Only if we all did it. But K-believers have to testify and preach, and they have no other place to do it but in K-discussion forums.
Question: What is the difference between my self and yours?
And is it easier to see my self or yours?
It’s easier to see the selves of those who take themselves more seriously, e.g., the K-believers.
You’re idealizing. We can only work with what we have, so forget about what you think we should have.
I feel friendly with those who don’t presume to understand the teaching better than they honestly do, and I try to see the humorous side of those who think they “get it”.
re: Fritz,
Not surprising that the guy who said this was Fritz, (who is not actually cited in the above !!!), the eminent scholar and intellectual, who was bummed out about not getting enough respect, considering his Ph.D… etc. - a man who K got rid of in 1980, mainly because K had come to realize that he was all talk…
from: Mary Zimbalist: In the Presence of Krishnamurti [2015], Issue 58 – Feb. 5, 1979 to Apr. 16, 1979 onwards…
Insofar as one sees it, it is not only that everyone understands to one degree or another that there was a wrong turn thousands of years ago, but apparently, there were those who went the wrong way even after have done a wrong turn prior to that…
Sean, howdy, I don’t think everyone here feels they are equal with everyone else. Some feel superior, some inferior. Other than that I agree with you.
I think there’s a modest amount of friendliness here. But in all the Krishnamurti forums I’ve been in, friendliness and kindness have been pretty slim. There’s a kind of camaraderie that occurs when sides are taken, members of the same side feel kinship with other members. But that’s a limited form of friendship.
Charley, I’m afraid you are simply mistaken. I’m generally quite honest when quoting from sources. The passages I related above were not at all spoken by Fritz Wilhelm - they were all spoken by K, as you will see if you consult the book The Perfume Of The Teachings (from which the passages were taken). If you have access to that book, you can find the relevant passages in the chapter titled “Will the Study Centres Help Me to End Sorrow?”
The participants in the discussion included Fritz Wilhelm (you are correct on that point), but they also included most of the trustees from England, America, Canada and India at the time (apart from Pupul Jayakar): Evelyne Blau, Erna Lilliefelt, Mary Zimbalist, David Bohm, Dorothy Simmons, Radha Burnier, Mary Cadogan, Theo Lilliefelt, Sarjit Siddoo, and Ahalya Chari (among others). Mark Lee was likely present at the discussion, but did not speak in this one (he participates in others in the book).
Interestingly, in an earlier chapter of the book, - “Can This Be Kept Alive Flowering Forever Timelessly?” - K and the participants listed here discuss the problem of how to deal with strong willed people who have had certain kinds of experiences, who even believe themselves to have experienced what K experienced, and who want to come and live or work in the Centres or schools once K is no longer there to put them in their place:
K: After the walk yesterday, Dr Bohm and Maria [Mary Zimbalist] and myself very briefly talked about someone who has been going around, who has written several books, talking about healing, and now, I was told, is becoming a guru in India. A really very strong person, with vitality and drive, might say, “I will come and join you.” And when I die, gradually such a person could take complete charge of everything. How are you going to prevent all this?
David Bohm: In one sense what you have said lays us open to this danger, because you say we don’t understand this fully. Now somebody comes along who will say words that are similar to yours, in a skilful way, and who is quite strong and energetic. He can say or imply that he does understand it.
Dorothy Simmons: Well, you can think up all sorts of hypothetical possibilities.
DB: I don’t think it’s hypothetical.
K: I don’t think this is hypothetical at all…. This has happened in so many cases. We haven’t found a right solution for this. We’ve talked round it.
Erna Lilliefelt: Many people are telephoning and writing, and I’m sure you have letters saying they’ve had the same experience you have, that they know exactly what you’re talking about, and that, therefore, you have something in common with them.
K: Oh, rather, rather. I have dozens of letters saying, “My kundalini is awakened like yours.”
Mary Zimbalist: And your Notebook has set off all sorts of people.
K: All sorts, crazy.
Yes, we have to work with what we have. However, there is always the possibility of change for us all.
A bit of humour is always good in my opinion, if used skillfully.
What you say appears to be true Nobody. Do you find that surprising on a Krishnamurti forum given K’s message of humility, compassion and love?
Do we need to be reminded?
Are Christians anything like Jesus? Why would K-followers be like K?
Are these the “sides” I have described, or do you see sides I don’t see?
Fritz,
Considering that you didn’t give a ref, one had to resort to googling, and one found:
Fritz, if I came there to discuss with you and…
at Fritz
You say that K said that, he was not there to “help” anyone… yet you yourself stated earlier, that
K said, and Charley quoted K elsewhere where he stated that an insight is NOT AN EXPERIENCE. insight not an experience
So he was not talking at all about insights… the mutation kind of insights…
One is well aware of “kundalini meditation” online - where gurus teach kundalini - an absolute horror btw, which Charley considers not at all what K was talking about either…
One never said that what Charley lived was exactly the same as what K lived… have no real idea what K lived.
Insofar as the book, The Perfume Of The Teachings, it is not listed at the official site of K texts, and so one does not have access to anything in the book, let alone other passages, and the date, when such passages were done, whether there are tapes of such passages, or whether these passages were transcribed by someone who was just listening to them, and taking down notes, and whether these passages are published elsewhere, and who published them… etc.
No result found at main site…
Unsurprising for humans. 
I saw sides taken more in other forums: K-Ning (not so much anymore) and the crazed beast that was KFA. There seemed to be three main types: 1) Krishnamurti literalists vs. non-literalists. 2) Those who felt fully awakened (and enablers) vs. those who didn’t. 3) Factions of convenience, like on Survivor.
Sides don’t play that big of a role for me here, everybody seems to have their own unique-ish view. Not sure if that’s reality or my perception?
If these forums aren’t working, then is it possible for all contributors to get together and make it a safe place for inquiry?
To provide a unilateral safe environment for inquiry into the disorder of the human brain/mind, where one is never attacked for what one asks, questions or says?
Where it is only about finding out what is a right question - what is listening - what exactly is ‘establishing ground for communication’ - with compassion, empathy, love and understanding?
Where the monitoring of one’s behaviour is up to each person, and not a consensus opinion of the forum members?
Where one is not required to present ‘enlightenment credentials’ to ask questions, or to answer from their heart?
Where the personal is a matter ONLY for each person themselves - their private status in life is nobody else’s business?
Where it is agreed by all that a K forum is NOT the appropriate place for dissecting personal laundry or personal issues?
Where it is understood by all that it is the hunger for finding-out first hand which drives all genuine inquiry?
And that no one is answerable to any other person for the sincerity of their own inquiry, as that is assumed to be total by all involved?
Is this possible in a world where, unless humans fundamentally change their behaviours, planet earth in all its miraculous glory, beauty, and wondrousness will not survive?
(That there is always the possibility of change)
Sometimes change takes place as the result of some sort of crisis. Perhaps we have an opportunity here to make this forum a better place. However, I think there are some unresolved issues that would need to be explored first.
These are all very valuable remarks that you make, Patricia, and at the same time ‘safe’ is precisely the thing that is under pressure everywhere and all the time, both physically and psychologically!
The book can be found on the KFA website under the topic heading “dialogues and discussions” (and retails for $15, though it can be legally found for free if you know where to look elsewhere on the internet).
At the end of each discussion the date when it was held is stated in the book (for example, the first discussion “You Have Drunk at the Fountain” took place in Ojai on the 3rd March 1977).
There are audiotapes of these meetings because I have heard them (or at least some of them) myself. They may not yet be in the public domain (i.e. on Youtube), but you can request to listen to them when visiting the Centres.
The book was edited by Mary Cadogan (who attended the discussions) and Ray McCoy (who was good friends with Mary, and edited a number of K’s books).
I’m not sure about this nobody. It seems to me that there is a general bifurcation of participants here that splits along some of the lines you have already mentioned - such as
etc.
This very much mirrors the situation we see more generally in wider society. The reason why this may not be so clear to you here is that while the ‘liberal’ wing of the forum is rather heterodox (and so not very much aligned), the ‘conservative’ wing is much more definite and homogeneous.
The ‘conservative’ approach tends to be authoritarian (and what I would term self-righteous); it reacts negatively to being challenged; it states things in terms of absolutes, and never makes an attempt to be conciliatory or collegiate (at least not with respect to the other ‘side’). They have stated the truth, and one can like it or lump it (to put it crudely) - and if you question it, or seek to clarify what is meant, you better be prepared for full-on toxic blow-back.
‘Liberals’, on the other hand, tend not to think in terms of absolutes. They may include spiky skeptics who tend towards an absolutism of their own, but reason and discussion is still (at least tacitly) valued. They do not claim to be possessors of the one-time only absolute truth, and so are open to dialogue, to experimentation and being questioned - even to being personal sometimes, if that helps shed some light on matters.
There is of course a lot of cross-over between these two groups (they are not monolithic), and we all contain (in our psyches) aspects that are more or less ‘conservative’ and aspects that are more or less ‘liberal’ (it is a spectrum). But this bifurcation seems - to me at least - quite apparent on this forum, and it is difficult to make sincere headway in any discussion (whether it be about the self, about insight, or about consciousness, etc) so long as it is not addressed.
However, seeing as there is no facilitator as such to address it (except perhaps the good folk in charge of the Kinfonet site - and it isn’t their problem that we participants here are incapable of resolving this thing together!), it is perhaps incumbent on those who at least have a measure of both ‘sides’ to act as go-betweens, and to find out (without being personal about it) if a dialogue or meeting between the two ‘sides’ is feasible or not. I don’t know who these go-betweens might be - perhaps they will be self-selecting?
Until then, however, it seems that we will just have to go on dialoguing from within our own silos of affinity, essentially ignoring or not taking seriously the contributions of the ‘other side’ - which is certainly not an optimal use of this forum. - Which doesn’t mean that one does not remain open to what the other ‘side’ has to say, or that one ceases to be affectionate or well-disposed. But it is what it is, no?