KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Tom wrote:

awareness wrote:

the person is not the body

Although we are quibbling over the exact meaning of a few words, I think we are talking of the same thing; the words 'ego' and 'self' also express it, don't they?

i think we were been long enough in this forum, that you dont need me and i dont need you to see that the leaf is greenm but we are bot not able to produce that leave. thought is not able to produce the whole, because the leaf is the whole tree. so understanding with thought as a tool, understanding is not. the limitation of thought is to seen clearly, the question produced by thought can only be a confused question according to psychological existentional subjects with exact same quality of answers. so to think to have a talk, in tradition of k talks remains absurd. i feel, that for k to keep quiet was his favorite thing, but he was confrontated with too much silly questions, i dont mean you here tom, to be clear. i feel, that it is a very misunderstanding of the k followers to discuss fear, which is thought, which is time, which is matter, limited and in transformation as its ending. i see here this again-and-again repeating of the what was said hundred times, thought remains thought and the other is the other. there are no new member which have to go through the river of sorrow, the rest of the old members are in danger to describe the things more and more intelectually, are in danger not to see more the observed in which is the ending of the observer, to go in confrontation wich each other, just about fighting with another meaning of word, of perspectives...sorry for my bad language

pearl wrote:

Tom wrote:

pearl wrote:

But I actually suggest that this whole thread is wrong, starting from a false notion and so inherently lacking any vital quality, or clarity, or truthfullness to it, only ever misleading it's participants, and so a total distortion of the kind of things K spoke about and urged to inquire into.

K said truth is a pathless land. He said it in 1929 and he reiterated it again in the 1980s. Are you now suggesting that there is a path to truth and that there is such a thing as a right thread and a wrong thread? I don't admit or deny that we have started from a false notion. Perhaps we have. Human civilisation itself may have started from a false notion. If it is false, put it right. That's your responsibility, madam, not ours. It is not our responsibility to present to you the right thread.

I'm suggesting all paths are wrong, sir.   You talk about there being my and your responsibility and I say responsibility is whole not divisive.

Yet you are constantly dividing, fragmenting, labeling.  So according to you, you are not responsible.  Shouldn't you first become responsible before preaching/teaching about responsibility?

awareness wrote:

i think we were been long enough in this forum, that you dont need me and i dont need you to see that the leaf is green but we are both not able to produce that leaf. thought is not able to produce the whole because the leaf is the whole tree. so understanding with thought as a tool, understanding is not. the limitation of thought is too seen clearly, the question produced by thought can only be a confused question according to psychological existentional subjects with exact same quality of answers. so to think to have a talk in tradition of k talks remains absurd. i feel that for k, to keep quiet was his favorite thing, but he was confronted with too much silly questions, i dont mean you here tom, to be clear. i feel that it is a very misunderstanding of the k followers to discuss fear, which is thought, which is time, which is matter, limited and in transformation as its ending. i see here this again-and-again repeating of the what was said hundred times, thought remains thought and the other is the other. there are no new member which have to go through the river of sorrow, the rest of the old members are in danger to describe the things more and more intelectually, are in danger not to see more the observed in which is the ending of the observer, to go in confrontation which each other, just about fighting with another meaning of word, of perspectives.

So what shall we do?

Eden wrote:

Until one sees life without fragmentation, there is only inquiry into the fragments and the duality. How can one call that inquiry?

When we enquire into the fragments and the duality we are enquiring directly into the fact, into the 'what is' of our own human relationship. But we seem to want to ignore this inconvenient or unpalatable fact about ourselves and pretend instead that we can explore and enquire into something at a much higher level. But there is no higher level except what is built upon the lower level; and whatever is built upon the lowly, fragmentary levels of our nature must have shaky foundations. So it's no wonder we then get lost and never seem to meet in any meaningful way.

hermann wrote:

Tom wrote:

Sorry, RJ, just wanted to be clear about something. Am I right to say you're addressing the above remarks only to Hermann?

Not quite, I think.  RJ's earlier post was addressed only to me, but when you included it in your summation, he didn't take too kindly to being so corralled.  I didn't answer the first post because it seemed to credit me with greater clarity of understanding than warranted.  So what was I to say?  Also there seems to be some irritation with me because I don't quite share his view of you.

If either of you has views of me, all it means is that neither of you is listening to what I'm saying. This is basically my fault though, I suspect. It means that I am saying the wrong thing; or I'm saying the right thing in the wrong way.

Last edited by Tom (2012-02-20 16:42:21)

Tom wrote:

beans wrote:

Well, some have a belief that they've conquered the ego for eternity - while simultaneously evidencing reactions and attachments that they themselves can't see.

Then more fool them for having that belief. They are just riding for a fall.

Yes, but perhaps not until the very end. In the meantime they make mischief

Tom wrote:

Eden wrote:

Until one sees life without fragmentation, there is only inquiry into the fragments and the duality. How can one call that inquiry?

When we enquire into the fragments and the duality we are enquiring directly into the fact, into the 'what is' of our own human relationship.

A dualistic mind is incapable of perceiving the facts.  You only relate to me and to life through your screen of duality and Krishnamurti-isms.  I don't have such a screen, therefore I see and feel your body and life as it is.

Until you have matured to the point where you see life without the distortion of duality and fragmentation and concepts, no deep relationship is possible.  No "opening together" with another body is possible. Of course, one doesn't need another body to open fully to life, or to this moment. But if some sort of deep communion is what you are after, then wholeness is like square one.

Eden wrote:

Tom wrote:

Unless we look at it together and see, again together, exactly the same picture at the same time, there is no whole picture, is there? There is then merely my description of it or yours. The description of it I don't want because the description has no meaning, whether it is your description or my own description.

"Looking together" is another one of your absurd concepts.  Every body feels life differently as every human body is different.  We may agree that life is seamless, or that life is one fluid movement, but our capacity to open to life and to meet the challenges of life will always be different.  Much of what you share here reveals your fragmented perceptions of life, so until you move beyond that, there is very little possibility of you opening the body to feel fully into life, as you are always opening and closing in response to illusory duality and illusory fragmentations.

No, I say that unless we look together there is no whole picture, that's all. But I don't know what it means to look together. We have never done it. So it is not a concept, is it? A concept can only form after the fact; and we have not yet met the fact. You are hearing or reading the words 'looking together' and drawing a conclusion about what it means. It may be meaningless or it may have the most profound meaning. But as we have not yet looked together at anything, why decide already that looking together is absurd, nonsensical, profound or anything else?

Tom wrote:

awareness wrote:

i think we were been long enough in this forum, that you dont need me and i dont need you to see that the leaf is green but we are both not able to produce that leaf. thought is not able to produce the whole because the leaf is the whole tree. so understanding with thought as a tool, understanding is not. the limitation of thought is too seen clearly, the question produced by thought can only be a confused question according to psychological existentional subjects with exact same quality of answers. so to think to have a talk in tradition of k talks remains absurd. i feel that for k, to keep quiet was his favorite thing, but he was confronted with too much silly questions, i dont mean you here tom, to be clear. i feel that it is a very misunderstanding of the k followers to discuss fear, which is thought, which is time, which is matter, limited and in transformation as its ending. i see here this again-and-again repeating of the what was said hundred times, thought remains thought and the other is the other. there are no new member which have to go through the river of sorrow, the rest of the old members are in danger to describe the things more and more intelectually, are in danger not to see more the observed in which is the ending of the observer, to go in confrontation which each other, just about fighting with another meaning of word, of perspectives.

So what shall we do?

i dont know, we are what is

you are warming to your theme

Tom wrote:

beans wrote:

Tom wrote:

Then more fool them for having that belief. They are just riding for a fall.

Yes, but perhaps not until the very end. In the meantime they make mischief.

So it is your responsibility to deal with all this. Right? They are making mischief and you have to deal with it. What will you do? They are not going to listen to your arguments; they are not going to be persuaded to take a different path. So what will you do with them? If you ignore them, the mischief goes on.

It's our responsibility to deal with ourselves first, which is not a one-time deal as it takes constant maintenance if to run properly - you know that old thingy about the mote in the eye. Then the right action in any given moment will be apparent, and if it's still a bit cloudly, there's the next moment. Sometimes it becomes obvious that one is caught in a pattern with another, so walking away and clearing one's head is the right action.

Currently, we have several 'saviors' working the forum. One of them is even specializing, if you can imagine that!

(ah yes, the end of suffering...)

beans wrote:

It's our responsibility to deal with ourselves first, which is not a one-time deal as it takes constant maintenance if to run properly - you know that old thingy about the mote in the eye. Then the right action in any given moment will be apparent, and if it's still a bit cloudy, there's the next moment. Sometimes it becomes obvious that one is caught in a pattern with another, so walking away and clearing one's head is the right action.
Currently, we have several 'saviors' working the forum. One of them is even specializing, if you can imagine that!

It is up to them what they do. Do you want to stop them doing it?

Last edited by Tom (2012-02-21 10:42:08)