by Reza Ganjavi
SEP 2003
Kinfonet finally changed "KRISHNAMURTI DIALOGUE" to "Kinfonet English discussion board". I was working on them to make such a change for 1.5 years !!
This removes the direct association of K's name from a lot of the nonsense that people write. I have samples of the most ridiculous posts and the title in big bold letters say: "Krishnamurti Dialogue". It had nothing to do with K. Now the direct association is removed.
I DO NOT POST OFTEN IN Kinfonet.org -- I did in the beginning till I realized what a zoo it is with a few dominating animals -- but many good people too !
All remarks without ">" or in quotes are Reza's.
this is a perfect place for you -- welcome -- beware of the animals though, it's a jungle here, you will see them walking around, barking and biting and each other and at people -- they do not mostly for entertainment, but hopefully it will all be sorted out.
K wrote and talked about God all the time he just did not call it God often, sometimes he did. Othertimes he called it Otherness, nameless, immeasureable, and so on. He was very religious in the true sense of the word.
Feel free to correspond with me.....
how can you say something like that? this poor chap comes here and points out a whole list of stupid irrelevant posts on a thread which is the gist of the problem with this forum and you come and criticise him for asking the question of how these are relevant and furthermnore you try to edify him that he could have changed the direction of "our" discussion, DESPITE all the irrelevant crazy senseless bogus posts he pointed out. One crazy man or woman is all you need to spoil a dialogue.
Dear Mr. Dano, please stop quoting K's writings before 1933. This was explicitely his wish.
do you know if everybody who wanted their posts to stand out responded by creating a new thread what a mess we'd have? why did you start a new thread?
is this forum really important because it keeps egos of some dominant characters polished?
> "Posted by:Rougemont (‘’)Posted on:Wednesday, 16th July 2003 Message:
> To what extent seeing present patterns, reveals what is to come?"
Hi Rougemont -- is it H?
I assume you're talking psychologically, because practically, yes, we have almanacs that predict the future based on past, and sciences: astronomy, medicine, and so on, all do the same: built on knowlege, and knowledge is based on observation of patterns isn't it?
"seeing present patterns" -- seeing patterns of past in the present. There is a habitual function and I am lucky enough to see it!!
ok, now you ask, if I see my habit, how does that reveal what is to come? Interesting! Because once you really see a habit and are awake and intelligent, this habit my give way to spontaneous, new, non habitual movement.
If you had asked, "To what extent patterns, reveals what is to come?" the answer would, to a great extent. But when you added seeing&present, then you're exposing the pattern to possible change. Just expoloring :-)
> Posted by: Rougemont (‘’)
> Posted on: Thursday, 17th July 2003
> I think I wasn´t very clear to judge from the answers I got.
> I meant , can we by observing people attentively , more or
> less figure out how they probably are going to behave in the
> future and what destinly life reserves for them.
As K pointed out when you're sitting on a high place looking at two ships in a river below you can tell where they're going to meet. You are telling the future. It's scientific right? Then there is parascience, psychic power revelations of future which exists, IMO.
> Many people have this gift of assessing future behaviour with a rather
> remarkable accuracy.They reap the rewards from such keen observation.
I can't tell if you speaking of fortune teller / psychic types. If you're not, ordinary persons, ordinary relationships, I maybe able to predict my sister's behaviour under this circumstance and so on but this is a very sensitive area because of the whole business of image making which is such a comfortable escape for many: the safe, secure cushion of knowledge!
The tendancies and habits of one's own movements are interesting -- physically and mentally -- there is a book to read here.
rg
DISCUSSION ON LAO TZU:
Lao Tsu #20
> How unfortunate! To be isolated, to identify, to
> compare, and then to adopt a regressive image of
> attachment to the mother, as if it were a worthy
> achievement. Very sad!
this is bound to come from the western tradition -- in fact I might even detect the accent -- name starts with J? -- if so, hope you're well.
anyway, this is the reaction that people at the time Lao Tsu wrote this might have had. This is the reaction of those who do not understand what he meant. I have no interest in trying to justify or defent Lao. But what I hear in what he says is not some regressive longing for breasts -- it's in the light of what K talks about in terms of turning your backs to the world -- you can still very much be in it but not of it!! How can one be isolated when anchored in the other -- while still the dance continues. K was talking about having a foot there and one here and how it's possible one way not the other......
good luck
the reason I posted this was not as an advice to step out of life but as a was of an ancient wise sage speaking about being "anchored in otherness" -- the challenge is that + leading normal life with its pretences.
> Please forgive my sharp tongue. It's just that in
> reading the actual history of China and the actions of
> those supposedly living according to "Lao Tzu" and/or
> Confucius, one sees very brutal societies.
I am by no means an expert in chinese history, but I will investigate this. But observing many chinese friends I've had there is certainly there is a interesting aspect of wisdom and depth in them.
> Furthermore, while reading the Tao Teh Ching, for
> example, one comes across concepts such as the
> "harmony of opposites" <snip> This points to another
> problem, which is the presence of so many
> contradictory phrases, sometimes praising the sage and
> his importance, and other times "exterminate the sage,
> discard the wise" (XIX).
Contradiction in itself is not a guage if quality. The universe seems very much in chaoe yet there is great order. I think looking for consistancy is looking for comfort and safety of the known. People fall in this trap with K : don't understand him / no energy to investigate what he says / yet shaken a bit by the challenges he poses -- so to find comfort, they try to shoot him down: an they find a book or two tabloid-style books to support that, and they often focus on contradictions: how could he have said this AND that.
This is perhaps what I meant by the western mind. I have a western, scientific mind which discredits the contradictory; but my "eastern mind" if I may put it that way and define it as: one who grew up around eastern traditions -- middle or far, doesn't see a problem with that -- including with the example you posed above: yes, a sage must be respected. and yes, a sage needs to be iscarded. the scientific mind says: which? while the answer is, again, as Lao Tsu very beautifully put it as the principle of Tao: Spontaneity! When he writes that he drinks at the breasts of the mother someone who does not understand that interprets it as regression. Let's come further west: Rumi, the great poet, mystic and wiseman has said what K has talked about ages ago, not in the same language and openness for various reasons. And he was not the only one. People like that shape the culture and values which translate to concrete things which are becoming more and more clear to me now. In an eastern culture a value is for example: "talking behind people is bad". Some western cultures completely tolerate being double-faced. The culturally rich ones don't. I am not talking about America here -- that's a whole ball game by itself. Sorry, going offtrack... K spoke about how it was easier for those who are exposed to eastern / mystical traditions (I don't have the exact quote) to understand him.
> It isn't necessarily that one should not read these
> things, but ultimately and immediately, it is you and
> I that must somehow get past the opposites, past
> misunderstandings on our own.
to get past conflict and friction yet.
Posted by:Fool on the hill (‘’)Posted on:Saturday, 12th July 2003 Message:
> Posted by:robj (‘’)Posted on:Saturday, 12th July 2003
> Personally i love reading his thoughts but i cant
> c how he was any different to any of us ....
Bravo -- this was his greatness: he was a human. Although the human god-making-conditioning made many crave to make him into a god and then shoot him down...
> i just
> doubt that he was beyond suffering as he put it ..
the important thing is if you, if me, can end those things that make us suffer, like walking in the jungle of kinfonet with the few animals who occupy it and have nothing to do than to spit at each other and I have no interest in engaging in their stupid ramblings -- life must be really empty for some people who try to find a community here and get energy through fighting with each other -- no thanks! I am here because of the many good people who are here like my dear friend Subbu!
> creatively speaking his whole life was spent on the
> "meaning of life" even though he discouraged such
> pursuits as futile.
so here is an attempt to find contradiction. the universe seems contradictory and in great chaos -- stars banging into each other -- but there is great order also. What do you care if he was contradictory or not? often such attempts are based on limited conclusions -- he did not discourage the pursuit of finding meaning of life -- I think he just said if your life has meaning you would not search for it...
> I'm probably going to offend alot of people but to me
> K seems like a very sad man indeed,
I think he was also -- so was plato and many other greats towards the end of their life because the world had not changed.
> i dont beleive K makes sense in the end
I think he makes absolutely great sense.
> although fascinating his words leave me feeling quite
> empty & depressed
maybe it's what the words point to which are of significance...... to move beyond the words -- but then, you're saying what he says does not make sense...
>.....in life very few things r without choice was K
> being CHOICLESSLY AWARE when he stated that he was
> going to dedicate his life unswervingly to freeing man
you see if what he says does not make sense, maybe the human tendancy is to try to shoot him down. That way we don't have to bother about understanding him and not to be disturbed!
> ....can he free anyone including his own ambitions
here again there is an attempt to discredit him to make sooth our lack of understanding.
of course not -- he can't free anyone. the truth he sometimes points to can.
ya, just as he was contradictory, he as ambitous, in your mind -- you're entitled to your opinion.
>?even though he renounced Orders he nonetheless had
> networks both financial/personal whom he depended on?
right -- and now that he is discredited you can rest! but those challenges he posed will not let you rest and you know that!
networks of friends? yes, very strong. financial networks? network? you really find this interesting? where would the money from book sales go if there was no bank account?
> hmmmnnn maybe he was free free from 925 free from
> fatherhood free from having to struggle free from the > dailygrind maybe with the same invesment attention
> that he received most of us could afford that leisure 2?
Sorry I don't mean to be hard at all, but this is also a typical human habit: here is this incredible intelligent man, a genius, and for whatever reason X can not grasp it... so was he a genius? X says, "No way, if I had the same amount of leisure time I could be the same!" -- good luck.
regarding quoting, that is just your interpretation of what K said. Don't set yourself up as an authority. You can say it's your understanding. My understanding is that he did not say don't quote anyone. He did not give you to do or not to do lists. Understanding what's behind quoting is the key - then you might quote or not, it doesn't matter.
what i say here are only my impressions, not as an authority on k's work.
> K avoided terms like 'God', 'religion', 'institution',
> 'methods', etc. He would not use them except in his
> early teachings.
he talked extensively about religion all periods. He talked extensively about god but called it Otherness. He also talke dbout man-made god which is not god.
> If we were not attached to it, we not discuss it would we?
not true.
> We say that those who question those things K did are
> conditioned by what K said, whereas those who defend
> such things have an open mind.
perhaps exactly the opposite!
> But an open mind could simply mean a mind that is
> confused,
I would not use the word confused necessarily, I'd associate openness with some clarity of not knowing. confused to me is a stirred up mud in a glass of water.
> If we don't see clearly that institutions, methods,
> God, religion, psychology etc are unnecessary and
> damaging
some institutions are necessary.
there is a right place for methods -- e.g. scientific method.
God is a fact. whether necessary or not is irrelevant.
psychology is child play and can be damaging (confused psychoanlysts).
> Because I see some of the things that K pointed to,
> does not mean I have transformed. It does not mean I
> am enlightened.
something to consider: is transformation and enl. an ideal? Is it a final act - in time? or is it moment to moment? I think most people get this wrong thinking it's the former (IMHO).
> Personally I am nothing like K the person. He was
> certainly a miraculous man, there is no doubt.
miracles can happen in everyone's life - in every day life. The beauty of K was that he was very much a person as well as a miraculous one!
> But that does not preclude me from seeing the same
> things he did, does it?
it does not. in fact his greatest role is to describe, point out what is already there -- once he says, look, you look and it's there and it's always been there but you didn't see it. this does not make him an authority...
> Terry
> In his last days he stated, "all this life and especially during the last few months I have
> struggled to be free--free of my friends, my books, my associations. You must struggle
> for the same freedom."
forget the person -- don't worry if he was bullied or not. are you a bully? do you get bullied? that's what's important. anyone readong radha's book can clearly see her conclusions are based on stupid assumptions and don't add up (e.g. assumption that k said do not have sex -- which he never said)
if you think the org's are going corrupt it's your responsibility if you care for k's work to do something about it
The unfoldment of what is, is in attentiveness: when you pay attention to what is happening, holistically, which means the subtlties of the observer is also attended to.
B. Questioning, inquiry, opens the way for unforldment of the question. Often answer, insight, only comes when one questions.
In some ways A=B which tells me, questioning, is, looking at what is.
If I am in discomfort/discord, physically or psychologically or both or I don't know which, I could go on with daily activity and not really even know the roots of it. But as soon as I : A) see that I am in discomfort which goes together with B) why? what is the source of discomfort? then it seems that doors are opened to insight which may not come right away but the questioning plants the seed. Maybe the next morning I wake up and Boom! There it is, I am feeling this way because... and seeing the root naturally brings change because intelligence acts.
(what do you say? ....)
Posted by:rm (‘’)Posted on:Friday, 28th March 2003 Message:
"In battling evil, excess is good; for he who is moderate in announcing the truth is presenting half-truth. He conceals the other half out of fear of the people's wrath." Kahlil Gibran
When Gibran met Krishnamurti in 1927 and K entered his room Gibran said, "Surely the lord of love has come."
Gibran died 4 years later. I wonder if he had lived another 50 or 60 years he would have held the same view of Krishnamurti? Or if he would have felt K, as he grew older, became guilty of attempting to bring the truth down from the mountain top to appease the weak, consequently watering down his message or becoming 'moderate in announcing the truth' as he makes mention of in his above quote?
your question is loaded and has a lot of presumptions which I view as baseless and without evidence , such as K trying to water down the message. K was uncompromizing. THis was a strength : he had to be so to deliver the message. But the important thing is not to follow him which also means not taking such uncompromising stance on some issues : K had to do it to deliver a point. THis is my understanding of it - my interpretation of it -- and you should not accept it and I am not an authority of K's work -- I am just telling you my impression which maybe distorted. On the subject of love, when I met him I said surely the love the filled his heart and eyes was very great.
[reza]
"Peter" wrote:
So, in a nutshell, what I'm saying is (as George has said in a post) we should regard so-called "unnecessary thought" as necessary! Necessary for us to gain self knowledge. We surely, should not attempt to escape from it by looking for easy methods of ending it?
There is perhaps another class of thoughts that one can deem "unnecessary" -- reportedly K referred to it as weeds, as "deweeding" the mind when you wake up for example and you may write as an act of emptying etc. --- little butterflies that fly around the mind, not as practical "necessary" thought, and not as what you say George refers to: e.g.the thought "does she really love me -- and all that crap " (a line from "Steppin Out" by John Lennon" which acts as revelations of what one is... or to put it in other words: "things of the mind" -- a wonderful title for a book Brij Khare published years ago.
> And I am yet to come across anyone whose life has become
> so fantastic because of K's teachings.
You're talking to one! "because of K's teaching" vs. "your life" is a conditioned way of looking. There is no K's teaching as a doctrine. K's teachings are pointers. Pointers have no value in themselves except for being a pointer to "values" such as: "there is a lovely flower there with wonderful fragrance". When you go and smell it you've smelled the flower and your life is enriched due to the flower. The chap who pointed out the flower is out of the picture!
[reza:]
forget about K altogether. You're putting him on a pedastol and then shooting him down. You are making a problem out of him. You may find the source of that problem-making and problem-solving mechanism in your mind. The probem is not K. He says something ang goes away. If it's rubbish you discard it. If it is not, and you find the truth of something he has pointed to, you've found it. Isn't it a deep habit to concentrate on the person?! The problem is not out there!
Posted by:anon (‘’)Posted on:Wednesday, 19th February 2003 Message:
Moments of insight are great, certainly. You might be walking along a nice forest trail, and something K said hits you in the guts as being enormously true, relevant, and important. But then the insight fades and the trouble begins. Because now you no longer have such an insight, such an understanding, but you assume that what K said was right any way. But maybe, in a way, it isn't right. Maybe it has no relevance to you now. Maybe it was important for you to understand something then, on that park trail. And maybe it was relevant to you and no one else. While that insight was an absolute truth at that time, it was enormously clear, correct, and it didn't come from your emotion, it was a living thing that only makes sense in the context of when, and in what circumstance, it happened. When that 'truth' is applied to other situations - it becomes revived, as it were - the results are usually disasterous. You assume you are speaking from a special, knowing position. You become self righteous, holier-than-thou, etc.
anon
Posted by:Alice (‘’)Posted on:Monday, 17th February 2003 Message:
Good quotes, reza. And by all means, feel free to use any name that tickles your fancy.
> Did K isolate himself from feedback and criticism?
> Did he have to have the last word? Was he actually
> very much the kind of authority that he said we should
> be free of?
It is the wrong question. Not wrong because it is questioning K, but wrong in the approach, if I may assert. , because it is theoretical. I think the correct approach would be, if you had a chance to walk up to K and talk to him (I did), what criticism would you pass on? The only feedback I was able to give was one of thankfulness. Having met him more than 15 times and read more than 60 books perhaps, I can just say that to call a man authoritative who very clearly tells one: "do not follow me" does not do him justice. It possibly only shows how authoritatively we think.
what's the Q? is life meaningless? when u'r happy u don't ask that Q
osted by:some woman (‘’)Posted on:Thursday, 20th February 2003 Message:
I have to say from a woman's point of view, or from the point of view of one woman, I find K a very undesireable sort of man. too weak, too unrealistic, too deceptive ... to love.
I am deeply sorry for Raja ,Radha and Rosalind who served this man till the end of their lives.
You're surely welcome to your taste regarding objects of your desire. Reportedly when he was younger women were dying for him. Weak? Were you ever around him? Obviously not! Unrealistic? How many authors can you outline who are more factual? Deceptive? Did he deceive you? When your banker claims your money to be his are you the deceiver?! Radhas is still alive so she didn't serve him till the end of her life. Rosalind was not in a medical state to serve anybody towards the end of her life. And Raja surely did not serve him till the end of his life.
Posted by:some woman (‘’)Posted on:Thursday, 20th February 2003 Message:
Women die for anyone who is famous , poetic and who talks with certainty.They may die for Michael Jackson or Leonardo Di caprio too...
I think the three people you mentioned did a wise thing not to support him to the end.
Now why did you suddenly get so reactive??
you could have instead asked for reasons and I would explain to you why.:)
you were the one who said they served him till the end.
given the case that every single one of your statements were problematic, asking you why was not in order. You ask why to someone who at least makes a tiny bit of sense?
Reactive? you made up all thoses nonsense attributes about X -- so just add this to it. No thanks I am not interested in knowing why if your logic is anything similar to that of Radha's, I can do better things with my time.
a friend's grandmother said "if you take away jealousy from people they're left with nothing!" :-)
Some of my posts on kinfonet.org message board sporatic participation since mid Dec 2002:
Reza, so are you are saying that Insight, awareness,
attention and silence, while still closely related
terms, point to different "locations." Can you
please clarify this?
I am saying they're not necessarily synonyms -- we're talking about words and their meanings in how K used them right ? I think that's the subject of this thread. Awareness, attention, fine. Silence: when you're walking and thinking about something you can't be attentive to the birds' song at the same time. In that sense you can link silence with these terms. Now if you say insight is the same thing as the above 3 words I'd have trouble with that. Insight is certainly related but is not a synonym. I hope we mean the same thing with the word insight, or have similar understanding of how K used it. This is a good subject for another thread perhaps.
Regards
Reza
> Insight is also the same as awareness, attention and silence in K. speak, yes?
No! I would not say the same in terms of being synonyms, or pointers to the same "location".
bravo rich -- bringing LSD into all this is another way of over complicating it. Simplicity is virtue. In this context Bohm is speaking purely theoretically : if theis then that must be. K is looking. Again, my understanding is that "no content" does not mean no ingredients of the repository -- no stored data -- it means while the data maybe there, there is no active retrieval and processing. In computer terms, it's when the CPU null process is at 99%+ (let's not get absolutist).
Regards
Reza
Ken: With K it seems the content is interchangeable with the consciousenss or identical to it. But it is difficult to conceive content without a container, so it is difficult to equate consciousness with its content.
Reza: this is a complex matter and we need to approach it simply. I think you're making it too complicated. I see it this way: what is content? for example, a problem that occupies the mind, or any kind of occupation. Content either exists or it doesn't (container has stuff in it or nothing). When it has stuff in it, it is the stuff. When it has nothing, there is silence. There is only sensing -- seeing, hearing, etc. so you can then really listen or see or be "concious" of what is happening, whereas if you're taking a walk and you're occupied with a problem you don't really listen to the birds! At least this is how I see it.
Ken: And awareness, I think, must be related to consciousness in some way. To say there is awareness and also consciousness is baffling.
Reza: who's saying what?
Posted by:reza (‘’)Posted on:Monday, 10th February 2003 Message:
Gregg:
I'll tell you my understanding briefly:
K uses mind and brain often as synonyms.
Thought is a material process -- involving brain (nerve) cells.
Talking to kids in india (I don't have the quote handy -- it's in a Rajghat audio) he said when brain understands thought's limitations (and continued to say) when thought understands its own limitations, then doors of heaven are open (which is a very profound and true statement - - heaven not in terms of a religious, christian type of heaven and hell, but in terms of lack of suffering in this world - - as much of suffering is caused by thought trying to go beyond its limits and going places it was not designed for)...[again this is all my take and should not be accepted]
I would not worry too much about the distinction and it does not cause any confusion in mu mind. The important thing IMO is to understand (and actually be aware and see) what thought is and its limitations. Brij Khare edited a K book years ago called "Things of the mind" -- a great title I find -- in this context you can think of thought as thing (material) of the mind -- I see how difficult it is for some people who are not so exposed to this jewel to see those limitations - when you see it, thought is purified of unnecessary thinking (not as a final lasting event in time) and the brain/mind/thought or whatever you want to call it is disciplined (meaning has learned -- discipline as in disciple) and can be naturally quiet.
The significance of the word consciousness in my mind is that it is its content -- so we're talking content management here! There is the mind -- the totality of awareness -- sort of as software operating system -- the brain as hardware -- and thought maybe as firmware -- my god how where did that come from? -- the important thing is the whole system, and it requires a holistic approach -- otherwise the components are not fully comprehendible / definable in isolation.
Consciousness being its content mean [my understanding] that when you're thinking something that is what you're aware of, conscious of -- if I am walking I am only really aware, conscious of whatever it is that is occupying my mind.
Another significant thing in this discussion is "emptying of consciousness of its content" which is the best definition of meditation I've ever heard.
Regard
Reza
Ken: With K it seems the content is interchangeable with the consciousenss or identical to it. But it is difficult to conceive content without a container, so it is difficult to equate consciousness with its content.
Reza: this is a complex matter and we need to approach it simply. I think you're making it too complicated. I see it this way: what is content? for example, a problem that occupies the mind, or any kind of occupation. Content either exists or it doesn't (container has stuff in it or nothing). When it has stuff in it, it is the stuff. When it has nothing, there is silence. There is only sensing -- seeing, hearing, etc. so you can then really listen or see or be "concious" of what is happening, whereas if you're taking a walk and you're occupied with a problem you don't really listen to the birds! At least this is how I see it.
Ken: And awareness, I think, must be related to consciousness in some way. To say there is awareness and also consciousness is baffling.
Reza: who's saying what?
Gregg:
I'll tell you my understanding briefly:
K uses mind and brain often as synonyms.
Thought is a material process -- involving brain (nerve) cells.
Talking to kids in india (I don't have the quote handy -- it's in a Rajghat audio) he said when brain understands thought's limitations (and continued to say) when thought understands its own limitations, then doors of heaven are open (which is a very profound and true statement - - heaven not in terms of a religious, christian type of heaven and hell, but in terms of lack of suffering in this world - - as much of suffering is caused by thought trying to go beyond its limits and going places it was not designed for)...[again this is all my take and should not be accepted]
I would not worry too much about the distinction and it does not cause any confusion in my mind. The important thing IMO is to understand (and actually be aware and see) what thought is and its limitations. Brij Khare edited a K book years ago called "Things of the mind" -- a great title I find -- in this context you can think of thought as thing (material) of the mind -- I see how difficult it is for some people who are not so exposed to this jewel to see those limitations - when you see it, thought is purified of unnecessary thinking (not as a final lasting event in time) and the brain/mind/thought or whatever you want to call it is disciplined (meaning has learned -- discipline as in disciple) and can be naturally quiet.
The significance of the word consciousness in my mind is that it is its content -- so we're talking content management here! There is the mind -- the totality of awareness -- sort of as software operating system -- the brain as hardware -- and thought maybe as firmware -- my god how where did that come from? -- the important thing is the whole system, and it requires a holistic approach -- otherwise the components are not fully comprehendible / definable in isolation.
Consciousness being its content mean [my understanding] that when you're thinking something that is what you're aware of, conscious of -- if I am walking I am only really aware, conscious of whatever it is that is occupying my mind.
Another significant thing in this discussion is "emptying of consciousness of its content" which is the best definition of meditation I've ever heard.
Regard
Reza
Posted by:Gregg (‘’)Posted on:Monday, 10th February 2003 Message:
I think that the cause of much confusion
about what K. was trying to get across,
stems from the various terms he used for
the mind. What did K. mean by the following:
Mind
thought
consciousness
brain
awareness
what are the defining differences beween these
terms?
Peter R., Will you for god's sake go read the Andrew Cohen Thread again -- carefully -- before you generate more text here. I tend to call your recent remarks idiotic because it seems that you are again raising points which were already discussed. At least I am not using the kind of language you use for "scientific" purpose. Why don't you examine for yourself what your problem is before coming out here and throwing garbage at others. Talk is cheap. Sometimes Less is more. Call me arrogant of whatever else you like and make any assumptions you please, but if you are earnest to understand the points we discussed I urge you to go back and read the Andrew Cohen thread again -- it's all there. And if you have any issues/points/questions/remarks which are earnest and serious, feel free to write back. It's all there and if something is missing I am sure we can go through it again and take it to the end.
Good luck.
it is very important to not accept what K says, specially, not to regard it as an absolute statement of truth. If one does that one turns him into an authority -- puts him on a pedestol and then, on the other side of the same coin, one wants to refute him. There is an alternative approach which I understood as what he had in mind: to doubt what he says......... this has been said so many time....
A few times people would want to clap at the end of a talk and K would stop them -- I think a few times they went on anyway. He's say you're clapping for yourself.
I think clapping is an obnoxious part of our civilization -- I've heard in the far east they do it differently but not sure.
For one thing, it's loud. And some people right behind your ear clap so loud it could blow your ear drum.
Also it seems as a way of participation: we listened to you for an hour, now you listen to us! We exist!
On the surface it is a sign of appreciation: "we really enjoyed it" -- but why does it have to go on and on? In classical concerts sometimes... it's on and on and on and on.... like: you are really really really really great -- and we are too because we are here and we're telling you how great you are... something vain along those lines -- maybe!
i was going to write back and say that the "actuality" I referred to was only based on my experience -- someone else might have it a different way, another words, they might get insulted out of the blue and be totally uneffected. I am usually not effected but when it comes as a surprise it sometimes "gets you" -- and those are brilliant lessons - I've found!
In theory what you say makes sense but in actuality -- in actuality, if you get insulted, there just might be a chance that you would react - at least inwardly! That's what I am talking about.
the same goes about someone who insults, I would first wait a bit to see if I can help him out of idiocy, if not I would walk away. again I wouldn't waste my time in such a depressing relationship just to learn about my 'self'!
I was not using that as an excuse or escape. It is a fact that when you're insulted or shout at or something like that you might react -- and that reaction can be seen and you can learn about the self.
Of course the alternative owuld be to shout back -- to call rabbit the kinds of names parka used -- call him a ------- (which he is) and so on and so forth :-) and use the same excuse: as a scientific way bla bla bla...
you might shout back anyway at someone who called you stupid -- but that can be seen too - posteriori.
Posted by:sara (‘’)Posted on:Saturday, 8th February 2003 Message:
if I see someone shouting, I would just go away. I wouldn't bother suffer my ears to learn about the self!
> today, when I see someone with a LOT OF WORDS, I say to
> myself 'why, what a flashy coat.'
This part I can relate to ... the world seems so verbose -- I had a Norweigen professor who would complain about American authors being so verbose -- it's true - you can take any of those textbooks and shrink it in 1/2 and not lose any substance. Sometimes I also see this in people -- lots and lots of words -- the expression that "talk is cheap" is very appropriate. I recall an old friend ok K who used to say, there is too much talk and not enough study. So the flashy jacket example is appropriate.
Talking about jackets, reading your post I worried for a moment that whom you cann Greenjackets might consider your post irrelevant again -- which it may or maynot be -- but that worry is not there -- can we live without fear? [boy, I am starting to sound like some of the nutcases here] [talking about nuts, I talked to a friend today who started a job as a social worker taking care of crazy people -- she said she'll quit as soon as she sees that she's changing!]
In criticism one learns about ones own values, about oneself.
This is the world -- many beautiful sides -- wonderful, dignified, careful, austere -- and it also has "cunning animals" as K would put it.
Subj: “Absolutist remarks “
IN studying K, one ought to never forget the basic remark that one should not follow hi, that what he said should be doubted and not accepted. He was not saying this to be polite -- this was a very very deep remark and solves criticisms such as this. I also have a problem with his absolutist approach sometime and I know some academics do too, however, while this maybe viewed as a shortcoming, as the message here criticizes it as such, if you look at what he had to do -- the kind of message he had to convey, we might understand why he had to take such an absolutist stand on such points. It is my understanding that he had to do this to get these poinst across -- but this is just my interpretaion and should not be taken as having any value beyond that of an opinion.
Once America was found Columbus's task seemed easy!
Maybe you could have gone to his talks too now that you were there. Anyway it doesn't matter because you had his books to read, exmine, doubt, and to find the truth or fallacy of what he talked about. I am sure you noticed in meeting him the affection. Your "life" can change when you see/feel the love pouring out of a child's eyes, but this remark can only be understood poetically, between the lines, otherwise it will take 10's of pages to describe it academically.
>Reza: Isn't spiritual progress becoming, rooted in time,
>and therefore, an illusion?
>>Boutros Wednesday, 5th February 2003 Message:
>>I don't know. Is it?
Yes it is. You will be in the future what you are now unless there is a change. And change will never be in a future. It is always in a now. So unless there is change now, future is the same as now. Psychological becoming is thinking that I will be something different in the future and is therefore an illusion.
Posted by:Boutros (‘’)Posted on:Thursday, 6th February 2003 Message:
Interesting. How do you know this?
(reza:) Just look
Posted by:brazo (‘’)Posted on:Friday, 7th February 2003 Message:
Thanks for the reminder, hug, of the value of using our judgements and relationships as a mirror to see how we operate. How soon we forget, that the problem lies with the very workings of the human mind, of which our own is an example (and is in no way exemplary). Any differences we perceive in looking at another's mind are qualitative but not essential. Worth and value are relative terms, and while they do have import in bringing about limited social order (though these days even that seems questionable), they have nothing to do with freedom, at least not in the sense we use that word in here.
Not that we "should" not judge - what else can thought do? - but to catch it, to be with opinion as it is moving, to ride the wave of thought as it were, as it is condemning or praising - without doing the same, without any control or adjustment, without investment in outcome, there perhaps is the operation of some other faculty of the organism that may be likened to freedom.
Perhaps it is because such freedom does not (appear to) have any utilitarian value that it is so rare.
Absolute "good" may exist but something tells me it is entirely different than anything that can be conjured up and used as a standard for conduct.
Did you see the "quote of the day", yesterday (k around 1930)? Here is a piece of it, a young K but still containing the seed of his later wisdom:
"Please understand this, because to me it is very serious. I would much rather that you did not come to these Camps than you come every year and remain superficial. Criticism is only of value in so far as it trains your observation so that it can eventually be turned on yourself. That is the purpose of criticism. I used to criticise everyone and everything; but afterwards I turned that criticism upon myself to see if that which I criticised outside myself remained in my own heart and mind. The moment I turned that light of criticism upon myself, I began to grow, I began to destroy the unessential.
Brazo: very well put! The quote is special. Later on he referred to criticism, perhaps in a more positive way as showing one's values! I found this to be very profound. The quote you used complements this beautifully.......
(Reza)
X:
> Although I find most of your responses to your posts to be exceedingly
> forgiving and generous (the more critical and disparaging ones), I may have
> wrongly responded to the one I thought to be spurning you. Not that you
> need 'protection', but I truly feel that sort of reaction to be terribly
> divisive and counter-
> productive to the intent of the forum.
>
> Perhaps I should apologize for my misinterpretation.
yes, that makes perfect sense. However, before I call another person pretentious for example, I want to EXAMINE that judgement. I just wanted to know if Brian went through that examination as well or was it just an off the cuff remark. In either case it does not matter. I was just curious.
Thanks for writing
Reza
Posted by:isabel (‘’)Posted on:Sunday, 15th December 2002 Message:
Hi again, reza:
You are right to wonder about the vulnerability of forums such as this one. I've been coming to this forum for about a year and a half, and there were times when it was pure mayhem, with someone taking on others' identitities, or being really insane, and during those times I usually don't come in for a few months. But I realize how changeable all that is also. So, what I see now is that the same quality that makes it vulnerable to abuse by disturbed ego-centric people is also the quality that allows it to sail through the storm. Everything here is transcient and of the moment, just like the interior of our minds. And I think this makes us realize the importance of the present moment, because it really is the only moment we live.
By the way, what we might call a disturbed ego-centric person one day may be quite a different person another day. There are so many layers in the human psyche, and it is quite unfair to label anyone considering the complexity of every human being. Much depends on how we all relate to each other.
X :
Hi Reza, the first email was to make an intro. separate from the K site. I
was most interested in your website, specifically because I work in South
Australia as a professional musician. When I first encountered the Kinfonet
site I was delighted to find somewhere that like minds may communicate; but
of late I am totally dismayed at the tone of the postings and the rubbish
that some of these lunies pass off as legitimate discussion. Anyway I was
impressed with the tone of your website
Posted by:Winnie (‘’)Posted on:Tuesday, 18th February 2003 Message:
I had guessed that correctly then.Must be the opening of the third eye.:)
you must have guessed it before you write your jibberish. next time think before you type. thinking does have a its place!
reza
No Reza,that is only what philosophy should be.In fact what today is called a philosopher is somebody that is well read in philosophy and has a degree.
FYI, since you mentioned it, I do have a degree in philosophy.