Learning about this forum has not been easy for me. Is it too complicated?
There is plenty of fragmentation: individuals with different personalities and views. But not much unity.
And Iâd guess that the kind of mind thatâs drawn to Krishnamurti tends to be drawn to complication.
Unfortunately, several of the persons posting on this forum have no interest in Krishnamurtiâs teachings, but are merely hanging around for their own gratification. And some others are fanatics (of one description or another). So - you are learning - to be a light unto yourself. Right?
If thatâs true, itâs worse than I thought.
Is life complicated or do we make life complicated?
Is this not a typically human activity that cannot be observed in the rest of nature?
Hello Examiner. Do you mean the way the forum works is complicated or that the teachings are complicated?
It was âtrueâ (or felt partially true) in the heat of the moment - but the reality is of course more nuanced, more interesting (and more banal) than that.
This forum is simply what we collectively make it to be. So each of us shares some responsibility for how it is.
And if it can be worse, it also means it can be better. Maybe we can contribute to that?
1 Like
Hello James. This is very much how I see things. I get the feeling that to someone who is new to this forum, the first impression is that itâs not a very friendly place. Why this is so, I have no idea. After all, Kâs message was surely one of great humanity, sensitivity and compassion, was it not?
Yes - although perhaps this is partly due to the nature of the forum itself? (I have noticed this same atmosphere on many other online forums too).
It is digital (i.e. we do not meet face to face, in person) and verbal (tending to attract people who feel more comfortable expressing themselves in a literary form, behind a keyboard); which means that other (perhaps more gently sociable?) people - who may be genuinely interested in these matters - are simply elsewhere (dealing with their families, their relationships, their work, in Krishnamurti schools or real communities of one kind or another).
So this maybe explains, to some degree, the preponderance of âporcupinesâ (if you will) on the site.
Then there are Krishnamurtiâs teachings themselves. One might wish that they were straightforwardly simple, but there are subtleties and some (at least verbal) complexities in his teaching, which exist despite what one assumes was the total simplicity of Krishnamurtiâs mind.
If the teaching was simply âdo what is good, avoid what is badâ (which it may actually be on some level!), then I doubt there would be so much verbal acrimony. But because Krishnamurti used words in a very particular way - such as intelligence, thought, knowledge, experience, time, measurement, the observer and the observed, reality and actuality, what is meant by the word consciousness, etc - it can give rise to misunderstandings and a multitude of different interpretations.
This is not Krishnamurtiâs fault - he attempted to communicate his insight as accurately and as expansively as he was able; but it is the problem with all verbal communication that it is liable to be misinterpreted, misheard, misunderstood, or plain mistaken for something which it isnât.
Then one has to factor in all the different personalities here, all the different conditionings, age groups, temperaments - each one seeing something in the teaching that another has missed, or missing something that another picks up more easily (based on the different ways we each use words, our differing capacities, our aptitudes).
How is all this to be ironed-out so that there is some harmony above all the disharmony? It is difficult, isnât it? And fundamentally it depends on each one of us doing âthe workâ by ourselves, discovering whatever clarity there can be inwardly, in our solitude, which we then bring into our relationship with other people on this forum. And learning from our reactions when we are rightly challenged (or misunderstood).
Truth is ultimately open, public after all. It is for each of us to discover, despite our perceived differences. An expanded âattitudeâ of friendship might acknowledge that, and look past our verbal limitations (without ignoring them either).
What do you think?
3 Likes
Simplicity,
Au contraire, Kâs teachings are simple, it is only the complicated brain, the brain that has been conditioned by complicated events in their life that sees complications when there are none. There is the seeing, the observation of those who spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to understand what K meant by this or that, who make âwhat isâ simple complicated.
When one is bothered by some of the mischief of complicated brains, that is actually an indication that one is having a reaction to what one is seeing/observing; and, therefore, it is an opportunity, an occasion to see and understand oneâs self⌠The art of learning means that one is learning about oneâs self, right?
Please understand, that one is not responsible for the choices that others make, i.e. to act out their conditioning, etc. And as K stated and suggested, donât bother with them. One canât âhelpâ them - which is a horror in itself. One canât change the âotherâ. One can only work on oneselfâŚ, right?, trust this is clearâŚ
2 Likes
Yes, I meant that but other stuff came out which are interesting.
All I meant is that it is a practical fact that many people who do regard themselves as simple still struggle to understand many of the things that K has said.
A complicated brain will of course complicate what is simple, but aside from whether or not Krishnamurtiâs teachings are simple in themselves, the comprehension of his expression requires a certain degree of familiarity with the language he uses.
I have a certain friend who I am close to. They are not intellectual, but they are intelligent (in the ordinary sense), bright, curious, and open-minded. And I once invited them to watch with me a talk by K (they hadnât read any of his books).
And they found it difficult to follow what Krishnamurti meant by certain words - âthoughtâ, âtimeâ, âconsciousness and its contentsâ, the âanalyser and the analysedâ. Not because my friend was over-complicating what K was saying, but because this was completely new to them. So they didnât understand these things. However, they did pick up that Krishnamurti was serious, that he rejected religion and nationalism, that we ought to observe ourselves, and that we are completely responsible for the mess in the world.
So my friend did pick up some aspects of Krishnamurtiâs teachings - while other aspects they found too difficult at that time (the word my friend used was âcomplicatedâ).
So on a forum like this, one ought not be surprised that what some people find simple, others may find complicated, and vice versa - and our dialogues/conversations are in part an attempt to rectify that, to share that - to enquire together without assuming that everyone understands the same thing when using a particular word.
1 Like
James
This is a patently false conclusion. The understanding of his expressions depends on whether or not someone is actually aware and attending to âwhat is happeningâ inside. Hence, the understanding or âcomprehensionâ is always after the fact of having seen and understood âwhat isâ.
The usage of the word âcomplicatedâ on the part of your friend was projection. Obviously, you did not see that and still do not see that, because you accepted his judgement as a conclusion, instead of seeing that the observer is the observed, right? A conclusion/judgement is always an opinion about a fact, so saying it was complicated was an opinion (based on his conditioning) about the fact that he did not understandâŚ
- âThere is no intellectual understanding; either we understand, or we donât. This dividing of ourselves into watertight compartments is another of our absurdities. It is better to admit to ourselves that we do not understand, than to maintain that there is an intellectual understanding, which only breeds arrogance and self-imposed conflict.â
K: Commentaries on Living, Series III, Ch. 4. âCan One Know What Is Good for the People?
James,
There is a big difference between enquiring and seeking an answer. Usually, in the latter case, seeking implies seeking agreement or debating over understanding what something might mean. But that isnât enquiry, is it? Enquiry is exploring with another through one question where both put aside each otherâs opinions, beliefs, ideas, etc. isnât it? Just expressing opinions isnât enquiry at all, got it? Thatâs debate, right?
- âWhen you want experience in the religious field, you want it because you have not solved your problems, your daily anxieties, despairs, fears and sorrows, therefore you want something more. In that demand for more lies deception. That is fairly logical and true, I think. Not that logic is always true, but when one uses logic and reason healthily, sanely, one knows the limitations of reason. The demand for wider, deeper, more fundamental experiences only leads to a further extension of the path of the known. I think that is clear, and I hope we are communicating, sharing with each other.
âThen also in this religious enquiry one is seeking to find out what truth is, if there is a reality, if there is such a thing as a state of mind that is beyond time. Search again implies a seeker - doesnât it? - and what is he seeking? How will he know that what he has found in his search is true? Again, if he finds what is true - at least what he thinks is true - that depends on his conditioning, on his knowledge, on his past experiences; search then merely becomes a further projection of his own past hopes, fears and longings.
âA mind that is enquiring - not seeking - must be totally free of these two, that is, of the demand for experience and the search for truth. One can see why, because when you are seeking, you go to various teachers, read various books, join various cults, follow various gurus and all the rest of it, like window-shopping. Such a search has no meaning whatsoever.
K: The Awakening of Intelligence, Part II, Ch. 3, 3rd Public Talk, New York, 25 Apr. 1971, âReligious Experience. Meditationâ
I donât understand why you are being so dismissive here? Some familiarity with Krishnamurtiâs language obviously helps to make sense of what he is saying. The way he uses certain words are relatively unique to him, and can change in different circumstances. You must be aware of this.
For instance, sometimes he uses the word âindividualâ to mean âundividedâ, and sometimes he uses it to mean what we ordinarily mean by that word (a separate person, as distinct from the âcollectiveâ). He sometimes uses the word âaloneâ to mean âall oneâ, and sometimes he means just being alone on a walk. The meaning he gives to the word âmeditationâ is not the conventional meaning. He uses the word âconsciousnessâ to mean something completely different from the words âawarenessâ or âattentionâ, even though most people use these words more or less interchangeably. The word âloveâ is not used in a way that most people use that word. The word âintelligenceâ means something different to what most people mean by intelligence. Sometimes he uses the word âcompassionâ to mean what most of us would call compassion - care, sympathy, affection, pity - and other times he completely rejects these associations (for Krishnamurti true compassion can only be when there is the total end of suffering). I could go on and on. If you donât mind my being personal for a second, you yourself picked me up for using the word âsincereâ on one of the threads, because during a certain period of time Krishnamurti used that word in a very particular way unique to him (and perhaps others like yourself). All I meant by that word was the conventional meaning (of being frank, genuine, open, direct, vulnerable - earnest).
This is not to deny your main point: namely, that understanding Krishnamurtiâs teachings depends fundamentally on
I completely accept this. I am just pointing out that even those close to Krishnamurti (those who travelled with him or spoke with him often) would sometimes completely misunderstand what he meant when using certain words (there was a period during his conversations with Bohm, for instance, when he began using the word ârealityâ in a way that completely baffled people - but thereâs no point in going into that here).
Well, thatâs simply a judgement of my friend without knowing the full context. They were simply saying that they had never thought about the world in this way, that they had never considered the issue of âthoughtâ and whether it was problematic, etc. They were not saying that Krishnamurti himself was complicated, but that they didnât understand what he meant by certain phrases (such as the analyser is the analysed); thatâs all. And on a forum like this, one ought to accept that others (like my friend) may feel similarly (perhaps not about the analyser and the analysed, but about something else).
You yourself have said elsewhere that Krishnamurtiâs expression âYou are the worldâ didnât automatically make sense to you. You feel that you now have had an insight into that, and so it is very simple to you. But for another (like my friend) it may not. It would be unfair to just dismiss someone because they have not yet had an insight into something. We are surely here to learn.
Our dialogues and conversations on this forum are about sharing all this. Not for intellectual games, or pyrrhic victories over each other (although we can obviously slip into this unhelpful vein) - but an opportunity to share our understanding (or the little of it that we think we have) so as to learn, if possible, from each other, to clarify our own thinking on the matter, and to learn from our reactions to what each of us has to say.
Do you strongly disagree with this? If you do, what do you think the forum should be concerned with?
1 Like
I just posted my comment and so havenât had time to read the full quotation from K (which I will read now) - but I agree with this first paragraph.
James,
Obviously, context is important, and you are not including the contexts.
Yes, of course, the average person who has not done any meditation, and is usually misusing words, who isnât really serious, will define any word according to his/her conditioning. It just usually means that such a person is not really that interested in discovering what the word originally meant, and then realizing they are misusing words. You are constantly using comparison with what others think. So, what does it matter what others believe or think? It is ridiculous to appose any discussion by bringing up the opinions of others, such a juxtaposition only complicates everything and leads to confusion.
Thatâs not exactly what one said⌠you have distorted what I said and hence the meaning of it. You are indulging here in your interpretation of what one said.
If anyone is interested, here is what Charley actually said in this forum:
I am the world and the world is me
One hasnât dismissed anyone, one is just observing the content of a post, and reflecting on that content. Obviously, you have taken what one said personally.
There, you are looking for either agreement or disagreement, i.e. seeking an opinion, from another instead of being aware of and attending to âwhat isâ, which leads to understanding.
There is no learning when one is just looking to share opinions (agreement or disagreement).
- "I think it is important to see the implications of agreement and disagreement, and also of conviction. All three imply a certain form of influence, do they not? Most of us can be persuaded by reason, by explanation, either to agree or to disagree with something, and there can be awakened in us a sense of conviction. But it seems to me that neither conviction nor disagreement can ever bring about understanding; and it is understanding alone that radically changes the nature of oneâs commitments and oneâs way of life.
- " A mind that agrees now can also disagree later on, just as a mind that disagrees now will later on probably agree ; and such a mind is not capable of understanding. Understanding is not born of agreement or disagreement, or of conviction; it is something entirely different. Understanding is the state of mind, surely, when there is complete attention, that is, when the mind sees totally, perceives comprehensively the whole problem; and in that state of mind there is neither agreement nor disagreement."
K: talking on:agreement / disagreement
James,
First of all, this is a wrong question, as it implies you are seeking a conclusion from another.
Secondly, âshould beâ, really???!!! lol
Please see @James at who said:
Were you actually to understand the problems associated with the usage of âshould beâ, you would have never asked such a question, right?
Charley has some errands to run, so one trusts that everyone on the site had a good look at what was posted ⌠See yâall later⌠
Youâre saying that Kâs use of certain words was more correct than the way they are commonly used. For instance, what he meant by âreligionâ and âconsciousnessâ and âindividualâ was not the common âmisuseâ of them. In fact, K took liberties with the language and gave his own meaning to many words to get his message across.
Youâre saying that his idiosyncratic use of certain words is correct while the way most people use them is incorrect, and that this was immediately obvious to you because you are "simpleâ, not complicated, like most people. Why is it that most of what you say is more about Charley than about the teaching?
2 Likes
Charley, you are being personal. You seem determined to dismiss what I say, no matter what I say. It is not so much that I am taking what you have said personally (although your replies do increasingly feel to me a little hostile); it is simply that you yourself are not âobserving the content of the postsâ (impartially, affectionately, generously) I have written in reply.
You seem to be picking up the odd word here and there (âagreement and disagreementâ, etc) and then rejecting the spirit of what was written based solely on your own way of using a particular word - which you then seek to back-up with the authority of Krishnamurtiâs writings.
I already pointed out that you did this on another thread in regards to my use of the word âsincereâ (when I was asking someone else I was conversing with to be straight-forward and earnest with me), and I took the time to show you how Krishnamurti himself (during that period when he most often used the word sincere in the way you now use it) permitted the word âearnestnessâ (a synonym for sincere) to be used for the meaning I originally intended.
To dismiss what someone is saying merely because they donât use a particular word in the same way you do, at the very same moment you use it (despite it being used by the other in a totally different context), seems to me at best rather unhelpful, and at worst petty. Backing it up with scripture doesnât make it any less so.
Again, I wasnât saying that context is not important - the significance of context is implied in what I wrote: i.e. that Krishnamurtiâs words âcan change in different circumstancesâ (for âcircumstancesâ here read âcontextsâ). The contexts include the particular people he was speaking to at the time, the topic of the discussion, the decade he was speaking in, and all kinds of trivial or subtle details that would take too long to go into - to go into all of them on this thread would literally take all day. My point was simply that some familiarity with his language helps one to be aware of all this, to âread between the linesâ as it were, rather than be absolutely rigid about the meaning of a particular word (when separated from contexts).
I just reported my memory of what you wrote - i.e. that the insight you feel youâve had into Krishnamurtiâs teaching âYou are the worldâ was not automatic. You originally wrote:
Charley had the insight, the seeing of the truth that âI am the world, and the world is meâ. Charley tried for months prior to the insight to see the truth of this and couldnât.
The âtrying for months priorâ to your insight implies that it wasnât immediately clear to you what Krishnamurtiâs words meant in their fullness. This is all I meant by what I wrote.
I wasnât âseeking agreement or disagreementâ - as you disparagingly put it; I was attempting to get a sense of you where you are, to invite you to share with me whether or not some kind of a communication between us is taking place at all (and apparently not!). It is impossible to converse with another digitally without there being some indication of shared feeling or shared comprehension about something. We are human beings sharing the same earth, the same world - we must have something in common! 
3 Likes