I would agree with that.
Right, and thatâs radically re-defining âreligionâ as it is ordinarily used. Nobody outside of the K-world regards religion as the discovery of Truth - quite the opposite, in fact.
Krishnamurti referred to himself as âa religious manâ, but he was probably the only one to do so because the word meant something completely different to him than it means to everyone else.
I am reminded of that dialogue with Laura Huxley where he said exactly this phrase. But the description he gave for it is an example of how much scriptural content from Hinduism went to his understanding. Speaking about masculine and feminine aspects, being absolutely alone and having no centre etc. are the meeting point of Sankhya, Vedanta and Yoga. I am considering that he carried the Theosophical societies influence all along which in turn has derived much of itâs content from the Hindu scriptures.
This I think is what we may be missing. That there is a âdimensionâ apart from the one that our senses are attuned to and that would explain a lot of what we donât understand? For example âgrowthââŚwhich we experience as a process that happens over âtimeâ. First the seed then the shoot ,the flower, etc, etc. And which ends in âdeathâ. But that the thing ltself ,was ,is and âalwaysâ will beâŚIn our 'dimension, the growth over âtimeâ is only the limited perception, an illusion of our senses⌠But there may be this âotherâ ,and this I feel, is what K. lamented :âŚthat we live and die without perceiving that âimmensityâ, the âimmeasurableââŚThat the world of birth, life, death,; the world of âbecomingâ is a perception of our âdimensionalâ perceptivity. It is an illusion of our senses. That the All, actually, IS. And importantly, that this âtruerâ perception is accessible by us.
That,⌠actually, there is no âbecoming,â⌠everything,⌠everyone,⌠already IS. He intimated that perception I think, when he said , why hold onto your attachments, youâre already dead? You have already died. Your death has already taken place⌠This also helps for me to explain his âsecretâ: âI donât mind what happensâ.
No need to speculate. Just consult the dictionary. Itâs unlikely that K was using the word idiosyncratically.
It must be a horrible thing to be so conditioned by a particular belief, like a religion, that you canât see anything new without first going through the heavy filter of what you already have learned and believe in.
Personally, I saw through Christianity when I was about 9 years old. I could see that it was almost complete BS. We have people in this country, the US, who are completely blinded by nationalism, for example, and are lead to support a narcissistic sociopath and who, themselves, have become Fascists. All because they have been blinded by conditioning and stupidity too, of course.
OK, whatâs your point?
I think you are missing the point again. Itâs not what K meant by immeasurable, itâs the way you have misinterpreted what he said and what he meant.
And didnât you just point out above that K uses some words, a religion man, much differently than anyone else? So why is it unlikely, in your opinion, that he used one word or phrase differently than everyone else and it was highly âunlikely that k was using the word idiosyncraticallyâ? Seems to be a conflict here. But then thought is conflict as K so often pointed out. Perhaps if you didnât think so much, come to conclusions so much you would understand what K is saying better?
Some words can be given special meaning and some cannot. âReligionâ is one that can be used to denote the opposite of its common usage. âImmeasurableâ, however, can only be taken literally.
Idiosyncratic behavior follows no principle and is not consistent.
What I am trying to get you to see is that thought is the essence of psychological time. Chronological time has nothing to do with thought. Chronological time has been since the Universe began. It has nothing to do with thought.
You are presuming I donât know the meaning of âimmensurableâ! (
and you are presuming I did not understand your argument about measure, thought and timeâŚ
God bless you Kimo and your naivety.
Speculation: I think I read all your posts about this issue with JP, and itâs just a futile and stubborn way to approach K.'s teaching. I already explained to you why but Iâll try a second time.
K.'s intention in that speech, like in all his speeches, was that of pointing out the cause of our pshycological problem and of our conflicts. This is the main point, the main issue, the ONLY thing which is important, pratical, real.
All your argument deals with side issues (like the definition of chronological time) which have no importance in helping ourselves to know how our mind works and so to find a solution. And this is mere futile speculation. Speculation can be useful if and only leads to some practical realization otherwise is a waste of time. Can you see this point?
As I have said, the main important point is to understand the difference between time by the watch, I. e. time which can be measured, and an immaginary time we introduce to achieve our ambitions and so on. If you have understood this, there is nothing else to be understood but only the practical work to see this phenomenon in yourself. All the rest is - to use an expression we have in Italy - intellectual masturbation.
Just to clarify - I was referring to Spacetime - which is used in Physics to predict how different observers perceive where and when events occur differently. (Wikipedia)
If I was to somehow squish spacetime into what you seem to be saying (just for fun) itâd go something like : Part of our confusion arises from the conflict between past confusion interacting with our present confusion.
If K behaved like this no wonder we are confused - But my hypothesis is that the teaching is difficult to understand because it is about understanding - that explaining how understanding works to the thing that is used to understand is a ball off knots. (Or more accurately : trying to explain confusion to a confused person is a ball of knots)
I was under the impression that Krishnamurti chose his words carefully, like a master craftsman, they were his tools - He discusses the meaning of words, he explains why he uses particular words and why he no longer uses other words.
Please consider these Dictionary definitions :
Immeasurable - Incapable of being measured (boundless)
Religious (archaic) - Conscientious, meticulous, scrupulous. (honest)
Religious - Sacred
Religious - Devotion to ultimate reality
Religious - Devotion to beliefs and observances relative to a deity
So, nothing surprising about âimmeasurableâ but âreligiousâ on the other hand has at least 2 meanings - so anyone using those meanings is not just taking confusing liberties with language.
1 Like
No âmyâ other dimension (64/72) doesnât âsquishâ. It is the dimension where as the old saying goes: all is one. Our "confusion arises because not seeing this âall is oneâ condition, thought has created a âfutureâ and then frets about how things will turn outâŚLike a movie that has already been shot, the end is right there with the beginning. Without an understanding of this possibility of âall is oneâ, thought can also âlook backâ and wish that such and such had been different, that things had turned out differently than they are, etcâŚmore fretting because of the missing perception, that there is only âwhat isâ. So K.'s not-minding what happens is an indication to me that the âradical transformationâ spoken of, has to do with the realization of this situation that all is one. When he suggests letting go all the psychological attachments, weâve made through a fear of not being âconnectedâ, of not feeling âsafe and secureâ he says youâve already died, your death has already taken place. Why hold on to them when freedom from all that is possible? The âholding onâ then, comes from a false, incomplete perception of what and âwhereâ we are.
I put this out because it is interesting to me. Others have written about it. I thought it worth consideration.
This is true and yet language, all language is a limited way of communication. Words may convey different meanings. We can find a sufficient precision or approximation when talking about material objects, and scientific language tries to reach this precision, but when one talks of invisible things, of the pschycolgical realm or worse of spirituality, then words, language is a mined field. Inquiry is a good example of this, he thinks that K. is using words in a Idiosyncratic way and heâs not aware that he is understanding them in a Idiosyncratic way!
What mind are you talking about?
Not true, thought is limited by itâs own knowledge and experience. How can thought be limited by time? Thought is psychological time and K often has pointed out. Where do you come up with this stuff?
1 Like
Chronological time is measurement of time, and didnât begin until humans invented chronometersâŚeverything from Stonehenge to the atomic clock.
2 Likes
AgreedâŚknowledge is never complete, K often said. Therefore itâs limited. Experience is obviously limited as well. Thought is based upon knowledge and experienceâŚmemory.
You couldnât be more wrong. Humans invented the terms to describe and measure chronological time but they didnât invent chronological time. Chronological time is the movement of time from the past to now. Itâs the movement of time between your breakfast and lunch. Itâs the movement of time from when you were born to now. Psychological time is the movement of thought; I was this in the past and I will be this other thing in the future.
You donât even understand your posted definition of chronology and you certainly donât understand what K pointed out about chronological and psychological times.
Why donât you stop dreaming up these really ignorant conclusions and stop trying to rewrite what K has pointed out. You are doing a disservice to yourself and everyone who believes or is misled by your delusions.
Do you really suppose the whole Universe only began when humans evolved here on earth? Thatâs pathetically laughable for anyone to believe that.
1 Like
**Thank you T-P I was going to let my message go at the first sentence but I was informed mechanically that we have to have at least 20 characters. Iâve never done well with rules.