I remember the quote you’re referring to, and I’m waiting for you to provide it.
Read what K said again and try to understand it with out your own personal beliefs getting in the way
It’s not a matter of “personal beliefs” - it’s a matter of how Krishnamurti used the language. For example, he re-defined “religion” to sound more like science than superstition, and his tendency to do this with certain words must be taken into account. For someone who is aware of what most of us are not, communication is a challenge because there are no words that can adequately denote or describe that awareness.
Reading K’s words is more a matter of realizing what he was trying to say than assuming his use of the language was scientifically precise, unambiguous, or infallible. When he said we failed to “get it”, he was acknowledging his own limitations in conveying it as much as our failure to receive it.
No, actually, what K said was that religion is the discovery of Truth.
K had no tendency to do this. This is part of your rationalization to protect your misconception of what time is. In the quote I put up where K explained the two kinds of time the words he used were very clear. Pardon me, but your desperation is showing. Wouldn’t it be easier just to see what the chronological and psychological times are? They are fairly self-evident.
Not in my view. His use of words like meditation, attention and death for example bear little resemblance to everyday usage.
And religion too in the sense he uses it - as an interest in discerning what is true – is much closer in spirit to the rigor of science as opposed to the make-belief of religion.
Not that he is equating religion with science, But that is not @inquiry is saying. He/she was merely pointing out the limitation of words and the difficulty of communication.
Well, actually, inquiry, is trying desperately to rationalize her view of time as correct opposed to K’s very simple quote on time. There are no “tricky” confusing words in K’s simple description of psychological time and chronological time. Inquiry is mistaken in her understanding with regard to the way K describes the two times. I think I’ll stick with K’s explanation. It’s so clear and simple.
As I recall, Krishnamurti described “psychological time” as what he also referred to as “becoming”, i.e., I am this now but will be that, later. I also recall his referring to chronological time as what we commonly think of as time. If you could provide the quote that would help.
All of us here are sticking with K’s explanations. But it’s a mistake to give greater importance to the letter of his teaching than to its intention. It is not literature or science.
The KFA is seeing to it that the teaching is preserved as it was spoken and written, and Dr. Moody is cautioning against attempts to interpret the teaching, so there’s no need to suspect any of us here of trying to subvert, dispute, or misrepresent the teaching. I’m simply stating the obvious that he used certain words to signify something other than their common usage did. Chronological time is measured time - not the thing itself, which is immeasurable.
Well, it appears to me that you rejected K’s very simple explanation of time, both kinds. I don’t agree with or see why you would divide what K has said into " the letter of his teaching than to its intention." This is a false division and an attempt to fragment what K has pointed out.
Also, what K pointed out is very much like science or was science. Dr. Bohm, a theoretical physicist who’s interest was the quantum theory, was drawn to K. Some of the things K pointed out were even similar to what physics had come to.
Also, K saw things, not as a theory or philosophy but as truth. For example; we are conditioned by our experiences and knowledge. Dr. Bohm compared K’s teachings to several theories held by science and when I find where I read this I will be glad to provide a citation. In the meantime, since you seem to have your own unshakable interpretation in what K pointed out, I don’t see any point in going on with responding to your posts.
Yes, this is how it appears to you, but as you know, appearances can be deceptive.
since you seem to have your own unshakable interpretation in what K pointed out I don’t see any point in going on with responding to your posts.
I’m sorry this is how it seems to you, but I’m only pointing out that Krishnamurti was not infallible in his use of the language - I’m not disputing the teaching itself.
I don’t see any point in going on with responding to your posts.
Yes, considering your suspicion, it would be best to quit responding to my posts.
This would be division, wouldn’t it? Breaking up is throwing in the towel. Krishnamurti never threw in the towel. He kept trying to reach us till he died.
Conflict is division. My thought vs your thought is division. When I am seen, the towel drops of its own accord.
Are we capable of listening and understanding? Not understanding K is no different from not understanding a Mr. Nobody - the only difference comes from our dependance on appearances.
Can we see without judging? For that judgement is thought, that judgement is me.
May I add my two pence to this interesting discussion of yours in a collaborative spirit?
One aspect of our mind is measuring, comparing. Is that bad in absolute? No, it’s a necessity in daily life and all science is based on measuring. Measuring becomes destructive when I apply it to the psychological realm, that is the field of ourselves and our relationships. I’m more intelligent than you. I’m poor and you are rich, that’s not fair!
Now your statement about time: why you ask “what was time before we conditioned ourselves and each other to measure the ongoing process of life”? This is a metaphysical question, i. e. an attempt to define and explain cosmos with words, with intellect. It’s useless. Metaphysics was created in ancient Greece and was the forefather of science. It didn’t help man to live better or to understand sufficiently the world, so it was put aside when science came up.
The speech of K. about chronological and psychological time is neither metaphysical or scientific, it’s just common sense without any claim to be exact. We can also say that it’s a self-evident assertion and it’s immensely useful to understand ourselves. There is time: today, tomorrow, yesterday. We don’t know what it is but it is there and - what’s more important - we can use it. Only a philosopher with his mind in a cloud or in a metaphysical world would deny its existence and its usefulness. We can speculate a world without time, but that is just speculation.
But the point – the main point and the most important one – K. wanted to stress is that there is no problem with chronological time while all our problems comes with psychological time: I’ll get richer, I’ve been hurt, I hope to get a job. Now once you understand this difference, what is the point in discussing whether chronological time is real or not?
Chronological time is a measurement - not the thing itself, just as thought is only a description. Similarly, Krishnamurti used the word “observation” for seeing directly, immediately, not methodically, which is the what the word means in common usage.
What was Krishnamurti referring to when he spoke of the “immeasurable”? Did he mean that the procession and duration of unfolding events, i.e., life, when measured is not the thing itself? If that’s true, then our measurement of it, what we call “time”, is not the thing itself.
So, can the mind quit measuring and behold what-without measur? Can the mind suspend its conditioned response to the ongoing process of life as it is, untouched by the mind?
Chronological time could be argued to be the measurement of time. The measurement of the thing being in this case the actual thing.
Time on the other hand being a description of a lot of other concepts, including sometimes chronological time, a 4th dimension of reality (?!), a succession of moments etc…
Semantics aside, isn’t what we are really trying to figure out our relationship to those concepts - Our emotional, subjective relationship to being and becoming. Our Psychological relationship to the passing of time. Psychological time.
In other words how the concept of time affects the concept of self. (Relationship is key)
Your are not only badly confused but you are confusing two things, or more. Chronological time IS. We use it to run our lives, keep records. Just as we use practical thought to do all those things that life requires us to do everyday. What K said about the “immeasurable” has nothing whatever to do with chronological time. You are a certain age. You were born you will die. That is chronological time. Why do you make it so complicated? It’s not really. K explained it so succinctly and clearly.
Do you see how it is likely that your own limited thought, as all thought is, is trying to make a simple fact difficult? This is not the first time.
My answer refers to your whole post and not only to the above sentence.
Kimo, I don’t want to be inpolite or unkind but my mentioning methaphysics produced no effect.
You must understand one simple and important thing if you want to discuss with me, Methaphysics can be a wonderful way to spend time but I’m not interested in it. I’m not interested in speculation which do not help me in my real, day to day life. I do speculate some time here, but just like a game, a play, not giving much importance to it.
We can speculate for one hundred years or more about what K. meant with “immensurable” and at the end we will have nothing in our hands or heart. To me immensurable means simply another way to call God. We can call it in a thousands way but we will always be empty-handed.
Let’s say immeasurable is timelessness, but to use the word ‘time’ to imply timelessness (as I see that’s what your point is) is to include paradoxes in the sentences he uses. I agree with that observation, but the deeper implication is that paradoxes becomes meaningful only when two sets of reality, or rather two equally valid perspectives on any given situation interacts with each other. Another example is that living and dying becomes a part of the same movement.
