KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

RJ wrote:

When you ask another person to dissect their base fears in front of you with your interrogatory style it strikes me as no less a personal question as to ask someone about their intimate financial or sexual lives. There may be no taboo against doing any of it but I, for one, find it offensive when I see someone doing it so gracelessly.

You are being offended by a word - 'fear' - because of the associations you attach to that word. On top of that, you're being offended on behalf of someone else. So basically you're just offending yourself by your own reactions.

Huguette wrote:

Tom wrote:

The trouble is, I doubt whether an impatient mind will even bother to observe impatience.

Don’t you know whether an impatient mind will bother to observe impatience? After all, which mind is each one of us talking about? Other people’s minds? Not one’s own? How does one know if one is impatient if not by observing the fact? The fact of impatience, pain, hunger, thirst, sadness, and so on, is observed in a flash, not after 2 hours or 2 weeks of it. It’s not a time-consuming process. Even if one can try to repress it, one can only repress what's seen, however superficially or grudgingly.

All right, but what is the fact of impatience? There's the man who says, 'I'm impatient; that's a fact,' and yet what he actually sees of impatience is only the superficial manifestation of it. He says, 'I'm impatient' and generally then goes one of two ways, either making a virtue or a vice out of it. So he's already reacting to the label, to the various cultural and personal things previously attached to that word. So what is impatience?

natura wrote:

Theoretical approach to answer questions and to resolve life problems is being condemned quite often, isn’t it? But what’s the difference? Can we be practical on this forum?

Why can't we be practical here? What prevents it? The only problem we face is the problem of relationship. And relationship begins where you are, whether you're in the family home, in the workplace or in a place like this. They are all different places; they all make different demands. But the different responses in all those different places comes from the same source.

Tom wrote:

snguyen wrote:

I understand what you mean. I don't accept it as an idea, but it is there. And by way of communication I say fear is operating in me.

But what is fear? When we use this word, are we talking about the same thing?

The thread starts to go in all directions and diluted. We need to talk on one thing at a time, if we will.

snguyen wrote:

The thread starts to go in all directions and diluted. We need to talk on one thing at a time, if we will.

As long as it's the same thing we are talking about it, it doesn't matter what that one thing is. You choose.

Last edited by Tom (2012-01-20 14:35:27)

awareness wrote:

tree, a hot dog with everything, please

$3.50...please

awareness wrote:

tree wrote:

awareness wrote:

tree, a hot dog with everything, please

$3.50...please

i have only 1.000l;-) can you change?

no charge



bon appetit

drink and go

RJ wrote:

oh thank you great enlightened one...

But you're doing it again now. You're not getting at the simple root of the matter which is, as I said last thread, that you don't like me. And who am I to be liked or disliked except a load of words on a screen? That's all you are reacting to. Maybe it's the arrangement of the words, the fluency or the lack of fluency of the words, the punctuation, the vocabulary - whatever it is something has got your goat and you react. But please don't say, 'It's the tone of your words,' because frankly that won't wash. The tone of these words is only inside your head. And the tone is there because what you are reading now chimes with something else, perhaps something psychologically ancient.

I am not being rude; I am not being personal. If you take it that way, it's not meant that way. And I may also be totally wrong too. But it's all here to be taken apart.

Last edited by Tom (2012-01-20 15:53:58)

snguyen wrote:

No, wait. We said that to know fear and to live with it is confusion. This confusion can be just pure ignorance and going on with the habit. So what is fear?

I am afraid of my boss because of my job security. Is insecurity fear? Or they are two different things? Can it be that I am insecure, there is insecurity but there is absolutely no sense of fear? Fear here is the anxiety, the psychological crisis, the paralysis of the system?

Are we talking about physical or psychological security?

Tom wrote:

RJ wrote:

oh thank you great enlightened one...

But you're doing it again now. You're not getting at the simple root of the matter which is, as I said last thread, that you don't like me. And who am I to be liked or disliked except a load of words on a screen? That's all you are reacting to. Maybe it's the arrangement of the words, the fluency or the lack of fluency of the words, the punctuation, the vocabulary - whatever it is something has got your goat and you react. But please don't say, 'It's the tone of your words,' because frankly that won't wash. The tone of these words is only inside your head. And the tone is there because what you are reading now chimes with something else, perhaps something psychologically ancient.

It's wonderful, opening doors, how enthusiastically some people will walk through them.

here you go performing the analyst trick again, this time it's me! oooh the attention.

in this regard you do not, as we say, know your arse from your elbow.

Your 'delivery' is not even close, as it happens I often do hear people's writing in different pitches and keys and in your case I get a flat, grey monochromal G major with tragically little variation. There is nothing to object to in it, that's kind of my point here, it's bland, void of emotion. It is the tactic and the tact of a well educated English person who refuses to let his feelings get in the way of a good argument and makes a point of never raising his voice, especially when the other party is practically frothing at the mouth with impotent rage at their inability to get a rise out of unmoveable him. So far so bland and so what.

It is all about the relationship Tom.

You assume the mantle of master and disciple with the people you talk with. In the case of Hermann, for example, I have come to see how this is a toxic relationship. He is, in my mind, a genuine seeker after truth and some kind of absolution for his emotional torpor and some kind of rocket fuel to light up under his mental stagnation. Instead of the option of offering him camaraderie and acknoweldgement you dangle ever increasingly obtuse 'Q & As' in front of him as if you were playing at some parody of being the reincarnation of Krishnamurti himself. All talk, no connection. 

The healing relationship, the love if you like, where you actually do support another person in their journey through sickness and suffering is something entirely different, even if you may have fully convinced yourself you are some kind of K therapist I do not see you doing good, not in the responses you get and not in the process you present.

I have reasons not to like you Tom. They are personal, they are not abstract or remotely related to the way you order your language. People present themselves, their energy in many and diverse ways. Speech, written or spoken, is a superb way at revealing the content of our inner workings to each other. We are, those of us who write here, doing it all the time.

I simply do not think you are genuine, I think you have deluded yourself and are looking to play others.

Both Bruce here and you have remarkably similar 'tones' and approaches in this regard. Both of you have, as we say, 'assumed the position' and both have become adept at justifying yourselves as you do it. This, and only this, is the source of my dislike. Stop it. You are not the mouthpiece of God so either be silent or ask those questions that you know you don't know. 



'To know without knowing is best
not knowing without knowing it is sick
to be sick of being sick is the only cure

the wise are not sick
they are sick of being sick
so they are well'

L. T

snguyen wrote:

I am half free and half conditioned still.

There is NO such thing. NEVER in a million years.