A beginner’s mind

Kinfonet Discussion
218

(from wikipedia)
Meta-communication is a secondary communication (including indirect cues) how a piece of information is meant to be interpreted.

You are right James, but one ought to be flexible… :grinning:

I can understand your disappointment, but often here it’s impossible to stick to the main topic. Every human problem is connected to all the other problems, therefore in answering it’s inevitable to waden the speech towards other topics. Let’s make an example,

In discussing this theme we met the resistance of someone, this implies both understanding the ego reactions and the way of tackling those resistances, so I think it’s legitimate to diverge the speech to that aspect. If you insist to stick rigidly to the initial theme it might appear that you have a plan of where the discussion should arrive and demand that everybody comply to your plan. Let a bit of freedom be in the discussion, this will make it richer and more interesting, and then with your savoir fair you can bring it back into the rails.

No, it’s not strickly pertinent yet it may be necessary anyway.

I wouldn’t call it a defeat but just a momentary retreat. You can always go back to the initial theme and amuse yourself and ourselves :blush: in finding the connections with all the diversions.

219

So is this the aspect you feel we ought to investigate?

220

Ah! Yes, now I understand your confusion.
Yes, I acknowledge that I’m bit condradictory in what I said, but I think I gave this impression because I failed to explain things extensively.

In saying what you quoted above my intention was to face an unavoidable truth, to quote a famous religious teacher:

“For many are invited, but few are chosen.” Matthew 22:1-14

Like it or not there is no democracy in religious matters and K did not teach a method. This is the key point IMO. A method can fail, can be ineffective or successful but the “search” (if I can use this word) for a larger awareness is not a method and as I have explained in my previous post, it goes against the very nature of our ego which wants to go on its own way. It’s already a miracle if once every 2000 years someone does this quantic jump…

As you see we are again talking of two different things, you stick to your favourite theme which is staying with fear, etc, while I am sticking (maybe stubbornly) to the complete transformation K talked about.

I agree with you that staying with an emotion is not only possible but even (sometime) easy, but I cannot help aknowledging that very few accomplished the first.
So there is no contraddiction between them, only distinction.

Your campaign in favour of “staying with” is a good one, it can brings fine results but, as I said previously, things don’t end there. That’s all. My second statement does not contraddict the first.

221

Enjoying and learning from the conversation between J and V, you’re ‘staying with it.’ :slight_smile:

222

On the subject of transformation. Yes, I accept that full transformation in K’s sense of the word is a topic all to itself. I haven’t been talking about it on this thread. In the time you have been away from Kinfonet this topic has come up many times, and I have attempted to address it on other threads (including threads begun by me), but it doesn’t currently interest me - because, again, it involves a lot of speculation, etc.

There is something you mentioned before which interests me more, which is:

I think this is the subject I was trying to address before. Not transformation as such (because this word has a bit of a stink about it, given all that has been said about it, the controversy around it, etc).

I’m not following you Voyager?

First of all, it is not a campaign, it is an openly declared interest. For myself, I do not know where it will lead. So saying “it will not end there” is not really very helpful. Nothing we do or say will “end there” - except, perhaps, this transformation you have brought up, which is a bit speculative for me at present.

So when I ask you for your core interest (or current core interest) I am simply asking you for one thing - among all the multiple different things that interest you - that you currently want to explore here.

Maybe it is transformation? But, as I said, this is a topic all by itself, and is a bit speculative.

Maybe it is this distinction between ‘staying with a psychological fact’ and ‘oneself actually being the fact’? But you have indicted that this doesn’t interest you at present: either because it is too easy (you can do this now, since the last 2 years); or because it is impossible (because no one at Brockwood or Saanen has ever done it - though you have explained you were referring to “transformation” here); or because it doesn’t “end there”.

So, the clearest interest you have declared recently, on this thread, is the clash of ego, the interference of ego, the way ego impedes and sabotages any discussion. Right? I think this is your current core interest, no?

If it is, then is this what you would like for us to discuss/expore/investigate/share together?

223

Alas! Yes, you are (partially) right. I should have explained better those questions of mine. Actually I tried to explain them in a kind of “meta” story but I can see I failed.

The problem is that IMO we are going too fast, there were, yesterday, too many points to reply to and to be addressed, and today we are adding even more stuff.
I cannot follow this pace and even if I answer the topics cross each other and one does not know which one is which!!! :grinning:

So be patient for the moment, I’ll have to go out for some errand. Let’s take a pause.
In two days we are leaving and there are so many things to prepare… I don’t know whether I’ll find the time to continue our conversation… Perhaps later this evening.

224

Maybe you could just answer, if I may ask it Voyager, this one question:

what is your current core question or interest?

If it isn’t the point you raised earlier about how our egos sabotage discussion and impede exploration, what is it? (I understand that you may not have time to go into it thoroughly now, etc - we all have other things to do and live, etc).

225

I wonder whether I have one core question or interest. (I’ll expand later this point)
But I think you want me to specify what was my core question in my current dialogue with you. I gave you the impression of zigzagging maybe from one topic to another, like a butterfly… I’ll go back to what I said and I’ll see what kind of confusion I have sowed. :innocent: Be patient!

226

Okay :+1:. I’ll be patient as a saint :innocent:

227

To return to my “campaign” for the time being (seeing as no one else has suggested yet a more suitable topic), I found a video excerpt which perfectly captures in essence this question we (or I) have been asking:

In the video extract K asks whether it is possible to remain with a reaction like jealousy or confusion (“puzzlement”) as it is happening, and to observe it without thought.

K suggests that it is because we are not used to watching anything intensely - such as the moon, the cloud, etc - that there is a resistance to watching inwardly our psychological states. So this may be one reason why there is a resistance to remaining with psychological states.

(Video length 6 mins, 10 secs):

Edited transcript:

K: Can I observe my jealousy, can one observe jealousy as it is taking place, not say it’s right or wrong, or rationalise it, why it should not be, but just to, as it arises, as a flower blooms, just to watch it…

You are jealous, aren’t you - sometimes. What is your actual feeling now?

Q: Bafflement.

K: Wait, bafflement, puzzle - can you watch that puzzle, that state of the mind which is in puzzle, just watch it, not say, ‘I must be clear, what he’s talking about,’ just watch it, see.

Q: There seems to be a physical resistance to that.

K: What?

Q: There seems to be at some point a physical resistance to that, to that watching.

K: Why? Is it physical? The gentleman says there is a certain resistance, physically, to watch. Because you’re not comfortably seated? Or it is happening in the bus? Or when you’re walking? Are you saying there must be certain relaxation to observe?

Q: No, that’s not what I meant. Some disturbance that you feel in the body, a physical reaction.

K: To?

Q: To the watching.

K: Why should there be?

Q: I don’t know.

K: I’m asking, sir, why should there be a physical reaction to watching? …That refusal may be the result of strain… Or your body’s not comfortable. Or there is a certain sense of resistance to the intensity of watching.

Q: Perhaps, yes.

K: Physical resistance to watching intensely. Because perhaps is it that we’re not used to watching anything intensely? The moon, the sky, the trees, whatever it is? To watch.

Now, can we put the question differently - apparently this seems to be rather difficult, all this. Why should thought interfere with anything, psychologically?

S: There is the experience of jealousy, the immediate of that seems to be, well, if I indulge the jealousy, what’s the result of it.

K: All that’s implied in thinking, isn’t it sir? I’m asking, can I, is there an observation - the moon - without the interference of thought? … I’m just asking, can you watch the moon without thought drawing a curtain across it? No?

Q: Occasionally.

K: Yes?

Q: Occasionally.

K: Occasionally? All right. Can you watch a movement of cloud, occasionally. Now can you watch your reactions in the same way?

1 Like
228

What do you think of this @Sean ?

229

Ok, I can try to answer now.

But first I want to make a foreword (or a premise, I don’t know which one fits better here).
When discussing in interned we cannot see the face of the interlocutor and so guess his/her real attitude or intentions. So a lot of misunderstanding can take place, and actually this happened many times in this forum.
For instance, your question above, can be interpreted as a polite way of saying:

“What the hell do you want from me?” or
“What the hell are you trying to do in this forum?”

(I have asked something in that line in the past to someone you know well… and I had my good motives.)
In this case it’s obvious that the conversation is closed.

So the first and only requisite for having a real and productive dialogue is friendship, or a kind of empathy. When you trust a person and he/she (should I say “they”?) trusts you then you can afford to ask or say anything, even criticize him or disagree with him without hurting the other. At least this is the kind of relationship I like and find myself at easy. In few words a friend can be completely sincere.

This was my attitude in addressing to your posts.
Perhaps this premise was not necessary. In this case please forgive me. But yesterday you wrote a long post in reply to mine, so long that I could not read it completely in that moment, having to reply to several other single points. So I just browsed through it hastily and superficially setting it aside for a second reading later on. From it I got the impression that you resented some of my statements. I went to check it today but you had deleted it.

I went to see my previous posts in this thread and I found out I have written 40 posts!!! So many…
How can I/we find the “core question”? There are so many things I have said, I can’t say which is more important and which less. What I feel is that I just responded to various posts of yours, giving my sincere thoughts, thinking maybe naively that my contribution could be useful.

I’ll try to see whether there was contradiction or confusion in them, but I can’t read them all now! Perhaps it will be better to answer to single points to clarify something which is not clear to you.

First, I decided to enter into this thread because you quoted my name. I read your post, I liked it and decided to give my contribution through an example which was in line with what you were saying.

My 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th answer to you (excluding the ones to other people) are more or less in the same line, introducing some further aspects of the beginner’s mind.

In my 6th I debated the problem of causation. I felt compelled to introduced it because it seemed to me that they way you put the issue of external/inner observation meant that one caused the other. I was wrong and we have clarified the matter.

The 7th, was about Billie’s song. Just an experiment.

In the 8th I introduced several ideas, the resonance, the impact with reality, etc. and they all fit with the main theme. I see no problem or confusion there.

In the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, I added some ideas to the theme, always in line with you.

In the 14th unexpectedly (for you) I said something not in line with your thread. I think the problem which puzzles you started there. A beginner’s mind - #183 by James

I said that in your discussion (which dealt with observation/staying with a feeling) I didn’t see the whole picture… it does not end there. I can see that still now you have not digested those affirmations of mine. All my attempts to explain what I mean failed and a major misunderstanding took place between us. Later some aspect of this misunderstanding was clarified but not the main theme. Is that that you want to know?

My answer is simple, I had no core interest. I just expressed my impressions in a short and maybe unprecise manner, thinking to go on with the same theme but on a higher level. What I meant is quite simple and plain, the external/inner observation and consequently staying with a feeling which disturbs us is the necessary first step, and no other step is necessary. This is true on one side and not true in another. I can’t see things as all white or all black here. As I said, even if that can be taken as the core of K’s teaching on a practical level, there are so many factors involved and connected with that, one of that is seeing holistically as yourself said, then there is the problem of perceiving with all senses fully awake, the problem of love/attention (you cannot actually pay attention to something or to someone if you don’t love it, you must love the problem you are observing), and other aspects which now I don’t remember. K in his talks spoke for 7-9 days, dealing with a variety of topics all related to each other and all necessary if we want to understand him. You cannot isolate just one thing however important like observation and stop there. This could be done in a thread here for convenience, or as a starting point, or if you want to focus on something you consider of utter importance, but it is not the only important thing and there must be the freedom and the willingness to move further on.

This is what I wanted to say. If you have a different orientation on the matter then you ought to explain it to me.

230

Voyager,

As you say, part of the challenge of corresponding in text-primary communication is that a lot of tactile subtleties are left out, and we cannot quickly catch the intentions of the other person as we can in real life. There are a great many limitations to this form of correspondence - not least the fact that it is tiring to read long posts (for which we also need adequate leisure), and it makes it difficult to address every point that has been made by the other person. I don’t have a solution to this problem.

Agreed. Unfortunately this is not sufficient to stop people from misunderstanding each other - but hopefully it can provide a safety net when misunderstandings occur.

Yes. As I mentioned, this is one of the limitations of a text-based communication. K talked about the art of listening. There’s also the art of reading, but we generally neglect this! It’s not entirely natural perhaps, which is why we often fail in this regard. To really read something someone has said we need to pay complete attention, and we generally don’t (when it comes to these posts).

I deleted my posts because I realised that either you hadn’t read them properly, or they failed to communicate anything and so were worthless as attempts in communication - in addition to which they were unnecessarily longwinded and earnest.

I agree. This is part of why, in a text-based or text-primary environment it is much simpler to keep to one or two subjects at a time. I feel you introduced too many topics, which not only confused me but - apparently - yourself too. Is this not a fair comment?

Yes. You talked about linearity, cause and effect, transformation, and several other things in relationship to this. But I still don’t know what your objection is. You objected to my proposed “first step” of observing inward states, on the grounds that

But as you have yourself admitted, by introducing so many topics into one single thread, you risk making everything a hotchpotch of confusing words and ideas with no understanding to link them together.

You yourself said a couple of days ago that we need to be simple, to have simplicity. By introducing so many tangents, a text-based conversation like this ceases to be simple, and becomes complex. I think you will agree with this.

The more topics we introduce, the more time we need to analyse them, or the longer and more intricate our posts need to become, and people do not seem to have time for this labour (the art of reading!).

To pick up a couple of the things you mention here, and which I did touch on in my now deleted posts, the issue of love is already implicit in the question of observing/staying with a psychological reaction. As you say, in order to look at something with complete attention, there must be the aspect of love. This is implied when K talks (in some of the videos I shared) of listening to/observing one’s inward state as though one were listening to a beloved son or daughter. So I felt that the topic itself had the potential to bring this out too (this aspect of love).

With respect to the senses, we actually began with this aspect of it when the thread began - of what it means to look with sensitivity and multiple senses together. We didn’t go into it a lot, because recently this topic has been explored elsewhere on the forum - but we did touch on it. Moreover, I think I made it clear that in looking at inward states of emotion, there is a sensual aspect to this looking - i.e. feeling. The art of sensing or feeling inwardly.

And lastly, when you objected to my use of the word holism, in my deleted post I tried to explain to you that I meant by this word the observation of an emotional (or psychological) state in its wholeness. Is it possible to see or feel or perceive the whole of one’s feeling-state, the wholeness of a feeling-state - in the same way that when we look at the night sky on a clear night we can see the whole of the milky way, the whole of the starry array.

I hope I have not taken up too much of your patience and time with my reply.

231

This sounds like a kind of reproach. My intention, as I have said, was to read it fully and attentively later but you didn’t give the time. Before that you had written a number of posts directed to me, containing a lot of questions to which I felt compelled to respond. Is here a time limit for answering?

Posts??? I thought you had deleted only one post…

No, I don’t think it’s a fair comment. The topics I introduced where not many, and I wasn’t confused, to me the point was and is very clear and I trusted you could grasp it without spending too many words. I have explained to you why I introduced different topics, they were all related with the main theme. I feel that your pace was too fast and asked too many questions at the same time and that prevented me to answer to the post or posts you have deleted. Perhaps my topics confused you because you didn’t see the connection with your topic.

I didn’t object anything of what you said. Not in the least about your observation of inward states. I cannot understand from where you drew that conclusion. Perhaps you are confusing me with another person? Saying: “it does not end there” is not an objection but just a way to broaden the speech. And I have explained clearly and extensively enough what I meant.

And I stop here because all that you say after that has no sense to me.
James, sincerely I can’t understand why you are making such a fuss around this little simple thing. I can have all the patience you need and deserve, but you ought to have the same patience to go an re-read my posts and clarify this nonsense of my objection.

232

Many thanks for posting this video James - I will watch it and comment tomorrow.

1 Like
233

Voyager,

We seem to be missing each other somehow, and I’m not sure why.

Is this fair Voyager? I have been making a great effort to understand you and reply to you in good faith - as someone who respects what you have to say, agrees with much of it, yet disagrees with certain things too, partly because I still do not understand your meaning.

Ok.

You write:

Perhaps it is simply a matter of perspective. You don’t feel as though you were introducing many topics, but even you said this afternoon:

Only today and yesterday you introduced topics such as the linearity of thought, the nature of the ego in resisting or sabotaging discussion, whether Krishnamurti’s transformation is possible or not, whether it is correct to pursue one line of discussion, love, the senses, the nature of rationality (thought), the content of thought (as opposed to a reaction), the need to include every aspect of K’s teaching in a discussion (or else we risk missing crucial aspects of what he has to say), etc - and many other things I haven’t included here. It is alot, ok?

You write:

But you yourself have been constantly objecting to what I have been wanting to explore:

So, you see, you yourself have been objecting constantly to my request that we start at the beginning, at the first step - with a beginner’s mind - with asking what it means to look inwardly. You have said that this step does not interest you. It is insufficient, it is incomplete, it doesn’t include the whole, and you want to go beyond. These are all things you have said.

In addition you have said that by simply attempting to put my question in words I am being “rational”, “linear”, and that this is unfaithful to the “non-rational” actuality (which is a whole discussion in itself: i.e. the word is not the thing, so we can talk about this stuff so long as we recognise that the description is never the described, etc).

You may have a sincere meaning behind this phrase “it does not end there”, but in practice all it has done is to take us away entirely from the conversation we were having on this thread. I still don’t understand why you want to move “beyond” a step which we have not yet even begun to look at? Why do this? On a thread entitled “a beginner’s mind?” There may be no “beyond”, or there may be. Who knows for sure? This is the whole point of starting from scratch as though for the first time.

So I really do not know why you wish to deny the first step, or pass over the first step, or ignore the first step?

Have I been unfair to you? Do you not see why I may have had the reactions/responses to your posts that I have done? Is it unforgivable on my part not to have understood what your meaning has been (in what you have written)?

I mean you no ill will, so please have patience with my confusion.

234

“We want to go so far without taking the first step, and perhaps the first step may be the last step.”

“The first step is the last step. The first step is to perceive, perceive what you are thinking, perceive your ambition, perceive your anxiety, your loneliness, your despair, this extraordinary sense of sorrow, perceive it, without any condemnation, justification, without wishing it to be different.”

“It is the first step that counts, not the last step. What you do now is far more essential than what you do at some future date.”

235

‘Beginner’s mind’ is ridiculous and sad! What sort of a mind calls another a beginner’s mind?? This thread shouldn’t simply exist, but I see some people have indulged in probably not minding the words! But words do matter!

236

As has happened before Jess, I think perhaps you are projecting something which doesn’t exist? We are not calling people “beginners” in a pejorative sense - as in primary school beginners as opposed to secondary schoolers, or beginners at tennis as opposed to experts who know better and are better, etc. Or at least not in any pejorative sense.

Rather, we are attempting to draw attention to what it means to have the quality of fresh perception. To look at things anew. To have a beginner’s feeling of fresh openness to experience.

K talked about this often, so I don’t understand your reaction to it?

However, going on previous experience, you are maybe not interested in understanding anything that has been said. You are just here to react, to throw mud, and pass on your way without any actual discussion.

237

Hello, James!
I have told you before that I come to this site because it speaks of Krishnamurti. I’ve been reading Krishnamurti for many years, have been to many many study retreats, have visited Krishnamurti centres and schools and I can tell you that I’ve never heard or read of this mind calling it a beginner’s mind! Of course I haven’t come across it because it is wrong to say such a thing, to come to something afresh is something completely different.