If so, to whom is he relevant? And, if not, what else is there to talk about?
Heās relevant to Kinfonet participants and thousands (my estimate) throughout the world. Kinfonet is for exploration of Kās teachings and participantsā perspectives derived from them.
If you donāt know how relevant or irrelevant Krishnamurti is for you, then only you can answer your question. Once you have your answer and you pose the question to others, their responses may cause you to question your answer, and youāre no better off than you were when the question arose.
For people who frequent this forum, K is relevant, whether theyāre deluded enough to believe theyāve transformed, honest enough to know they havenāt, or theyāre just trying to get a clear understanding of what K was pointing to.
Time of Jiddu Krishnamurti is gone for me.Nothing what i try to understand of his words was not helped me. Words did not change reality. Butā¦he said such profound words of truth and love. Nobody did it that way.
But arenāt we missing something by assuming that anything from the past can retain a degree of relevance? Itās not just the fact that K is dead for nearly forty years now. Itās also the dead things from our own lives to which we cling.
What else is there to talk about if we donāt talk about K and our struggles or successes to understand him? Relevance would then be all around us, would it not?
Youāve answered your question.
No, I am asking for something else. Letās find out what else there is.
So what are you asking?
Was K. not clear enough that he was completely irrelevant by speaking as the speaker and in his talks never used the word āIā?
So the question should be : Are the teachings still relevant?
And the answer on this depends on what and why youāre doing now and has nothing to do with the past, right?
You ask if Kās teaching is relevant, answer that it is, then you say you are asking for something else that we should find out together. What are you trying to say?
Is wisdom relevant? Is there any wisdom when it is founded in religion? Is science relevant? Is technical instruction that works to train us in the use of skills relevant? I would say that if anything considered wisdom, and it is taught as a continuity in thinking and grounded on superstition, and duality? Than it cannot be relevant? Can any particular religion or cult, or training in religious systems, and programming not produce organized cults of brainwashed members? Is anything relevant that endorses and advocates top interests, absolute blind loyalty, in a particular nation, or religion? Are the wise the following members as practitioners in what they are taught as the only right system of government or the only right religion? Are those taught superstitious beliefs and childās myths wise for believing them? I would say to any traditional hierarchical pyramid scam organizer, or national, and religious influences, believing in being chosen people. That is an absolutely useless and false belief there is no such thing on earth.
In fact it might cause extreme mental forms of cognitive dissonance, and terrorist activities in true believers that merely believe in K. but not question the things Jā¦K spoke about in the teachings which do not produce new superstition filled repetitive religions, or any organized spiritual movements with some on top teaching those below them, how to think like Jiddu Krishnamurti. The whole measurement of these teachings is in teaching human beings to think for themselves like every great teacher on earth has tried to do in their own lives when they said know yourselves first. Before you teach anyone how to think for themselves. See these things for yourselves.
I did not answer that it is relevant. I donāt know if it is or not. My point is that there is something else much more relevant first, especially when - as now - we are two strangers meeting one another for the first time.
I shall try to put it simply. Before looking at K and the teachings and talking about how relevant or irrelevant they are, isnāt there something else that is undeniably relevant when two people come into contact with each other? This is really the question I am asking.
Why not just think for oneself from the start? Then we donāt have to worry about K or the teachings or anything elseā¦
By what standard, what means are āthese teachingsā measured?
If Krishnamurtiās brain was transformed, free of self and unlimited, can the limited brain measure it?
Transformed? Self? Limited brain? Do you see how quickly we jump into a possible irrelevance, using a language inspired by someone who is long dead? Thus, we tend to keep alive a rather artificial conversation, either defending our own favourite speculation or ridiculing the speculations of others. While this kind of conversation is going on, the real chaos and confusion of our life together is covered over and smothered by a seemingly civilised exchange.
I have come here to tell you something very personal about myself. Are you able to listen to it and respond to it without using K or anyone or anything else as a filter?
And the given answer is still valid:
Inspired or not your inner attitude is the most important. And that can only be investigated while youāre doing what youāre doing and not by someone else.
What about it being investigated with someone else? Would this be relevant?
What do you mean by "IT " ?
You can not investigate my inner state and if Iām not capable of doing it I make myself depended on another, right.?
But donāt our inner attitudes affect each other? Surely, if I just rely on myself to investigate my own inner state then I can conjure up all sorts of horrors.
Does that mean that you do not trust yourself to honestly and seriously examine what your motives are?
Then how can you trust another to do just that?
As I see it, a personās inner state, e.g., like Krishnajii, can evoke something that makes one talk about common interests.
At the same time, that says nothing about the accuracy of what is said.
There again, there are enormous risks you do not meet the criteria for seriously examining your own self