I think that @rickScott just knows so much that everything can be contradicted. He sees all the rabbit holes. The question is why it must be contradicted.
Where do we post our analysis of @James ?
Feel free to share your impressions right here, in this thread, this is a learning experience for all of us.
I think his analyses of psychodynamics, what drives us to feel what we feel, are often right on. And refreshingly different from conventional psychotherapy, in that therapists look to heal and strengthen the ego, whereas Krishnamurti looks to reveal its true nature.
Spiritually his views tend to correspond nicely with Buddhist/Advaitin views that make sense to me. And I like hanging around a rebel, I don’t think I could ever join a conventional spiritual community.
Did you ever get drawn to an opposite, because you found something valuable and illuminating in a point of view so different from yours? It’s like that for me and Krishnamurti. His love for and embracing of reality, what I think of as the world of form/appearances, that’s quite alien to me.
Finally, we have history together. (I.e. I started reading Krishnamurti in my mid-20s and though my enthusiasm waxed and waned, I never lost interest in him, to this day.)
1 Like
If you think of an arc of engagement with a teacher: You meet them, you’re interested, you give yourself to the teachings (and perhaps teacher), you work hard, glean as much as you can glean, then you start to move away, you rebel perhaps, and eventually the teacher/student relationship ends. Ideally the relationship continues, as equals, friends, peers.
I feel like my teacher/student relationship with Krishnamurti ended about 20 years ago. He was and is still important to me, I still get a thrill out of some of his passages, but I’m not interested much at all in actively exploring his views. Been there, done that. For the record, I’m not claiming to have ‘mastered’ Krishnamurti. I just completed my teacher/student arc with him. I left the monastery!
I’m no mind-reader (though I am about to start doing divination spreads with animal cards!), but my feeling is that, to stay with the teacher/student arc model, James is in the active engagement with Krishnamurti as teacher part of the arc, and he’s doing the appropriate thing: Diving deeply into Krishnamurti, gleaning what he can glean.
My challenge is to give James the space he needs to explore what he needs to explore and to encourage him along the way. James’s challenge is to understand that having ended the teacher/student relationship with Krishnamurti doesn’t mean I’m uninterested or incapable of exploring the kinds of things Krishnamurti explores. No one ‘owns’ those things!
It’s rabbit holes all the way up, and all the way down!
By shining light on a view from a different angle I hope to reveal the emptiness of all views.
1 Like
It’s strange Rick - in person you come across as a full personality, full hearted, generous, open minded, sensitive. But on Kinfonet I feel that you never truly engage, there is always a mask covering your face, cards being hidden behind your back, a lack of transparency - and when you do engage it is apparently only to be contrarian, to pull at irrelevant threads in what one has written, apparently because all you are really interested in doing is
But, personally, I don’t find these “rabbit holes” conducive to deepening inquiry, they just seem to constantly block all conversation - and most of the time they turn out to be traditional rabbit holes as far as I can tell. And it means that you never meet the other person fully here - or at least, this is how I feel. You never seem to get the big picture. Your interest is immediately distracted by a fly crawling up the wall, a crushed berry on the carpet, the sound of a radio playing in the distance. You are never present (at least not on the forum).
It’s strange because, to repeat, in person you come across as someone flexible, curious, willing to engage and explore. But for some reason your Kinfonet persona - to me at least - is cynical, flippant, unserious. “Been there, done that”, you say… But have you really “been there done that”? I honestly don’t believe you. I know you have engaged with all sorts of different teachings, but I don’t feel that you have ever really engaged with what K had to say at depth - by which I mean with your heart, with your emotions, with your music. Obviously, you know superficially what K had to say, but I’m not sure that your heart has ever really been open to what he actually meant. If your heart ever was open to what K had to say, you never communicate it on the forum. This makes serious conversation on the forum with you difficult for me. I have tried my best. But you never really engage with the heart of what I write, only with the surface. You are not interested in what K said, and I am. I’m not in some “arc” of discipleship with K, I am just interested in using this space - while I am here - to explore what an incredibly sensitive and intelligent (albeit flawed) human being had to say. So I don’t know how to respond to you here.
And have you truly “left the monastery” I wonder? - aren’t you still hanging out in the courtyard making jokes with the monks, being quizzical, being oblique? There’s nothing wrong with this, but it’s a strange thing to be doing if you genuinely have no interest in what the monks are talking about.
For myself, I know I can be zealous at times, I can get caught up in an idea, be identified with that idea, and attack and defend from a place of ideas. This is the danger of inquiring using thought, using the intellect. But thought and intellect still have their place for me, so I’m just trying to clarify certain things that K has said, in order to understand them and live them. That is what I am engaging here. There is emotion in what K said for me, feeling - I feel that he can be a mirror reflecting the world most truthfully, and I will only break the mirror when I have seen its reflections clearly for myself.
I want to be friendly, I want to engage, I want to muck around occasionally, but I also want to learn and not just sit around smoking by the bike-sheds. I think there is a jewel in K’s teachings that it would be silly to spit on simply because I am unable to see every aspect of it or live every aspect of it. I am here to find the aspects of K’s teaching that I can live, because I feel the world in my heart, I feel the tragedy of what is going on - and a fully human response for me is to meet that tragedy in some way with compassion. This is my interest.
To repeat - I like you as a person. I like you very much. But I don’t sense the fully humanity in your online persona (and doubtless this is mutual).
1 Like
We would rather “sit in the shade” than “sit in the sun”?
I understand why you might feel this way. It’s not my experience, though. For me, the rabbit holes, when met in a certain way, are like doorways to the unknown.
You never seem to get the big picture. Your interest is immediately distracted by a fly crawling up the wall, a crushed berry on the carpet, the sound of a radio playing in the distance. You are never present (at least not on the forum).
That’s a bit harsh! And inaccurate, from my perspective. I don’t know to what extent I get the big picture, more than I did 10 years ago, less than Krishnamurti. I can sometimes pull a phrase from a conversation and have at it in a different context than originally offered. But I (usually) do this for a reason, not arbitrarily. It’s like catching a Freudian slip and rather than just letting it go, drawing attention to it. Tangential exploring. You tend to stay much more with the main plot, you’re more linear, I’m more radial. What you might not understand is this is a choice for me, I’m capable of going linear, but usually prefer not to in this forum.
It’s strange because, to repeat, in person you come across as someone flexible, curious, willing to engage and explore. But for some reason your Kinfonet persona - to me at least - is cynical, flippant, unserious.
It’s a shame if that’s all you see! But, again, I understand why it might happen. I’m looking for a way to share my thoughts-feelings that emerges organically from my worldview. It’s not easy!
“Been there, done that”, you say… But have you really “been there done that”?
In my way, yes. From your pov, my way might seem heartless or superficial. But I gave it all I had at the time.
I have tried my best. But you never really engage with the heart of what I write, only with the surface.
I understand. Sometimes I’m just plain overwhelmed by your postings, TMI! So I pick something modest I feel comfortable with and respond to that. Other times I engage with what I consider to be the heart of what you say, knowing that you would probably disagree.
And have you truly “left the monastery” I wonder? -
I guess I like to hang around the old alma mater, the rituals, sense of purpose, earnest zeal of the monks, these are all sources of familiarity and comfort for me. A kind of refuge, perhaps.
I don’t sense the fully humanity in your online persona (and doubtless this is mutual).
Interesting. I’ll keep an eye on how I present myself here and in dialogues. You’re not the first person who’s told me there was a disconnect between my dialogue and forum personas.
Are we making progress? 
This is interesting I thought. That the ‘option’ is mine!
And ‘I’ am refusing it!
You’ve mentioned a few times in this thread about letting the mud settle. I did a google search and I think you are referring to this quote by Lao Tzu, which I am sharing here, which is pretty good:
“Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Can you remain unmoving till the right action arises by itself?” Lao Tzu
This whole exchange between James and Rick is very interesting, worthwhile, helpful, and I am learning with them, seeing how images are being formed and how they can be dispelled, etc. Seeing how conflict can arise and how it can be ended, etc. Seeing how there is a disconnect from our dialogue and forum personas, etc.
So yes, I think we are making some progress and I want to personally thank both of you for writing and sharing and working this out on here. It is much appreciated. I love your honesty and willingness to deal with this head on and not escaping. Kudos to both of you.
1 Like
I’d like to wholeheartedly second what David wrote above.
Yes, emptiness is an excellent teaching tool. Hammers are also excellent tools.
But if we think emptiness is the ultimate view, or if we only use hammers - this needs some demonstration - ie can it be used in relation to all circumstances? like with screws, or for wiring ?
As many people have been liberated from their views by stubbing their toes, as those that have been silenced by the idea of emptiness.
When we see clearly we use the appropriate tool for the circumstance - in dialogue this is first and foremost the ears and our curiosity, not our conclusions.
The best time to hit someone with the emptiness whammy is when they conclude that the only solution is to put all their eggs in the basket of phenomenal experience.
When I started this ‘Dead K Society’ thread, I had in my mind a kind of book-club atmosphere. It’s been a long time since I saw Dead Poets Society, but one of the things that appealed to me was a group of people taking off to a cave in the woods, and reading poetry out loud by candle light. Because poetry is about the life we have outside the utilitarian confines of work and school - it is about what it means, what it feels like, to be a human being.
The poetry in this case is of course Krishnamurti’s teachings, but for me it is the same thing. This is why I don’t get your attitude Rick. You say that you have “been there bought the t-shirt”, but this doesn’t apply to actual poetry, does it?
Just because one has read Keats or Shelley in the past, one doesn’t say “oh, been there bought the t-shirt”, or “I have nothing more to learn from that, I’ve already studied that”. It shows a lack of sensitivity, a lack of feeling, to say something like that.
Just because we may have read Anna Karenina or To The Lighthouse before doesn’t mean that revisiting these works will not yield new insights or reflections we hadn’t truly seen before. It is the nature of art to constantly reveal new aspects each time one looks anew - perhaps because one is looking each time anew.
If we were looking at the Dhammapada or the Mulamadhyamakakarika I wonder if you would be so lacking in sensitivity or appreciation? Or, for instance, what kind of person says “been there done that” about T.S. Eliot’s Wasteland or Four Quartets? Or Shakespeare’s Hamlet? Or about the music of Bach or Beethoven?
So for me, if Krishnamurti’s work can be approached in the spirit of poetry, or art, or great literature, then it reveals something new, afresh. Because - as a teaching - I honestly believe it is something new, something timeless, like works of art. We don’t read it of course for the language or rich imagination, as we do with poetry, but for the insights it brings into our human condition. And so long as one is a human being, living in this world, Krishnamurti’s teachings remain relevant, like the mirror that Hamlet talked about when exploring the purpose of art; the purpose being
to hold as ‘twere the mirror up to nature.
To have truly “been there done that” would be to have broken the mirror, because one’s mind would have broken through the limitations of the psyche, the human condition - and who on this thread can claim to have done such a thing?
So K’s teachings can still be a mirror for us - if we approach them with a fresh mind, a mind that doesn’t assume it knows, it has experienced, it has transcended etc.
And if a person genuinely doesn’t feel that way about Krishnamurti, then why bother attending a ‘Dead K Society’? (not that I am disinviting you, which is just petty). If you genuinely feel that K’s writings and talks are on a par with a trash novel or a teenage genre that one has finished with (“I’ve been through my goth phase, I’m done with that”, or “I’m done with grunge music these days”), then why hang out with people for whom his teachings are like Bach or Mozart? Would you do this on a Buddhist forum? Would you trash talk Longchenpa’s writings on a Dzogchen forum? - No, probably not. But you are familiar with the statements K has made, and familiarity breeds contempt, right? And familiarity is not the same thing as appreciation, understanding, reflecting. One can never be familiar with a truly great poem, even if one can recite it by heart - because the poem is about one’s life, one’s actual life, which can never be taken for granted. - So why not have the same feeling about a ‘prose poem’ (i.e. a teaching) by K?
What are the tools at our disposal here?
@DavidS and @Sean thanks for the encouragement!
What better way for us to learn about images than to deal with what’s happening here/now, right?
1 Like
James,
Looking at the fruits of Krishnamurti, his writings and dialogues and videos, as poetry that you can revisit over and over, each revisit revealing something fresh and valuable sounds like a great approach. And, yes, it’s the approach I use with my favorite poets and poems, with texts like the MMK, with lots of things.
I’ve been talking about something very different, the master/pupil arc: a period of compliance, followed by a period of defiance, followed by independence = the ending of the master/pupil relationship.
I went through (am still going through^) this process with Krishnamurti. I assumed you were going through it too, but looks like I was projecting, because from your description, your relationship with Krishnamurti is not one of master/pupil.
A question for you: Why do you care so much about what I think about Krishnamurti? It seems like you take it personally, like I’m attacking you.
^ If I were truly ‘done’ with the disentangling, I would probably return to Krishnamurti from time to time for the poetry or not read him at all.
The ‘emptiness of all views’ is of course a view, an abstraction. So long as thought is active psychologically there will be views, images, conclusions, abstractions.
Didn’t Douglas already suggest some tools? He said
We also have our relationship with each other, our reactions to each other (in relationship); our capacity for reason, logic; and our capacity for observation, awareness, seeing.
But apparently not with Krishnamurti, right? I just find it strange, and not a little disrespectful, how you hang out on Kinfonet year after year without having any interest in approaching K’s teachings afresh.
As I said before, it’s like someone attending a real Dead Poets Society who doesn’t care about Keats, Whitman, Dickinson, or Mary Oliver. It shows a want of respect, curiosity, appreciation, love. It means we can never go into any aspect of K’s teachings very deeply, because you just want to remain at the level of objecting to peripheral details, side-issues, which keep things superficial. This is how I feel about it anyway.
1 Like
I understand. I feel my attitude is due in large part to my engagement with Krishnamurti, and that it is this attitude that I bring to the forum: unrelenting negation, including of the field of ideas and words Krishnamurti has left behind. I’d be happy (thrilled!) to avoid as completely as possible all our reliances on external and internal authorities in our group inquiries. I.e. neither Krishnamurti nor Buddha nor Shankara nor … is invited to the party! Just us, feeble unenlightened beings, groping together. This, it seems to me, is a true celebration of the spirit of Krishnamurti.
As I said before, it’s like someone attending a real Dead Poets Society who doesn’t care about Keats, Whitman, Dickinson, or Mary Oliver. It shows a want of respect, curiosity, appreciation, love.
Yes, I see. I’ll steer clear of this thread from here on, sorry for upsetting you.