It does seem evident that we are coming at this (ie. awareness of, or responsibility for the human experience) from different angles.
You by engaging with, addressing the big questions, and me by engaging with the person and their ideas.
Iām engaging with the person - Iām attempting to communicate directly with you!
All I am trying to do is to ask you if you want to play football - or would you rather play tennis or rugby?
And again, from the literal meaning of your words (as I understand them), you are saying that you would prefer to play tennis or rugby, and not football. Right? I donāt think Iām misreading what you are saying?
Iām quite a straightforward person, I donāt like playing word games with people or being elusive.
For me the question of the ending of thought; the emptying of the mind of the contents of consciousness; having a brain that is empty, spacious, silent, without the movement of thoughts and ideas - which are all different ways of putting the same thing - is fundamental.
If the other person isnāt deeply interested in asking this question, then I donāt feel we have much to communicate (with regards to what we are doing on Kinfonet).
We can talk about other things, we can share friendly chats and interesting information from the fields of science, psychology and comparative religion.
But the essential thing I am interested in pursuing on Kinfonet cannot be done - by which I mean, cannot be done between us - if both of us are not vitally interested in this question. Thatās all.
The intellect has its place, ideas have their place, but not in true spirituality. This is what I feel.
Why did you feel the need to qualify your Yes answer? Why wasnāt a simple Yes enough?
I ask because, it seems to me your primary interest in what goes on here has more to do with your concepts and ideas than āwhether the brain, the mind, can be empty of concepts and ideasā.
2 Likes
Guys - I think its best I get out of your way. This all seems a bit emotional, and I imagine we are not immune to trauma.
Douglas, please: I hope there is no hurt, no upset about these things. 
Iām not asking all this to traumatise you or anyone else.
Maybe we havenāt explored this question before, or not at any depth. As I said, I am not wanting to force this on you or on anyone else.
If itās becoming too much, then letās drop it for now. Pax
No one is forcing me to be here - responsibility for our actions is of utmost importance.
But responsibility for our actions in this moment is just as important as the what might be gained from cracking the code of the worldās most important question.
Yes Pax
1 Like
My primary interest is whether in dialogue right now we can be empty of conflict (or whether we can be aware of this present experience) - more so than the narrative answer we can give to the question, or my opinion on the question, or about whether we might eventually get somewhere closer to an empty brain in the future
No one can say what āthe worldās most important questionā is because everyone has their own notion of what it is or should be.
If I donāt know what the most important question is for I, what am I doing with my life? How can I live honestly if Iām not primarily concerned with the question that matters most to me?
1 Like
It isnāt clear what you mean when you say your primary interest is in āwhether we can be empty of conflict (or whether we can be aware of this present experience)ā. If I am not free of conflict and you are not free of conflict, can participating in a forum like this change that? Are we carrying on an experiment, a test, to see if āweā can do something instead of talking about self-knowledge?
more so than the narrative answer we can give to the question, or my opinion on the question, or about whether we might eventually get somewhere closer to an empty brain in the future
What could be more important than āan empty brainā, as you put it? What good is a brain that canāt be free of concepts and ideas that serve no practical purpose and create confusion and conflict, i.e., the content of psychological conditioning?
This can be understood as a fundamental question canāt it?
Can there be an ending of conflict - both between us in this dialogue, and in our consciousness?
Conflict is a fact, not just an idea. Can this fact of conflict be dissipated, dissolved?
Would you accept such a question Douglas?
And if you do, we could look at it, share our thinking about it, our reactions towards it (which is what you have been saying interests you), because this question is of equal importance to us both. Right?
Thank you Douglas and James for your candid conversation.
I recognise characteristics in your conversation that have played tricks on me too over the years and may still be playing tricks. Meanwhile, I no longer want to get to the bottom but rather throw a stone into the pond to cause some ripples in the apparent clarity.
One thing I know for sure is that āI donāt knowā and that is no longer what bothers me but what drives me.
3 Likes
āThe only thing I know for sure is that I can be mistakenā.
Thatās included !!!
Sorry for taking so long to reply - I have decided to take a break from the forum - Iāll probably participate in some zoom meetups because they might better fit my goal of exploring whether it is possible to interact freely in dialogue without resistance or accumulation.
I saw on the āconflictā thread that you have been wondering about apologies - I am not expecting any. I am sure that we are always trying our best. Its just that we are not aware of our karma and thus are not able to be free in each moment.
Bisous, Douglas
PS - oups, actually I see that you have apologised, thats very kind.
I think it is quite possible to do this here too Douglas. But I quite understand if you feel that taking a break will renew your perspective. This is what Rick is doing too.
However, I am still a little puzzled why you (and Dan) seem to have reacted so strongly in the way you have done. I have apologised for my momentary irritation and frustration (about speaking/writing to you in an abrupt tone about a week ago). But I still donāt understand why this has caused you and Dan to react in such a strong way.
If you want to interact freely without resistance or accumulation, then what is stopping you from doing so here?
But I respect your need to take a sabbatical from the forum. All the best
The 2 fellows leading the online meetups at the moment (Jay and John), confused humans as they might be, seem to have firmly grokked the concept of āawareness of oneās own experience during dialogueā as being essential to listening and freedom.
I think this is worth supporting, its a stroke of luck.
The vibe here on the forum is more about finding and defending the best iteration of the teaching - I feel that by continuing to participate in what is essentially debate, I am continuing to promote the importance of dogma and conflict.
Being faced with someone as passionate and as highly intelligent as you, I suddenly saw the amount of effort being invested in something that was the opposite of Love.
I think this means that I owe you a : thanks! friend.
I completely understand the need to have a space where one simply dialogues without any particular reference in mind, and pays attention to oneās feelings and reactions in that process. That can take place here of course, but it is easier and more natural in a live in-person meeting than through the slow, more measured process of written answers. However, even in a live in-person dialogue, oneās actual feelings and views will eventually come out, so there is also some value to exploring them at leisure on a forum like Kinfonet.
Itās quite true that my own primary interest on the forum is about discovering and enquiring into what Krishnamurti said and wrote, so as to understand it for myself. And I find it helpful to do so with others who are also interested.
But if you feel that this interest is incompatible with āloveā, then Iām not sure what to say. Obviously if someone posting regularly on Kinfonet has no interest at all in understanding what Krishnamurti said, then this is likely to create tension - in the same way that poster X (a devout Christian) interacting on a Buddhist forum will generate tension. For example, if one is attempting to understand what Buddhists mean by dukkha, and this is continually misconceived by poster X as meaning āsin against the Almightyā (because he actually has no interest in the Buddhist view), then misunderstandings are bound to arise.
If I were on a Buddhist forum it would be simply because I wanted to find out what the Buddhist teaching means, without feeling that I had to actually be a Buddhist myself. So, similarly, I donāt feel that I am defending a dogma on Kinfonet - I feel this a misperception on your part (and perhaps Rickās?). I just want to understand what Krishnamurti meant by the word āexperienceā, for example. Which is why I am on Kinfonet and not a Buddhist forum.
But itās true that disputing and even arguing over such matters is not conducive to love or well being. Life is too short for such unnecessary conflict.
2 Likes
It is up to each of us, in each moment, in our relations with the world, to take care that our interests are not the cause of suffering.
I get this, I understand this. This is how it is, in fact, when I am with my family and friends (who have no interest in Krishnamurti). With them I donāt talk about Krishnamurti at all (unless specifically asked).
However this is Kinfonet, a website dedicated specifically to understanding and discussing the teachings of Krishnamurti. If oneās interest in understanding Krishnamurtiās teachings has some place in the world, it is surely here, no?