Krishnamurti’s answers may or may not be labeled as metaphysical when he for instance spoke about emptiness, oneness and so on. He was certainly pointing to something beyond the everyday reality as experienced by most. But it would be speculative to say how such an empty mind would or should demonstrate oneness in the world.
What do you mean? Are you wondering whether we would recognise someone who was able to love?
If so - I gotta say maybe not. Recognition is dependant on the recogniser - its not dependant on what is.
Yes, why don’t we ask why we have to fill in the punctuation and correct the mistakes of those who say we don’t question?
What is this habit of saying something about the other, while what the writer is writing is repeating the same thing? Is it that we don’t see the human being, only the individual? And as the individual, oblivious to the fact that we are all in this fragmented condition, project ourselves on others? Yet it is a strange mechanism that we can say something, about others, and not see we don’t think it is ourselves.
1 Like
Please be specific. Substantiate your oblique allegation.
It is a question of observation, not an instruction and not something to evaluate. The question and the observation is in the posting.
The “observation” is a baseless allegation.
Friends talking together is not an allegation. Please look at what is written and see if you share the questions and observations or not for yourself, thinking about it, not taking any hostility.
@Peter Are you also a practitioner of “Bohm dialogue”? Would this explain the style of expression you have been using here on Kinfonet?
A formal arrangement will only get in the way of careful looking, reading, listening, with clarity of mind.
1 Like
I think formal or informal doesn’t matter here. Because, the formal language misleads one from ‘seeing’ or ‘expressing’ what they ‘see’. Let him be as he is. Only then one can see the whole. To adhere to formal language, it prescribes some standards - so we can’t see ‘as it is’.
Let all have conversations in their own way. But one should be willing to ‘listen’.
Am I right?
1 Like
Yes - but it would facilitate understanding/communication if both interlocutors revealed any particular (special) methods of expression that they are using.
If we impose methods - it will be a conditioned conversation. We had seen many K’s discussions. We just have to ‘listen’ the flow. If one couldn’t understand the flow, the floor is open. He can express why he couldn’t. This how discussions go on.
A ‘method’ is a ‘limitation’.
and/or a tool? …
When we want to see as a ‘whole’, these ‘methods’, ‘motivations’, ‘standards’,etc… makes it see only ‘partial’. So, it misleads the purpose of our discussion. Because of this, K doesn’t prescribe any method or such.
1 Like
Hi everyone. Please join this discussion, if you wish to.
Why “listen”? That’s what’s called “scare quotes”
Just go through this - you may understand what ‘Listening’ truly means
I know what you mean. You meant to emphasize the word, but FYI, to do that you don’t use quotes - you use italics or bold type.
1 Like
Thank you
Sure I will.