As most of us here have tried to make sense of what K has said, is it possible that in the process of doing so it’s very easy to treat it wrongly and produce an illusion out of it? Even so far as to use his teachings as a means to judge others, which is the exact thing he spoke against? Krishnamurtis “teaching” becomes just another thing to be pushed onto someone else once it’s thought of as a “thing” at all, which is an idea. Think about it, he preached that the essence of truth is pathless, cannot be organized, ideological perspectives of reality are false, but people STILL couldn’t grasp what it means to not have an idea about what he’s saying there. It’s not an “it”, by treating “it” as something, which is not what “it” really is, then you’ve already gone passed the point he wanted to make in his freely expressed talks. His words weren’t seen by him as ideas and concepts put together uniquely by himself. It’s so easy to do this, which is what he was against. Who here understands what I’m trying to convey here? If you want to listen to Krishnamurti talk you have to understand this.
Can you give an example of this?
How does one grasp what cannot be grasped?
It [Krishnamurti’s teaching] is not an “it”, by treating “it” as something, which is not what “it” really is, then you’ve already gone passed the point he wanted to make in his freely expressed talks.
If the point we’ve gone past is that what he was saying was not the point, but the effect it had on the listener who didn’t try to make something of what he said, he either failed or his success is unknowable and immeasurable.
His words weren’t seen by him as ideas and concepts put together uniquely by himself. It’s so easy to do this, which is what he was against. Who here understands what I’m trying to convey here? If you want to listen to Krishnamurti talk you have to understand this.
If you’re saying that trying to grasp what Krishnamurti was trying to convey is our mistake and not his failure, the implication is that you didn’t make our mistake, and that in your case, Krishnamurti succeeded. So what can you say or do that Krishnamurti didn’t say or do to awaken us to the error of our way?
No, I’m not here trying to come from the perspective of someone whose “understood it right” while thinking none of you have. But I am attempting to point out how easy it is to do the same thing he encouraged others not to do while simultaneously believing you’re upholding what he thought. This fact he already realized, which is why he began his talks with “I’m not here trying to convert you, I’m not your guru” etc. But any forum discussing what he says will inevitably turn into havoc and contradiction, as will this thread probably. Still the fact stands. There’s no point arguing it, I’m merely pointing it out. Because it IS important. What would happen to an individual who studies Krishnamurti for the purpose of gain? They’ll become just as erroneous and prejudiced as anyone else following any kind of ideological structure. You have to see that at the beginning or else you’re lost. That is all
What exactly is this “same thing”? You haven’t made that clear.
But any forum discussing what he says will inevitably turn into havoc and contradiction, as will this thread probably.
Then why bother alerting us to something that is clear to you but you can’t make clear to us?
Still the fact stands. There’s no point arguing it, I’m merely pointing it out.
Krishnamurti said this about his efforts, and now you’re saying it, which means you are coming “from the perspective of someone whose “understood it right” while thinking none of you have.”
What would happen to an individual who studies Krishnamurti for the purpose of gain?
Do you not think you’ve gained an understanding of K’s teaching that we have missed?
They’ll become just as erroneous and prejudiced as anyone else following any kind of ideological structure. You have to see that at the beginning or else you’re lost.
Krishnamurti said his teaching was like a map or a menu (ideological structures). A map describes the territory but is not the territory. A menu describes the food but is not the food. You’re saying we don’t know how to read the map/menu and that’s why we’re lost, the implication being that you know how to read the map/menu and you are not lost.
So the burden is on you to carry on where K left off. It’s not enough to tell us we’re bungling fools lost in the woods - you have to do all you can to show us our error. Do you care enough to do what Krishnamurti tried to do, or do you just want to sound the alarm?
If you really think Krishnamurti did several talks for the purpose of spreading his “ideological structure” meant to serve as a map, then his words have fallen on deaf ears for you. For gods sake he’s trying to tell you to reject all ideals. To have an ideal is to have a conclusion about what your interpreting or inquiring into. To have one is to start with a conclusion towards what you’re looking at, always ending in uncertainty. Therefore to always start without one is to always discover something new. As you hold onto a truth you think you have, it’s a fixed position and therefore just ideological. Then he encourages you to try understand more by saying “it’s not the words” because it isn’t, the very essence of the fact can only be seen in yourself by yourself. Since you failed to read between the lines and get that, that’s the “same thing” I’m talking about. Not sure if that’s good enough for you, I’m sure it isn’t
The “same thing” is simply having an ideal of no ideal, which is still an ideal. Get it? So what zero ideals would look like was the embodiment of krishnamurtis message
You’re conflating ideology with idealism.
To have an ideal is to have a conclusion about what your interpreting or inquiring into.
No, it isn’t an ideal - it’s an idea, and not necessarily a conclusion or an interpretation. It’s what one does to understand what the speaker is trying to convey.
The “same thing” is simply having an ideal of no ideal, which is still an ideal.
As I said, you’re conflating “ideal” with “idea”. You don’t seem to know the difference.
I’m not sure what the significance of conflating the two would mean in purpose of getting across what I’m trying to. Maybe there is a significance but if ideas are used to understand what it means to look without them, then the moment you understand that is when all of the ideas collapse. Correct? Wouldn’t dropping them all align with the speakers message? Wouldn’t it be implied that we listen to the speaker WITHOUT ideas then? Look I’m not here to be a dick. I can tell you’re not a noob to K but that’s besides the point
Yes, and I’m glad it has all collapsed for you. I look forward to your efforts to carry on where K left off.
Wouldn’t it be implied that we listen to the speaker WITHOUT ideas then?
Yes, of course, but who can do that? You say you can and I’m pleased to hear it, but haranguing us for our failure to do so does no good at all.
I can tell you’re not a noob to K
What’s a “noob”?
Lol. Well, it’s only a happy state of mind. It’s not anything to be looked for intellectually or sought out mentally. It’s right here right now just like it always will be. I guess it isn’t worth trying to express it intellectually if it will only be met with criticism, but hey I appreciate the responses