Exploration

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, everyone’s invited to the party.

I’m the type B kinda guy. You?

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.

There can only be one truth and according to Krishnamurti - and yes, this is a Krishnamurti forum - there is no door to it.

But keep this up and you might find yourself being shown to one.

Why would the question I posed, an A and a B attitude towards the forum, get me kicked out?

No, but attitude might.

What is the attitude problem? (Sincerely asking.)

Your insistence on talking about golf at a tennis conference.

Is the forum a Krishnamurti conference? Or a community that explores lots of things together?

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 "Krishnamurti’. 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. It’s the potential presence of authority here I’m 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?

No path to and from the door either I hear, but maybe the key :innocent: is about seeing what stands between us (and the mystery? love?)

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 can’t experience, much less, acknowledge, one can’t possibly “fathom” 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 can’t be anything but thinking, rationally or not.

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long

Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

― T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men

1 Like

Please explain why Door B can’t 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.

Below is my response:

Your voices (posts) on this platform are thoughts in my mind.
While reading your posts I hear “my” mind speaking.
What you say is a thought in my mind.

Why wouldn’t I consider that which you say to be my thought, randomly occurring in my mind ?

This platform speaks about “my” mind, which may actually not be mine, nor yours, but “the human mind”.

I may be witnessing here, in solitude, the human mind …

( 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 you’re right, the human mind in all its textures and shades and foibles is on display here. Kinfonet is a microcosm of the world.

But why the solitude?

Good catch @rickScott - I was wondering if this word “solitude” will wake up a question in anyone…

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.

Solitude that is all-inclusive?

Brings Advaita’s 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.

Say anything for you? :slight_smile:

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 mind…