But when one says, ‘I have understood the teachings,’ what does this mean?
No ,it is an understatement.
Sorry
I don’t understand the question
Again, you are more interested in your own reaction to it than in the statement itself. As Crina says, it is first of all something impenetrable. Impenetrable means it cannot be pierced by the intellect; it is impossible to understand.
Look at it another way. I say, ‘You are entirely empty.’ Your saying, ‘No, I am not,’ in response to me, is a reaction to an idea; just as saying, ‘Yes, I am,’ is also a reaction to an idea. So one idea is meeting or reacting to another idea.
It depends on the context. In prose, it would be followed by an explanation of what the author means by it. In a poem, it’s left up to the reader to decide what it means.
Do you believe there is a correct answer to your question?
This is what happens when thinking or discussion starts from an idea . We get nowhere.
What is it that seeks or demands or desires context?
But the statement itself has come out of nowhere. That’s our whole starting point. Are you responding to it from somewhere else? Or are you in the same space as the statement?
What is it that asks?
One wonders if krishnamurti’s teachings had any effect on your thinking at all! We are supposed to be somewhat familiar with the teachings given we joined this forum.
Game-playing. K was not about ‘game-playing’.
2 Likes
Forget the teachings for the moment. Forget anything familiar. Now what will you do? Faced with this statement, what is one to do? The statement being: thought is entirely empty.
If you are fed up with the statement, move on.
That’s the same question. You are still seeking a context. Why?
If I can conclude that a statement has no context (is that possible?) then I am free to conclude that the statement is meaningless?
What is context? Isn’t it something also put together by thought?
Also, what does it mean to be free to conclude? Isn’t it our conclusions that keep us trapped in the past?
1 Like
Is the statement you’ve posted not “put together by thought”?
1 Like
In which case, what is thought saying? From whom and to whom is it speaking?
Yes it is put together by thought therefore useless.
Useless for whom? And what would then constitute a useful statement? We have already said it is not about true or false, which is the same as useful or useless. This is instead about our relationship to the statement. And we are clearly getting lost in words.
So let’s change the statement. Let’s take a statement which neither of us has put together, which is a statement at the heart of K’s teachings - so we don’t have to argue where it comes from.
‘You are the world,’ is the statement. How do we listen to this statement? It is similarly useless, isn’t it? But if we approach it differently, not just trying to work out what we can profit from or make use of in the statement, what happens?
Are we again being asked to consider the statement out of context - with this idea that it is a statement without a context ?
When we hear a statement, we immediately assume that the statement is tied to the rest of the world - The statement by K is tied to all the other stuff he said during the talk; and your statement is tied to some idea you have.
It is difficult not to make the association.