I never said it would be insignificant. In fact I even put it as a question: ‘How’ significant is that? And then I gave you an example of what would have ‘more’ significance. I never said it would be insignificant.
Creating a false assumption, in order to defend a position, is a common pattern of the system of thought. It reveals the difference between actually listening and analyzing by the conditioned mind. Humanity has even created a label for it: A straw man fallacy.
A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.
That’s true, but your question, “how much significance is that”?, implies “not much”, i.e., insignificant. So technically, you’re right, but honestly, you’re making much of something insignificant.
Confusing belief, which is only abstract thought imagery, for an actuality, is confusion. Thought is a useful tool for communication, but a horrible master.
Given the nature of your responses, focusing on what the “other person” is doing, versus ‘listening and looking together’, you might want to consider changing your Forum name from Inquiry to Argument.
Yes, I probably should, but I’m no less inquiring than arguing, so…
If I wasn’t “focusing on what the “other person” is doing” I wouldn’t have a clue as to what another is doing. You’re not only advocating cluelessness, but pushing the belief that we can “listen and look together”, as if we are not separated by choice. Do you not distinguish yourself from others by comparison?
Instead of trying to get people to do something they resist, why not speak to what makes them listen?
Well, I tried to convey that this manner of communicating, via email to a forum, has a tendency to come across as ‘assertions’ versus simply describing what each person is seeing. In other words, the receiver will generally tend to mistake a simple description for a dogmatic belief, where no such position is being taken. This is why being able to see and hear a person is so important, as the visual and ‘tone of voice’ is what gives us a sense of whether someone is simply sharing a perspective, versus making a dogmatic assertion. Personally, I don’t feel dogmatic assertions and open inquiry go together. This is why I rarely participate in this manner anymore, as people tend to take the suggestions as an argument. I only returned here recently as Rick asked me to share my perspective in the ‘What is fact’ thread, due to my significant familiarity with David Bohm’s work on the nature of thought. My interest in inquiry is in the manner that K described it: As two friends looking together with affection. So whenever this conversation ends I will be removing myself again from this forum, and stick with the zoom and in person dialogues I have, that help minimize this sort of reactivity.
Your straw-man accusation is as dogmatic as it gets
My interest in inquiry is in the manner that K described it.
That seems dogmatic. Why not have your own “manner” instead of what “K described”?
As two friends looking together with affection.
As if, you mean.
Yes, words on a page may not be the best way to talk about the teachings, but I find the face-to-face meetings a waste of energy. You might make some friends doing what you do, but inquiry is, ultimately, a solitary process.
K: Come here, we will talk about it, we will go into it together. Not just one person because one single person hasn’t the energy to–you understand? Suppose all of us say, “Look I have tried Transcendental, yoga, this, that, and the other, but you are saying something different, may I ask you what it is?” For two of us to meet together and discuss it is better than one person meeting me and going into it. It is a waste of time and energy. So we should have a place where people can come and say, “Look, for God’s sake, tell me.”
K: I want to go into meditation, I would like somebody with whom I can discuss, have a dialogue, because I have tried various meditations. And here comes a man who says, “Look, all that is nonsense.” And I would like to find out. He (K) is dead, gone buried, and I could find out with you, and ask, “What did he mean by it?” Have you understood?" I want to inquire, find out. I think such a place is necessary.
K: I come here from Seattle. My intention is very serious. I come to you as a group, and I want to go into this. And you say, “Let’s listen to a recording.” Yes, all right, I will listen to it. But I say, “Now let’s discuss it, you and I. I want a dialogue. I want to find out.” - A Door Open To Anyone
This assumes that if someone, somewhere, underwent the “fundamental psychological change” Krishnamurti spoke of, we would know about it. But would we? Why would we know if someone has undergone this change if the change isn’t real for us? Do we assume that anyone who undergoes this change attributes it to K’s teaching and would announce it to us, the “serious” students of the teaching?
We can’t assume that no one has changed, and we can’t assume that some or many have changed. All we can honestly say is that we haven’t changed, and that the change could happen to anyone (including those who know nothing of K’s teaching) because the change is complete awakening to the fact that the word is not the thing, the signifier is not the signified.
I don’t know if it “doesn’t matter” because it might. All I know is that I can’t know whether someone
has transformed if I have not transformed. Another thing I don’t know is whether a transformed brain would be concerned with whether others have changed.
I observe changes which one could attribute to the teaching, which could also be wishfullthinking or seeing with a colored bril.
