Same here. When the discussion is science or logic-based I may go with model instead of story.
Explain why, in your opinion, we need a “mix”?
There are things that reveal themselves more vividly from each vantage point.
Give some examples. I can’t think of any “vantage point” revealing anything more than ones precious opinion as to what K was pointing to.
In reading and listening to K, we can form a notion of what he was saying, pointing to, and come to the forum with that notion instead of coming with honest uncertainty about what K was saying. So I see the mix as a mess of vantage points that provide entertainment, a kind of circus.
1 Like
Explain why, in your opinion, we need a “mix”?
I’m saying I prefer a mix, not that it’s needed. It provides a good fruitful way of exploring for me. For others staying with a single perspective may be a better way to go.
There are things that reveal themselves more vividly from each vantage point.
Give some examples
The thing that comes immediately to mind: Not subjectively interpreting Krishnamurti’s offerings may reveal what he was thinking-feeling better, and subjectively interpreting may reveal what we are thinking-feeling better.
So I see the mix as a mess of vantage points that provide entertainment, a kind of circus
I’d say that’s a clear indication that the mix is not a good approach for you. It’s challenging to explore with people who have different ways of exploring. Kind of like the challenge of living side by side with different people.
1 Like
If these “people” are actually discovering, what’s challenging about exploring with them?
It’s hard sharing a world with people who think, see, feel, behave differently, have different values.
Even if they’re all exploring and actually discovering?
For me, even when we’re all exploring and discovering it can be hard to be around different worldviews. I enjoy the differences, I even seek them out, but it can be stressful, especially for worldviews that are in opposition to mine. For example, if a devout Christian were to participate in the forum, I’d probably experience a degree of stress around their belief system and values.
World views are meaningless when discoveries are made.
For example, if a devout Christian were to participate in the forum, I’d probably experience a degree of stress around their belief system and values.
If they were to examine closely and make valid discoveries, would it matter what they believed, valued?
Yes, but probably less. Their Christian dogmatism would still probably haunt my image of them.
I doubt that anyone can examine or discover anything their beliefs can’t support, and that’s why I feel the “mix” you spoke of hinders more than helps.
1 Like
I guess it’s a question of what you want from the forum, right? At the risk of oversimplifying: You’d prefer the forum to center around Krishnamurti’s teachings, I’d prefer it to center around the issues Krishnamurti spoke about. You want to understand what Krishnamurti thought-felt, I want to understand what the members of the forum think-feel. It’s two perspectives that I believe can live happily together, with well-intentioned effort and tolerance.
Tolerance is the civilized acceptance of division. This is not the place to celebrate or adjust the personal so as to co-exist peacefully. There are other venues out there far better suited for that purpose. Something altogether different is being attempted here.
The raison d’etre for this forum is to engage in the very difficult, some think impossible, inquiry into whether value, preference, belief, meaning, etc have any basis in reality.
1 Like
I’ve heard lots of descriptions of what the forum is and what it could (perhaps should?) be. But the raison d’etre you describe is new or at least feels that way. Could you explain it in a bit more detail, I want to be sure I get what you’re saying, particularly ‘basis in reality.’ Thanks!
Hello its me (not Dev) but the statement surely means : do these things (value, preference, belief etc) make sense apart from conditioning? What does “meaning” mean absent a subjective center to which it “means”?
That sounds plausible, may be a good rephrasing of what Dev said, but I’d like to hear it from Dev himself. It’s way too easy to assume you’re ‘in sync’ with another person meaning-wise, then find out that you weren’t. Half the disagreements here involve misunderstandings, I think. ?
Sure - and some misunderstandings of really simple stuff sometimes, I often suspect that people aren’t really paying attention to what is being said - one excuse being of course all the noise going on in our own heads.
On the other hand, with Dev, his statements are sometimes so personal (deep?) that I have to read them multiple times (and still not get it) 
For my part - I sometimes forgo the desire to be comprehended at all - and often switch between simple tautologies and very personal poetic (?) metaphor.
You and I are both fond of posting idiosyncratic, personal, sometimes hard for others to fathom messages, right? And I suspect we’re both to some extent driven by the drive to be creative.
Note: While I am typing your text appeared in which you say you “often switch between simple tautologies and very personal poetic (?) metaphor.” QED. !!!
I compare the joy of becoming unconditioned to the excitement experienced by the bookkeeper who after so many years—perhaps forty, fifty, or sixty years—of being unable to balance his accounting book he finally found out where he made the mistake, what the accounting error was; and he was so excited by the discovery that it made him cry of happiness, and all the more so because he found that his error had simply been a wrong number he entered in the first line of the first book he began to keep when he started as a bookkeeper.
2 Likes
Thank you Manuel. Would it be more precise to say unconcerned by our conditioning, rather than unconditioned, do you think?
Dancing in the rain (as they say) rather than never getting wet? Or even standing under an umbrella with everyone else and discussing the weather?
Thank you, macdougdoug, for asking. My understanding is that becoming unconcerned of any conditioning with regards to anyone is to be unconditioned.
1 Like