Read Bohm…
The examples you give might be accurate, not hyperbolic at all. How would we know one way or the other seeing as how we can’t see?
Perhaps these were not exaggerations for Krishnamurti. Perhaps he genuinely felt that we (presumably he was not included in this ‘we’?) were constantly conflicted, every waking moment, utterly unable to love or create, utterly held hostage by the past. Perhaps he felt he knew true serenity and love and and creativity and felt that the rest of humanity did not.
I wouldn’t trust what K (or anyone) “genuinely felt”, or what “he felt he knew”. I’m assuming that the K-brain was capable of “direct perception”. If you doubt that direct perception is possible, you might suspect that the K-brain was as incapable of “seeing” as we are.
We all think we’ve had such moments, and who can say we haven’t? But do we know with certainty what actually happened, or are we telling ourselves what happened? I can’t be trusted…can you?
“We are often in conflict” would work much better for me, it feels way more honest.
Why do you trust your experience more than K’s observations? If you can’t take him at his word, why waste time with his teaching?
He may have been deranged and deluded for all we know, but if we don’t assume (for the sake of argument) that he was what he seemed to be, we’re not giving his teaching a fair hearing.
I suppose we must ask : what is you? What are the base attributes of a rickScott?
If there is no one registering, recording the experience - no one that any experience is happening to, what does you even mean in that moment?
How do we know that we can’t see? Is someone (real or imagined) telling us?
When people make extraordinary claims my default reaction is to doubt. What makes me doubt someone more and someone else less is tricky. It has a lot to do with trust. My trust for Krishnamurti, for the veracity of what he said, is mixed. When he hits it, there’s no-one better. And that keeps me coming back. But he doesn’t always hit it (imo), and he’s important enough for me that when something seems suspect, I draw attention to it.
There are mental and physical base aspects to rickScott. Mentally he’s a mix of thought, feeling, memory, emotion, Buddha pretty much nailed it with the skandhas. Physically he’s a living human body.
Do we exist like flocks exist?
Quoth GPT:
The Buddha did not deny the existence of any and all forms of “self” in an absolute sense. Rather, he taught that there is no permanent, unchanging, or independent self or soul that exists as a separate entity from the body and mind.
In traditional Indian philosophy, the concept of a permanent self or soul (atman) was seen as the true self that exists beyond the changing world of appearances. The Buddha’s teaching of no-self (anatman) was a radical departure from this view, as he taught that all phenomena, including the self, are impermanent, constantly changing, and dependent on causes and conditions.
However, the Buddha did not deny the existence of the conventional or relative self, which refers to the individual identity that we use in our everyday lives, such as “I” or “me.” He acknowledged that this self exists in a conventional sense, but he saw it as a temporary and impermanent construction that arises from the aggregation of physical and mental processes.
Thus, the Buddha’s teaching of no-self is not a denial of any and all forms of selfhood, but rather a critique of the belief in a permanent and unchanging self that is separate from the world of appearances. It is an invitation to investigate the nature of the self and to realize the insubstantiality of all phenomena, including the self
Our reactive responses to what we think we see are usually less than intelligent and usually always self-serving. How many times do I have to get things wrong before I know I’m not seeing things clearly?
Yes, I feel the same way. I think he could have said things more clearly and without hyperbole. He may have realized that, too, which may have something to do with his dialogues with Bohm, knowing, as he did, that scientists were more exacting with the language.
Sounds like you are describing inference: Since we’re not thinking/acting in a way that seems appropriate for ‘seeing’ we must not be seeing. Even if inference is the best tool for the job (assessing whether seeing has happened), it’s a flawed tool, capable of error. We don’t know.
Well you know what they say: “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And Krishnamurti when standing before a rapt audience had just about absolute power. (No I’m not saying he was corrupt, rather that the temptation to abuse power might have been there.) When speaking with David Bohm Krishnamurti did not have absolute power, it was more like 50/50.
Would we know a flawless tool if we saw it? If the conditioned brain is a flawed tool and you and I are living demonstrations of this tool, but you think you know what flawlessness is, and I, being demonstrably flawed, have no such illusion, what does either of us know of flawlessness?
Maybe that’s what K wanted.
I don’t know whether you’re implying that K was a charleten or delusional, but in any case, if you can’t give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was what he seemed to be, you’re less interested in what he was trying to get across than why he failed to reach you.
If I find my reaction to K’s teaching more interesting than “getting” the teaching, am I interested in self-knowledge or in finding the teaching too faulty to take seriously? Am I too hung up on the teacher to “get” the teaching?
1 Like
Some of the weirdest stuff K said was during his conversations with Bohm. Their particular interactions might just have been due to the fact that Bohm managed to recognise the concepts K was presenting. When K was talking to us, he mostly stuck to the basic questions.
Anyway - have we at least understood why the claim, that our (the self) experience is one of constant conflict and effort, is consistent with the description of the situation as expressed by K? not an exaggeration at all.
If so, this should also help us see why another “exagerration” mentioned earlier : “there is no psychological evolution” - which is quite an important teaching I reckon - isn’t an exagerration either.
Makes sense. Thought ‘evolves (accumulates) In the practical technological realms but according to K the brain is best left empty and unoccupied in the psychological if it is to realize its potential. This is in line with “analysis is paralysis “?
I haven’t. Help me out? Break it down into simple chunks, like a logical argument?
Flawlessness is absolute. Absolutes are like the points that asymptotes get really really close to, but never manage to reach. So either we deal with degrees of flawedness or just relax and admit that “We don’t know.” ?
I’d say I’m interested in both. I keep returning because of the former, and keep railing because of the latter.
My relationship with Krishnamurti is definitely loaded, fraught with the past as he might’ve said, something like the relationship between an insecure son and stern father. If it were less loaded, I’d probably glean what resonates for me, leave the rest, and move on.
1 Like