After starting off to discuss some of the words used in this K's forum, I stuck to somewhat, on a course of explanation, which some found that they cannot agree with.

If one adopts to a Scientific approach and starts to explain his ideas of the mind as 'Brain', and goes onto identify, which part of the mind is responsible for such an such 'Emotions', etc., and how he experimented using different equipments, to isolate the areas in the brain, I would be asking questions based on the same scientific approach, to clarify ideas put forward by him, in order to understand what he says.

At the end of the his explanation, I would invite him to listen to me to my approach of the understanding on the mind based on meditation, which is also a different scientific approach, known as introspection. Here I would encourage him to ask questions based on the findings I have explained, using my approach.

This two way of listening and asking questions based upon each approach is possible, if we can identify each approach separately and differently. Other wise there will be mix up of questions, which may confuse both the participant.

My questions at him sometime may lead to more experiments carried out in the future as it would have shed some new light, which he never imagined. His question would have given me to think more deeply or in a different perspective of the experiences I already have, and also to meditate further on, on some new issues raised.

Hence, when I encountered questions raised based upon my basis of approach I answered them. Others I kept quiet. There were a lot of comments about my silence, which I briefly try to explain.

Also, it was said that I was not touching upon K's teaching.

Having dealt with several topics using my approach, as I have explained above, now I am starting this thread, to look into K's teaching, where I would be using my approach.

I have chosen a broad topic, after seeing the discussion threads of 'Definitions' and 'Is there a trap?' both dealing in K's teaching. There are two reasons why I am adopting this:-

1. Everyone can bring a small piece of K's teaching, such as "Quote of the day" and finish it off quickly.




2. Then anyone who want to take a break for a while, including my self, can come back at his convenience.

Entering the Basic Meditation (1st Dhyana) is a perfect impossibility, if not ready to abandon, Anger,Desire and Ego. The young boy/girl uncorrupted in mind/body can come to 1st Dhayana in 15 minutes, the first day.

To Start off the discussion I would like to comment upon the mind discussion point in the thread of discussion "Definitions"

""Question: Although you have used the word truth often, I do not recall that you have ever defined it. What do you mean by it?

In the thread of discussion of 'Definitions',

Paul Davidson wrote:
From 8th Talk in Madras, January 27 1952

Question: Although you have used the word truth often, I do not recall that you have ever defined it. What do you mean by it?

Krishnamurti: You and I as two individuals are going to find this out, not tomorrow, but perhaps this evening. If you are very quiet, let us discover it. Definitions are not valuable. Definitions have no meaning to a man who is seeking truth. The word is not the thing; the word tree is not the tree; but we are satisfied with words. Please follow this closely. To us, definitions, explanations are very satisfactory because we can live with them. We can pursue words, and words have certain effects on us physically and psychologically. The word God awakens all kinds of neurological and psychological reactions, and we are satisfied.

So to us, definition is very important. Is that not so? Definition we call knowledge, and knowledge we think is truth. The more we read about it, the nearer we think we are to it. But the explanation of the word is not the thing. So we have to realize, to understand - we must not be caught by definitions, by words. Therefore, we must put aside the word. And how difficult it is, is it not, because the word is the process of thought! There is no thinking without verbalizing, without using words, images, concepts, formulas. Please follow all this, meditate with me now, to find this out.

When the mind perceives that it is caught in words, that the very process of its thinking is word which is memory, how can such a mind - which is memory, which is time, which is caught in definitions and conclusions - understand what is truth, what is unknowable. If I would know the unknowable, the mind must be completely silent, must it not? That is, all verbalization, all imagination, all projection must cease. You all know how difficult it is for the mind to be still, not compelled, not disciplined to be still; which means, the mind is no longer verbalizing, no longer recognizing, no longer the center of recognition of any experience.

Now it was agreed by many in that thread of discussion of 'Definitions', nothing an be defined. Only a 'word' can be defined. Is that the K's position as well here?

1. Did he define 'Truth' as the questioner wanted him to?




2. Did he define some other words in the process, sometime needed to come to the main intended definition?

My answer to both is 'Yes', and I have identified the attributes he put forward to define them. They are as follows, including the actual words he used.

Definition of 'Truth' forwarded by K.

• "..and knowledge we think is truth.." = Truth is not knowledge.




• "..The more we read about it, the nearer we think we are to it.."" = Thinking does not lead to Truth.




• "..understand what is truth, what is unknowable.." = Truth is unknowable.




• "..I would know the unknowable, the mind must be completely silent.." = The 'Method' used in knowing the Truth, is to silence the mind completely.




• "..You all know how difficult it is for the mind to be still,.." = The 'Method' of knowing the Truth is very very difficult.

Now having shown that K has defined the 'Truth', I will give you an opportunity to find out in the process of defining the 'Truth', whether K has defined any other, whether it was required in the process or not.

Entering the Basic Meditation (1st Dhyana) is a perfect impossibility, if not ready to abandon, Anger,Desire and Ego. The young boy/girl uncorrupted in mind/body can come to 1st Dhayana in 15 minutes, the first day.

This post was last updated by Yogi Anurada (account deleted) Thu, 02 Jun 2011.

Yogi Anurada wrote:
Then anyone who want to take a break for a while, including my self, can come back at his convenience.

This differs from K approach and it is not a right approach. One can say this without getting to any conditioning.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Yogi Anurada wrote:
Did he define 'Truth' as the questioner wanted him to?

Why he should he bother to define it as it is open for all to see?
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Yogi Anurada wrote:
Paul Davidson wrote:
From 8th Talk in Madras, January 27 1952

That was the only practical usefulness of post2 as you used to say.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Thu, 02 Jun 2011.

Yogi Anurada wrote:
"..and knowledge we think is truth.." = Truth is not knowledge.

Yogi, this is the process of negation, not of definition. To find out what something is not, narrows the realm of possibilities af what it may be but also allows for the possibility that truth does not even exist. It is not a definition but an unmasking of false claims.

K says that we cannot know what something is but we can unmask false claims made about it.

Yogi Anurada wrote:
"..I would know the unknowable, the mind must be completely silent.." = The 'Method' used in knowing the Truth, is to silence the mind completely.

This is your own point, Yogi, and it is illogical. It does not follow from what K has said that one should have a 'method' or that one should silence the mind. In fact K spoke with vehemence against both things.

This is why you have to read K, Yogi, in order first to understand and then, if appropriate to criticise. But you are starting your mission as one of 'judgement.' It is such an ugly thing, my friend.

If you had any interest at all in actually finding out what K was trying to get it you would ask why it is that you are having to adjust K's language to fit your own point of view.

K says the mind must 'be' silent. You adjust that to your own point that one must have a method to 'make' the mind silent.

One of the fundamental differences betweeen the two points is that of the perceived relationship between the observer and the observed. Is the observer different from that which he observed. Does he stand outside of the mind and operate on it to silence it or is hge indeed that very mind, in which case the mind tries to silence itself?

If I stand outside my mind and silence it then there is no contradication, is there. I can train my dog not to bark at the postman. That is non-conflictual. But if my mind is trying to stop its own chatter what is actually happening? Part of the mind is set on chatter and the other part on silence. It is a struggle to find out which part is stronger. Will silence win or will chatter? And you say you have a method which will strengthen the part of mind which wants silence over the part that wants chatter. But what you are actually strengthening is the power of will, by training it to gravitate to one side rather than the other. And will is the function of the self.

All methods to silence the mind strengthen the self because they operate using the factor of will.

In your case, with your experiments you have done the following:

You have started with a conclusion. You then invent an experiement that affirms and gives 'scientific' validity and authority to your conclusion. With that authority you move to what you call 'meditation' which consists of sitting cross-legged with youir eyes closed while you mentally force a square pegged conclusion into a round-pegged hole which you call your mind.

Yogi, the effort to make the mind silence is itself noise.

What are you waiting for?

Yogi Anurada wrote:
"..understand what is truth, what is unknowable.." = Truth is unknowable.

This is not a definition of truth, it talks of a quality of knowledge. It is saying that knowledge can never approach truth.

If you had read K you would know what he meant by it. Because you have not read him and have no wish to you jumpo to conclusions, which is the movement of your own emotional baggage, I am afraid.

Elsewhere K states that truth is all around us. We do not have to go anywhere or do anything to find truth. It is there in every thing and at every moment. Truth is not far, it is near.

And you are right now saying to yourself, "Aha! 'Truth is near' is a definition of truth!"

No, Yogi, it is a statement of fact and a very obvious one. It is based upon a provable precept that it is the mind which is the distorting factor, not that reality is somehow distorted. WE are surrounded by the real. We are a living part of the real. But our minds do not see accurately.

Then we get into a semantical discussion about whether a statement of fact is also a definition, which is trivial.

What K was saying, which is the main point here, is that if one states that one knows truth, it is an absurd lie. Just say the word out loud, "I know truth." and you will see how absurd it is.

What are you waiting for?

Yogi, again I ask you to step back and consider. You cannot start a dialogue on the basis of 'judging.' It becomes an exchange of fixities, or different points of view. The exchange does not change or purify one's positions but emboldens them, strengthens them and sows the seeds of further discord.

You have to ask, what is dialogue in the context of self-enquiry. Is it an exchange and amboldenment of conclusions or is it that each helps the other to dismantle his/her conclusions and to look freshly?

Judgement has no place here, Yogi. Judgement rests upon the judge and there are no judges here. This is self-enquiry in which judgement is put aside.

So you can bang the drum of silence and judgement but you will never enter dialogue. You can't enter heaven wearing hob-nailed boots, Yogi.

What are you waiting for?

Yogi Anurada wrote:
Now having shown that K has defined the 'Truth'

This is ignorance and arrogance, Yogi

Yogi Anurada wrote:
I will give you an opportunity

This is a second dose in the same sentence

What are you waiting for?

Yogi Anurada wrote:
Other wise there will be mix up of questions, which may confuse both the participant.

Yogi Sir,

Now thinking about that, I wonder, the mixing up of large number of questions and seemingly possible answers, whether K was trying to confuse the questioner, where K would not be corned, if he does not know the answer.

In the same way for all the questions which I raised here, in return I got a large number of questions, which is very confusing.

Are the followers of K, consciously using that same method, knowingly to evade questions or are they using the same method because they were conditioned to that type of thinking, by only reading and listening K?

Is this the trap I was drawn into? Because after reading few chapters, I found out questions are springing up in the mind.

I was one day morning, after waking up, without getting up thought like this:-

Why should I get up? who is going to get up? Is it the body or ego?
What is the purpose? Is to goto work? What is work? etc.etc

Found the Trap!

Raj Kumar wrote:
Are the followers of K

Who are they?

What are you waiting for?

Raj Kumar wrote:
who is going to get up?

Stay with that question. Don't try to answer it. Who will answer it? Just stay with it.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Stay with that question. Don't try to answer it. Who will answer it? Just stay with it.

No I am not going to do it.

Paul Davidson wrote:
You have to ask, what is dialogue in the context of self-enquiry. Is it an exchange and amboldenment of conclusions or is it that each helps the other to dismantle his/her conclusions and to look freshly?

You are asking Yogi to to be a K man, then you will be able to enter into a dialog. In the university, we had a discussion about "religion and philosophy". When we invited all, Muslims refused saying, they dont discuss Islam with infidels, unless we become Muslims first by believing in their god and prophet. Is K and his followers guided by this principle?

Do you think I am going to condition myself, with a meaningless question, and afterward start to imagine that i am seeing reality?

Now you seem to emphasize, that being with present and awareness leading to very positive relationship, and non reactive responses. I can see you cannot see the reactions coming into your mind, but you are nicely writing them down with very unbecoming words, then checking the spellings and posting here clicking the 'button' post your reply.

Is this the awareness you are practicing to be in the preset?

Then I am definitely practicing something else, but we both seem to use the same word?

Paul Davidson wrote:
With that authority you move to what you call 'meditation' which consists of sitting cross-legged with youir eyes closed while you mentally force a square pegged conclusion into a round-pegged hole which you call your mind.

Found the Trap!

Raj Kumar wrote:
No I am not going to do it.

Then good luck to you, Raj. It was an invitation, a suggestion.

Raj Kumar wrote:
I was one day morning, after waking up, without getting up thought like this:-
Why should I get up? who is going to get up? Is it the body or ego? What is the purpose? Is to goto work? What is work? etc.etc

And you are blaming K 'and his followers' for these disagreeable questions. And you say:

Raj Kumar wrote:
Is this the trap I was drawn into?

No, Raj, self-enquiry does not trap you and you are free to leave.

Raj Kumar wrote:
for all the questions which I raised here, in return I got a large number of questions, which is very confusing.

You are looking for answers outside of the questions, Raj, and what confuses you is when someone answers that the answer is in the question, not outside of it. To question the question and the questioner is a journey that takes you inwards, not outwards, Raj. You are illustrative of the fact that many find such a line of thinking very disturbing, confusing and displeasing. It upsets and threatens the positive line upon which the self is built. The self that asks the question does not like to be put under the spotlight.

What are you waiting for?

Raj Kumar wrote:
Do you think I am going to condition myself, with a meaningless question, and afterward start to imagine that i am seeing reality?

No Raj, I do not think you will do that. I think that you will continue to react according to your present conditioning, continue to ask meaningless questions like this one and then imagine you have found a reality more real than anyone else's. This is the action of the self which you show no interest in drawing back from. But it's OK, Raj. You will do whatever comes next and then find a good rational reason for it.

You have said that after reading a little K you woke up asking yourself meaningless questions such as "Who Am I?"

I do understand how cross this may have made you.

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Thu, 02 Jun 2011.

Raj Kumar wrote:
I can see you cannot see the reactions coming into your mind, but you are nicely writing them down with very unbecoming words, then checking the spellings and posting here clicking the 'button' post your reply.
Is this the awareness you are practicing to be in the preset?

I do not know what 'practicing to be in the preset' means Raj. But thank you for your appreciation of my posts. You have drawn a very accurate picture of me, as you see me.

What are you waiting for?

Raj Kumar wrote:
You are asking Yogi to to be a K man

No, actually I asked Yogi a question:

:
Paul Davidson wrote
You have to ask, what is dialogue in the context of self-enquiry. Is it an exchange and emboldenment of conclusions or is it that each helps the other to dismantle his/her conclusions and to look freshly?

I still think it is a good question. It was Yogi who stated what enquiry should be, in his opening post on this thread.

I am only questioning that which he calls the scientific method, of one person laying out his opinions and then the other laying out theirs. I am asking if this is dialogue in the context of self-enquiry.

To me what he puts out is a battle of ideas, methods and conclusions. This is the dialectical method. Anyone is free to pursue that method but I am pointing out, in case Yogi did not realise it, that this has nothing to do with dialogue in the context of self-enquiry which demands of the opposite, an easing of idea, method and conclusion so that all can be looked at freshly through the sensitive communing of one with another.

It is quite different. You can choose. But here, in this forum, we look at self-enquiry rather than dialectical argument. There is no problem about it.

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Thu, 02 Jun 2011.

Paul Davidson wrote:
You have said that after reading a little K you woke up asking yourself meaningless questions such as "Who Am I?"

"I do understand how cross this may have made you."

LOL, the only worthy response to a nutcase. Rest of your responses are just wasted energy on a closed/rigid mind.

This post was last updated by Dhanan Rao Thu, 02 Jun 2011.

Dhanan Rao wrote:
LOL, the only worthy response to a nutcase. Rest of your responses are just wasted energy on a closed/rigid mind.

Please, Dhanan do not write someone off so totally. Raj comes here for some reason. We do not know it with such clarity. And something is touching him, even as he turns away.

The prophet comes across a poor man drinking water from a ditch. He says, "Here, drink from this clean cup."

The man knocks it from his hand saying, "Get away. You are trying to poison me."

"Very well." says the prophet. "Be on your way. But one day when you are lying gasping by a dry ditch or your thirst is sated by foulness and your stomach churns, think on me and I will be there. For I am you."

The seed is always sown.

What are you waiting for?

I think he already has a negative opinion on K and his teachings and is trying to foist it on others here. His opening seemingly honest questions it seems were just a fig leaf to be subtle and not get exposed in his prejudice. Anyway all the best in offering him the clean cup. :)

Dhanan Rao wrote:
I think he already has a negative opinion on K

Maybe Dhanan, but that does not reduce us all to savages. I have been quite strong with Yogi. I was trying to shock him to sit up and listen. But he is a very thick-skinned gentleman.

Raj on the other hand has an open emotional side which is appealing to me, even if he is a little hot-headed. I like passion. But look that he is not attacking K so much as defending Yogi because he identifies with the dissident spirit and wants an ally, I think.

Raj has merely repeated Yogi's words that 'K people' do not answer questions fairly but throw them back in the face of the questioner. He feels offended by what he sees as obfuscation. I can understand this. But it is a wrongly placed concern because we need to get past our emotional reactiveness in order to uncover our own purposes. For me, being offended occasionally helps me to delineate and understand my own sense of self-pride.

Reading K is difficult because he challenges so much in us. It is not an easy or comfortable route, like many systems of yoga or meditation are. But if one can get past that and actually see that things happen in self-enquiry that could otherwise not happen, then the sense of resolve increases. I would not write Raj off. But if he takes another route, I wish him many blessings.

Madness too can be a passport to heaven. Raj is far from mad.

What are you waiting for?

Part 1.

Paul Davidson wrote:
You cannot start a dialogue on the basis of 'judging.' It becomes an exchange of fixities, or different points of view. The exchange does not change or purify one's positions but emboldens them, strengthens them and sows the seeds of further discord.

Part 2.

Paul Davidson wrote:

Yogi Anurada wrote: Now having shown that K has defined the 'Truth'

This is ignorance and arrogance, Yogi

Yogi Anurada wrote: I will give you an opportunity

This is a second dose in the same sentence

I concluded halfway of the two definitions that K had made in the talk in Madras shown above. As I was about to start the next one, I thought 'ok let it be tomorrow' and thought someone may try that.

But it certainly has brought some interesting comments (Part 2)
Then reflecting on the comments I was wondering, whether one who have been conditioned by K's teaching would have the agility and the ability of the mind to come out of it and to look from a different perspective, and to read between the lines to find out something which he was unable to do earlier.

Even if one was able, will he come out with the findings, by disclosing it here, if he has already shown himself to be a strong follower of K?

Now since no such thing has taken place, also considering the comments made in part 2 above now I am intentionally leaving it for some more days,for it will serve as a test for them to see their own conditioning and to see whether if they can come out of it temporally to find the other definition K has made and go back, since they would be like to be there.

But there is this Raj, going around and asking questions of all sort. Since he seems to be not caught up yet, there is a greater possibility, that he may be able to do it.

Raj, if you were able, would you care to send it to me as a message, which would provide others the opportunity to find it on their own.

Now taking both part of the above comments, I feel Paul has set an invitation plus the ground, for the others to come and join him.

Anyway, I have no more interest in defending my self by counter arguments, taking myself away from the topic, though a Guardian Angel has come for my protection it seems.(i.e. Raj Kumar)

I have no fear of being shot, as I am not in Syria or Libiya demonstrating.

Entering the Basic Meditation (1st Dhyana) is a perfect impossibility, if not ready to abandon, Anger,Desire and Ego. The young boy/girl uncorrupted in mind/body can come to 1st Dhayana in 15 minutes, the first day.

Yogi Anurada wrote:
Definition of 'Truth' forwarded by K.

*

"..and knowledge we think is truth.." = Truth is not knowledge.
*

"..The more we read about it, the nearer we think we are to it.."" = Thinking does not lead to Truth.
*

"..understand what is truth, what is unknowable.." = Truth is unknowable.
*

"..I would know the unknowable, the mind must be completely silent.." = The 'Method' used in knowing the Truth, is to silence the mind completely.
*

"..You all know how difficult it is for the mind to be still,.." = The 'Method' of knowing the Truth is very very difficult.

Superb is the word! After giving a thought to it you are really doing What K insists, that every one should be doing. Dont get caught to words and definitions. Just listen to what he is saying(=doing).

So you have been able to, without getting caught to his words, you have caught him red-handed at what he is up to, what he is really saying.

Found the Trap!

Yogi Anurada wrote:
I was wondering, whether one who have been conditioned by K's teaching would have the agility and the ability of the mind to come out of it and to look from a different perspective, and to read between the lines to find out something which he was unable to do earlier.

Ah, so we are the guinea pigs in your latest experiment - Can a K-follower be de-Konditioned by Yogi Anurada? Well, Yogi, you have mixed the ingredients and put the pot on the stove to simmer for a few days. I wonder what will be the result. Will we all be saved? Maybe a few?

Then what will you do?

It is revealing that your motive for all this is now becoming clear through your own words. I asked from the beginning your motive because you came to the site hell-bent to perform some kind of miracle, turning water into wine perhaps. Now we have it. It is a savior mission. You came to save us from K.

Many blessings upon your head my dear friend.

What are you waiting for?

Raj Kumar wrote:
Superb is the word! After giving a thought to it you are really doing What K insists

Are you saying that Yogi is a K follower? Are you now a Yogi follower? Do we now need a Raj follower?

My God, we seem to be all following each other in an ever-increasing circle. I do hope somebody notices soon. I am getting dizzy.

What are you waiting for?

Raj Kumar wrote:
Superb is the word!

Yogi Sir,

The above I am borrowing from you. You used it somewhere.

Yogi Anurada wrote:
But there is this Raj, going around and asking questions of all sort. Since he seems to be not caught up yet, there is a greater possibility, that he may be able to do it.

Yes, I will try.

Found the Trap!

Paul Davidson wrote:
Ah, so we are the guinea pigs in your latest experiment - Can a K-follower be de-Konditioned by Yogi Anurada? Well, Yogi, you have mixed the ingredients and put the pot on the stove to simmer for a few days. I wonder what will be the result. Will we all be saved? Maybe a few?

Then what will you do?

It is revealing that your motive for all this is now becoming clear through your own words. I asked from the beginning your motive because you came to the site hell-bent to perform some kind of miracle, turning water into wine perhaps. Now we have it. It is a savior mission. You came to save us from K.

Though I seem to not to agree with most of what you say including this one.

But here you put it in a more refine manner, without any offensive words I noticed.

Found the Trap!

Yogi Anurada wrote:
Everyone can bring a small piece of K's teaching, such as "Quote of the day" and finish it off quickly.

Since I find there are some issues to be explained before I bring a 'Quote' of K, for discussion here.

Everyone seemed to be interested that, how one relates one's experience or understanding with outside world. This means that there is a practical approach, for any experience or understanding to be meaningful.

Sometimes it may take a much longer period to discover the relationship between the understanding and its application. But if a teacher gives an advice, he may adopt two approaches;

1. He gives step by step procedural advice, where the understanding of the student does not matter much or not required, according to the subject matter.




2. He gives some questions to be answered, or riddle like statements(or Quotes) as answers to the questions raised by the student. But he expects the student to relate it immediately or after taking a reasonable amount of time. Whatever the case, there is a practical application to which answers can be related.

Apart from the above two situations, we usually encounter meaningless statements, without having any practicable applications, but just coining of words into beautiful, grand and philosophical looking statement. Then we think it has a nice and very deep meaning and start quoting them, or framing them in our offices.

Today I will take, not from K, but form a short cartoon dialogs of Chinese Buddhist cartoons.

Disciple: Master, how can I prepare myself for death?

Master : Learn to Live.

Disciple: Master, how can I learn to Live?

Master : Prepare yourself for Death.

Is this a practical advise? If so, How it relates to practicality?

Entering the Basic Meditation (1st Dhyana) is a perfect impossibility, if not ready to abandon, Anger,Desire and Ego. The young boy/girl uncorrupted in mind/body can come to 1st Dhayana in 15 minutes, the first day.

Yogi Sir,

Yogi Anurada wrote:
I have chosen a broad topic, after seeing the discussion threads of 'Definitions' and 'Is there a trap?' both dealing in K's teaching.

In the topic under 'Definitions', you said that you will be dealing with the definition of the 'word' cow, I would like to remind you about that, because I have a feeling that you are not going to that topic.

Also I have got somewhat a better answer from Paul there, you may see.

Found the Trap!

Raj Kumar wrote:
But here you put it in a more refine manner, without any offensive words I noticed.

You know Raj, that this process of labelling one another is very harmful. When I hear someone call me a "K-follower" I know that it is uttered out of ignorance and I ask, why is someone so intent to put a label on me? Is it a defensive mechanism to create a distance between him and me? And I think it is. I think that we label when we are afraid of intimacy.

I do not find the label "K-follower" personally offensive but I am struck by the ignoirance and fear behind it. And when I point out the ignorance and the fear I am told that I am using offensive language.

If you have actually taken offense to my statements one has to ask, what is being offended, is it not the ego, the self-image? Personally I have never felt offense on this forum but I find the use of offensive language distasteful and inappropriate. I do not feel I have used such language although I have been pointed and provocative.

What are you waiting for?