Mimicking Krishnamurti

Yes, but what is meeting?

Each individual human identifies with one’s content, so the only “meeting” we ever do is when we share interest in or enthusiasm for the same particular thing…all else is a matter of tolerance and curiosity.

In this forum we meet to talk about our shared interest in K’s teaching. So when Paul goes on and on about how we must meet each other, is it because he doesn’t realize that we are meeting each other, or because meeting, for him, has taken on a special meaning after his personally transformative experience of what he calls “friendship”?

Krishnamurti gave special meanings to everyday words, so why shouldn’t Paul, who shamelessly emulates K?

Yes. When I was new to K-forums (though I had read everything K had written or spoken, and listened to every video), I came across Paul’s posts and foolishly took him to be K’s successor. I was sure he had "got it’ and had all the answers. Eventually, I realized what a fraud he was, and that I had been bamboozled.

There were a few others who fell for his shtick, too, but most everyone else disliked him, though none said why.

Waouh! Okay that makes sense - sounds like me and my ex-wife.
Did this affair happen somewhere else? Because I was on the old Kinfonet for a few years, and since the beginning of this one (on and off).

I’ll say this : I have seen a change in your understanding - though you have kept your warrior attitude - over the years.

I’d like to hear the story of you and your wife, but not here, of course.

I encountered the postings of Paul D in what I think was the KFA discussion group a little over ten years ago. It’s painful now to reflect on how naive I was back then.

1 Like

That is very interesting and understandable. However, Ks successor? Not sure if you are saying this facetiously or seriously? If you really did feel he was Ks successor, that makes it even more interesting and showing how easily we fall for authority and looking to others for answers.

Do you only know Paul through these forums or have you met him at Brockwood Park or any of the zoom dialogues? If you never met him except through this forum, are you open to discussing with him via zoom or at the zoom dialogues?

You were naive regarding Krishnamurti’s Teachings too? You have matured in this area too, right?

Yes, this is everything.

Occasionally, I drop in the word, ‘Sir,’ but that’s nothing to do with K - it just seems like good manners. But there are so many objections to it that it is far easier to drop it. (Probably it does look silly on a forum like this.) However, I don’t think K has the monopoly on good manners. Maybe it is an English thing. Just the other day someone quite young bumped into me on the street and immediately said, ‘Excuse me, sir.’

How do we approach a dialogue? Shall we go into this question?

We have no choice. I really don’t know what all the fuss is about. We are doing it now, for God’s sake. You are making a meal of it; I am not.

When something is new it means it has no template, no guidelines, no pattern to follow. It may be for some a very scary place in which to tread.

Well of course. People are afraid of being exploited. Why should someone trust you to take them psychologically where they’ve never been? No one can know another’s motives. I don’t think it’s fear but intelligence.

I don’t understand. How do we get there? Does it exist yet?

Is it intelligent to be afraid of a stranger? That’s really the question. Apparently, this is how we live in the world. Therefore our notions of love and friendship are very limited, having their roots in fear. So I don’t know why anyone would even bother to visit a site like this unless they wanted to explore these sorts of questions.

Traditionally, yes. Not so much anymore in modern western educated society. We even trust people we can’t see and have never met. Though there is a backlash these days, in the post truth world - as there has been with the notion of equality.

We create it. Or we go back into something familiar which we already know. Most of us are comfortable with that. But a few of us say, ‘No, that’s not good enough.’

We want something better that does not yet exist? Or something that existed for a bit.

I am not so sure. Traditions are very deep-rooted. Suspicion about the motives of another person are embedded in our psychological DNA.

1 Like

True - but there is a huge difference between then (which still exists now and is still the norm in most of the world) and now - the traditional fear of the stranger - and the all togetherness of modern society.

No, not something better - something new. The better can be easily gained. With a little effort, one can make one’s life better.

A new brain is not necessarily a better brain. We’ll always chase after the better. The new arrives when the chase stops, which is the old habit of trying to improve through time.

1 Like

Is free a better word for what you mean (better than new)? As in clear and unburdened?

Not really, because we already have images of freedom, clarity and so on.