"That is what I would want if I went to the Centre. I would be sensitive enough to quickly capture what K is saying. At lunch, or walking, or in the sitting room, I might like to discuss. I might say, ‘I didn’t understand what he meant by that, let’s talk about it’ – not, ‘You tell me about it, or 'I know better,’ but ‘Let’s go into it.’ So it will be a living thing.
The Centre will be a place for all serious people who have left behind their nationality, their sectarian beliefs and all the other things that divide human beings."
It seems to me that we need two different spaces on Kinfonet.
In one space anyone who feels that they have had an insight which separates them from other people and makes them more spiritual or thought-free or more ego-less than others can hang out.
They can be joined by anyone who supports, defends, sustains or nourishes this kind of potential narcissism, or who feels that Krishnamurti is not worth studying anymore because they’ve already “done that”…
In this space can also be those people who have no interest in Krishnamurti because they are convinced that they know better than Krishnamurti about most things, or because they feel that Krishnamurti was deeply flawed and so not worth studying, or because their own theories are more absorbing than finding out what Krishnamurti had to say about things.
This space will be quite full, going on past precedent.
Then, in the other space, the second space, can go anyone who is actually interested in exploring, discussing or enquiring into what Krishnamurti had to say - not from the point of view of having superior insight, and not from the point of view of thinking that one knows better because one has some other theory as one’s final authority. But simply because one does not have the fundamental answers to life, who is willing to start from scratch, not knowing what true, abiding insight is, or what fundamental transformation is (except intellectually, for the sake of using words with their correct meanings, and not getting perpetually side-tracked by those who, in their heart of hearts, have no interest in understanding what Krishnamurti meant, etc).
This space will be more empty, but there will at least be a sense of shared inquiry for the few who hang out there.
I think this is a very sensible solution. Conditions have to be right if there is any possibility of real inquiry taking place into what K spent his life talking about. It does seem a bit pointless to spend hours debating amongst a group of people where there is very little chance of any kind of meeting of minds. It’s a pity because there are really so few of us on Kinfonet but having two separate spaces makes a lot of sense to me.
I wasn’t actually being literal about the two spaces! (though doubtless Dev could facilitate this technically if he wanted to). It’s just that this is where we in fact are, isn’t it? We already have a de facto two spaces, it’s just that at present so much energy goes into attempting to bring these spaces together, and I don’t feel anymore that they can.
Dividing the forum might work well, might not. Would be a good experiment, shake things up.
I see the divide quite simply: Krishnamurti-centric, issue-centric. For example, the former group might talk about Krishnamurti’s view of the self, and the latter about the self in general. It doesn’t have to be complicated, there just needs to be enough space for all to feel safe and welcome.
I think we need to rewrite the guidelines to make it clear that Kinfonet is meant to be a place to discuss - yes discuss, not dialog, that word has taken on such strange connotation in the K world - the teaching.
There are tons of places for people who are done exploring the teachings, that have come to some kind of satisfactory understanding that they feel can be applied to their daily lives. The American foundation has all kinds of programs with titles like Yoga and Self-Inquiry. (I am not knocking the Foundations. They are doing important work preserving the teachings in original form. They need donations to do so. They have to have broad appeal ,I guess.) Then there are dialog groups galore where people are happy to mansplain aspects of the teachings to one another or practice being in “true relationship”, etc.
I know of no other space like this one where people can collectively study them in earnest. Objectively. Just to get at what he is saying. In an ordinary, non-esoteric sense. Which is not to discount the esoteric nature of the subject matter.
Like K reputedly once said when asked what he thought about Ramana Maharshi who was speaking in a nearby town; He is good over there and I am good here.
No need to create anything a separate anything.
There is a tendency here by some members to label, name, shame, heckle persons who don’t agree with the habit they have developed. They label these persons as something, try to create a division to drive them away. They want a safe space for their habit and anyone who questions their habit is attacked. If you are not interested in something you have the option to ignore. But they will not ignore, they will attack. The forum has become almost an addiction to them. So if someone questions that, they are attacked.
Anyway I am not interested, so I will leave. Bye.
Hello Dev and all. On reflection, I’d say that re-writing the guidelines and establishing clarity as to what Kinfonet is about is a much better idea than creating two separate spaces.
There is no point in someone being on a thread where they think they are exploring the teachings with someone else who thinks they already have the answer to what is being discussed. There is an inherent mismatch here which will lead to frustration on both sides.
In all honesty, I’m not sure why someone who thinks they already have the answer and “knows” about the teachings would join a debate where some participants think they are exploring and investigating. No offence is meant here, I am genuinely confused by this.
Unconscious bullying? Because they believe they know better and want to help those they perceive as being caught in the throes of the intellect? Because they feel compelled to teach, to instruct, to advise, despite being expressly asked not to? Because they are no Krishnamurti, lacking the sensitivity of a born teacher? Because they are acting from a conclusion but genuinely feel otherwise? Could be for a variety of reasons.
Question: Can one help others by influencing them consciously?
Krishnamurti: If you think you are wiser than anybody else, then you interfere. I would never voluntarily interfere with anybody unless they asked me to interfere and asked my advice.
Thanks for answering Dev. I’m sure the reasons in the list above are very relevant.
The problem, as I see it, is that we all have blind spots and are often unaware of how we are coming across. For example, sometimes it is pointed out to people on this forum that they are being a bit “preachy”. I would say that such feedback is often ignored and often causes offence. if I was receiving feedback like this, especially if it was being given from a variety of people, I would hope it would make me seriously reflect on my behaviour. I’m not sure that this type of feedback actually has much effect in practice though.
Will re-writing the guidelines and making things crystal clear be enough? Will blind spots prevent people seeing that they are adopting an “I know and you don’t know” position? It is certainly worth a try in my humble opinion as a guest on this forum.
Just to be clear, Sean, the intent is not to hamstring a healthy examination of the teachings. For everyone to have the same interpretation. For there to be universal agreement. Disagreement as to interpretation is bound to be case, as it should be, That is why we are here. To clarify our own thoughts and feelings for ourselves and to stimulate each other to do the same. And, of course, to learn from each other, negatively or positively. We can each of us give our reasons as to why we think what we think and why we think the other is right or wrong. But this is a difference of opinion. Between people who have opinions, judgements, (unbelievable that that needs to be spelled out!) applying themselves to the best of their ability to get a clear and true understanding what K is suggesting. We don’t want to create an atmosphere where participants are scared of offending someone else because they have a different interpretation of something in particular. Or to make people feel that at every turn they have to preface whatever they say with “in my view”, “as I see it”, etc. It should be the de facto given that none of us is speaking from a state of self-realization.
The problem isn’t interpretation. The problem is authority.
When the kind of authority figures that Krishnamurti warned about come into the picture. When someone feels what they are feeling or thinking is somehow not a conclusion based on thought. Someone who no longer has the capacity to doubt the veracity of what they think. People who are no longer actively looking at the teachings for whatever reason. Who feel they have risen above or have gone beyond the need to get a clear vision of what Krishnamurti is articulating. They may well have figured it all out, are able to bat away psychological thought as it arises, don’t have images of others or themself, and so on though I, for one, frankly doubt it. Regardless, as I said elsewhere, this is no longer the place for them. We are students of the teachings here, not graduates. We already have one living expert - the teachings, in pure unadulterated form - we have no need of another.
This forum is for people wishing to engage in a group study of the teachings. Living the teachings, whatever that means, is not a group activity, It is a purely individual affair.