Friends. What do you get?
Yes, I should be more mindful of the need for every K discussion show to have a K-clone of its own. And what’s more, who am I to deny anyone the pleasure of association with Krishnamurti?
We’re all friends here, aren’t we? I mean, Krishnamurti’s teaching has us trying everything we can do to crack the code and be done with it, but no one has cracked it. And that’s what makes us friends. Thankyou, Krishnamurti, for giving us a code we can’t crack without losing our friends
Have you ever considered the possibility that friendship itself may be the whole of the code?
I can’t define “friendship”. Can you?
How old are you, sir, that you haven’t worked out what friendship is? It is surely not about definitions. Can you define even yourself, let alone a friend or a stranger? Obviously, our conditioning - our prejudices, our past experiences - can often create for us all sorts of crazy and crooked definitions, mechanistic and robotic, which operate in the space between oneself and another. The other day it happened; and tomorrow, probably, it will happen again. Yet it is so easy to be aware of this movement when we are sensitive to our resistance to pain and our dependence on pleasure. In the light of such sensitive awareness, the image of the other cannot survive. For in those images we are actually seeing ourselves, which is our history of being hurt in relationship. And when we look at it directly, we have negated this history without any further effort or resistance.
You see, now we are answering our original question about direct perception. Are you with me in this? Or is your image of me and your image of K preventing any chance of real, sustained and friendly enquiry? When there is no longer any image of K and what he represents, then only the teachings exist, not the teacher; and so they are yours. And if you want to say, ‘Now I am K,’ that’s alright. You can call yourself whatever you want.
So friendship demands the absence of all psychological definitions. It is a demand, a challenge which must be met totally, not a concept around which we must cleverly try to adjust ourselves. Then we shall find a quality of purification in our relationship which is an eternally fresh stream.
But these words are just a pale and lifeless description of all this; so we have to throw out the words and find out what happens when those words have deserted us.
2 Likes
Friendship,
Another patently false conclusion made by thought. The words “friend”, “love” and “free” are all linked together and all mean the same thing. So, anyone saying that there is no definition for these words is also implying that these words are meaningless, which is utterly false. Without being aware of one’s reactions and understanding them, there is no freedom, and a life lived without them is absolutely meaningless. All intellectual enquiries can never be a substitute for observation (another wonderful discovery) 
.
The sole activity of intellectual enquiries result only in dullness and a vapid mind - and, unfortunately, also result in placing thought itself as a permanent activity of the mind, of the brain. Hence, were one to do this, thought becomes the primary action of the “self”, a place it already occupies throughout the world. Had K thrown out what words mean - what any word points to, what any word refers to, because they are only referents - no one would have even bothered to listen to anything he said, and anyone who promotes such a ludicrous idea is actually contradicting his/herself, and contradicting all the teachings as they are also suggesting that the teachings themselves are worthless. Such a person is actually placing him/herself in the position of just another leader which the world is already full of. The very action of throwing out words also implies a complete and utter psychotic break with reality, and can only result in complete and permanent insanity. Indeed, such a person is incapable of friendship and must not be trusted. You see, in love, trust is included. When one works to build trust, there is always an ulterior motive, and this ego-based activity has nothing to do with love. It also implies that one can define words according to one’s conditioning (another wonderful discovery). As well, it also means that one is choosing to ignore looking at oneself, because that is also being suggested as being a meaningless activity. One has only to see “what is” happening in the world, how someone like Putin has chosen to define and use the word “nazification” to support his plans, and justify his actions. This is so much fun - making these extraordinary discoveries. 
So, in sum, anyone promoting any argument which seeks to redefine words is also neglecting the crucial importance of awareness and understanding.
There are many times in our dialogues together when one just has to sit quietly and listen to what the other person is saying without any response. These moments happen fairly frequently when we are either having a dialogue online or meeting in person. It is a difficult thing to do or to observe here, where we are surrounded by so many words and yet our fellow participants are strangely invisible, but this is such a time.
These moments come sometimes when a statement is made or a question is asked that is so powerful, so profound, that any response is almost sacrilegious.
But sometimes there is a realisation that whatever one does or says is not going to reach the other person in any meaningful way; that their heart and mind are already set against one. In person, one might nod and smile, as an indication that what has been said has been listened to and received, taken on board. And so this is now the impression one wants to give, however clumsily one is left to express it.
False narrative,
One listens to “what is” happening in the world on cable TV, and the phrase “false narrative” is frequently mentioned re: Putin. No matter what one says to an insane and evil autocrat like Putin, he has no intention of listening. His course is set, fixed in thought, just like cement; and the only thing he has going for him is the gullibility, fear and conditioning of his followers. What can one say of his followers, well… they will end up pretty much like their parents, eh? A few little changes, here and there, but pretty much just like their parents.
K said that the classical 100% intellectual (that is, people entirely ruled by thought), spit on the word “good”, yup… The problem here is that such people don’t even know the difference between right and wrong, so they even throw out words like good and bad. Would you really want someone like that as a friend? Do you honestly believe that such a person has your best interests at heart, yes at HEART… You see, someone like that doesn’t care about the other; the only thing that such a person cares about is getting their way, because that is the only way they can justify their choices. It’s a really sick world, eh??
This is what happens when one throws the baby out with the bath water.
EDIT: So, again, it is ridiculous to suggest throwing out certain words, because then it’s not far from suggesting that the dictionaries should be thrown out as well into a bonfire. Heck, then as the megalomaniacs have done in the past, they have not only thrown out anything that doesn’t please them (which they are incapable of understanding), why not burn all those books, as well? The problem remains is that everything that one has added to one’s data bank of knowledge stays inside - deep in the unconscious, everything that one has experienced and lived in one’s life, whether one is aware of this or not… It is magical thinking to suggest this idea, attach to this idea, and then even believe in this idea. You do see the how this idea develops in time --> attachment --> belief, right?
You’re too modest. You sound so much like Krishnamurti that one could believe you have undergone the radical transformation K spoke of. Clearly, you believe it.
Of what value is it to you if I am happy and you are not?
It depends on what you mean by “happy”. There a lot of happy fools who turn mean and ugly when triggered.
If, however, you mean being at peace with what actually is because you can’t argue with what you can’t deny or distort, that’s beautiful.
I don’t believe anything. Transformation only makes sense when it directly affects another. The moment we are friends, the transformation has taken place. One of my oldest friends, whom I am seeing later today, when I first met her almost forty years ago I was afraid of her because she was not afraid to speak her mind.
Beliefs,
You believe that thought can discover truth by using your definition of enquiry (which you have chosen btw) as the sole means to intellectually understand “everything-K”. Your use of “I” means that you have chosen your “self” (your “I” - in other words, thought itself) as the sole tool of enquiry, instead of awareness, understanding and observation. Charley observed when she initially joined the site that you said, “I don’t suffer”, which is a contradiction in terms, since the “I” is the source of all suffering and sorrow. You resort to speculation (ideas about facts - i.e. more thoughts), conclusions (many of which are patently false), and contradict yourself often. As K said, and @DanMcD has mentioned several times, freedom is always at the beginning. This is a K site, and you promote ideas and thoughts which have nothing to do with K, but have everything to do with who @anon78228991 is. And to be free means to be fearless, yet you have said you are afraid. You are definitely not free of thought, as you have even stated to another dialogue member, that you think all the time (even when driving !!) - so you are definitely not free of thought. K said to do enquiry, one must be free to investigate, but you are full of fear. So, what you are doing on this site has very little to do with the teachings of K, and more to do with who @anon78228991 is. You believe you are free, since you can verbalize all your thoughts, which is nothing more than licentiousness and self-expression. All of this behaviour means that you are not into awareness of “what is”, to the point of being unaware of just how many beliefs you do have. You have yet to begin… meanwhile, you encourage and support others to be exactly like you. You also believe that you have friends, but the word “friend” actually also means being “free”, but you aren’t free, so all these so-called “friends” are really just chat buddies.
What is your question, madam? Do you actually have any questions at all? Then it may be possible we can talk together. Otherwise, I am not sure what on earth is going on.
Isn’t there a difference between “freedom from thought” and no thoughts arising?
I was being facetious. Anyone can speak like Krishnamurti if that’s what they want to do, and anyone transformed speaks as only they can, original and unique, indebted to no one.
I don’t believe anything.
I too, once believed that I didn’t believe anything. Now I know I am full of beliefs, most of which I’m only aware of in the moment they reveal themselves.
So think twice about this absolutist, emphatic K-like statement you have made here.
1 Like
But you always seem to home in on the most trivial details. I say the moment we are friends the transformation has taken place. We can leave K out of it altogether.
What’s trivial about believing you have no beliefs? It’s a serious matter.
I say the moment we are friends the transformation has taken place.
I don’t have to say we’re friends, or believe we are friends, or bring the idea of “friend” in at all. If you equate friendship with transformation, you really must make it clear what you mean. Otherwise, it’s just a platitude, something that sounds good and means nothing.
We can leave K out of it altogether.
I can, but if you can’t stop aping Krishnamurti, we’re stuck with him.
This is your responsibility, not mine. It is very clear to me. I cannot make it any clearer. That’s why I go back to meeting either online or in person. If you really desire clarity, you have to step out of the shadows into the daylight.
Finished. Let’s leave it here.
You said, “…the moment we are friends the transformation has taken place”, I ask what you mean by that, and you tell me it is my responsibility to find out because, as you say, “It is very clear to me”.
Isn’t that like saying Santa Claus exists and if I don’t believe it, too bad for me?
Then you say, “If you really desire clarity, you have to step out of the shadows into the daylight.”
What are you talking about? All I want is to understand why you equate transformation with friendship.