It depends how they express their corroboration. If they just mimic K, they could be pretenders. If they can find their own way to articulate their corroboration, they’re more credible. There’s also the problem of confirmation bias. Once one has made K the authority, the tendency is to corroborate rather than question.
1 Like
Corroborate what, exactly? K said whatever he said and we believe him. Are you a believer, and what is it that K said that you believe?
Much of what K said was not self-evident and could only be corroborated by undergoing the change he underwent. A believer can be self-deluded enough to think he/she has undergone that change or had that insight.
You’re speaking for everyone here?
Are you a believer, and what is it that K said that you believe?
I’m not a believer. I’m trying to find out what K was trying to convey, and why he concluded that no one “got it”.
Guess so, unless someone is here to disprove Krishnamurti’s teaching. I don’t see any. Do you?
I question, respectfully, your assertion that you are not a believer. I too would consider myself as a non-believer who has been hanging around K circles for years with no intention of ever leaving. Now, why would I do that? You seem familiar with the teaching. How long have you been around?
So, it is the “change” that Krisnamurti underwent that we are after. Why would that “transformation” be not self-evident if it was something naturally human like puberty? And if it is something abnormal, why would we want it? I am questioning your motive and mine.
Because you’re a believer.
1 Like
Clearly, humanity has to undergo a radical change, an awakening, call it what you want.
Why would that “transformation” be not self-evident if it was something naturally human like puberty?
Yes, if it’s a natural change like puberty it would be evident, but according to K, no one “got” what he was talking about; no one changed. Do you know of someone who underwent this radical transformation?
Like you, I would say no, I am a non-believer. And yet, I am like a man hanging around a woman who feels no love for him. I don’t care whether I attain transformation or not. Like unrequited love, there is no reciprocity. Therefore, it matters only to me; it’s merely an attachment to the idea of transformation, not real change.
How could I tell if I have not gone through that change myself? In the case of puberty, I would be able to tell if you had gone through it even if I were nine years old and you are 16. Therefore, I am doubtful if “radical transformation” is not the same thing as what Buddhist monks are after in their struggle to achieve Nirvana.
That’s quite a confession.
Better to be hopelessly in love than hopefully engaged?
Not sure about that. I think that being satisfied have something to do with desire, its fulfiltment.
As for conclusion. The truth is not a conclusion. If you pointed to me something that I can see it is true, is it a consclusion ? Do I have to conclude anything ? A conclusion for me is something rather static, intellectual. The truth is just there, observable. Alive. Ever-changing.
I was being facetious. He was pleased with his conclusion and I couldn’t resist replying.
Good. It made me see some very interesting things.
You and the poster “I” both have to provide actual references and not foggy memories. K does dispute psychological security. One example may be found on page 72 in Commentaries On Living 1st Series entitled “Psychological Security”. copywrite 1956.
It is very important to cite references of what K said. It’s meaningless to say you sort of remember something you heard K say once, or whatever. Memories often fail or are inaccurate.
Not at all. A lot of things K said that we have a memory of but can’t find, someone else can. The KFA used to have a K concordance wherein one could find a specific quote, but it doesn’t seem to be there anymore.
Why is it important? The human consciousness - namely, me - is a repository of every thought fashioned by the mind. What everyone ever said, I said it.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. We’re talking about facts, actual things K said not your opinion of what he said. Do you know the difference?
My education, both undergraduate and graduate is in science. Memory is not an acceptable citation. You have to have the quote. It’s not only the quote that’s important but the context from which it came is often very important too. Read the reference I provided about psychological security. It doesn’t agree with what you, apparently, believe.
Scree, both you and “I” apparently don’t understand how important citations are. Memory is not substitute for what was actually said.
“Why is it important? The human consciousness - namely, me - is a repository of every thought fashioned by the mind. What everyone ever said, I said it.” quote from “I”.
Do you realize this above quote has no meaning whatsoever when it comes to citations? It doesn’t make any sense on it’s own either. I don’t care what you think you can remember. I do care exactly what the person you are referencing actually said. NOT what you think he said. Jesus, education is really in the sewer in the world today. Along with a lot else.