KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

You are not logged in.

Announcement

To use the forum: 1) request the creation of a new account by clicking Register and sending us an email with your desired username 2) new users will be e-mailed a random password within three business days. They can then log in and change this password in their profile if they see fit. This feature also requires users to verify new e-mail addresses if they choose to change from the one they registered with 3) click Dialogue Forum link to enter the dialogue forum 4) click on an existing thread or post a new topic 5) enjoy the dialogue.....
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

#276 2011-11-25 14:08:03

kirsten
Member
From: the netherlands
Registered: 2008-05-10
Posts: 2892

Re: Can we look without naming?

yes everywhere thoughts are playing

Offline

 

#277 2011-11-25 14:10:23

dhirendra
Member
Registered: 2011-02-21
Posts: 158

Re: Can we look without naming?

Right, criticism can't cure.Thought is our 'what is', wrong or right.

Offline

 

#278 2011-11-25 14:13:33

kirsten
Member
From: the netherlands
Registered: 2008-05-10
Posts: 2892

Re: Can we look without naming?

wrong or right is thought again

Offline

 

#279 2011-11-25 14:15:51

dhirendra
Member
Registered: 2011-02-21
Posts: 158

Re: Can we look without naming?

exactly.

Offline

 

#280 2011-11-25 14:48:25

joe
Member
From: ohio
Registered: 2008-03-17
Posts: 14897
Website

Re: Can we look without naming?

before we try to equalize everything by labelling it thought, what say we understand that thought is a part of the functioning of a human being, and thought comes in two forms, practical or technical, and psychological.  One deals with what is actually there and one projects into imagination and takes it for reality.

Online

 

#281 2011-11-25 15:48:12

pearl
Member
Registered: 2009-02-15
Posts: 6417

Re: Can we look without naming?

dhirendra wrote:

Pearl:but if I ever lived with someone whom I truly, deeply loved and vice versa that would not occur.  We'd have no time to insult each other, threaten each other, or fight each other.  On the contrary he'd be the happiest man alive and the luckiest, and most fortunate to have me as his partner and I'd feel exactly the same.  Every moment of it would be filled with wonder and love and ecstacy, totally.  Nothing less than that.  He will never be able to hurt me nor me him which means I would only share my life intimately with someone who is fully mature enough to meet me with the same intensity, and with whom it is totally possible to communicate in every situation.  Why would I put someone I love deeply, down, and why would he do the same if we were sensitive to each other?  I find nothing beautiful Eden, about a man/woman who keep putting each other down.  And this has nothing to do with you Eden, or any other.  But, love does not hurt.  In love there is no hurt.

Well said, Sam.

Welcome dhi, and wonderful to hear ya.:-)

Offline

 

#282 2011-11-25 18:20:41

tree
Member
Registered: 2009-01-02
Posts: 9860

Re: Can we look without naming?

joe wrote:

before we try to equalize everything by labelling it thought, what say we understand that thought is a part of the functioning of a human being, and thought comes in two forms, practical or technical, and psychological.  One deals with what is actually there and one projects into imagination and takes it for reality.

both are conditioned

Online

 

#283 2011-11-25 18:24:01

joe
Member
From: ohio
Registered: 2008-03-17
Posts: 14897
Website

Re: Can we look without naming?

so you would equalize it again?

Online

 

#284 2011-11-25 18:47:06

night
Member
From: California
Registered: 2010-11-21
Posts: 934

Re: Can we look without naming?

tree wrote:

both are conditioned

Indeed. Every form is conditioned (a result of conditions). And that is fine.

Offline

 

#285 2011-11-25 18:58:14

tree
Member
Registered: 2009-01-02
Posts: 9860

Re: Can we look without naming?

joe wrote:

so you would equalize it again?

is that a conditioned response?

Online

 

#286 2011-11-25 20:08:30

joe
Member
From: ohio
Registered: 2008-03-17
Posts: 14897
Website

Re: Can we look without naming?

whatever tree...if you want to promote homogenization instead of seeing what is happening, go ahead and equalize it all.

Online

 

#287 2011-11-25 21:51:08

tree
Member
Registered: 2009-01-02
Posts: 9860

Re: Can we look without naming?

joe wrote:

whatever tree...if you want to promote homogenization instead of seeing what is happening, go ahead and equalize it all.

could these be baseless assumptions?

Online

 

#288 2011-11-25 22:07:23

joe
Member
From: ohio
Registered: 2008-03-17
Posts: 14897
Website

Re: Can we look without naming?

they could well be, sure...would you like to express more about what you are saying?

Online

 

#289 2011-11-25 22:42:41

tree
Member
Registered: 2009-01-02
Posts: 9860

Re: Can we look without naming?

joe wrote:

they could well be, sure...would you like to express more about what you are saying?

what is not clear?

Online

 

#290 2011-11-25 22:48:24

joe
Member
From: ohio
Registered: 2008-03-17
Posts: 14897
Website

Re: Can we look without naming?

your replies, what is your meaning?

Online

 

#291 2011-11-25 22:52:13

tree
Member
Registered: 2009-01-02
Posts: 9860

Re: Can we look without naming?

joe wrote:

your replies, what is your meaning?

what is your question?

Online

 

#292 2011-11-25 23:01:06

joe
Member
From: ohio
Registered: 2008-03-17
Posts: 14897
Website

Re: Can we look without naming?

goodnight tree, enjoy the parade...think about it and you will know, or keep the disassociative tack going and you will not.

Online

 

#293 2011-11-25 23:22:25

tree
Member
Registered: 2009-01-02
Posts: 9860

Re: Can we look without naming?

joe wrote:

goodnight tree, enjoy the parade...think about it and you will know, or keep the disassociative tack going and you will not.

limited options indeed

Online

 

#294 2011-11-26 05:48:36

dhirendra
Member
Registered: 2011-02-21
Posts: 158

Re: Can we look without naming?

Sam:Welcome dhi and wonderful to hear ya.:-)

Thank you Sam.

Last edited by dhirendra (2011-11-26 05:49:15)

Offline

 

#295 2011-11-26 09:56:55

pearl
Member
Registered: 2009-02-15
Posts: 6417

Re: Can we look without naming?

A very good morning dhi! :-)

Offline

 

#296 2011-11-26 10:11:13

pearl
Member
Registered: 2009-02-15
Posts: 6417

Re: Can we look without naming?

Ah, now I see why you hide behind other posters
and these meaningless one liners, fear?

Offline

 

#297 2011-11-26 10:14:41

dhirendra
Member
Registered: 2011-02-21
Posts: 158

Re: Can we look without naming?

pearl wrote:

A very good morning dhi! :-)

Good evening Sam, here is a very peaceful evening of pink winter.smile

Offline

 

#298 2011-11-26 10:21:48

pearl
Member
Registered: 2009-02-15
Posts: 6417

Re: Can we look without naming?

Awesome, I can feel it...:-)

Offline

 

#299 2011-11-26 13:39:39

awareness
Member
Registered: 2011-09-03
Posts: 4038

Re: Can we look without naming?

pearl wrote:

Ah, now I see why you hide behind other posters
and these meaningless one liners, fear?

soliloquy?

Offline

 

#300 2011-11-26 16:12:28

Eden
Member
From: Hawaii
Registered: 2009-05-08
Posts: 5508

Re: Can we look without naming?

pearl wrote:

Alright, but if I ever lived with someone whom I truly, deeply loved and vice versa that would not occur.  We'd have no time to insult each other, threaten each other, or fight each other.  On the contrary he'd be the happiest man alive and the luckiest, and most fortunate to have me as his partner and I'd feel exactly the same.  Every moment of it would be filled with wonder and love and ecstacy, totally.  Nothing less than that.  He will never be able to hurt me nor me him which means I would only share my life intimately with someone who is fully mature enough to meet me with the same intensity, and with whom it is totally possible to communicate in every situation.  Why would I put someone I love deeply, down, and why would he do the same if we were sensitive to each other?  I find nothing beautiful Eden, about a man/woman who keep putting each other down.  And this has nothing to do with you Eden, or any other.  But, love does not hurt.  In love there is no hurt.  I do not associate aggresivity with being feminine, nor does the feminine tolerate being abused.  It's a fine balance!  But, I must say I love your honesty and appreciate it very much and please, I'm not judging you or any other.  Not at all, but simply saying how I see, feel, live...

Good night, Eden.  Sending you and your's much love.

Good day pearl.  How are ya.  There are a few things that I would like to share in regards to your post above.  Clearly I see the difference between two whole people entering into a relationship out of wholeness, than two people entering into a relationship out of neediness or lack or insufficiency of some sort. We have known each other for how long, you and I? ;-)

When a mature and totally 'whole' woman is fiery, highly sensitive, and emotionally responsive to a man's momentary(or repetitive) lack of integrity, or his inability to rise to meet a challenge, etc it is a kind of response that is just a momentary disgust or sense of danger, rather than some kind of "hurt" or "aggressiveness".  To suggest that there would never be such an intense situation in a healthy relationship is to speculate and it is not my experience at all.  I used to see relationship exactly the way you do.  The thing is pearl, when we are truly open to life, it is always pushing our limits and creating disturbances and a man is not going to meet every challenge perfectly...depending how open the feminine partner is to her man's masculine presence and direction, her response will be of equal intensity.

You assume that a woman's fiery and intense response is a lack of communication, when in fact 5 seconds of anger can say far more than a 20 minute discussion.  It is actually an incredibly efficient way to communicate as the feminine partners body is wide open, utterly sensitive, and thus instantly and intensely communicates her man's state of health moment by moment.  It's the most challenging path of all, and few men can handle it. It takes incredible alertness to be with such a woman, and she has no tolerance for a man who is not 'at least' her equal in all ways.

What woman would depend on a man who is less trustworthy or alert or intense(as you say) than herself?  Like attracts like.  Being with a whole, healthy, vibrant woman who is growing stronger by the day is not an easy challenge, yet it is the most rich and incredible and nourishing place to be....and indeed it is filled with the wonder and ecstasy and the love that you so clearly shared above.

Last edited by Eden (2011-11-26 16:24:29)

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson