He did.
No. I don’t know that. But someone can say so. Look, you have gone through this business of partial and total insight in your thread what do we mean by insight. You have google a lot of quote by K. on the subject (nice job by the way ). It is there to be read and to be understand by those interested in the question . Of course diaologue can happen for those interested. I am not for the moment.
So what you are really saying, Richard, is that this question doesn’t interest you, or you don’t see the value of it, right? Which is why you, like Jess, and like Wim also, are avoiding my questions (which I think are quite simple).
You may feel that you have never had a partial insight into anything, which is okay if that’s what you feel; but Jess has said previously (and I agree with her) that we all have insights, but these insights do not mean we are “enlightened” (to use her word). Wim has also said that total transformation requires total insight (or words to that effect). And you have agreed that Krishnamurti talked about a total insight that transforms consciousness radically, even though this is not a reality for either of us.
So each one of you, in your own ways - though you are unwilling to be straight about it, perhaps because you don’t want to agree with me! - accepts the validity of the distinction I have been making. The only issue is that you don’t understand its importance or why I am raising it.
But for you to see the importance of the distinction (why I have raised it) you would need to explore the question more comprehensively, and it seems that none of you are willing or interested to do this.
As I said to Jess, I feel I have outlined my thoughts about it sufficiently for an unbiased observer to understand, so if it doesn’t touch you then there is nothing more I can do about it.
Wrong. As you often do, you interpret instead of listening. I have said that in my view all have been said on the subjet in your thread: what do we mean by insight ?. I have nothing to add. But you can discuss this with those who want to.
Saying I’m skeptical (temperamentally) is not the same as saying “I’m skeptical” in response to someone stating their belief or assumption, but all beliefs and assumptions are questionable, so why not say so?
If a believer finds that rude, it’s because believers are not skeptical and when their precious beliefs/assumptions are questioned, they take offense.
Richard, you literally wrote in your post:
So naturally I have understood you to mean that, at present, you have no interest in this question. I think that’s right, isn’t it?
If you were presently interested in the question, or saw the value of it, then you wouldn’t just say
You would want to discuss it further, because we still haven’t really met each other about this matter. I feel you have rather disagreed with much of what I have “said on the subject in [this] thread”, which means that we haven’t seen the thing together, we haven’t met each other concerning this question of partial insight.
The fact that you want to drop the subject without having met each other about it, means that either you have reached a clear conclusion about it in your mind (whatever that is), or the topic doesn’t interest you right now. That’s all.
No offense James. Let’s leave it at that for now.
Yes, I think this is the actual fact. The unwillingness to clearly distinguish partial insight from total insight, and conflate the two, is a subtle way of claiming (without being vulgarly explicit about it) that one is in possession of total insight, real transformation.
Obviously, unless this transformation is a fact, it is a form of self-deception or conceitedness that must create confusion. As Emile said:
I feel it is wishful thinking, and I am surprised that so many people are willing to defend this position, to rally around it and ignore any attempts to question it. To point this out is apparently “impolite”, “arrogant”, “rude”.
This doesn’t change the fact that to conflate partial insights with total insight is wishful thinking, something deceptive, but because people have reflexively taken a side, they cannot bring themselves to reasonably defend the position they have unthinkingly sided with.
Similarly, the same persons who are accusing others of being “impolite”, “arrogant” and “rude”, are completely unaware that what they are doing may be equally “impolite”, “arrogant”, “rude”.
So all we are left with is ‘us and them’, ‘you and me’, the ‘believer and the skeptic’.
What to do?
Yes, but I can see why it happens because partial insight is losing a part, a portion, of one’s psychological content, and that has a total effect. When there is less ego than there was, one may be so exhilarated by the liberating effect to mistake more freedom for total freedom.
This is where skepticism is of tremendous value. In the extract I shared with Wim, Krishnamurti said:
If the perception is complete, whole, then there is no confusion at any time. Or, one may deceive oneself that it is whole and act upon it, which brings confusion…That insight may be partial. Therefore one has to be aware that it is partial. Its action is partial and it may appear complete, so watch it.
Hello, Inquiry!
I don’t think it’s a good idea to start labelling people. One thing is to find a behaviour inappropriate, another is to determine this is so or so because you’re this or that. Also it is not a matter of taking offense, it’s a matter of feeling uncomfortable in an interchange as we saw in the situation which brought about all this.
Jess, as you are still participating on this thread, do you feel it is appropriate or inappropriate to participate on a thread without attempting to engage with any of its content?
I feel that rather than address the actual content of the thread, you are wanting to police the tone of the thread. But by policing the tone, you have also contributed to the thread’s tone: that is, you have helped to make it about the people involved, rather than the issue at hand.
I feel you have an image of me, based on previous posts, and are refusing to engage with me constructively because of that image. I feel that if you were able to put your image of me to one side and look at the points being put before you, you would find yourself agreeing more than disagreeing. But this is just my opinion.
Apart from the discussion about partial insight and total insight (which came up in relationship to a conversation about what was involved in a particular insight), the wider issue seems to be that each one of us uses words in different ways from each other; each one of us holds to a different understanding of what those words mean; and because of this each one of us has images of each other that interfere in communication.
It is clear that we are in conflict with each other. And yet because this conflict is troublesome we refuse to meet it constructively. We call each other names, we affiliate ourselves with group interests, we divide along party lines, we ignore each other or pretend to be indifferent.
We do not have the patience to set our images of each other aside, or our strongly held beliefs or insights, or our different ways of using words, and see if there can be a common approach.
We are all complicit in this, though we may wish to deny it. So when are we going to address this factor? Do we wait for it to show up in the ‘real world’ outside Kinfonet? Or can we try to address it here?
Is it too late? Or have we not even begun?
Probably, as far as this thread is concerned, it is too late. People have taken sides, drawn their conclusions, framed their images, and lost patience.
But I hope one day we will try to meet this wider issue somehow (though god knows how!).
You’ve never had a partial insight?
What label did I allegedly use?
Yes, this is the question right now.
There is more self-defense and self-serving on display here than interest in questioning oneself, and if K’s teaching isn’t about being more skeptical than confident, more dubious than credulous, how can it be radical, revolutionary?
Do you remember on the ‘Cause of Conflict is the Limitation of Thought’ thread, we were saying that
when there is conflict between two people it implies that each person is identifying themselves with their own program, their own set of words and concepts, their own symbol-system - and these symbol-systems, being limited, must mutually exclude the other, thereby creating confusion, conflict, misunderstanding
?
I feel this thread is a perfect example of this. Each of us has our own symbolic network of images, which interacts with the ‘otherness’ of the other images. But essentially all the images are the same: they all define ourselves against each other, and so create division. You and me; we and they. This is the thought-created self in action, in the mirror of relationship.
How do we break this mirror?
Must I accept your images and repress my own images? Or do I assert my images and to hell with your images? - It seems we do both, don’t we?
Some of us claim to have no images, and to have ended division. But if this is not a fundamental truth, then it just contributes to image-formation. Maybe, if I feel overawed, I will suppress my image and accept your image of yourself as imageless. Or I reject this imageless image, and seek to show you that your imageless image is an illusion - thereby strengthening my own image.
Meanwhile those of us who do not claim to be imageless get stuck in our own images (both with regards to ourselves and to each other), and we try to justify them, assert them, either dominating others with our own image or allowing ourselves to be dominated by other people’s images. It is a war, isn’t it?
So how do we break out of this image war, without either suppressing our own images (and accepting another’s image), or suppressing other people’s images (by accepting our own image)?
What is the way out of the cycle?
Must we not first see the activity of our own images, our own egotism, in the mirror of relationship? Can we see - without judgement or condemnation or justification - our own investment in our images, and how we defend and attack others on the basis of this investment?
I think the solution (if there is one) starts here.
Well, Inquiry, I thought it is clear you’re opposing believers to ‘skepticals’, that’s why I spoke of labelling! People don’t have to be one thing or the other, you can believe in certain things and be skeptical about others… and fortunately many people can change with learning.
Again, James, I said all I wanted to say on this matter and I hope this is a forum where people can come freely without having to obey a formula! I’ve always come here because it speaks of Krishnamurti which is dear to me. I only say something when I think I must, that’s all.
Why believe in anything? Why have a belief that cannot be questioned, examined?
I see things the same way. However, I’m not clear if anyone here on this site is actually saying that they have undergone this “total transformation” that K apparently went through. This has come up in the past here and has caused a lot of controversy. The questions remain - has anybody ever gone through the total transformation in the way which K did? If someone actually had, would it be obvious to others?
I do feel these are important questions.