The core of the teachings part 2

I can only testify what for me the core of the teachings is.
I tried to express it in the previous thread zbout the core … but it was buried under other comments and little attention was being given.
No offence.
I take the opportunity (which i have created myself) to repeat what for me the core … is.
I could eadily say that the core are the teachings , but that should be too easy.
First of all : our brain seems not be able to see the whole, bit it is perfectly possible to see the detail and jump into it.
I guess that all that are here have encountered at some given time the beauty of a leaf that is fallen down the flight of a bird passing by in the sky, the smile on a child’s face etc … and one wonders.
Closely related to these “experiences” are ofcourse the statements that k so often maked about the observer and the observed and one wonders again.
And to end with and also related to the previous , but perhaps a good starting point to investigate: what is my relationship with nature ?

That’s not true. You can find out what K was actually saying and what he meant by what he was saying, thereby not reducing his teaching to what you have decided it is.

We’re not here to compare our impressions, theories, or beliefs about K’s teaching, but to determine what exactly he was trying to convey to his audience, even if it is incomprehensible or unfathomable.

If I reduce the teaching down to something as shallow and superficial as I, I’m less interested in what K was saying than in what I choose to believe he was saying.

If I is the problem, and K’s teaching points to the solution, who am I to say what the core of K’s teaching is?

This is what seems to be the crux of your inquiry. Can you say more? give an example? I’m afraid I’m not following.

@Inquiry : you discard completely what I was trying to say. Is this the way to start a dialogue?
May i call upon you to read my post again?
I would be very grztefull.
If not, that is also fine.

I am pleased that you took the time to read my post and for your reply.
You read some books and see some video’s from K, and you want to apply it in your daily life, otherwise it has little meaning, no?
The things I mentioned I do apply and I just wanted to talk about it.
Isn’t this what this forum is about?
I thought i gave you some examples of what I meant by it.
To clarify it a bit more : it is not as much that you jump in it (just a manner of speaking) but rather that the smile, the fower, …etc is coming to you. Isn’t it?
And then (i suppose) the whole issue of the observer and the observed can be seen in a different light. Right?

Sorry I still don’t get what you’re proposing. But what first struck me was this :

Is this true? Is this what people do? I’m surprised because that wasn’t my personal experience.
So maybe, using my imagination, maybe I do understand what you are talking about : we look at a flower - and experiment with seeing it directly (?) or something like that?

Am I at all in the right ballpark? Am I tracking you at all?

Well, it surprises me that you never have considered to do some experiments with the teachings?
Do the teachings remzin “dead letter” then?

No, experimentation never occured to me, nor was there any sense that I could get some ability or skill out of it. Maybe because I was very young (12-14 years old?)? Maybe because I wasn’t looking for answers?
I just read it like I read Carlos Castaneda, or Alan Watts (and all the other books lying around) - it was interesting, they seemed really smart and very mysterious - what I understood seemed obvious, and some of the big riddles stuck in my mind.
I especially liked the stories of lost souls coming to K and asking why they were lost - I understood that these were people coming into the presence of a wise, magical man - like the hobbits listening to Elrond, but in the real world.

Then I left home and did my best to get into trouble - any time life forced some insight into my skull, I would remember K’s riddles.

A friend of mine Pat Patterson who recently died wrote a book about Castaneda.

William Patrick Patterson’s review of The Life & Teachings of Carlos Castaneda (

Alan Watts directed me to Krishnamurti in 1985. He mentioned K in “The Wisdom of Insecurity”.

A few years prior to reading Watts I got hooked on the Castanada books, which were supposedly from his notes as an anthropologist. When it was revealed that it was all fiction, and devotees refused to believe it because they took it so seriously, I didn’t care because I found it so entertaining.

I heard a recording of a radio interview with Carlos the other day - he struck me as someone I wouldn’t buy a used car from - his writing was great though.

Let us stay with the core, and not dwell away, if I may say so.
Another thing (there are still a lot of things) that intrigued me is what the man is saying about attachment.
F.i. one is attached to a furniture or to a special mug or whatever material thing, but seeing that one is that piece of furniture is hard to believe, unless it is actual so.
Even harder to see is the attachment that one has about one’s ideas, one’s opinions, one’s experiences.
Does this ring a bell?