As I have already tried to communicate above, this incessant nit-picking, taking scraps of text out of context (the very thing you previously stated that one ought not to do in regard to Krishnamurti’s words), and then framing these denuded-from-context texts in such a way as to make them seem ridiculous - is unhelpful.
The context in this case is the subject of the thread (for “this forum is complicated” read “difficulties with the forum”), and an attempt to discuss it amicably, openly, to see if we can help address some of its problems (or rather, challenges). I was not talking about “psychological becoming”.
As you yourself noted, this forum has its share of resident fanatics. Luckily, there is also a smattering of thoughtful folks on here to counter that downward drag.
Even the nutters should be treated kindly - the problem comes when we try to argue the nutters into sanity - it doesn’t work. (though logical errors can be pointed out)
It hadn’t occurred to me before, but I wonder if Krishnamurti’s ‘appearance of dogmatism’ - that is to say, the way that he was so incredibly emphatic in the way he expressed his insights, the way he sometimes dismissed what people around him said - has made it acceptable for some of those who read him to be dogmatic themselves?
In saying this, I am not saying that Krishnamurti was himself dogmatic - clearly he truly did have incredibly profound insights into life - but the appearance of being dogmatic is all that some people need to give themselves permission to turn his words into a new fundamentalism.
And a fundamentalist attitude obviously makes meaningful dialogue quite impossible.
One must nevertheless be careful not to label people, because even if a person appears to be acting in a way that we personally find unhelpful, it may simply be our own conditioning that informs our judgement. They may be telling us a truth that we do not want to hear. One has always to keep a door open to the other (within reason of course).
An interesting point and one I’ve never considered. Perhaps you"re right James.
In this forum, none of us are experts on the teachings. Is that a fair statement? We can only share our understanding and that may be flawed. I don’t understand how anyone can make categorical statements about the teachings (apart from stating obvious points). Categorical pronouncements seem to be based on knowledge. Discovery would seem to require more of an open, questioning approach.
That is why one joins this forum thinking people are familiar with K’s language which consists of the deeper meaning of the words. Familiarity with the root meaning of the words surely is needed. Also understanding that the word is never the thing.