41

the question arises from the answer

tree · 2010-07-30 19:55:26

this (the unknown)

Gordo · 2010-07-30 20:10:55

The frog rises out of the mud puddle. When the frog dissolves back into the puddle does the puddle dissolve? Where there is consciousness there is awareness whether there is a frog or not.

natura · 2010-07-30 20:15:30

retnajothi wrote:
But in this forum I am not sure whether we know what is being discussed.

One of many questions being discussing here is:
“Can you observe and see them -- your own reactions?”

retnajothi wrote:
As Mr.Paul questions "who observes the reactions?"If it is "I"who is the "I"?

It’s not only Mr.’s Paul question. It’s the one of any human being who doesn’t have self-understanding yet.
JK knew that matter, some others too.
Mr. Paul not yet.
You don’t seem to claim to have seen yourself so as you are, either.

retnajothi wrote:
I is the self again.Can self observe the self.

You could, probably, be better off if you ask yourself, why not?

retnajothi wrote:
It cannot.Is it not?

Is it already your conclusion or still question?

retnajothi wrote:
At this moment if this is understood the self ceases.

And what is wrong with that?

retnajothi wrote:
And what is left is mind becomes empty.When it is empty ihe entity is not.

Who told you that?

retnajothi wrote:
It is a legitimate question to ask who observes the reactions.But there is no self to answer.

The only ‘legitimate’ thing on this way is the observing itself. Anything else is constructions of noisy mind.

retnajothi wrote:
Silence is the answer.

If yes, we know what to do from now on, don’t we?

Last edited by natura (2010-07-30 20:55:29)

tree · 2010-07-30 20:36:51

yeah, just keep talking....

natura · 2010-07-30 20:40:33

tree wrote:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_drqO7qJ_y4o/S … r_fish.jpg
the question arises from the answer

Generally it does, yes.

But in that case it must be an intellectual answer that provokes new questions. Which means the answer is incomplete, inadequate, just verbal, superficial one.

We are here, however, to find out a definitive answer that stops any further questions and conflicts, aren’t we?

natura · 2010-07-30 20:45:05

tree wrote:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ckBlasgNSzg/S … etfish.jpg
yeah, just keep talking....

It seems I must...

...until I'm tired to the bone

tree · 2010-07-30 21:16:27

natura wrote:
tree wrote:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_drqO7qJ_y4o/S … r_fish.jpg
the question arises from the answer
Generally it does, yes.

But in that case it must be an intellectual answer that provokes new questions. Which means the answer is incomplete, inadequate, just verbal, superficial one.

We are here, however, to find out a definitive answer that stops any further questions and conflicts, aren’t we?

this is
what is not lost need not be found

KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Announcement

#876 2010-07-29 13:52:38

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

#877 2010-07-29 23:45:12

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

K wrote:

#878 2010-07-30 00:23:16

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

pauld wrote:

hermann wrote:

pauld wrote:

#879 2010-07-30 10:39:32

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

4Q529 wrote:

#880 2010-07-30 10:55:18

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

4Q529 wrote:

hermann wrote:

K wrote:

#881 2010-07-30 13:10:41

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

Gordo wrote:

#882 2010-07-30 13:17:09

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

hermann wrote:

pauld wrote:

hermann wrote:

#883 2010-07-30 13:22:52

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

hermann wrote:

pauld wrote:

#884 2010-07-30 13:24:53

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

natura wrote:

pauld wrote:

hermann wrote:

#885 2010-07-30 13:33:38

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

pauld wrote:

#886 2010-07-30 15:36:59

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

4Q529 wrote:

Andrew wrote:

#887 2010-07-30 16:10:46

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

#888 2010-07-30 18:53:01

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

#889 2010-07-30 19:22:42

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

#890 2010-07-30 19:37:17

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

#891 2010-07-30 19:38:33

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

pauld wrote:

natura wrote:

pauld wrote:

hermann wrote:

#892 2010-07-30 19:44:18

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

#893 2010-07-30 19:53:41

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

#894 2010-07-30 19:55:26

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

#895 2010-07-30 20:10:55

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

#896 2010-07-30 20:15:30

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

retnajothi wrote:

retnajothi wrote:

retnajothi wrote:

retnajothi wrote:

retnajothi wrote:

retnajothi wrote:

retnajothi wrote:

retnajothi wrote:

#897 2010-07-30 20:36:51

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it

#898 2010-07-30 20:40:33

Re: It's a marvellous thing if you can do it