A: We are in a Krishnamurti forum, let us center our exploration on his writings, videos, views, insights, methodology or lack of same. Krishnamurti is the teacher, the authority. Our goal here is to fathom him.
B: We are in a Krishnamurti forum, let us center our exploration on that to which he pointed: freedom, observation, awareness, attention, intelligence. The world is the teacher, no authorities. Our goal here is to explore, see what we see, share.
Seems that A places Krishnamurti in the foreground, the man, the work, the worldview. B otoh places everything in the foreground, including Krishnamurti, Buddhism, Advaita, Taoism, Western philosophy, everyoneās invited to the party.
Is there enough room here (psychologically) for both A and B to thrive? Or will there be As who think Bs are on the wrong track, Bs who think As are on the wrong track? I.e., divisionism.
Depends on the things. The spirit of non-authority - fragile and rare as it is - is easily usurped. Here an attempt is being made to protect that spirit under the banner of "Krishnamurtiā. Which does not preclude bringing in other teachers or philosophies if the context warrants. If that is not in keeping with your principles or your interpretation of intelligent inquiry, I ask you to remember that posting here is a privilege, not a right and suggest you perhaps find a more suitable venue that does not rub you the wrong way.
Well said! I totally agree. Itās the potential presence of authority here Iām questioning. If questioning authority is not welcome in a Krishnamurti forum, well, that would be odd.
That said, I understand and respect that communities need rules. It would be helpful for me if you would let me know where the lines are that may not be crossed. We could talk privately?
Yes, even though K said not to make him our authority. But since he gave different meanings to certain words and concepts, and spoke of things the conditioned brain canāt experience, much less, acknowledge, one canāt possibly āfathomā his teaching without first grasping what he was trying to convey.
Door B, however, opens to rational thought, the limit, the ground, the bottom line.
WIth door A, rational thought (aka practical thought) is a limited, mechanical process that the brain must put in its place or be limited to confinement to it. Door B does not acknowledge this possibility because it canāt be anything but thinking, rationally or not.
Please explain why Door B canāt be anything but thinking.
Door B: We are in a Krishnamurti forum, let us center our exploration on that to which he pointed: freedom, observation, awareness, attention, intelligence. The world is the teacher, no authorities. Our goal here is to explore, see what we see, share.
The headings I used, Door A and B, were just (attempts at) lighthearted names for different ways of exploring. I could instead have said A and B, or used no names at all. To avoid misunderstanding, I went back and edited them.
Your voices (posts) on this platform are thoughts in my mind.
While reading your posts I hear āmyā mind speaking.
What you say is a thought in my mind.
Why wouldnāt I consider that which you say to be my thought, randomly occurring in my mind ?
This platform speaks about āmyā mind, which may actually not be mine, nor yours, but āthe human mindā.
I may be witnessing here, in solitude, the human mind ā¦
( PS: of course, anything anytime anyplace is a platform to see the human mind but I think Kinfonet illuminates the human mind pretty well ).
Well said. And I think youāre right, the human mind in all its textures and shades and foibles is on display here. Kinfonet is a microcosm of the world.
Good catch @rickScott - I was wondering if this word āsolitudeā will wake up a question in anyoneā¦
I say this: I have been contemplating these words: awareness - meditation- solitude (see recent posts made by @James under awareness) - I think solitude applies to a way of seeing of the mind as not mine, not yours, seeing only, alone the mind.
Brings Advaitaās ekajiva to mind: the notion that there is only one individual soul, and apparent individuality and plurality are illusions. It implies that all individual souls are ultimately one with the supreme reality, Brahman.
Solitude in the sense: the observer is absent, which means that the seeing of the mind is not accompanied by a me, or a you.
ANALOGY:
Imagine a landscape, in which there is only one single element, (the human mind), nothing else, the me and the you are not there, which suggests the mind is seen in solitude, it is like a direct seeing of one unitary thing, making the seeing effortless, and whole - and this mind is the human mindā¦
is about seeing what stands between us (and the mystery? love?)