Open Dialogue as a form of inquiry

Kinfonet Discussion
1

Is this a method of dialogue that we (regular participants) would like to see more often on Kinfonet? (rather than just debate ie. the confrontation of opinions)

What is it? What are its particularities? How does it work? What does it look like in practise? Is it possible?

2

I’am sure in for something different from what’s common on this forum,

But at the same time there are coming a few question above!

So What do you mean by ’ method’ , ‘open’ and ‘dialogue’?

3

I can share what makes me (not)engage in this forum.

  1. It is a big plus for me if the main topic is formulated in such a way that I see immediately that there is depth in it.
  2. I do not read posts that are long ( more then 2 short paragraphs)
  3. I abandon any discussion that has accumulated an overwhelming # of replies.
  4. I refuse to enter discussions that are conflictual, from my point of view.
  5. I seem to connect easier with some people then others.
4

This is what we are seeing pretty much all the time : conflict.
And I suppose this is because we feel that there is something that needs to be defended (whether it be our egos, our beliefs, or even the proper interpretation of the teachings)
Maybe some of us (for whatever reason - eg. neurological trauma, lack of sensitivity etc) are not capable of seeing the defensive process at work, or are unable to stop ourselves lashing out even when we do recognise the violence. (I feel like saying : God have mercy on our souls - but I don’t know what that means, so let us all shed a tear instead - anyway I’ll stop with this line of thought for a moment)

I have no authority on the matter - really, I am a beginner - I am learning with all the people here that are interested in the matter.

I think that the first rule of dialogue (rule number 1) is fearlessness. (and curiosity, rule 1a)
The second particularity of “open inquiry” would be curiosity (again) about what is happening (ie someone is saying something) - are we able to listen (without fear of being “contaminated” or hope of being “saved”) and see what is being said and why (eg. what is the state of the speaker?) ? Do we care? Or are we interested in something else completely? (my ideas, my needs, my solutions? the truth? etc)

If we did care about understanding what is being said by the speaker, what would we do? (some kind of yet undefined magical listening? ask questions?)

What is the goal of dialogue? Stating the truth? Inquiry into whatever is happening? Accumulation of data for some future goal?

5

Why? Those are usually the most interesting discussions.

6

Yea…
I’ll respond in a Minute :slightly_smiling_face:

7

Hi all,
when I have expectations or am trying to avoid something the interaction with others seems to be no longer open already.
If I get frustrated while interacting this is pointing to my motives and aims.
I once thought it could be possible to simply talk with each other and found out the many possibilities to misunderstand each other.

1 Like
8

Dear Inquiry

My difficulty is this:

  • I can’t inquire when there is a lot to read; when I do reply is usually to a new theme, at the beginning; later on, if the initial theme spreads out in many responses, I have to read carefully each response, which takes me a lot of time, and it feels like I am jumping from one mind to another, in a short span of time. I can’t do it ! I feel I am superficially going through peoples individual inquiry. Is like I am moving from one room to another, too quickly, with a lot of stuff to “digest”.
9

“Why? Those are usually the most interesting discussions.” - you say …

Yes, maybe they are but I can’t do it

10

If there is a “proper interpretation” of K’s teachings, maybe those who work for the foundations know what it is, but those of us in these discussion groups clearly do not.

If the moderator (or an algorithm) knows what Krishnamurti intended to convey by what he said and why he put it that way, then every time someone in the group gets it wrong, something like spellcheck (K-check?) would flash red.

Then again, if Krishnamurti would be horrified to know that his teaching was boiled down to bare bones, we shouldn’t touch it, and hold our own notions of what he was saying.

11

Find out if anyone has a better idea of “what is being said by the speaker”.

What is the goal of dialogue? Stating the truth? Inquiry into whatever is happening? Accumulation of data for some future goal?

In our case, inquiring into what K meant when he said what he said, and why he said it that way instead of a better way. My apologies to all those who feel K’s use of the language was impeccable.

12

Waoh! (is this the same as my proposition : accumulation of data for some future goal?) If this is true, should we even entertain the idea of “conscious dialogue”? Maybe thats just putting the cart before the horse then? jumping the gun, idiots pretending to be Buddhas?

When asked to define the core of his teachings, K said this :

Truth is a pathless land’. We cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. We have to find it through the mirror of relationship,…through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.
Man has built in himself images as a fence of security – religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man’s thinking, his relationships and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man.

I suppose when we are confronted by this kind of talk, it is conceivable that someone (like Bohm) might come up with the idea of “conscious dialogue” (ie. dialogue as a “mirror of relationship”)

13

And it is my observation that that is exactly what is going on in the forum right now.

I.e.: The poisonous snake is discussed but not observed let alone watched.

14

No, not at all. When someone says something and I’m not sure what they mean by it, I inquire to find out what they mean; why they put it in such a way that it isn’t clear. For instance, why did you mistake what I said for what you suspect some are doing?

If this is true, should we even entertain the idea of “conscious dialogue”?

Depends what you mean by “conscious”. According to K, consciousness is its content, and content is the problem, if I’m not mistaken.

Maybe thats just putting the cart before the horse then? jumping the gun, idiots pretending to be Buddhas?

There are always the pretenders and we humor them, ignore them, or tell them they’re fulavit.

We have to find it [truth] through the mirror of relationship,…through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.

According to K’s meaning of “observation”, we can’t find truth until we’re free of the known, free of psychological thought, so what we’re doing is futile.

I suppose when we are confronted by this kind of talk, it is conceivable that someone (like Bohm) might come up with the idea of “conscious dialogue” (ie. dialogue as a “mirror of relationship”)

It’s all we’ve got. We can only work with what we have, and since K said that we can’t find truth without the freedom to observe, all we can do is what we’re doing.

15

You can’t know that Wim, we keep our eye on on ourselves or not. No one can do it for us . We’re ‘conditioned ‘ not to do it. Conditioned not to ‘listen’ to ourselves or anyone else.
Also can’t know how close someone ‘fumbling around’, how close they are to realizing that they can listen to themselves.

16

Care to tell us what “the poisonous snake” is? Or is such knowledge granted only to a few?

17

Inquiry (please don’t mind !!)
I also wonder, who are you ? :face_with_hand_over_mouth:
Have we met in our live dialogues ?
Let me tell you this: in my beginning here, in the forum, you sounded to me ….a bit mean, but I think I start to see it as … humor !

Win,yea, I also want to know who are these elements, the snake and the poison, the 2-In-1 trouble ?

18

Dan, Have I spoken of knowledge?

Very carefully and deliberately the word observation was used, knowing that the snake also lurks inside me.

If anyone thinks they have to draw conclusions from that, the snake has spread its venom

19

You say that the mirror of relationship is discussed but not observed?
The theme of this thread is “dialogue” - does “attention to the contents of our consciousness” change the quality of our discussions?

Of course the best way to find out would be to pay attention to the “contents of our consciousness” whilst we are engaged in dialogue - and then maybe share our findings. (ie. what is this experience of conflict and confusion all about?)

Other questions, that have arisen in this thread are : do we know what attention to the contents of our consciousness means? Do we even understand why we should do such a thing?

Are we slaves to the contents of our consciousness? Do we actually have to realise first what suffering/self is, before listening is possible?

20

Listening, awareness, is possible now. There are many reasons for not doing it. It takes ‘energy’ it seems to “step out of the stream”? There has to be an understanding of ‘why’ it is necessary.
But there has to be The doing of it.

2 Likes