Yes, we can try to explore this fundamental question.
What is different about Krishnamurti and his teachings/approach is that we dont come to it with acceptance or belief or faith, but have to doubt, question, go into it for ourselves.
So we approach dialogue differently than most other beliefs/teachings out there. I find it more difficult to have dialogue with Krishnamurti people than just regular dialogue with others who are interested in truth or philosophy or what not.
Most of us K folk have read a lot of K or watched videos and for most of us, it has conditioned us to some extent. So we are not showing up at the dialogue fresh and without the past, but showing up with a lot of K knowledge and conditioning and it makes dialogue difficult. What do you think, do you see it similarly?
Haha. You are a weird one Inquiry I have to say. Kind of inflexible and intolerant in some of your pronouncements. Zoom dialogues help clarify and dispel illusions, images that one has created. Real life meetings help to show the whole human being, that you cannot see via the written word forum.
What is the point of this thread? Itās a real question, this is so infantile. What does mimicking mean? Imitation to the extent that Paul doesnāt know what heās talking about? And even so, why is it important to inquire into such a small matter?
Inquiry has been butthurt over Paul for awhile. Iām starting to see how people on here tend to use K and his insights. It looks like youāre all trying to compete intellectually, while ignoring the fact that you are. Like itās the invisible elephant in the room.
I am not sure there is any K knowledge. I have come into contact with the Teachings. Thatās all. What is the relationship between me and the Teachings? And what happens to me in this meeting?
Letās go straight to the heart of it because this addresses the whole feeling behind what we are looking at in this particular topic. It is about something much bigger than K or copying K.
I would think there is K knowledge. We show up to the dialogues with our brains full of Krishnamurtis pronouncements like āThe observer is the observed and there is no psychological timeā for instance, etc. It is not like we come into contact with the Teachings and there is emptiness in our brain.
What happens in the meeting? I would suggest it is mostly a sharing of knowledge and past memory, repeating, exchanging ideas, and very little looking without the past. We are mostly looking not freshly, but from what we already know from Krishnamurti.
This stuff is difficult to express, write about, but I am suggesting very little happens in most K dialogues except a bunch of intellectualizing. What do you think, please say more, you are saying very little I feel and not sharing enough your perceptions on the matter.
But thatās not K knowledge; this is knowledge that we have extracted for ourselves. K deals in facts and we donāt - thatās the brutal truth - because we are chiefly comfortable dealing with ideas. With ideas we can discuss and argue endlessly. We can control ideas. A fact stops us in our tracks.
Yes, this is the same question as about meeting the Teachings. What happens when one meets a fact? There is only the fact. In that moment, all ideas are absent, which means in that moment everything that is me is also absent. Therefore, in meeting the Teachings, one is learning that it is possible to live and function quite happily without all the complications of the self.
What is important is first of all to be very clear at both the verbal and intellectual levels. A lot of intellectualising is just confused or panicked thinking. Thatās why in a really careful dialogue with a few very good friends, we can point out to each other these things, take our time and work out exactly what it is that we are trying to say to one another. No dialogue is a walk in the park. We have to work at it.
Are the Teachings words, or facts? If they were facts, wouldnāt we all be stopped in our tracks?
Why does one self dissapear when confronted with the Teachings, and another just hears a load of concepts?
Is that like a fight with oneās self? An effort to not see what I see? Hear what I hear?
What does the work consist of?
Perhaps you both think you can do something about it. In other words, there is still you and the Teachings as though two separate entities. But they canāt both exist in the same space. Something has to give.