On a Krishnamurti forum, it would seem reasonable to look at K’s dialogues as a good model of joint exploration and discovery. In these, K himself seemed to be discovering and part of the opening up of something new. Mutual respect and common interest would seem to be two vital ingredients if any kind of meaningful dialogue is to take place.
Is that the sound of one hand clapping?
It’s more likely the sound of the Rohingya people fleeing for their lives!
This is indeed one of many tragic things happening around the world.
**As I suggested last time, we clearly have completely different understandings of the nature of inquiry. Every response from you has been an analytical judgment. Only once have you addressed what I’ve actually pointed to, asking what’s the difference, which is basically comparison. But I tried to clarify it anyway. When the statements made are moved away from, and a focus on the speaker results, that’s not what I call not listening. Responding to my question as, “pretending ignorance” is a rather odd form of listening, to my observation. Again, good luck with your venture.
Finally related to the original question.
So this is another issue. When people simply describe what they simply believe but have no insight into it then usually thought faces a problem when trying to describe the facts surrounding these ideas.Upon observation it appears the a you/thought weaves it’s stories around beliefs by collecting various ideas but doesn’t have a clue on how to unpack these ideas.
It’s unfortunate to witness this kind of censorship. The hidden post at 45 was also answering ‘Inquiry’s’ question from 31 and the hidden post right above at 49 was a response completely in tune with what has been discussed. A continuation of the inquiry. Can the staff please explain what i did wrong or what was wrong in the posts?
This is a public forum so the manner in which you address others is as important as the content. It is one thing to disagree, but you need to do so in an agreeable fashion and also be sensitive to how your criticisms are being received. And be respectful when someone expresses the desire for you to stop addressing them personally or commenting on what they have posted.
If you need more clarification than this, please consult the forum guidelines
1 Like
As you can see my posts come with supporting evidence. Perhaps foolishly I was expecting a more detailed explanation which will illustrate with examples and evidence what these violations of “manner” might be.That way, there will be a transparent clarity on what all concerned are doing. That is to establish if the censorship is needed, fair, and most importantly, just. Not sure if you will be willing to a dedicated inquiry in interest of supporting what you say?
See the other thing is the timing of staff intervention, right? At what point the staff are intervening. Is the intervention done at the right time or is one contributor being ignored while another gets censored? I would think in order to be transparent and clear these things need to be sorted out? If it doesn’t, then reasonable doubts on fairness and integrity may arise among forum members, yes?
Likewise, the need for a dedicated inquiry also arises for any allegations of criticism, or failing to stop when asked. Naturally, if you are a fair person, you will let the responder finish defending themselves from prior accusations or criticisms, won’t you? But again, all these need to be inquired into and made transparent and determined in a dedicated inquiry by looking at evidence, right?
If we are willing to establish all of the above I will be happy to join you in a dedicated evidence based inquiry. Or, you can simply not respond and i will get the message. Thank you.
The respect we have in common interest is family, business, sport, politics, religion, and all that stuff. People understand dialogue to be about their perspectives, on their experiences, what they have read, etc., and what they can say about it. First, all this has to be understood to be a human condition which is a psychological distraction. It is a heritage of words, ideas, traditions, and knowledge, for each country, each society, which is a human conflict, and repeating it all is not meaningful dialogue.
Not sure who is repeating what - me, you, all of us? Hang on, there is no me or you, is there? Oh dear.
The conventional idea of an open mind is an unrestricted ability to say what you think. But an open mind is where there is a space free from thought, with no imposing content.
The sense of separation is not my invention. It is the nature of perception that operates across all species of animals including humans. One may argue that a lion may have no sense of self-awareness when it is battling another lion for domination of the pride. Nevertheless, its behavior - driven by consciousness - is that of an individual actor.
Whether or not the consciousness is mine and separated from other people’s is a question that needs defining. Just because we all think doesn’t mean that my thoughts are not mine but the thinking of humanity. Intellectual property theft is a crime and we are required to provide citations and not to plagiarize. It may be cultural conditioning but that’s the way we are.
It’s the mind identifying itself as a personality distinguished by its unique content and style. Every mind is separate in that sense, but every mind is the same in that every mind identifies itself.
Yes, I don’t know what you are thinking right now. Your consciousness is not mine. Am I inventing this separation between you and me? Let’s look at this closely and give Howard the benefit of his doubt.
Last night, while going back to the house after throwing the trash, a hare hopped into view, about ten feet away, in my back garden. I stopped in my tracks and froze. It also froze and looked at me. For two minutes, neither of us moved. Each looked at the other as the hare assessed the threat. Is that thought, ‘I am separate’, “its” invention and “mine”?
Doesn’t the I-machinery stop in that moment? I just had a stop moment watching two eagles mate in the air. They grasp their talons as they tumble toward the ground , letting go before they get too low. JK in his talk with Jerry Needleman (The Awakening of Intelligence) have a similar moment when K interrupts and says “look “ at some scene around them. There is no ‘self’ in those moments…until thought resumes.
Come on, Dan. Eagles don’t mate in the air even though they do mate for life. It’s just a plummeting courtship ritual.
The “no-self” moments can and do occur, but in themselves, they are not transformative as far as the consciousness is concerned. They are instances of self-forgetfulness. Only then, I would say that consciousness has no borders. It’s a pretty mundane state with no practical value.
Selfishness is what we are. Can we abandon this state as Krishnamurti asked us to? We would have to “give up everything” as Jesus said to the rich man who wanted to seek the Kingdom of Heaven. Eternal life is the timeless state now and not in the afterlife after the body dies. Will you abandon this life of the self you are living? Give up everything: your job, your wife, your family, your friends. I don’t know what you will do without a bank account. This is as far as I have gone: gave up everything except money.
I don’t know if it is true. A long time ago, a friend, who read Krishnamurti, told me that there was an occasion when someone put a wad of money into Krishnamurti’s hand and the latter just dropped the cash and it fell all over the floor.
Well Sree I wasn’t close enough to see…but when they parted, one of them was smoking a cigarette 
… so I just thought…
1 Like
The mind calls its content “mine”. Content is what separates one mind from another.
I don’t read JK or JC that way. I might have once. But this “giving up things” that you’re referring to is more of a commercial transaction: give up this to get that. Not the way I see it but you may be right. I see it that anything you do comes out of the ‘conditioning’ and only strengthens the illusion of the separate actor. Anything you do to change ‘what is’ needs the illusory ‘future’ time to accomplish what ever psychological change is desired. Nothing substancially changes. And a psychological ‘future’ is an invention of thought. The simplicity of it seems to be the impediment.