Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Big images


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 416 in total
Tue, 06 Jan 2015 #1
Thumb_stringio mike christani United States 2234 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Does any else of us have an image of Enlightenment, or the state of which K spoke and wrote of? If so, would this be a major barrier to actually experiencing, or realizing something of the sort? An image is a belief, at least in this case. And not only would it be a block, but, a real hindrance to seeing reality. It would also create a struggle to attain something, reach something, with all the conflict and uselessness and despair.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jan 2015 #2
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike christani wrote:
Does any else of us have an image of Enlightenment, or the state of which K spoke

It seems many do, but it may be more subtle/vague - as in the belief that there is 'something' we should be aiming for if life is to have any 'meaning.'

mike christani wrote:
If so, would this be a major barrier to actually experiencing, or realizing something of the sort?

Yes, the belief that there is "something of the sort" is already an issue to inquire into, even if a coherent image has not been built of it. The notion that to believe in "something of the sort" is OK, while to build an image of it prevents its realization, is already a trap. It's like saying, "God is out there but so long as I don't build an image of him I may find him" is already to live in fairyland.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jan 2015 #3
Thumb_stringio mike christani United States 2234 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Yes, the belief that there is "something of the sort" is already an issue to inquire into, even if a coherent image has not been built of it. The notion that to believe in "something of the sort" is OK, while to build an image of it prevents its realization, is already a trap.

Yes, well, I think K talked enough about a state of creation, beauty, compassion enough to make an impression. The problem again, I think is making an image of it and striving after that. But I suppose you could say, "Start with where you are", which would be the healthier view. This also fits in with my post on pride, sense of position. It's the same thing. Perhaps this may be the cause. Belief is belief.

This post was last updated by mike christani (account deleted) Tue, 06 Jan 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jan 2015 #4
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike christani wrote:
Yes, well, I think K talked enough about a state of creation, beauty, compassion enough to make an impression. The problem again, I think is making an image of it and striving after that. But I suppose you could say, "Start with where you are", which would be the healthier view. This also fits in with my post on pride, sense of position. It's the same thing. Perhaps this may be the cause. Belief is belief.

What would constitute 'disbelief', ie. in the K context?

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jan 2015 #5
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike christani wrote:
K talked enough about a state of creation, beauty, compassion enough to make an impression. The problem again, I think is making an image of it and striving after that. But I suppose you could say, "Start with where you are", which would be the healthier

Right. Certainly, hear what K said, but all the time check (observe) your own reactions to it - see how you build from it. I don't criticize K for speaking of that which was real for him. But we have to do the same - speak from ourselves, not from what we have taken from others and hold in hope.

And, how much of what we hold is actually our own? If you really know what is truly yours, it will grow naturally. If you hold onto that which is 'other' you will lose even what you have.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jan 2015 #6
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
What would constitute 'disbelief', ie. in the K context?

The mind's position towards everything that has been negated as untrue - whether old, new, borrowed or blue.

Whereas many people are wont to disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes, in favour of what someone else says."

"Hey, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" Chico Marx

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jan 2015 #7
Thumb_stringio mike christani United States 2234 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
If you really know what is truly yours, it will grow naturally. If you hold onto that which is 'other' you will lose even what you have.

Ah! but which is better? Depends on what you mean by 'other'. Where do you rest? What are you (not you Paul, but generally) anchored in? Knowledge? Belief? Images? Sometimes it's good to sit lightly.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jan 2015 #8
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Am I to assume, Mike, that you think nothing of my latest on the 'Ending of Time'? And maybe even that I'm sent to Coventry by you (not sure that will mean anything in the States) perhaps on that account, elsewhere, since you're seeming to by-pass all my contributions?

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jan 2015 #9
Thumb_stringio mike christani United States 2234 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John, I will reply on that Topic.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jan 2015 #10
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
Am I to assume, Mike, that you think nothing of my latest on the 'Ending of Time'? And maybe even that I'm sent to Coventry by you (not sure that will mean anything in the States) perhaps on that account, elsewhere, since you're seeming to by-pass all my contributions?

What is it with you, John, that if you do not get instant replies you feel you are being abused by silence or sent to Coventry? You accuse Mike in the same manner you have done with others. You really should look at that pattern. I get the impression you have an elevated sense of your own importance and the result is that when this is not recognized, you feel pain. Is this so?

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #11
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

When you gonna stop burning and attacking on account of it, Paul D?

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #12
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John, I'm not attacking you. I'm only asking why you think you're constantly being attacked. You even believe people are attacking you when they don't respond to your posts. I've never seen this on Knet before so I'm curious.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #13
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
You even believe people are attacking you when they don't respond to your posts. ...

Paul, Mike's communication at #9, particularly with regard to his use of the word 'that', confirmed my misgivings that I might somehow have upset him. I had in no way intended to. It seems he was unhappy with the dialogue at 'The Ending of Time'. Dialogue is not for everybody as you are aware. He subsequently deleted his account and I think that is a great pity.

I've never seen this on Knet before so I'm curious.

I suspect this is disingenuous and would once again beseech you to read some of what I have to say and put an end to this stalking with the intent to do no more than attack.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #14
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
Paul, Mike's communication at #9, particularly with regard to his use of the word 'that', confirmed my misgivings that I might somehow have upset him.

You have not upset Mike, John. But some, such as Mike, find the input of yourself and several others on the site argumentative and emotionally unbalancing. I think Mike finds self-reflection better done independent of what passes for "dialogue" here, which is mainly internet dependency and/or entertainment.

John Perkins wrote:
put an end to this stalking with the intent to do no more than attack.

Well, several months ago I requested you do not respond to my posts or post on threads I start. You continually went after me and no amount of polite request would make any difference. I have never "stalked" you, John, and I have no interest in that. You are some sort of borderline paranoiac and I don't want to add pain to your suffering. So, please accept that, should I respond to your posts, be assured no personal animosity is felt by me. I am only pointing out facts.

Should you wish to stop our mutual interactions I am quite willing to do so. Just say the word . . . and keep it this time.

Dev has asked you and Jean, "Please refrain from posting in the General Discussion Forum except for on the odd occasion when you can avoid confrontation." You have your 'Dialogue Forum,' where "serious people" can have "real dialogue" and I really don't know why you want to respond to posts here.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #15
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Should you wish to stop our mutual interactions I am quite willing to do so.

I don't wish to stop them, I have made it abundantly clear that I admire your intellect and would like to find out more about it. I would just like the nature of our interactions to change that's all.

Let's see if we can agree on the following:

The way I see it this site is for inquiry into K matters. We might say, in the round, those matters concern two things: one is the real world and the facts regarding that, which for obvious reasons are here centred on the K teachings; and the other is the all-but universal human condition of delusion, by which I mean failure to see that real world but instead an illusory one.

What say you?

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #16
Thumb_stringio Katy Alias United Kingdom 378 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
You are some sort of borderline paranoiac and I don't want to add pain to your suffering

According to you though, Paul, everyone writing here is suffering from paranoia so why should/would John be any different?!

John Perkins wrote:
I don't wish to stop them, I have made it abundantly clear that I admire your intellect and would like to find out more about it. I would just like the nature of our interactions to change that's all.

You and Paul appear to have quite different wishes/expectations from this site, John - they might be somehow incompatible. I don't know.

Hardly anyone writes to Kinfonet so the contributions of the handful of people who do so are given far more importance than they would otherwise in life.

It is clear that people are deterred by all the arguments, lack of diversity and so on. Something about your 'dialogue' slot seems to want to be more diverse and/or inclusive. However, this element/factor has been met with some resistance (as I see it).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #17
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Katy Alias wrote:
It is clear that people are deterred by all the arguments, lack of diversity and so on. ...

I don't think there have been any arguments at the 'Dialogue' site, have there, Katy?

Something about your 'dialogue' slot seems to want to be more diverse and/or inclusive. However, this element/factor has been met with some resistance (as I see it).

Thank you for this input. Could you possibly expand on what you mean? Please don't be concerned that you might cause offense or some such. I would just like to hear your honest thoughts regarding what you see. If I can improve anything I will and will be very happy to do so.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #18
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Katy Alias wrote:
According to you though, Paul, everyone writing here is suffering from paranoia

Why make statements you can't substantiate, Katy?

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #19
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
I would just like the nature of our interactions to change that's all.

Then change it. Stop being so provocative, such as when you accused Mike of sending you to Coventry and accusing me of "abuse" for not answering one of your posts. It's really up to you, John.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #20
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
I would just like the nature of our interactions to change that's all.

Pavil Davidov responded:
Then change it. Stop being so provocative, such as when you accused Mike of sending you to Coventry and accusing me of "abuse" for not answering one of your posts. It's really up to you, John.

Okay, Paul, I accept that the problem is entirely mine and I am the only one who can do anything about it.

I wonder if I may try again then with the gist of my #15, which went as follows:

*"Let's see, Paul, if we can agree on the following:

The way I see it this site is for inquiry into K matters. We might say, in the round, those matters concern two things: one is the real world and the facts regarding that, which for obvious reasons are here centred on the K teachings; and the other is the all-but universal human condition of delusion, by which I mean failure to see that real world but instead an illusory one.

What say you?"*

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #21
Thumb_stringio Katy Alias United Kingdom 378 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
I don't think there have been any arguments at the 'Dialogue' site, have there, Katy?

True, John...I meant to indicate Kinfonet as a whole - historically-speaking was/is not short of argumentation.

John Perkins wrote:
Could you possibly expand on what you mean? Please don't be concerned that you might cause offense or some such. I would just like to hear your honest thoughts regarding what you see

I meant that there is something more inclusive - direct and honest, even - afforded (potentially) by the 'dialogue' forum which perhaps, ironically, has deterred people who have a tendency to want to talk/write in a way which won't be so closely examined/scrutinised.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #22
Thumb_stringio Katy Alias United Kingdom 378 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Why make statements you can't substantiate, Katy?

Of course I can substantiate my statement, Paul - (sadly).

This post was last updated by Katy Alias (account deleted) Wed, 07 Jan 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #23
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Katy Alias wrote:
Of course I can substantiate my statement, Paul - (sadly).

OK. Your statement was, "According to you though, Paul, everyone writing here is suffering from paranoia."

I have never said such a thing. I do see that there is a substantial percentage of contributors here who have stated they have been diagnosed in various ways. That is indisputable. It seems that every cult attracts people who have experienced great mental suffering. As you say, this is indeed a sad fact. I have also seen one or two cases verging on paranoia. But it certainly is not the majority and I have come across no one of whom I could say with any certainty they are paranoid, even when their occasional behaviour verges on it.

John's language (and I'm not getting at you, John) is laced with foreboding. When he joined here, within a short time he was voicing his concern that the site was infected with people who he termed "viruses." Lately he has expressed the idea that if people do not respond to him quickly they are either abusing him or sending him to Coventry. This does seem borderline behaviour to me, Katy.

But let's leave it there, Katy, as John has said he would prefer to turn the corner on such stuff, and I am glad to accede to that request. OK?

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #24
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
*"Let's see, Paul, if we can agree on the following:

The way I see it this site is for inquiry into K matters. We might say, in the round, those matters concern two things: one is the real world and the facts regarding that, which for obvious reasons are here centred on the K teachings; and the other is the all-but universal human condition of delusion, by which I mean failure to see that real world but instead an illusory one.

What say you?"*

I have no problem with that, John. It's why I'm here. As long as there is no judgmental flip side of it. The moment one poster tells another s/he is not "inquiring" properly or is failing to see the real world and instead peddling illusions, the thing has a propensity to descend into bickering. What I see as problematic is the sort of contribution that lines people up into "us" and "them."m Perhaps this can be done away with.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #25
Thumb_stringio Katy Alias United Kingdom 378 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
But let's leave it there, Katy, as John has said he would prefer to turn the corner on such stuff, and I am glad to accede to that request. OK?

Just hope that you will see that you are far too quick to accuse others here of paranoia and all, Paul. You are grandstanding here, too, aren't you, really ? It is good that you've stopped adopting multiple identities now though but you still want to psychoanalyse people you don't even know. (No one's perfect).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #26
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Katy Alias wrote:
Just hope that you will see that you are far too quick to accuse others here of paranoia

No, I don't see that, Katy. You are repeating a groundless accusation.

Katy Alias wrote:
You are grandstanding here, too, aren't you, really ?

I don't know your meaning of the phrase "grandstanding" Katy. I found one definition which reads: "acting or speaking in a way intended to attract attention and to influence the opinion of people who are watching:" I don't feel I'm doing that. I can't speak for others. Mostly what I want to do here is to discuss the issues raised by K in a mutually respectful manner with an open-minded attitude. I want to do this because I am interested in those same issues.

Katy Alias wrote:
It is good that you've stopped adopting multiple identities now

Why bring up the past, except to grandstand on your own behalf, Katy?

Katy Alias wrote:
you still want to psychoanalyse people you don't even know.

That is a very weighted comment, Katy. I was replying to a poster's complaint that they have been persecuted by silence, by "stalking," by being sent to Coventry and by having their contributions "by-passed." I suggested this was a product of their own mind and not something actual. If someone voices their alleged persecutions in the forum, they become part of the ongoing conversation. I'm not here to "psychoanalyze," which is a different thing entirely.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Wed, 07 Jan 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #27
Thumb_stringio Katy Alias United Kingdom 378 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
No, I don't see that, Katy. You are repeating a groundless accusation.

I have very good grounds for my statement about you accusing us all of paranoia, Paul, and well you know this.

I didn't read the rest of your reply (#26) because you are being dishonest.

Just thought I'd let John know that he's not the only one to be on the receiving end of your unasked for 'analysis'.

Hope that you can sort out your differences soon if that's what you both wish to do.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #28
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
Let's see then, Paul, if we can agree on the following:

The way I see it this site is for inquiry into K matters. We might say, in the round, those matters concern two things: one is the real world and the facts regarding that, which for obvious reasons are here centred on the K teachings; and the other is the all-but universal human condition of delusion, by which I mean failure to see that real world but instead an illusory one.

What say you?

Pavil Davidov responded:
I have no problem with that, John. It's why I'm here. As long as there is no judgmental flip side of it. The moment one poster tells another s/he is not "inquiring" properly or is failing to see the real world and instead peddling illusions, the thing has a propensity to descend into bickering. What I see as problematic is the sort of contribution that lines people up into "us" and "them." Perhaps this can be done away with.

Okay, that's good to hear. Does this also mean, please, that we are in agreement regarding my statement (now emboldened) here? Or perchance would you amend it? Please do if you would.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #29
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
Could you possibly expand on what you mean? Please don't be concerned that you might cause offense or some such. I would just like to hear your honest thoughts regarding what you see

Katy Alias responded:
I meant that there is something more inclusive - direct and honest, even - afforded (potentially) by the 'dialogue' forum which perhaps, ironically, has deterred people who have a tendency to want to talk/write in a way which won't be so closely examined/scrutinised.

I'm not entirely sure I'm collecting your whole meaning here, Katy, but I feel I'm collecting at least some of it.

I entirely get the irony of it's (ie. dialogue's) deterring people; it has been evident from the outset as both Steve sds and I have (I think) both commented. The flip side of that as I see it is that it does its own regulating. In other words people who, for whatever reason, don't wish to discuss matters of their interest with the degree of intensity that dialogue seems necessarily to entail, simply don't do it on the 'Dialogue' site. As I see it dialogue has a small number of prerequisites: (i) there must be a greater interest in finding out than in being (or even appearing) personally 'right'; (ii) respect for the personages and contributions of others; (iii) patience and application. Actually this last will flow naturally from 'respect', and other prerequisites could be listed that are also of this nature, ie. flowing from the first two. I'm sure you get my drift. To my mind you see, Katy, the 'close examination and scrutiny' you mention are essential to dialogue. Without these factors it simply can't be dialogue. Isn't that, after all, the very difference that might make it complimentary to the other forums here, which others do allow freer talk and (unfortunately as part-and-parcel of that) abuse, both in its more and less subtle forms.

What I don't think I'm collecting of what you've offered here, Katy, is your point regarding possibly greater inclusiveness, to do with more directness and honesty? If you're interested to perhaps you might expand on that for me a little. I would point out that - as you know - nobody is or has been excluded except by there own choice, ie. of not to participate.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #30
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Katy Alias wrote:
I have very good grounds for my statement about you accusing us all of paranoia, Paul, and well you know this.

Then speak up and give us the detail.

Katy Alias wrote:
I didn't read the rest of your reply (#26) because you are being dishonest.

No, I've never said everyone who posts on Knet suffers from paranoia, which was your allegation. Now you say that I am being dishonest. Show us the facts.

Katy Alias wrote:
Just thought I'd let John know that he's not the only one to be on the receiving end of your unasked for 'analysis'.

Katy, I have not asked for your analysis either.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Wed, 07 Jan 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 416 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)