Facing psychological facts

Kinfonet Discussion
42

I recall that you were at one time interested in the series of discussions Krishnamurti had with Bohm in 1975. You might recollect that Krishnamurti spoke about his mysterious process, the awakening of kundalini energy, and how other people were claiming to have had similar experiences.

In one of his discussions Krishnamurti refers to someone who was claiming to have had the same process as Krishnamurti (probably referring to U.G. Krishnamurti). This is what he said:

There was a man who came to see me at Gstaad, who said he has had similar experiences. And I watched him very carefully, as I generally do, and he was rather a coarse man, rather vulgar, and tremendous self-importance. When he left he said – I told him, I said, ‘I am very glad to have met you. ’ He said ‘Is that all?’ He gave me the impression that he was… You follow? I don’t think – let me put it this way – I think this can happen when there is really no self in the matter.

You follow the implications of this? The other person was claiming to have had some special process of insight, and yet through watching him carefully it became apparent to Krishnamurti that this man was deceiving himself.

Krishnamurti also says to Bohm (though I forget in which dialogue) that insight expresses itself through a person’s actions, through love and the intelligence of compassion. Because a person in whom transformation has occurred is no longer operating from an egocentric centre, this will show itself through their actions, through their attitude, their gestures, etc.

43

Yes I understand, but the ‘self’, as seen here IS deception itself. So when a self which is itself the ‘darkness of division’ and the deceptive trap of the brain, becomes concerned about the deception other selves may be playing on themselves, isn’t it essential to see through that and by seeing, become free of the hypocrisy? Insight? That would be ‘transformation’ of the moment one is in, wouldn’t it? Not grade A or grade B just insight into what one is doing with the realization that “freedom is essential”?

1 Like
44

Are you saying Dan that unless we are ourselves completely free from the self it is wrong or hypocritical to question or doubt someone if they are claiming to be transformed? Is this what you are saying?

I disagree. People who claim to be transformed - and there are a great many of them, some of whom I have met - create terrible confusion for people. I am surprised you don’t see this?

Maybe it is a generational thing, but I do not accept the authority of someone claiming to be transformed if there is a simpler explanation for their experience. Ockham’s razor. Most of the time the reason why people make such claims is because they have had some minor insight into some aspect of their consciousness, which has released pent up energy. This energy is experienced as freedom, liberation - but it is just one small part of consciousness that has momentarily been transformed, and so the root of darkness is still operating. Because the root of darkness is still there, there is a danger not only of self-deception but of deceiving credulous others, of whom there are far too many. You must see this danger, no?

I am not accusing you of deceiving people, I am just pointing out this obvious danger.

45

James, from your replies and quote’s it’s clear to me you misunderstood me.

May be it’s because it’s not my native language or I did not express it subtle enough for your taste.

46

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you Wim. It seems I didn’t grasp what your question or comment meant after all. If you still feel it’s worthwhile, maybe you could try to say what you wanted to say again, but using different words?

47

Of course, you don’t go all day asking yourself : do I…Am I , or is there intelligence operating. It doesn’t make any sense. If I understand Wim well, he certainly have any interest in defending the right of a person to deceive themselves into believing they have undergone a transformation. Where did you get that strange idea.

?

48

Another kind of danger is to misinterpret what K. said by asserting that we know it all. I am not accusing you of doing so, but just pointing out this obvious danger.

49

I don’t know.

Wim’s comments, as I have understood them, are ambivalent in this regard. But he claims not to be saying this, so I accept it.

But for a number of people here on Kinfonet there seems (to me) to be an all too ready acceptance of people claiming to be transformed, and who are willing to engage in strategic ambiguities around this issue so as to accommodate any and all claims to insight.

I wonder how these people square this willing acceptance of unverifiable claims with the teachings of a person who rejected the spiritual authority of all religions, all gurus, all masters, all saints, and who didn’t - to my knowledge - accept anybody’s word that they had been transformed.

There are clearly many different ways of understanding Krishnamurti’s teachings. Some seem to interpret his teachings as validating anyone’s claim to be transformed, so long as they use some of Krishnamurti’s language.

While there are others who are skeptical of people’s claims to transformation because they are so often clearly delusional or misapplied. I am in the second camp.

That’s alright, you can accuse me. Part of my interest on Kinfonet is to understand K’s teachings in the same way I would study Buddhist teachings. I feel I have read enough Krishnamurti to point out obvious absurdities, that’s all. I am just surprised to find people who claim to be interested in Krishnamurti repeating them.

50

Knowledge can lead to some kind of arrogance, isn’t it.

51

Let me put it this way: if I implicitly claimed to be transformed, and whenever you asked me to clarify this I answered in an ambiguous way that left open the possibility that I really was transformed, wouldn’t you be a little bit skeptical?

You would, wouldn’t you? Because you have seen me get irritated, and you have an image in your mind of what a transformed person looks like, and I clearly (I hope!) don’t fit this image. (Note, I am not making any claim to be transformed!).

However, someone else may come along, using the right words, the right expressions, and you may begin to feel that they fit your image of what a transformed person looks like. And so you give him or her the benefit of the doubt. Right?

Now why do you do this? Is it because you want this transformation business to be in arm’s reach, and if he or she seems to have it then it may be close to you too? I really don’t understand the psychology of all this.

For me, either one has ended the self, or the self is still active. Transformation means the ending of the self - not transforming bits here and there, or shaving some layers off the self, releasing energy, etc. But no longer thinking or feeling from a self-centre.

Many people claim this Richard. Maybe you believe their claims. I have never met one person (I never met Krishnamurti) for whom this claim has rung true. So I am skeptical of people’s claims to transformation, and have little patience for those who create strategic ambiguities around pretending to be so.

If you want to call me arrogant for saying this, so be it. I feel I am calling out a different kind of arrogance that you seem to be unaware of.

3 Likes
52

Not at all. Perception, small or big insight is in the instant. The mind is full of image , isn’t it? K. did not confront U.G, though he perceived the arrogance of the man. : he make a comment of his perception after the fact to someone. And that was it.

That’s correct. If one read K., one of the first thing of his teaching is : don’t accept any autority from no one, including himself.

Let’s be clear on that one: I don’t believe nothing,

You don’t listen , do you ? I said : knowledge lead to arrogance. That’s all . Nothing personal. Just pointing out a fact.

Well, I will be aware of it when I’ll see it.

53

As far as I see it you are calling me arrogant simply because I am pointing something out that you don’t like. I don’t know what it is exactly that you don’t like, because you haven’t attempted to respond to the substance of my objections. It doesn’t take someone with a tremendous amount of knowledge to point out that one of Krishnamurti’s basic teachings was not to accept the authority of anyone is spiritual matters. That’s all.

The arrogance I am pointing out is the claim to have spiritual authority.

54

Look, there is a lot of pseudo guru around the world. So far , I didn’t see any on this forum. I see sometime someone claiming to have had an insght. So what ? It maybe right or it may be wrong. Why care so much about that I don’t understand. Arrogance is arrogance. Whether it is from a pseudo guru or one who have all the knowledge is not different. Don’t take it personaly.

1 Like
55

I am not taking what you are saying personally Richard. I barely know you as we have never had an actual conversation. You are accusing me of being arrogant, and I accept that this is how you feel. Maybe I am, maybe I’m not. But this is neither here nor there.

Probably, as with Wim, there is a certain amount of nuance that is lost in translation, as English is not your first language. But what I hear you saying to me is:

‘When someone on Kinfonet claims to be transformed, you mustn’t question this or be openly skeptical.’

Why? Because it’s inpolite? I don’t understand your point of view. This is a Krishnamurti forum, we can ask questions and raise doubts, so long as we do so generously, politely, without becoming barbarous. Right? Are you saying it’s barbarous to challenge someone claiming to be transformed?

This is silly. In Buddhist culture people are encouraged to challenge each other, to be skeptical of each other’s insights. Krishnamurti emphasised the importance of doubt, skepticism. He challenged those close to him or those he cared about, constantly. He wasn’t interested in U.G. - probably he saw that he wouldn’t even listen to him, who knows? He certainly challenged other gurus directly.

You say you haven’t seen other people on Kinfonet claiming to be transformed. I won’t mention any names, but I promise you there have been several in the 2 years I’ve been here - and outside of Kinfonet, in the so-called spiritual world it is quite common. Probably some people who post here occasionally are influenced by that subculture? I don’t know.

All I know is that, as you say, arrogance is arrogance: whether it dresses itself up in book-knowledge, intellectual capacity, or humility, insight, and so-called transformation. But it seems you are only capable of seeing the former, and not the latter.

56

We can have a conversation with anyone, at whatever degree of conditioning they are, or we are , inquirying into what they say. But being openly skeptical, or asking -are you transform- is not inquirying into what another say. It is being rude. It is not a conversation, not an inquiry.

But have it your way. That’s simply my opinion.

57

Richard, I suppose we are no longer having a rational discussion at this point, but being skeptical is not being rude. I don’t know if this is a language issue? - to be skeptical of someone’s claim to be transformed is not impolite, is not rude. It is being straightforward.

The etymological root of skepticism is “to observe, to look, to view”. It means to look at something with a certain amount of hesitancy, doubt, not accepting something until it is seen clearly. Krishnamurti was a very skeptical person, and encouraged his listeners to doubt. So I don’t think it is impolite at all.

It is not about “having it my way”, it is about being clear about what we are talking about, so that it isn’t just a matter of your opinion as opposed to my opinion.

58

It is an inquiry, and it isn’t rude. If someone implies by what they’re saying that they are enlightened, awakened, transformed, why not ask them if they think they are? If they dodge or deflect the question, why not ask them why they can’t answer the question?

I find it worse than rude when people use a discussion group like this to express their delusion because people unfamiliar with Krishnamurti would be unimpressed by their imagined identity.

2 Likes
59

I totality agree with that. But you have misinterpret my post. Read it again.

60

Like I said to James, have it your way. I’ve already explain my way. No offense.

61

I don’t know who is misinterpreting who, but ok, I will read your post again:

You are saying, as far as the literal meaning of your words express your intentions, that to openly question someone who is claiming to be transformed is rude, impolite, something that should not be done. I think I’ve read your post correctly.

To be skeptical does not close off an enquiry, unless the other person is themselves closed off to enquiring into their own claim to be transformed.

1 Like