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

The beauty of it.


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 73 in total
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #1
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 207 posts in this forum Offline

Quote of the day ( 2017-06-13 )

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day
Oslo, Norway | 5th September, 1933, Talk in University Hall.

Question: Is your realization of truth permanent and present all the time, or are there dark times when you again face the bondage of fear and despair?

Krishnamurti: The bondage of fear exists as long as there remains the limitation of consciousness that you call the "I". When you become rich within yourself, then you will no longer feel want. It is in this continual battle of want, in this seeking of advantage from circumstances, that fear and darkness exist. I think I am free from that. How can you know it? You can't. I might be deceiving you. So do not bother about it. But I have this to say: One can live effortlessly, in a way that cannot be arrived at through effort; one can live without this incessant struggle for spiritual achievement; one can live harmoniously, completely in action - not in theory, but in daily life, in daily contact with human beings. I say that there is a way to free the mind from all suffering, a way to live completely, wholly, eternally. But to do that, one must be completely open towards life; one must allow no shelter or reserve to remain in which mind can dwell, to which heart can withdraw in times of conflict.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #2
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti answered:
I think I am free from that.

Krishnamurti answered essentially: Yes, K is free of fear, of self.

And most of us reading his answer accept or acknowledge this. Yet when we encounter an apparently arrogant person here in kinfonet who asserts freedom from self, most of us never accept that.

We might pounce on part of the answer: "I think I am free of that." As long as there is an "I" and "thinking" then you are not free.

"There is a way to free the mind from all suffering..." No! There is no method. And wanting to be free of suffering is still to be trapped in suffering. And just to assert there is a way is not inquiry.

Actually I think K's answer is excellent and doesn't deserve pouncing on.

But it is curious how uncritical we may be with Krishnamurti and his answers and how ruthlessly critical we may be with apparently arrogant people who post here.

Obviously we need to pay attention to whether we are judgmental or respectful. But also we need to dig even deeper into what K says and not just accept it.

What do you think?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #3
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

I also want to discuss freedom from fear on a personal level.

You know, you can live a simple, fairly conflict free life, and feel no fear, feel well. I found myself living like that.

Then I encountered a psychopath. This is a person mired deeply in self. He stalked, harassed, and tried to intimidate me, and even more so people I love. I did not respond to his extreme violence with counter violence. But I really did not know what to do, how to respond. With love? There can be no love for evil cruelty. This kind of psychopathic activity comes from a brain that is different from most everyone's.

So I felt some fear. And it came from not knowing what to do. The police were uninterested and wouldn't do anything.

Eventually I believe my lack of a response bored the psychopath and he went away.

But this demonstrated to me that one may feel free of fear in calm circumstances. But that things can turn. Senseless violence can arise with no warning and for no reason. And I discovered that fear can arise again.

So I am not free of fear. Very rarely, one may encounter very sick, cruel people who are dangerous. Not just to you but to others.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #4
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

Second Public Dialogue in Saanen, August 1970:


K: Have you ever faced a bear in the woods? [...] I have. We have. That gentleman and I happen to have many of these happenings during certain years but that is irrelevant. What takes place? Don't imagine, sir. There is a bear in front of you, a few feet away from you, all the bodily reactions, the adrenaline and so on and so on and so on, there is instant stopping, isn't there, and you turn away and run, leave. What has happened there? What was the response? A conditioned response, wasn't it? People have told you generation after generation 'Be careful of wild animals'. If you get frightened you will transmit that fear to the animal and it'll attack you. The whole thing is through instantly. Now is that fear functioning or intelligence? Don't answer me, please listen to this. You understand, sir. Which is operating, fear or intelligence? Fear of what - the fear that has been aroused by the repetition - 'Be careful of wild animals'. That has been your conditioning from childhood - be careful - is that operating? Or is intelligence operating? You have never faced wild animals, have you? No. So see the difference: the conditioned response to that animal and the action of that conditioned response is one thing, and the operation of intelligence and the action of intelligence is entirely different, the two are entirely different. Are you meeting this thing? The bus is rushing by, a bus, you don't throw yourself in front of it, your intelligence says, don't do it. It's not fear, unless you are slightly neurotic or taken a series of drugs. Your intelligence says, don't be - you know, intelligence prevents you. It's not fear.

[...]The moment it is a conditioned response there is fear involved in it and that is transmitted to the animal; but if it is intelligence - must I go into it, personally it's not important. I have faced a tiger - well, never mind - leave all that alone. So you find out for yourself what is operating. If it is fear then its action is incomplete and therefore there is a danger from the animal, but the action of intelligence is entirely different. There is no fear at all.

[...]The action of fear and the effects of fear and its action, based on the past memories, such actions are destructive, contradictory, paralysing. Right? Do we see that? Not verbally but actually see that? That when you are afraid you are completely isolated and any action that took place from that isolation must by fragmentary and therefore contradictory, therefore there was struggle, pain and all the rest of it? Now, an action of awareness of fear without all the responses of memory is a complete action. You try it! Do it. Become aware, as you are walking along, going home, your old fears will come up. Then watch, watch, be aware, whether those fears are actually fears or projected by thought as memory. You see that? If those fears are the projection of thought as the response of memory, then your action will be incomplete and therefore painful. Right? But as you walk along and a fear arises watch it, whether you are watching from the response of thought or merely watching. Right, is that clear? If it isn't clear go and jump in that lake! (Laughter). Don't do it though!

[...] So, what we are talking is action, because life is action, not saying one part of life is action only, the whole of living is action. And that action is broken up, and this breaking up of action is this process of memory with its thoughts and isolation. Right? Is that clear?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #5
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 1210 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
And I discovered that fear can arise again.

Hi Idiot I think you have to discern the difference between 'real' and imaginary fear. The "psychopath" is as dangerous as the tiger chasing you, maybe more so. That's 'real' danger and the reaction to it is intelligent action to avoid it. The imaginary fear that comes through 'thought' picturing, projecting, a negative scenario that may or may not happen is different and is based on the image I have of myself. If you have ever had a good case of stage fright, it can be paralyzing. So is it safe to say that as long as the self-image exists, there is always the danger that it can be 'hurt' and the underlying fear that it might be, and hence the need to keep that from happening?

I see that Huguette has put up a K. quote on this which I'll go back and read.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 13 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #6
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 1210 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But it is curious how uncritical we may be with Krishnamurti and his answers and how ruthlessly critical we may be with apparently arrogant people who post here.

Obviously we need to pay attention to whether we are judgmental or respectful. But also we need to dig even deeper into what K says and not just accept it.

I agree that we have to find in ourselves if any of it is true. I rightly or wrongly have no doubts about K. But I question the idea that a poster who considers themselves to have been 'realized', 'transformed, 'free from the known' whatever words you want to use, why they would want to impart this to someone else? I mean if you are in such a state, you could come on a site like this and respond from a place in yourself when you see that someone is according to your perspective, 'off the mark'. But if you see what I'm getting at, why advertise your good fortune? Is it because you want to be taken more 'seriously' than you feel you're being taken? Of course people are suspicious when someone implies that they've 'seen the light'. Gurus make a fortune off people who believe that they can 'help' others to 'see'. And beside all that, we all know a few 'crazy' people and know something of our own 'craziness'. I don't remember the line but it's something like 'you'll know the prophet by his fruit'? (that doesn't sound right.;)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 13 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #7
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 563 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Krishnamurti answered essentially: Yes, K is free of fear, of self.

And most of us reading his answer accept or acknowledge this. Yet when we encounter an apparently arrogant person here in kinfonet who asserts freedom from self, most of us never accept that.

Hi idiot? and all. I think that although Krishnamurti does say or imply "K is free of fear, of self" we have to look at the whole answer by K which Rich posted. Reading this answer we surely get the sense that here is someone who knows what he's talking about. If someone really has freed themselves from self, I think this would come across in the content of their messages here on Kinfonet (I'm not implying that I don't think anyone has done this, by the way). What I mean is that saying "I am free of self" will probably come across as arrogance if it is not in the context of other content which demonstrates that this is in fact the case. Any thoughts on this anyone?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #8
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 207 posts in this forum Offline

Why do we bother so much about that ? What importance does it have if someone sees the truth and this other one don't ? That one is free and another one is not ? It doesn't make any sense. How would we know and what is the interest in that ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Tue, 13 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #9
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 1210 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
I say that there is a way to free the mind from all suffering, a way to live completely, wholly, eternally. But to do that, one must be completely open towards life; one must allow no shelter or reserve to remain in which mind can dwell, to which heart can withdraw in times of conflict.

Getting back to the "beauty" of his statement.

And what are the "shelters" or "reserves" in myself that the " heart" hides behind in times of conflict?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 13 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #10
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 207 posts in this forum Offline

For my part, I would say that it means living in the present, in the actual, and to face every challenge, from moment to moment without any conclusions , concepts, images of the past and so on. Still, I'm completely open ...:)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #11
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 1210 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
what are the "shelters" or "reserves" in myself that the " heart" hides behind in times of conflict?

It is the 'self' isn't it? A 'protective' structure built against the 'outside' world. A defense mechanism to avoid psychological conflict but which by its existence is the source of conflict. The 'self' is an escape from 'being as nothing'. Yet it seems that it is only by 'being as nothing' that there is no place left to hide, that 'by being as nothing', there can be freedom from the past..

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 14 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #12
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 563 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Why do we bother so much about that ? What importance does it have if someone sees the truth and this other one don't ? That one is free and another one is not ? It doesn't make any sense. How would we know and what is the interest in that ?

Hi Rich. If someone on this forum says "I am free of self" I would say that this is interesting, especially if it is true. Are you saying that this is something we should ignore?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3042 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Are you saying that this is something we should ignore?

Yes. Isn't it immaterial to how I live my life. The issue is the conflict in 'me', no? His claim of freedom won't alter my own conflict one iota. At worst, I will make him into an authority.

I just re-read the OP....from K: "I think I am free from that. How can you know it? You can't. I might be deceiving you. So do not bother about it."

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 14 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #14
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 207 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Hi Rich. If someone on this forum says "I am free of self" I would say that this is interesting, especially if it is true. Are you saying that this is something we should ignore?

How would we know ? We can't. He could be deceiving himself and deceiving yourself. So why bother ? And it doesn't seems to work that way.

Krishnamurti: The next question is, can you become conscious of that freedom? If you say, 'I am free', then you are not free. It is like a man saying,"I am happy'. The moment he says,"I am happy' he is living in a memory of something that has gone.
Freedom can only come about naturally, not through wishing, wanting, longing.
Nor will you find it by creating an image of what you think it is. To come upon it
the mind has to learn to look at life, which is a vast movement, without the
bondage of time, for freedom lies beyond the field of consciousness.

Freedom from the Known Chap.8.

And in the first quote: The bondage of fear exists as long as there remains the limitation of consciousness that you call the "I".

It make a lot of sense.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Wed, 14 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #15
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1151 posts in this forum Offline

Note: The "I think I am free from that" in the first quote might correctly be read as a hypothetical. Some one else speaking not K.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 14 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #16
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 207 posts in this forum Offline

Yes. When one say I think, it open the door to doubt, which is sane. Freedom is a moment to moment affair and as he said : freedom lies beyound the field of consciousness. Now without accepting what is said, it is worth considering.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #17
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

To me, there are all kinds of interesting questions and I almost never want to ignore something, especially if someone is encouraging me to ignore it.

K said not to concern yourself with the "speaker." Then he authorized biographies! Why? if we need not be concerned with the speaker? I think his life and bios are interesting. I think his early experience and training in Theosophy is interesting. I think the fact that he had an affair with Rosalind Rajagopal is interesting.

But people will say, No, no, don't concern yourself with that. It's just gossip.

On the contrary! It goes to whether K always lived the teachings. Sorry, but he wasn't always honest and forthright. He never went to D. Rajagopal and said, "Oh, by the way Raja, I'm bonking your wife." So there was a degree of secrecy that he maintained.

Now here we are discussing K's freedom from fear and self. He says you cannot know that it is so, therefore don't bother about it. But others might say, you CAN know if someone is free of self IF YOU are free of self.

And if K's teaching is to have any real meaning, it is in being free of fear and self! He said his main goal was to set man completely free.

So I say go into ANY question that interests you.

A similar situation is where K says a question is "a wrong question." Well, a question can be posed such that its internal assumptions are inconsistent. In that way it could be wrong. But when someone, anyone including K, says that a question is wrong because it is inappropriate, that pretty much demands deeper investigation, in my book.

So to anyone here in the forum who asks, why does this concern you? Why do you want to know? I say, if you are not interested then please do not pursue it with us. But don't discourage us from pursuing something. We may be willing to question where you are not. And that, my friend, is one way to "investigate for yourself."

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #18
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

To elaborate on my previous post, why do we compartmentalize? Why do we say that there are some issues worth going into and others not? Isn't freedom from the known, freedom to investigate? And that investigation can be of anything!

Part of being free from gurus and spiritual books and organizations is that they tend to channel you into a particular view. They say: look into this but don't look over there.

But to really be free is look freely. To not be afraid to investigate anywhere.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #19
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3042 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But to really be free is look freely. To not be afraid to investigate anywhere.

But I can't investigate whether K, or X, is free or not. It could only be speculation. And if I could see inside his brain for an instant? Now that might be interesting....but I can't....even if he were stil living, I couldn't. So I'm stuck with the only thing I can investigate....myself. Not talking of science, where I can investigate the physical brain...or the atom. Talking of investigating human suffering and conflict....where it exists... in me.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 14 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #20
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But I can't investigate whether K, or X, is free or not. It could only be speculation.

It may or may not be true that we can't investigate if K was free.

But we are here in this forum and interested in his teachings. Some of them have made sense to us. Some of them, we have checked out for ourselves and found them to be true.

And now he is saying that it is possible to be free of self and fear and implying that he was. And so we are already speculating, based on our earlier verifications of some of his teachings, that maybe this part of his teaching is also true.

So yes, the question is, is it possible to be free of fear and self? And yes, the only answer is to find out for yourself. And clearly, almost no one succeeds in this. But to me, blocking off avenues of investigation is something I don't want to be too quick to do.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #21
Thumb_untitled5 Ken D United States 11 posts in this forum Offline

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #22
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 207 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But to me, blocking off avenues of investigation is something I don't want to be too quick to do.

Take your time :). Seriously , I didn't mean to block any investigation. But for me it is futile. But please, go ahead.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #23
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 111 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
And that investigation can be of anything!

But isn't there just one "anything/everything"? (sense of a central self created by thinking about stuff) Don't we already divide ("there is no division") when we say "anything"?
When I say we can investigate fear/anger or envy or any other perceived character flaw, I am dividing these entities from who/what I am (the observer is the observed),am I not? Or are we saying the same thing?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #24
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 111 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
But for me it is futile.

Yes, to continue to blindly go round and round in circles over and over, this seems quite futile indeed. However, it constantly allows us to
come aware of what we are actually doing. Because it doesn't happen (come aware) is not the fault/responsibility of "outer conditions/environment", is it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #25
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 207 posts in this forum Offline

When I said that it is futile, I didn't mean that investigating is futile richard. But I think it is futile to analyse or investigate whether K . was free of fear and darkness or not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #26
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 207 posts in this forum Offline

Here is an interesting quote on the subject of continuity...or non continuity of perception; about truth as a final point. From the book Tradition and Revolution which are all meetings in different part of India, with traditionalists (maybe also some old theosophists). Maybe the one book which goes very deeply about perception.Please, this is informative and in no way, I hope, propaganda.

Krishnamurti: Die to the thing that is true. Otherwise it becomes
memory, which then becomes thought, and thought says how am I
to perpetuate that state. If the mind sees clearly, and it can only see
clearly when the seeing is the ending of it, then the mind can start a
movement where the first step is the last step. In this there is no
process involved at all. There is no element of time. Time enters
when, having seen it clearly, having perceived it, there is a carrying
over and the applying of it to the next incident.

P: The carrying over is the not seeing or perceiving.

Krishnamurti: So, all the traditional approaches which offer a
process must have a point, a conclusion, a finality and anything
that has a finality, a final point, is not a living thing at all.
It is like saying there are many roads to the station. The station
is fixed.
Is truth a finality that once you have achieved it, everything is
over - your anxieties, your fears and so on? Or does it work totally
differently? Does it mean that once I am on the train, nothing can
happen to me? Does it mean that I expect the train will carry me to
my destination? All these are horizontal movements.
So a process implies a fixed point. Systems, methods, practices
all offer a fixed point and promise man that when he achieves it, all
his troubles are over. Is there something which is really timeless?
A fixed point is in time. It is in time because you have postulated
it. Because there has been thinking over of the final point, and the
thinking of it is time. Can one come upon this thing which must
have no time, no process, no system, no method, no way?
Can this mind which is so conditioned horizontally, can this
mind, knowing that it lives horizontally, perceive that which is
neither horizontal nor vertical? Can it perceive for an instant?
Can it perceive that the seeing has cleansed and end it?
In this is the first and the last step because it has seen anew.
Your question is, is such a mind ever free of trouble? I think it
is a wrong question. You are still thinking in terms of finality,
when you put that question. You have already come to a
conclusion, and so are back again into the horizontal process.

P: The subtlety of it is that the mind has to ask fundamental
questions but never the "how".

Krishnamurti: Absolutely. I see very clearly; I perceive.
Perception is light. I want to carry it over as memory, as thought,
and apply it to daily living and therefore I introduce duality,
conflict, contradiction.
So I say how am I to go beyond it? All systems offer a process,
a fixed point and the ending of all trouble.
Perceiving is light to this mind. It is not concerned with
perception any more because if it is concerned, it becomes
memory. Can the mind, seeing something very clearly, end that
perception? Then, here the very first step is the last step. The mind
is fresh to look. To such a mind, is there an end to all troubles? It
does not ask such a question. When it happens, it will see. See
what takes place. When I ask the question "Will this end all
trouble?" I am already thinking of the future and therefore I am
caught in time.
But I am not concerned. I perceive. It is over. I see something
very clearly - the clarity of perception. Perception is light. It is
over. Therefore the mind is never caught in time. Because I have
taken the first step, I have also taken the last step each time.
So we see that all the processes, all the systems, must be totally
denied because they perpetuate time. Through time you hope to
arrive at the timeless.

Tradition and Revolution, from the chapter The first step is the last step.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sat, 17 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 #27
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti asks:
Can one come upon this thing which must have no time, no process, no system, no method, no way?

Now look carefully at this question K asks. "To come upon" is for a change to happen in time!

Let's take person Q who has not discovered the timeless. K is asking can Q discover the timeless, without passage of time. But if initially there is no discovery in Q and later there is, then time has taken place.

So K has set up an impossibility. He says there is no process, because it implies an endpoint goal. Yet his life's mission is the transformation of man, which implies time. He desperately wants to share the timeless. Yet to do so, there must be time.

It's funny. But it is deadly serious since this awareness without thought, without self, without time is central to K teaching. The absolute most vital.

So I say relax a little! If you are in time, you are in time. Look out the window at the tree. Take a walk. Sit quietly without occupying yourself with any activity. See relationship and reaction. And stop worrying if any of this is a method.

You already glimpse the outside of time! But most of us bury it in ideation, time oriented thought.

The silent present moment is always.

Always new. Always alive with energy. Right here. Right now.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 18 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 #28
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 207 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Let's take person Q who has not discovered the timeless. K is asking can Q discover the timeless, without passage of time. But if initially there is no discovery in Q and later there is, then time has taken place.

So K has set up an impossibility. He says there is no process, because it implies an endpoint goal. Yet his life's mission is the transformation of man, which implies time. He desperately wants to share the timeless. Yet to do so, there must be time.

Interesting post Idiot? Of course one have to take down, to move back. Though I don't think K. have set up an impossibilty , since he have always made a distinction between chronological time and psychological time. Obviously, one can't stop chronological time.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 18 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 #29
Thumb_untitled5 Ken D United States 11 posts in this forum Offline

"Balasundaram said that the new book, Tradition and Revolution, was not based on tape or shorthand notes but on notes made afterward from memory. This was disturbing news."

Zimbalist, Mary. In the Presence of Krishnamurti: Mary's Unfinished Book Holistic Education, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

This post was last updated by Ken D Sun, 18 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 #30
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

I'd like to read Mary Zimbalist's book but it is only available for kindle, which I don't have. Also, apparently a bunch of negative comments about various people were edited out. What fun is a sanitized version with no dirt?

I suppose it is possible to read a kindle book without a kindle. I will have to figure that out.

And to Jackie Gleason: Wake up! Be aware of what is! ;)

Also, Ken, I did procure a Taormina Seclusion. I am trudging through tedium for little gems of interest. Not sure I would have had the tenacity without your recommendation.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 18 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 73 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.)