Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Sree Dharan's Forum Activity | 27 posts in 4 forums


27 posts  |  Page 1 of 1
Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Thu, 30 Jul 2009
Topic: K.s teachings - new or old

Mittarkumar Khera wrote: For example when the mind is disturbed by violence, instead of understanding it and going into the whole structure of it, we just make an ideal of non-violence (dualistic state) and hope to achieve the ideal in due course of time thus posponing the real action by the mind. All dualities are created this way except those like day and night, long and short, man and women etc.

Dear Professor Khera,

Why is "day and night", "long and short" or "man and woman" not considered dualistic? Are these not also the outcome of comparison, for the one is imperceivable without the other?

Namaste

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Thu, 30 Jul 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique

Manoj SachDeva wrote: That collective memory pool is there even in a new born.. but this is a speculation. How can we probe it further?

Dear Manoji,

Why has this discussion stopped? It is interesting. Is the memory contained in the brain cells? If it is then, the brain is the container of consciousness. Is this consciousness the collective consciousness or the personal consciousness?

Can we probe deductively using reason?

Namaste Sree

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Fri, 31 Jul 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique

Hi Krishnanji, if I may call you that. I did wonder why you abandoned this topic that you started. I did not expect to see your reply which is more than I hoped for. (I enjoyed reading your post to Professor Khera in the other topic.)

You asked the following questions:

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: Is there an individual/personl(as you put it)consciousness contained in the individuals brain and the BIg COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS out there and everwhere?If so, the infant, is he/she influenced by what?

And you proceeded from above questions to speculating as folows:

Strangely, I believe even the new-born has consciousness and some para-normal researchers have established memories of past reincarnations remembered by children.

Based on the above assumption which is purely hypothetical (unless you take para-normal researchers seriously), you jump to the new question as follows:

If so, what is operational in these children?

We have to take a leap of faith to answer this last question because you have inserted your beliefs in para-normal researchers and past reincarnations.

Do you think this approach will lead to truthful discoveries? I ask this question with deepest respects, Krinanji.

Namaste,

Sree

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Fri, 31 Jul 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: What is that operates in you and me, individual consciousness or the Universal consciousness?.

Dear Krishnanji,

I suppose it is consciousness that operates in me but why do I have to identify it as individual as opposed to universal? Is there such a thing as universal consciousness? As an idea, yes; but does it exists?

Of course, I know what is meant by universal consciousness but isn't that an idea? Surely, it is against that idea of a greater universal consciousness that my consciousness takes on an imagined reduced individual dimension.

Namaste

Sree

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Sat, 01 Aug 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: Idea or concept, whatever it is, there is something inside"you" as person operating and t there is something in "me" operating, right?

Dear Krisnanji,

You are right but with one caveat, sir. Ordinarily, as a matter of convention that we live by, "you" operating as a person separate from "me" operating as another person, is taken for granted. But after reading Krishnamurti, this convention is now put into question. I am not suggesting that we take Krishnamurti word for it and accept that there is no separation between you and I. Neither should we accept the division between "me" as a person and "you" as another person, and use that as a basis for discussion in the search for truth. Am I wrong, sir?

Out there , there are known & unnown universes are there, let us assume. If so , what is operational over all these?

You are speculating. What is operating over all these? If we allow speculation and assumption, then it could be Zeus, if I prefer Greek; or Lord Krishna, if I am partial to Hinduism. What is your preferred guess?

Is it the Universal consciousness. How this individual & Universal connect or communicate, or are they mutually exclusive as mine and yours are?

Seems like you prefer this idea of a Universal Consciousness and you want to inquire on the relationship between that imagined entity and "you" or "me" as an operating person. What is the point to this line of inquiry?

By wrting here i communicate with you, I am in touch with you, does it happen same way with this "universal" one?

The "Universal One" is an idea. "You" as an operating person is also an idea, according to Krishnamurti. But at least, "you" can talk to me; and it is possible to examine the relationship between you and me through dialogue back and forth. It is not possible to talk to the "Universal One".

Namaste

Sree

Forum: The answer my friend is blowing in the wind Sat, 01 Aug 2009
Topic: parenting

Ruth Marie Bass wrote: Parents are the authorities in their children's lives and they will determine the ideas that define what-is for them.

Dear Ruth,

This is true also in the world of mother nature in the wild. Young animals mimic their parents without question and they do so to escape danger and survive. Parents serve as role models. My parents were killed in a plane crash when I was very young. I was raised by my grandmother who loved me very much. She looked up to me instead of the other way round. In terms of ideas, I think there were none that she imposed on me. I feel that I grew up by myself. Do you think I am free in the sense Nick meant?

Regards,

Sree

Forum: The answer my friend is blowing in the wind Sun, 02 Aug 2009
Topic: parenting

Ruth Marie Bass wrote: And I think it is some of the best parenting.

Dear Ruth,

I had friends who had no parents. They grew up on their own. Much freedom. The streets of the city became their "parent".

Sometimes, I feel that all mankind is an orphan. No parents. Much freedom. We are our own parents, lights unto ourselves, as we forge through the darkness.

Regards,

Sree

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 02 Aug 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

phil K wrote: I will be a little revealing here and say that along with some friends with whom I have talked for years and no matter what...I's..self images...egos or whatever, quite a few condtionings have dropped away in all of us; thereby, creating much better and freer lives.

Dear Phil,

Please allow me to join your discussion.

Can you give me an example of a conditioning that you have dropped that led to a freer life?

There is a difference between giving up a habit or lifestyle, that results in the removal of a constraint or mental roadblock, and the ending of a belief that brings about a change that fundamentally alters one's identity. An example of this would be the story of the Ugly Duckling that was freed from the oppressive belief that it was a duck.

Regards,

Sree

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Mon, 03 Aug 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: Astronemers can substantiate there are known and unknown universes out there in the sky.Beyond all that they have evidence of emptiness and the very nature of forming, exploding and emptying process out there is still unexplicable to scientists.

Dear Krisnanji,

You and I can peer through the telescopes also and see what astronomers see. And what we would see is not "out there" separate from us. Like a star, that you see in the night sky, all visible things, be they universes, are part of our consciousness. Let them be inexplicable. The moment we invent an explanation, these universes become separated from us by a zillion light-years.

When one is totally free of the thought processes. one is empty and in that emptiness the universal Intelligence communicates.That is eternal BLISS.-this is my view.

Is this your view, sir, or do you mean that it is your belief? I am not being disrespectful. I am posing this question to me, and you, and Krishnamurti as well because he too said very much the same thing.

I am the human consciousness. This much I know. But knowledge pops up instantly to explain, and - even when knowledge is lacking - try to explain each and every thing I see, touch, taste, smell and hear. All that explaining gives rise to my existence as Sree Dharan, 27 year-old, Indian, living in America, struggling to stay viable as a member of the human race.

I am not dissecting what you said, Krisnanji. I am reflecting, and trying to figure out the relevance of what you are proposing (i.e. total freedom from the thought processes) and my life as Sree Dharan as defined by thought.

Namaste

Sree

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 03 Aug 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

phil K wrote: An example that you ask for is criticism or being insulted. I came to the realization that during my learning process, I was conditioned to believe there was such a thing; consequently, I would react emotionally when I perceived somethng as being an insult or criticism. That has completely dropped away.

Dear Phil,

I think it is important to differentiate between insult and criticism. Both can cause hurt; but while an insult is meant to hurt, criticism isn't. It is curious why you lump the two together as though they are one and the same thing.

I study the performing arts at NYU (New York University). The critique sessions can be brutal, especially when the teacher has a way of being direct and never pulls his punches in telling me that my performance sucks. That's the way it is, and if I let hurt gets in the way, I won't survive.

Don't you consider the susceptibility to hurt in the face of criticism or even insults is a sign of emotional disorder?

Regards,

Sree

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 04 Aug 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

phil K wrote: So I, also, agree that the susceptibility to being hurt in the face of either to be a sign of emotional disorder and that is why I call them both conditionings.

Dear Phil,

While conditioning might be a good thing, emotional disorder is not.

A regular schedule conditions my body, and it readily adjusts to a cyclic routine. Mentally, conditioning enables faster task performance and I can do things with rapidity and accuracy without "thinking".

Emotional disorder is rather dark and scary. Getting upset over a discussion about nothing is quite mad. Don't you agree?

It seems that each of us is connected to a common reservoir of emotional rage much like the way volcanos are connected to the earth's immense thermal core. While all of us do get hurt to some degree when subjected to deliberate insults, others go ballistic even when told objectively in the kindest way that they are messing things up.

Regards,

Sree

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 05 Aug 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

phil K wrote: I have titled this subtopic classic conditioning. Classic conditioning means literally the things we respond to incorrectly just as Pavlovs dog salivates over a bell which is an incorrect response to the stimulus of a bell.

Dear Phil,

I am sorry if I am messing up the trend of discussion here on classic conditioning. The human mind does behave like Pavlov's dog all the time as can be seen in the way we are fooled by magic tricks.

The magician fans out four cards with his hands and shows you four queens. He closes his four card deck, turns it over, and fans it out again showing you the same four cards which are now blanks. This never fails to amaze the audience. I bought the magic trick for four dollars because I had to know how the magician made the queens disappear. I drive people nuts with the trick every time. The trick was simple and I discovered what a fool the mind can be by jumping to conclusions. Pavlov's dog jumped to similar conclusions on hearing the bell. It was the conclusion about the bell-food connection that cause the salivating.

Phil, if you understand Pavlov's conditioning, you can use it to be a big time crook fleecing people out of everything they own. This is how a con works in everyday life.

Regards,

Sree

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Sun, 09 Aug 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: Put away the luggage of thoughts from your head and stay free on this train-LIFE. I am sensing you energy in your writings here, dear Sree Dharan, BE HAPPY! Everything will turn out as it should.

Dear Krishnanji,

Thank God we are Indians and we have this train to travel in life. After seven years in America, I am beginning to think like and becoming an American who must always carry his luggage on his head and cannot put it down.

Inevitable predetermination of fatalism is meant to help us Indians face life with stoic calm. But in America that preaches the power of self-determination, this cultural value has eroded my faith in the safety of the train. What if it slams into the side of a mountain? Or if it is heading for a bridge that has been washed away by flood waters? What if? Impermanence works both ways. Suffering that comes and goes is fine. Bridges that are here today and gone tomorrow is not fine.

In Chennai, I did not worry so much. But living here in New York, I have come to worry a lot. Maybe the life here is turning me into a neurotic New Yorker. It is not easy to take the luggage from your head when the ground is shifting under your feet.

Namste,

Sree

Forum: Question authority Mon, 10 Aug 2009
Topic: Mechanical-freedom

Dear Randal,

It appears that Keshni has abandoned the dialogue ? he just took off, without any social grace. Please pardon his lack of manners which is not a civilized tradition of our culture. Allow me to take his place in this dialogue.

It also appears to me that you had not caught what he meant in his responses and ploughed on with your questions, and that must be the reason why he left. I reproduce an abbreviated form of your above dialogue with Keshni showing the salient parts below:

R.S: And if our minds are automatic and/or machine-like, what is freedom?

K.S.: Being free from thought is the only way to freedom. ...... Thought is influenced by centuries of tradition and animal feelings/instincts. Emotions are almost automatic and predictable in this type of set up.

R.S.: Why do you say emotions are "almost" automatic?

K.S.: From experience. Observation.

R.S.: But you see, accumulated experience, from observation, is an exercise in the exchange of knowledge.

K.S.: Sir no, everyone said self-knowledge is the path in Hindusim. Which is different from knowledge.

R.S. Is a deep, fundamental understanding of the nature of my self, therefore all other selves, the same as "self-knowledge"?

You asked what freedom is if mind is automatic. Keshni?s reply: freedom from thought.

And when you asked Keshni why he said that emotions are almost automatic, he told you that he (introspectively) observed it to be so from (direct) experiencing of emotions. But when you dismissed that as ?an exercise in the exchange of knowledge?, Keshni pointed out that such introspective self-knowledge (something commonly understood in India) is not the same as the kind of knowledge (that westerners know) you equated it with. He must have been exasperated and responded to your last question with the Buddha?s thundering silence reserved for the bhikkhu with the karma of a Brahma bull. (Words in parentheses are mine.)

Shall we continue with the dialogue? My response to your last question would be, yes. Self-knowledge is the understanding of the nature of the self. But, what do you mean by all other selves? If you mean Randal, Keshni, Sree, etc., then the understanding of the nature of one self reveals the nature of all selves.

Looking forward to hearing from you

Regards,

Sree

Forum: Question authority Tue, 11 Aug 2009
Topic: Mechanical-freedom

Randal Shacklett wrote: But rather to point out that, as far as the human mind is currently operating, there is no other "relationship" between people, other than this "exchange of information".

Dear Randal,

This is generally true. We do use thought to communicate by talking and writing to each other. Is there really no other form of relationship except the verbalized one?

That is simply another way of saying that humanity is caught in the bondage of knowledge.

True, if talking or writing is the only way to relate. Even though the tool of communication (i.e. thought) is mechanical in nature, the use of that tool may not necessarily be mechanical unless we are all housewives mindlessly yakking in a beauty parlor.

When we use words like "self_knowledge", in a Krishnamurti discussion forum, I just like to clarify terms.

Again, I maintain that self-knowledge (as Keshni said) is not informational knowledge. An example would be the self-knowledge acquired by the Buddha in his pursuit of the deathless state (timelessness, as expounded by Krishnamurti). The Buddha, through introspective inquiry discovered that the self is an illusion. Even though I can tell you that in words (probably in the same manner the Buddha told others of his discovery), no self-knowledge is either transferred or transferable through those words. This is because self-knowledge is not informational knowledge transmittable through the use of mecahnical thought.

Please pardon me if I sound like a preacher trying to teach. I prefer to see this as an exciting attempt by two guys in a garage attempting to fix a race car.

Regards,

Sree

Forum: Question authority Wed, 12 Aug 2009
Topic: Mechanical-freedom

Randal Shacklett wrote: We can only discuss what we have, right? Which is automatic response, like a machine.

Dear Randal,

You could be right. We could be nothing more than the mechanical movement of thought. I was playing chess the other day with a game software called "Chessmaster". It was uncanny and rather scary. I could have sworn that the computer was anticipating my moves. I guess I am refusing to accept your realization that we are actually not "alive", no more alive than a computer program.

Let's say that you are right. I am a mechanical mental robot just like you are. Is our ability to see that also mechanical? Let me put this another way. Imagine you are a talking toy in a toy shop. When the clock strikes twelve at midnight, all the toys comes "alive" and start moving. You walk up and down the shelf saying, "I am a dead thing. I am a dead thing." And I am another talking toy walking beside you up and down the shelf saying, "You are right, Randal. I am dead too. I am dead like you."

Is that what you are saying, Randal? Tick tock tick tock...Randal, is that what you are saayying....(change batteries, please).

Regaaards,

Sreee

Forum: Question authority Thu, 13 Aug 2009
Topic: Mechanical-freedom

Dear Randal,

I was quite tickled by my post to you (above) last night. I couldn't help laughing to myself after logging off. I was still trying to stifle my laughter while brushing my teeth and sprayed the mirror with toothpaste foam from my mouth. That's sure to piss my girlfriend off no matter how much I cleaned up the mess. In bed, that tickle was still there. "What's the matter with you?" My girlfriend turned and wanted to know. "Are you dreaming or crazy?" she asked. I said, "I am dead." She slammed her pillow on my head, got up, stormed out and slammed the bedroom door. Guess I will be sleeping in my own place tonight.

You are wrecking my love life, Randal. I am bartending again tonight. Let's hope you don't mess up my job too.

See you later,

Sree

Forum: Question authority Thu, 13 Aug 2009
Topic: Mechanical-freedom

Randal Shacklett wrote: What if it is so? What if we have no free will, but can only respond according to our program(conditioning)? What if we are mearly automatic monkey's, who think we are god? What then? If it is not so, we can all laugh and barter sex with our wives(pursue pleasure).

Dear Randal,

What if we have free will? What difference does that make? We live like maximum security prisoners anyway. Or worse still, like trains moving on laid out tracks. If you have a job, that's 8 to 10 hours working to rules. If you run your own dinky business, that's 12 to 16 hours hard labor just to stay afloat. The rest of the time, if you are not sleeping, there is the wife and the government telling you what to do.

The only way we can find out if we are truly automatic monkeys is to jump off our tracks: give up our jobs and our families, the way the Buddha did. Only then, can we seriously inquire into freedom. Until then, it is just talk. Krishnamurti told us about a guy in India who came to the park on his bicycle every evening without fail to meditate on freedom. "But he is just a clerk," said K.

"If you want to find the Kingdom of Heaven," Jesus asked, "then, give up everything and follow me."

Can you give up everything to find out if there is this thing called freedom, Randal? The Buddhist monk calls that jumping off the cliff with both hands free. I am 27 and have no committments to God, wife or country. My hands are free. What about you, Randal? Are you also free even at this mundane level?

Regards,

Sree

Forum: Question authority Fri, 14 Aug 2009
Topic: Mechanical-freedom

Randal Shacklett wrote: I'm 52, I have no cell phone, no credit card, no job, no wife, or children, no need for Jesus, or Buddah, Or Krishnamurti, or Love, or happiness, I have no hunger to find anything or lose anything. But all of that, plus$2.00, gets me a hot cup of coffee.

Dear Randal,

Quite true. Someone needs to drive this fact into those ascetics of ours in India. Those vagrants have become a tourist industry that has also sucked in westerners coming to India in search of enlightenment.

Anyway, there is a hell of a lot of difference between (A) - not having anything in life as a matter of choice and (B) - as a result of being a loser. Being a loser doesn't count. So, unless you are homeless, locked away in a mental asylum or (God forbid) in prison (all these three situations are those of a loser), you need to have a job to buy food, clothing and shelter not to mention the computer you are using. So, what do you use for money that enables you to live without a job?

You see, Randal, this is the catch. We all need money to live on like our body needs air. None of us can talk about freedom not because of the mechanicalness of mind but because the devil has his hand tightly clasped around our throats. And he doles out the money - dollar by dollar, cent by cent - as long as each one of us, without exception, trots around and jumps through hoops, the way he wants; and he doesn't give a rat's ass whether we do it like the automatic monkeys in India or the free spirits in America.

I suppose I feel strongly about a freedom that comes through self-knowledge in the same way you are certain about your take on the mechanical mind as an all encompassing determinant in life. I am open to the possibility of being proven wrong. If you are similarly disposed, then answer my question: how are you able to live without a job?

Regards,

Sree

Forum: Question authority Sat, 15 Aug 2009
Topic: Mechanical-freedom

Dear Randal,

Randal Shacklett wrote: I live on the charity of others.

Charity? What the hell is that? The (mechanical) dictionary defines that as aid to the needy and helpless. The others who confer aid to you must believe that you are needy and helpless even though you have declared that you don?t need a damn thing. And yours is not the kind of declaration a helpless person would make either. Yet, you would live off those generous suckers. That makes you a crook. You said you don't have a job. Never mind about the immorality, but don't you see that cheating for a living is also a job?

Winners and losers, yes, a mechanical way of looking at life.

Did I mention ?winners?? I sure can spot a loser but what on earth is a winner? Krishnamurti pointed out that violence is a fact but non-violence is a non-fact. Similarly, a loser is a fact but a winner is a non-fact?doesn?t exist, not to me. Since it was you who used the word ?winner?, could you tell me what it is?

What I am saying has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong".

Ok, so I didn?t use the appropriate word. In this politically correct world today, I do need to address the sensitivities of people who simply object to being judgmental. Let me rephrase it in another way. I am open to being proven that I am full of shit; and I hope you are similarly disposed. Ok?

I am not telling you anything that requires acceptance or rejection. I simply don't care about your arguement, I have said I am not here to be convinced or exchange opinions/beliefs.

So, what the heck are we doing here? You may not care about my argument but I certainly do care about yours even though it is mechanical. And as moderator, you are obligated to conduct this forum in line with the intent of this Krishnamurti website. Since you are hogging one of its 15 forums with others like me on the waiting list to make thoughtful contributions, you should at least pay your share for this great website's upkeep. If you can't afford to because you are on welfare, you really should give up your forum to others like me who can and have paid their dues.

This is about questioning authority, your authority, Randal. How am I doing?

Regards,

Sree

Forum: Question authority Mon, 17 Aug 2009
Topic: Mechanical-freedom

Salut! Chafia, mon ami. Avez -vou amuse, pourquoi?

Forum: Question authority Mon, 17 Aug 2009
Topic: Mechanical-freedom

kirsten zwijnenburg wrote: randal you're a winner.

Mijn beste Kirsten, wat denkt u dat van randal de jackass? Moet ik kick zijn BUTT enige meer?

Forum: Question authority Mon, 17 Aug 2009
Topic: Mechanical-freedom

Dear Randal,

You don't have to ask Kirsten if we are talking about your mama. I left enough keywords to clue even a mule in.

Regards,

Sree

Forum: Question authority Wed, 19 Aug 2009
Topic: Mechanical-freedom

Dear Kirsten,

Don't be sorry. You haven't killed a forum thread. We will always have a forum thread as long as we are together. We are not mechanical. I am sick of this talking point. I can't take it, to be honest with you. Don't you ever believe that we are mechanical. We can feel, can't we? That's not mechanical, is it?

Working people contribute to society, not arrogant people living on charity. He just wants us to believe we are mechanical, be his slave and carry him on our backs.

Only in America do people become a drag on society and live on charity shamelessly. In India, life is hard for everyone. Even orphaned children - and there are thousands of them everywhere - cannot vy to live on charity because there are too many of them. You have to burn their eyes out with acid and put them at street corners with a begging bowl to evoke pity from passers-by so that they will throw a centime or two in their bowls especially when they can also sing in a good voice.

He doesn't need the Buddha or Jesus or Krishnamurti, he said, but these children do. When there is love, they won't need charity like he does.

Regards,

Sree

Forum: Question authority Thu, 20 Aug 2009
Topic: Mechanical-freedom

Randal Shacklett wrote: Ridicule me all you want, I realize it helps you feel better about yourself, but leave Kirsten out of it. I wasn't asking her, I was asking you. Man to man, what else you got to say?

Randal,

Man to man? You live on charity. By doing so, you forfeited your right to be a viable human being let a lone a man. One who lives on charity is below that of the untouchable in society. Even these lowlings work for a living by removing excretment from public places and take their assigned place in society.

No one, least of all me, would demean another in a Krishnamurti discussion forum. I am here, like others, to seek the truth in the false. Is my calling attention to the truth about your way of life an act of taunting? Was Krishnamurti jeering us all when he pointed to our monstrous conditioning?

It is you who is ridiculing this website with the malicious intent to mock its creators and subscribers, by signing on as an enlightened being who recommends watching dirty movies. And you would foist yourself in our midst as a forum moderator to satirize a discussion venue dedicated to the serious study of the teachings of J.Krishnamurti.

Sree

Forum: Question authority Thu, 20 Aug 2009
Topic: Mechanical-freedom

Randal Shacklett wrote: The only problem with that idea is, the world is sick to death of your kind of love. Good luck with you thoughtful postings elsewhere.

Randal,

Are you asking me to leave this forum? Are you exercising the authority, that you said you don't have, to tell me to bugger off? If you don't have the authority, then you had better stuff it.

My kind of love? What kind is that? And whose world are you referring to? Your world of people living on charity? Yours is not the whole world, and there are people who have not given up on life and want to change it fundamentally because Krishnamurti said that it's possible.

You and I, we may not see eye-to-eye and sick to the pit of our stomachs at the thought of each other. Neither of us must succumb to the mechanical urge to shut the other out. Feel that pain in the butt and stay with it. Don't run away. Don't take the easy way out. You too can be free. You don't have to live on charity. We all want to help you be a man. This is what love is all about even if you are sick to death of it.

Sree

Forum: Question authority Fri, 21 Aug 2009
Topic: Mechanical-freedom

kirsten zwijnenburg wrote: hi sree, you know what, i'm not having a regular job to make a living either, each month society provides me a little and it is enough for a simple life, in return i work hard on a voluntary base which brings an amount of freedom to be able to let creativity flower..

Dear Kirsten,

I was not criticizing Randal for not having a job. If he doesn't want to work, that's his business. And if he lives on charity as a homeless guy eating at the soup kitchen and crashing at the YMCA, that is also his business. But is such a lifestyle choice one that Krishnamurti was advocating as the way to unconditional freedom? I don't think so.

Having a job is imprisoning and it is part of a mechanical existence we have created for ourselves. Your choice of a simple life comes from a natural need to be free, and you are willing to give up what is not essential to your happiness. Sounds smart to me.

i do think money could be re-arranged quite easely so that everybody, i mean the whole world, has enough to live a simple sufficient life, no hunger, no children dying from diseases which don't even exist in the west anymore.. it so very much unfairly shared,

What about mental diseases? I don't mean stark raving madness but depression. The drive to succeed here in America is phenomenal. The children may not have malaria or dysentry but what they are up against in order to make it through life is no less grim.

Money could be re-arranged easily? How?

of course man is a neurotical wreck as long as this sense of guilt is not been felt through thoroughly, with the radical change as a result.

Sense of guilt? Could you explain this a little? If we are not sticking to the topic, do you want to go somewhere else to talk?

I like this new improvement to the Kinfonet Website. I like your website too because it has nice pictures.

Regards,

Sree

27 posts  |  Page 1 of 1