Hello, Inquiry! Why believe, you ask? It sounds to me like a rhetorical question. Humans are complex beings, the spirit and all. ‘Blessed those who haven’t seen and believed’ was once said.
The difficulty with your first question is that it pertains to Krishnamurti specifically. Probably he was unique. If we take his words about having a “vacant mind” as a young boy seriously, then he seems to be implying that the young Krishnamurti was already “protected”; that the part of his brain that is ordinarily conditioned in people, remained unconditioned. If this is actually the case - and we can never be sure about it obviously - then the only historical comparison one can make is with someone like Jesus! (if he actually existed). This doesn’t mean that Krishnamurti didn’t have significant moments in his life where his ‘transformation’ was expedited - for instance, when he had a unitary experience in Ojai during his Theosophical days, or when his brother died - but it means he may have already been transformed from birth. And this is something very few people are likely to replicate!
But in terms of Krishnamurti’s teachings - that is, the transformation that he lectured about from the platform or through dialogues and conversations - it’s an open question whether anyone has been transformed in that way.
As with so much of K’s teaching, transformation can be understood in both a minor and a major key. I think part of the strategic ambiguity I see among people in the K-world who claim to be transformed owes itself to this transformation in the minor key.
An example of transformation in the minor key is what Krishnamurti says in the following extract:
When you are observing, seeing the dirt on the road, seeing how politicians behave, seeing your own attitude towards your wife, your children and so on, transformation is there. Do you understand? To bring about some kind of order in daily life, that is transformation; not something extraordinary, out of this world. When one is not thinking clearly, rationally, be aware of that and change it, break it. That is transformation. If you are jealous watch it, don’t give it time to flower, change it immediately. That is transformation. When you are greedy, violent, ambitious, trying to become some kind of holy man, see how it is creating a world of tremendous uselessness.
This kind of transformation is within the reach of anyone. And I think many people who are serious, sensitive, intelligent (in the ordinary sense) have moments of transformation in this sense.
But often Krishnamurti starts out by suggesting something possible, within everyone’s reach, and ends up suggesting something impossible (or less easily captured, perceived): this is transformation in the major key. From the same passage:
And if you go very much deeper into the problem, it is clear that thought denies love. Therefore one has to find out whether there is an end to thought, an end to time, not philosophize over it and discuss it, but find out. Truly that is transformation, and if you go into it very deeply, transformation means never a thought of becoming, comparing; it is being absolutely nothing.
Transformation in the major key means the ending of thought, the ending of time, total emptiness of the mind. How many people have been transformed in this way?
We have all had moments “in and out of time”, moments of emptiness, moments in which thought has ended. But transformation in the major key is absolute. I think this is where so many people get lost, believing themselves to be transformed.
How many people have been transformed in the major key? Obviously, it is difficult to say. There are various teachers from different religious or spiritual backgrounds - both contemporary as well as historical - who may have been transformed in this way. Yet even there one wonders how deep and thorough-going this transformation is. It’s probably a safe bet to say that Buddha was transformed! - but beyond that one gets into more vague territory. In the Buddhist tradition there are stories about various Chan, Zen and Dzogchen teachers being transformed. In living memory people have said that Ramana Maharishi and Nisagadatta Maharaj were transformed human beings; and there are likely many others of this kind. But there is a lot of murkiness and speculative comparison around this issue, so it becomes rather fanciful to speculate about all this, seeing as we ourselves are not transformed.
I think, though, that if someone was transformed in either the minor or the major key, it would show up in daily life. One would have to be sensitive to notice it of course. Sitting next to Krishnamurti on an aeroplane ride, or seeing him at the dentist’s would be unlikely to make one aware of anything special. But if one was to live with him and watch him in daily life, interact with him, I think it would become obvious (as his biographers attest).
So, in short, I think transformation has to be understood both in the minor and major keys - both as partial insight and as total insight. And clearly no-one on Kinfonet has been transformed in the major key. But I think transformation in the minor key is within the reach of everyone.
2 Likes
Several have implied it by what they’ve said “here on this site”.
Yes, I understood that some people have implied that they have undergone some kind of total transformation and that they have done this “here on this site”. James was also speaking about having met people who had made this claim and that’s why I wrote “here on this site”. Just trying to be as clear as possible.
However, implying something can often lead to confusion so I’m not absolutely clear about this.
If someone is implying something, what’s wrong with asking if what they’re implying is what they believe to be true?
When I first did this I got pushback from others on this site who felt it was inappropriate, as if grandiose self-delusion was something to ignore or make allowance for when discussing awareness and self-knowledge.
Implying does not seem to me to be a solid description but one that involves a lot of meaning-making and is done by the receiver of the message. At the same time, however, the full meaning is attributed to the sender of the message.
Are we aware of this or is this an unconsciously natural occurrence?
There’s nothing wrong about it Inquiry. You are quite right - it is natural to ask. What’s strange to me is that when I have asked these persons directly myself, they often wriggle out of a direct answer, which communicates to me that they are content with leaving the implication hang in the air. So I think Wim is mistaken here:
When person X has been given ample opportunity to dispel the ambiguous implication they have communicated, and they continually refuse to be straightforward about it, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that they have no wish to dispel the implication. Certain people on Kinfonet have been doing this for years, supported by the unwritten rule (among some) that it is “rude” or “arrogant” to be frankly skeptical.
Personally, I think it is far more rude and arrogant to maintain strategic ambiguity in these matters, as it is either true or false. And in all cases here - when it comes to total transformation - it is, I think, false.
I agree with you Inquiry. Grandiose ambiguity deserves to be challenged - so long as we do so with civility, generosity, and patience. Sometimes people nurture these delusions for very tragic reasons, and so one has to be kind. And sometimes people have very complicated reasons for maintaining strategic ambiguity: maybe they have had a genuine (partial) insight into something, and they reject the whole notion of comparing themselves with someone else who may or may not have complete insight. They are correct up to a point, because to compare oneself is a form of servitude. Why should we compare ourselves with anyone else, no matter how intelligent or enlightened? It is undignified to compare, and also it is psychologically confused to do so.
Nevertheless, it is a matter of truth and falsehood, a matter of honesty that anyone with emotional self-awareness will be able to acknowledge and answer: either one is transformed absolutely, which means one has ended the self, wiped out fear, suffering, and not just temporarily; or they have not. To continue to create strategic ambiguity around such a question is not honest.
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with this at all. Asking for clarification is always positive as far as I can see.
I find this a bit confusing Wim. For me, the more clarity there is, the better. If someone is claiming to be transformed, it’s better to just come out and say this. There is nothing wrong with saying this, but it’s also reasonable for people to question it. This is how we all learn together, isn’t it?
Yes, but of course that would be no fun for them, so they just drop hints until you feel like politely dropping the bomb of “Who do you think you are”?
What is confusing ? And why are you refering to some claim someone has made?
I only pointed to the fact that by implying there is this fact of the two processen involved.
And of course it should be the start of clarifying the situation. Not of blaming!
These claims often occur during conversations but are never made explicit. So, for instance, on this thread a conversation took place about what is involved in an insight taking place. I asked the question:
Because, as I understand it, when there is an insight in Krishnamurti’s sense then suffering ends completely, which is the beginning of the passion of compassion.
So here Dan was saying that the word “completely” involves time and comparison. But the way I understand “completely” relates to what kind of insight one is talking about:
For Krishnamurti a change at the periphery, a modification of suffering, is not the ending of suffering. Transformation is total, or it is partial. To which Dan replied:
To which I responded:
As Dan was not interested in clarifying whether or not his insight is transformative in Krishnamurti’s sense of the word, it left the meaning of his communication ambiguous. Was Dan claiming to have had total insight, total transformation, or not? He could have cleared it up very simply by saying: ‘No, I’m not transformed in Krishnamurti’s sense. I have had a partial insight and I’m interested in exploring it, staying with it to see where it leads.’ But he didn’t do this. And this is not the first time Dan has done this (i.e. claimed to have had an insight and then not cleared up whether it was total insight or just a partial insight).
So the implication is that Dan doesn’t know whether his insight is total or not, or he feels it is total but doesn’t want to make this explicit, or he feels that it is partial but he doesn’t want to make this explicit. And as he has stopped talking to me, there is no clarity. This is what i am calling “strategic ambiguity”. It keeps the ambiguity of someone possibly having total insight open, for reasons and purposes known only to the person refusing to clarify it. And, as mentioned before, this is not the first time Dan has done this.
Then you, Wim, arrived on the thread to defend Dan’s rationale in remaining ambiguous:
So you were saying that a person really cannot know if he/she has had total insight, or is transformed in the total sense. We then discussed what total transformation means definitionally, and you didn’t seem to reject the definition of total transformation, you just thought it was hypothetical for us (which is true). However, I replied back to you, seeing as Krishnamurti has talked about it, if we are going to use words like ‘insight’ and ‘transformation’ on this forum, then we ought to bear in mind the way he actually used those words. You didn’t reply to me about this, but I presume you accepted my reasoning.
You then brought up the issue of what is involved in implying something:
The two processes are:
Just to make clear on the meaning of ‘implication’: it means to hint at something that is a logical consequence of what has been stated, but without making the consequence explicit.
For example, if one says that there is “no such thing as partial insight”, the implication of this is that all insights are total insights. It is logically implied in the statement, even though it has not been made explicit. Right?
So, similarly, by refusing to clarify whether insight is partial or total, incomplete or complete, modified change or fundamental transformation, the implication is that one can take it to mean either: which means the person talking about it is allowing that their insight may in fact be totally transformative.
As we have been saying, by definition, either insight is totally transformative - in which case suffering has completely (not just momentarily) ended, because the self has ended, and there is the beginning of compassion - or it has not. By refusing to clarify this matter, the implication is that it has been left ambiguous on purpose.
And I think it is fair to question this stance, to be skeptical about it, as it introduces ambiguity and confusion into the discussion, which creates a division between the one who is implicitly claiming to have some special insight, and the one who is not.
Maybe you are not blaming, but others on this thread have been blaming for even raising all this as an issue.
Is this whole ambiguity willingly maintained by us because of our desire for something ‘spiritual’?
We are dissatisfied with the ordinary, the everyday. Perhaps we are getting old, or have spent years in inner inquiry, and so we want a result, a breakthrough; and not finding this, we romanticise the little insights we have and make them into something ’special’, ‘beyond the capacity of thought to grapple with’, etc.
Or is it simply a matter of pride? We do not want to publicly admit that our insight is limited?
If one is concerned with truth, doesn’t it matter whether or not something is actually true? - So I don’t understand people’s reluctance to just be straightforward about these things.
Is it that we have found security in our inner beliefs - inner experiences, partial insights, etc - and this is why we refuse to make these beliefs explicit?
So enquiry involves the freedom to reason, be skeptical, to doubt. It means not accepting the authority of other people’s statements at face value, but probing into them with intelligence, care, hesitancy.
Dan has said “freedom is essential”. Freedom to look, freedom to doubt, freedom not to accept a statement that is ambiguous, that leaves open various implications without attempting to clarify it. Right?
So I can look at why I am concerned with another’s self-deception, and the other can look at why they may have communicated something which can be taken as self-deception.
However this cannot happen if one simply refuses to look at any of this. And for reasons of his own, Dan has decided not to make any attempt to resolve or clarify this issue.
So it is left to us to resolve it for ourselves.
For me, it isn’t a matter of being rude or arrogant to be skeptical of people’s statements concerning insight or transformation - because any claim that is made, big or small, unless it is clear to both parties, has to be explored, exposed, made explicit, clarified: through reason, doubt, not accepting authority, seeing for oneself its validity, etc - which is part of freedom.
Wim, I hope you didn’t think I was blaming you for something - that was not my intention and sorry if it came across that way.
That was not the case. It was more a common reaction abouth the flow of the discussion and pointing to something what needed attention.
The nature of a discussion repels rather than attracts me. In a dialogue, communication is more friendly in nature. These are general comments and actually not so much directed at you.
A discussion is a “Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation”.
A dialogue is “A conversation between two or more people” *
A dialogue is more likely to include people you know and feel comfortable with, and a discussion is more earnest than friendly, and may include total strangers.
Have you considered messaging the person you want to converse with instead of having to deal with those who join the conversation?
*from the American Heritage Dictionary
If one cannot begin a discussion without endless resistance, objections, accusations of one kind or another, then for sure one cannot have a dialogue. If those persons who have participated on this thread really wanted to dialogue, then they would have followed through with the content of the thread, rather than continually focussing on secondary issues of tone, politeness, or whether or not this is a dialogue or a discussion.
I think we have to accept that apart from you, me, and perhaps Sean and Emile, the topics we have raised here do not deeply interest any other participants.
1 Like
I recomment ‘on dialogue’ by david bohm.