Is K still relevant?

I am not concerned about trusting either myself or another. Instead, I want only to get at the truth of the matter. If there are motives involved, perhaps we’ll find out all about them as we go along. As I said, I have come here only to tell you something very personal about myself. I am not sure any other motive is involved beyond this. But if there is another motive, won’t it remain hidden from both of us until our journey together has begun? It is therefore a journey of discovery. That makes sense, no? In talking and engaging with one another what you are calling the ‘self’ is bound to come into play and reveal its various aspects and nuances.

Are Krishnamurti’s words, his “language”, dead to you? If so, what are you doing here?

Are you here to tell us we are foolish and naive, and we ought to be giving attention to people who think what Krishamurti had to say is irrelevant? If so, quit dilly-dallying and make your case.

I have already told you twice why I am here: I want to tell you something about myself that is very personal. This means it is somewhat painful. It has nothing to do with K.

The question is, will you listen to it without bringing in any reference to K or anyone else? Will you - or anyone else here - listen simply to my pain? Or will you listen only from a background of answers to my pain? The pain is relevant but the answers are not.

So this is what I am doing here. I trust it is clear enough.

You’ve come to the wrong place because this place is all about Krishnamurti, and not the place to bring your personal story.

The question is, will you listen to it without bringing in any reference to K or anyone else? Will you - or anyone else here - listen simply to my pain? Or will you listen only from a background of answers to my pain? The pain is relevant but the answers are not.

Isn’t it you who must listen to your pain, feel your pain, let it tell you what you need to understand? If you must take your pain to others, you’ll never learn about yourself and the reason you’re in pain.

Yes, that is exactly what I am doing. I don’t think it is very much different from the pain of anyone else. There is nothing special or sanctified about it. But since my pain is largely the product of all my relationships with human beings so far through my life, it seems to make sense to look at it in the same context as that within which it was forged.

So, why are you denying someone a simple request? Not even K turned away people who came to see him with problems. And some of them travelled long distances to talk to him. I have a friend who drove right across Europe to get to him.

Most people go to a therapist to be investigated because they don’t know how to investigate anything, much less themselves.

Why not find out how to investigate before turning to someone else to do it for you?

But the subject of the investigation must inevitably include you, or else none of this chatter makes much sense. So, let’s do it together. I don’t see why we can’t.

This is your dishonest assumption. You can’t drag someone else into your confusion and self-deception. You have to see it for yourself, by yourself.

But you are talking about a solution, an answer, a revelation or something like that. I am not looking for a solution. I don’t want to be transformed - that would just be silly.

Play your game with someone else. You’re wasting my time.

What game!? Have you no pain? Have you not been hurt? I assume you are no youngster. I am sure you will have been hurt, both by your own actions and by the actions of others. This is very relevant, isn’t it? This is like so relevant as to be almost invisible to the average person, one feels. Doesn’t it make you want to cry?

I hope that I am not wasting anyone’s time. What seems to waste most time is using old answers to mend current crises, that’s all. We don’t have any answers.

From what you are saying, then, it seems that there is a huge gulf between truth and understanding, and between love and understanding. I feel that this is a very important distinction. Is it because understanding always takes time? While we are trying to understand one another we are just getting further and further apart?

It certainly feels like it, based on what has already happened through this thread of recent conversations.

Thank you . We are inquiring together. Are we not .So I would go further into the question. I would also like to add the question Is psychological conditioning, and programming relevant?

Yes I understand your questioning. Who in the past taught human beings to question their programming and doubt themselves and their beliefs and determine the efficacy of what beliefs, superstitions, opinions ideas they were attached to that might not be true or workable in their own lives? Is that also not implied in Inquiry and thinking for ourselves? A good example of thinking for ourselves with our whole background intact can lead to authoritarianism, or doing our own thing without a considerable amount of empathy or care for anyone else? So no if we start where we are, without the teachings as conditioned beings, and try to think for ourselves, without them that is not new is it?

Generally our programming is ancient, unworkable, and incomplete national and religious thinking combined. All that old psychological thinking, is not relevant in inquiry and learning to think for ourselves. Is brainwashing relevant today, as we see the earth in a state of manmade divisions and manmade wars and environmental destruction and chaos? What do you think is our thinking wise or good enough reasonable enough to doubt any of our ideas opinions, experiences possibly caused, or merely interpreted by our past conditioning and all our beliefs ? If anyone programs us first and then tells us to think for ourselves along the lines of our societal conditioning, geographical location, and our parents left or right thinking or their opposites, is that new or old institutional thinking? I see that anyone who thinks the teachings are not relevant, or wonders if they are has not seen truly that they are relevant if a human beings interest is in learning for their whole life and doing great detective work, and participating in a life of real inquiry. So it depends on what we think we are seeking, even when reading them? Everyone mining in every gold mine on earth cannot keep the gold they find, but everyone mining in these magnificent teachings can keep the gold and all their insights.

Perhaps the teachings are just as mechanical as the original conditioning they are meant to dissolve. Certainly, one can see them being used mechanically. Therefore one is bound to doubt their relevance.

To compare them both as the same, or equally problematic is a conditioned response by you? Is it not? . Either you have not read the so called childish mythical gospels that condition you to fear selfish invented gods, or you have not delved deeply into the collected works that do not generally attempt to condition anyone using fear or rewards, and punishments?

The teachings factually imply doubt, as the best balm to use in understanding either,superstition riddled gospels or the teachings by not believing in anything? They point to and advise non belief in finding out and not believing what you read? In other words doing your own best to understand and think for yourselves applies when reading all books not just the teachings?

Especially when you read both of them and think unreasonably they are factually similar as far as programming human beings to be superstitious in their whole mentality and observations about the whole results of the limits of living any divisive programmed life according to any books without thinking for ourselves?

I think group therapy, self immolation, confession, repentance, self sacrifice, self negation, is a manmade self delusion that maintains the illusory higher self. I think confession or bragging is a manmade contusion, maintaining the self like any psychological imitation or comparison? . If you want to tell me something about yourself you can do it privately. If you want to tell us all something why not just do it without discussing relevancy?

Well, I have said it, really, already. In a nutshell: pain, the pain of existence, the pain of human relationship, the pain of desire, the pain of love. The finer details are largely unimportant and would make for a lot of complicated digressions. I am a married, middle-aged man of Hindu background with two children.

Having told you all this, does anything change? Yes, I really do think that something significant changes. There is a change in my relationship with the world, with all of that which is not me.

But what is the relevant bit in all of this? Who he was? What he said? How he lived? That’s all gone now. How does any teaching retain its relevance?