KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

LMP wrote:

I sometimes wonder if our true nature is different for all of us, or has a different expression for or in or through us. For some it might be kindness, for some health, yet some intellect, for some, compassion, stillness, joy etc

Closest to my heart I would put: kindness, joy that is harmless and cares for others, sensitivity, consideration.

How do you feel about that?

True nature would be a quality that is not the outcome of any influence, isn't it? So need not we be free of influence to find this out? Which is be free of conditioning?

Eden wrote:

Jayaraj,

Every animal on this planet is conditioned and always will be, and every animal is the product and outcome of millions and billions of influences so your statement is the height of ignorance.

If I am intelligent (sensitive to danger) and I condition my child to be intelligent, where is the problem?? ..that is nature's order. The stupid clone themselves, as do the more evolved.  Welcome to planet earth.

Sir,

What is influence? It is the past accumulations isn't it? Now can one not be free of the past? What is then the movement of the past? Thought, right? Formation of an image in meeting the present is the operation of the past which is the response of many influences. Now can this process end? Can a person be met without forming of an image?

At the time the brain is forming the image is it possible to look at it fully, without the word? What then happens? Can there be an image in attention? Without the word which is without recognition, can an image form? What happens then? Can the mind retain that which is not recognized? It cannot, right sir? So it drops out. So then the mind has ended the sequence of the past.

Then there is attention & perceiving directly which is not a reaction of the past.This is a quality of mind to be discovered.

Find out sir. Don't be in a hast to pass judgments.

Eden wrote:

Sounds like sentimentality, void of primal instinct. Animals show no consideration nor kindness nor are they harmless....yet each is inherently protective of their entire species and each manifests qualities far above those ideas you expressed above.

I see animals, birds, flying/flowing with their instincts and having a good life, only humans have a complex society with rules and regulations as far as I can tell. I see human beings having experience paired with their instincts in such a way that instinct doesnt necessarily determine their behavior. Which animals protect their own species, if you had an example in mind?

If you feel that animals have qualities that manifest and are far above kindness, unconditional love, compassion, stillnes, joy without cause - what are they?

Last edited by LMP (2011-11-19 20:19:55)

LMP wrote:

Eden wrote:

Sounds like sentimentality, void of primal instinct. Animals show no consideration nor kindness nor are they harmless....yet each is inherently protective of their entire species and each manifests qualities far above those ideas you expressed above.

I see animals, birds, flying/flowing with their instincts and having a good life, only humans have a complex society with rules and regulations as far as I can tell. I see human beings having experience paired with their instincts in such a way that instinct doesnt necessarily determine their behavior. Which animals protect their own species, if you had an example in mind?

If you feel that animals have qualities that manifest and are far above kindness, unconditional love, compassion, stillnes, joy without cause - what are they?

All animals operate from a higher order than those human animals hijacked by myths, stories, concepts, and the ideas you expressed above.  However you are defining "kindness" or "consideration" I am quite certain "self-protection" is of a much higher order.  Show me a human being who is entirely free of beliefs and myths and then perhaps you will show me a human capable of kindness(whatever that means).   

Do animals demonstrate "kindness" or "consideration", or is that strictly a human phenomenon?  Define your terms, or the words will forever be useless abstractions swirling around in your mind, running your life.

Last edited by Eden (2011-11-19 21:18:58)

LMP wrote:

Maybe chimps are too close to humans to serve as a good example. With other animals I think you may be right, they show a playfulness and acceptance of/with each other rather than kindness.
.

Have you ever seen wild chimps form hunting parties to track down smaller monkeys and kill them and eat them? Is your mind able to see the "kindness" and consideration in that? Do you see the consideration as they share the meat between the group? 

LMP wrote:

I dont know any or how to show you an entirely free human being. I think kindness comes with the liberation of a troubled and separate mind.

I can agree with that...but how would you know unless you have encountered an entirely free human being or unless you are one yourself?  If a human is still shackled by duality and beliefs(and thus separation) how can they possibly show kindness?  They may show kindness to one "part" of life, and not to the other, but is that really kindness, or is that really hatred?  Hatred and kindness are always two sides of the same coin for a mind still stuck in duality/fragmentation.

joe wrote:

and ascribing to more evolved and less evolved is being stuck in duality/fragmentation.

If you don't like the word 'evolved', feel free to point out a better(less dualistic) one.  How about 'complex', or 'free'? Is that better?  Or is this just more peanut shells from the gallery?

Last edited by Eden (2011-11-19 23:31:27)

Eden wrote:

LMP wrote:

Maybe chimps are too close to humans to serve as a good example. With other animals I think you may be right, they show a playfulness and acceptance of/with each other rather than kindness.
.

Have you ever seen wild chimps form hunting parties to track down smaller monkeys and kill them and eat them? Is your mind able to see the "kindness" and consideration in that? Do you see the consideration as they share the meat between the group? 

LMP wrote:

I dont know any or how to show you an entirely free human being. I think kindness comes with the liberation of a troubled and separate mind.

I can agree with that...but how would you know unless you have encountered an entirely free human being or unless you are one yourself?  If a human is still shackled by duality and beliefs(and thus separation) how can they possibly show kindness?  They may show kindness to one "part" of life, and not to the other, but is that really kindness, or is that really hatred?  Hatred and kindness are always two sides of the same coin for a mind still stuck in duality/fragmentation.

If I can see kindness in them teaming up and eating their own babies, well that question seems to answer itself.

Maybe you want to say something personal, returning to my original question, about what wants to be when not listening to what the mind has to say.

Eden wrote:

joe wrote:

and ascribing to more evolved and less evolved is being stuck in duality/fragmentation.

If you don't like the word 'evolved', feel free to point out a better(less dualistic) one.  How about 'complex', or 'free'? Is that better?  Or is this just more peanut shells from the gallery?

Not going to answer?  Nothing to offer but peanuts and noise?

Eden wrote:

LMP wrote:

If I can see kindness in them teaming up and eating their own babies, well that question seems to answer itself.

So you would suggest that at times cannibalism does equal kindness(according your definition)?

no

LMP wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

LMP wrote:

I sometimes wonder if our true nature is different for all of us, or has a different expression for or in or through us. For some it might be kindness, for some health, yet some intellect, for some, compassion, stillness, joy etc

Closest to my heart I would put: kindness, joy that is harmless and cares for others, sensitivity, consideration.

How do you feel about that?

True nature would be a quality that is not the outcome of any influence, isn't it? So need not we be free of influence to find this out? Which is be free of conditioning?

From the outcome of influence we speak, but the one who wants to be free of influence is really inside the result of influence. Dont you think that the realisation is about that there is noone to be free, rather than a need to be free.

Is there something in us that has to realise what we are in order for us to be it? What do you think?

Yes I see what you mean LMP, an entity that wants to be free is an illusion put together by the influence itself.

What realizes what we are? Well it's just realization in my view. Not any aspect of us realizing.It is something totally impersonal like the sky.

Jayaraj wrote:

Thought- response of gathered knowledge of course.

Define "knowledge".

Jayaraj wrote:

Image- something put together by thought. When you say a 'second hand human being' it is an image put together by your stored knowledge of having read something similar. So it's a construction put together by past knowledge which is the source of misunderstanding as a person is a changing entity & hence cannot be judged by knowledge.

My comment about you being a 'second hand human being' was just me speaking your language for a moment, which is one that is full of K-isms and second hand ideas of all sorts(including the one I used, which was to point out the contradiction in your logic). 

The body records hurts of all sorts for survival.  If every time I cross paths with you, you punch me in the face, the body is going to naturally protect itself against you the next time we cross paths unless you demonstrate clear evidence that you will not and cannot do it again.  Recording pains to protect against them in the future is actually quite natural and healthy...all species do it.

K has led you into a maze of concepts and confusion.

Eden wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

Thought- response of gathered knowledge of course.

Define "knowledge".

Jayaraj wrote:

Image- something put together by thought. When you say a 'second hand human being' it is an image put together by your stored knowledge of having read something similar. So it's a construction put together by past knowledge which is the source of misunderstanding as a person is a changing entity & hence cannot be judged by knowledge.

My comment about you being a 'second hand human being' was just me speaking your language for a moment, which is one that is full of K-isms and second hand ideas of all sorts(including the one I used, which was to point out the contradiction in your logic). 

The body records hurts of all sorts for survival.  If every time I cross paths with you, you punch me in the face, the body is going to naturally protect itself against you the next time we cross paths unless you demonstrate clear evidence that you will not and cannot do it again.  Recording pains to protect against them in the future is actually quite natural and healthy...all species do it.

But protecting the self-image leads to tremendous hurt and violence, wars, destruction, manipulation, all which perpetuate fear.