Have you ever asked yourself if you have the ability to listen to K?
1 Like
Howdy Bob,
Short answer : No. (okay maybe the thought has crossed my mind a few times 
)
Though I do think this idea of ârealâ, âchoicelessâ, âopenâ, or actual listening is a crucial subject to examine.
When I first heard K, I didnât have a clue what he was on about, nor even why he was speaking (I was 12) - now most of what heâs saying seems quite straightforward (weird incomprehensible, seemingly esoteric statements aside).
So maybe I was âreallyâ listening when I was 12, and now Iâm just relating to my own conditioned opinions when I hear K speak?
May I propose a way forward in this inquiry (unless you had something else planned?) Can we take a snippet from todayâs quote of the day, for example this beauty :
If you find the garden that you have so carefully cultivated has produced only poisonous weeds, you have to tear them out by the roots; you have to pull down the walls that have sheltered them. You may or may not do it, for you have extensive gardens, cunningly walled-in and well-guarded. You will do it only when there is no bartering; but it must be done, for to die rich is to have lived in vain.
How do I know if I was able to listen to that? What would indicate that listening had taken place?
How would I know if I have the ability to listen to K, or to anyone, for that matter? If itâs always I thatâs listening and all I know is what I think, my answer will always be what I choose since I donât honestly know anything that isnât self-evident or demonstrably true.
I have listened to K for hours (video and audio recordings). My first introduction to K was a series of videos with Bohm. Yes, I was distracted while listening, but my attention would return enough that some of what he said resonated with me.
This describes all of us in this forum, doesnât it? I recall K saying somewhere, that if one could listen to him with complete attention, they would undergo transformation. If itâs true, since virtually none of us have listened to K with complete attention, none of us can honestly say they have âthe ability to listen to Kâ.
Listening with complete attention may not require greater ability to listen, but less ability to react to what one is listening to. Our problem is our ability to deceive ourselves, and the solution may not be greater ability to catch ourselves doing it, but less inclination to depend on our ability.
I do not have âthe abilityâ (Bobâs word) to sustain an uninterrupted/stable/still attention to say I understand K fully; this is one aspect; another one is: no one can ever understand anyone via words; if I could share the same space with K, the space of attention, a kind of sameness in seeing may occur, but again, this is unverifiable, and it is speculative.
Ultimately, I can not know or prove to my self and to others I understand K (or another human).
At first glance I do not understand this passage; what do I do ? I read it again, as K would to, read the question 2-3 times, almost calling the mind into stillness/attentionâŚ(in my case, English is not my first language, and one word can block my basic understanding, so I naturally slow down by voice while reading K )
Yea, I would like to dive a bit into this passageâŚ
If this is true, Krishnamurti wasted his time try to convey his teaching âvia wordsâ. I donât think itâs trueâŚdo you?
Ultimately, I can not know or prove to my self and to others I understand K (or another human).
If you understood K, would you have a self to prove it to?
If you understood K, would it be K you understood, or the nature and structure of self?
Inquiry, you shared above that we understand K partially, and I agree with what you said.
But I am strictly referring to a complet understanding of K, (which would be translated as a radical transformation, as he calls it, and this transformation can be proof of understanding K fully, but the transformation is not only the result of my exclusive understanding of K )
Humanity continues to exist, people continue to be bornâŚand Kâs effect will continue to act indefinitely in the consciousness, along with other so called âteachersâ. K did not waste his time.
Actually none of us here or elsewhere is wasting his/her time. I am not living in a vacuum to generate the idea my life is wasted.
PS1: understanding is not only out of the meaning of the words, is in Kâs voice, intonation, (facial expression, in case of a video) words play a partial role.
PS2: I do not understand your last two comments/questions**
Questioner: How can you hold this realization?
Krishnamurti: It is not a question of holding it. If you realize it, it is so.
Questioner: Does the environment help you to realize?
Krishnamurti: No, it has nothing to do with environment. It has nothing to do with what one is or what one is not. Simply, does one see the fact? Sir, in your bathroom you have a bottle marked âpoisonâ, and you know it is poison; you are very careful of that bottle, even in the dark. You are always watching out for it. You donât say, âHow am I to keep away, how am I to be watchful of that bottle?â. You know it is poison, so you are tremendously attentive to it. Time is a poison; it creates disorder. If this is a fact to you, then you can proceed into the understanding of how to be free of fear immediately. But if you are still holding time as a means of freeing yourself, there is no communication between you and me.
End of K post
We listen to understand for practical issues. If you are listening to understand K in the same way that you listen for practical issues, then arenât you holding time as a means of understanding (Kâs last statement above)? If you are, that is why there is no communication between you and K. That is why there is no communication between you and another when the issue is psychological.
So, do you have the ability to listen to K?
Bob
The question is now different
It was initially asked if I have the ability to understand now it is asked if I have the ability to listen.
Yes, I can listen yet my understand is incomplete. But of course some will say that if there is listening then there is understanding.
In my case, I can be quiet and still and let myself be whatever arises, including the lack the of understanding of the spoken words.
I guess, in my case, to listen and to understand are somehow creating difficulties in relating to K
PS And Bob, apologies, your question has remained the same (you were only referring to listening), my brain has introduced the notion of understanding as some of us I guess were also taking about it âŚ
Listening to K has nothing to do with having an ability because It takes time to develop and utilize oneâs ability. I, the self, thought, being able to do something is just more I.
Listening to K, or anything, with complete attention means being nothing but listening. If thatâs your idea of âabilityâ, I think itâs the wrong word because listening, seeing, observing, isnât something I do; isnât done by I; it isnât an ability. Itâs simply what happens when I am not happening.
My first question, âIf you understood K, would you have a self to prove it to?â, is my response to, " I can not know or prove to my self and to others I understand K (or another human).
My second question, âIf you understood K, would it be K you understood, or the nature and structure of self?â
Can one understand what K was saying and still have/be a self?
Does âto understandâ require time? Is âto understandâ a part of listening or is it something else?
@Inquiry @BobHearns
I am a bit lost in my own words. I attempted several times to reply to you both, but I erased all my comments (before posting them hereâŚ, in my drafts). It is difficult to communicate in a forum, it is more direct to dialogue.
So, Iâll let others to post if they wishâŚSorryâŚ
So it would seem that we have not agreed on what we mean by the word âlisteningâ.
There is the normal dictionary sense of âpaying attention to and hearing soundâ - and @DeNiro states that recognition of what has been said is an indication that listening has taken place.
But there is also this idea of listening as a sort of meditation - a sort of âchoiceless awarenessâ of what the speaker is saying. (and maybe some of us even think that some kind of transformational magic might happen when the speaker happens to be K 
).
There may also be some confusion between innocent curiosity & curiosity with a motive.
The former version being a wanting to understand what is being said, and the latter a desire for confirmation. The first being conducive to listening and the second being the movement of self/hope/fear.
PS. The terrible thing is that âpaying attention to and hearing soundâ actually describes listening in both senses. What prevents meditation is motive and extrapolation.
As a quick aside from the main topic of this thread, maybe I can just quickly point out the kernel of this quote. The central point is this bit : You will do it only when there is no bartering.
Which mirrors the central message of the quote that Bob gave us : Simply, does one see the fact? Sir, in your bathroom you have a bottle marked âpoisonâ, and you know it is poison; you are very careful of that bottle, even in the dark. You are always watching out for it. You donât say, âHow am I to keep away, how am I to be watchful of that bottle?
Which is the same thing as the K quote I messed up the other day on the Zoom dialogue group : Freedom is born of the perception that freedom is essential
Isnât âlistening to understandâ - a form of bartering? So there is only listening. Wonât one only know the fact of what happens when there is âonly listeningâ by only listening? One must do it, explore, not talk about it. What happens when you do it? Is there the ability to listen?
Yes, if there is some form of loss or gain involved.
If there is some motivation based on my progress or security, something specific that I am looking for in what is being said, that is what I will be on the look out for - rather than being able to innocently embrace what is being said.
âlistening to understandâ could mean curiosity about the concepts that are being proposed by the speaker. (as opposed to : in the hope of gaining some knowledge, or listening without any focus on meaning, like when listening to birdsong)
Maybe by âlistening to understandâ you mean that any desire to understand necessarily stems from fear and some desire for power?
When a song comes on the radio, and I hear the words âshe sang a lullabyâ - I understand and recognise the words (without any conscious motivation to do so) and I react emotionally to them. Has listening occured at any point in this narrative?