Understanding K's teachings

How deep is your understanding of K’s teachings, is it merely intellectual and verbal?

When I first heard that “the observer was the observed”, at age 12, there was no understanding at all, only WTF.

20 years later, thanks to a weird state of consciousness arising out of meditation, I recognised what “the observer is the observed” meant.

Now, when I listen to K, most of the time I think I get what he’s saying. And of course I try to verbalise the concepts here on Kinfonet.

By understanding the teachings intellectually or superficially I mean merely seeing the logic of it without applying it to myself. A lot of times K says “do it , do it and find out.”.

What would “doing it” consist of ?
Surely the starting point of any experimentation with the thought process would start from our intellectual understanding (?).

I think this is a very good question, and it’s one I’m happy to reply to. Firstly, I’d just like to explore this a little.

You seem to imply that a deep understanding of the teachings goes beyond the intellectual and verbal. I certainly wouldn’t disagree with that. I understand the teachings to be, fundamentally, about awareness and attention. So is the question really if contact with the teachings has increased our levels of awareness and attention?

“I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies.” – Krishnamurti

What is the relationship between awareness, attention, and freedom?

I presume that the supposed bondage must first be called to our attention. And that once the problem has been called to our attention, we can pay attention to our psychological narrative.
And if I make a huge jump here, I’ll say that awareness of these psychological processes arising, immediately frees us from them - in that they die as they arise.

Understanding X is a prerequisite but not guarantee of being free from X.

What enables some, but not all, minds to be free of the problems awareness reveals?

I’m tempted to say intelligence, but am wary of using that term as a get out of jail free card!

Once again, we may be confusing the issues at hand.
Do we agree that we are discussing psychological freedom? Not magical dominion over the multiverse, nor geolocal constraint, nor freedom from physicality, reality, or whatever.

If so, does understanding a problem resolve it? free us from it? If not, I suggest you give an example where this is the case so we may discuss it.

Does awareness reveal problems or facts? If it reveals problems surely we mean subjective interpretation/discrimination (ie. I want/I don’t want) rather than awareness?

How can this mind know if any minds are free of the problems awareness reveals if this mind is not free of them? This mind could be desperate enough to believe another mind is not desperate, hoping that the other can free this mind. Does this mind know anything but its own condition?

It knows the condition of other minds by observation, intuition, empathy, inference. But these are all in the realm of guesswork. It does not seem to be able to know the content/dynamics/experience of another mind, the “what does it feel like to be an other mind” in a firsthand way.

I understand that the rope is not a snake. But the reflex to see it as a snake is so strong that the visceral body response ‘beats’ the understanding, so there is a cognitive dissonance: I understand it is not a snake, but I experience it as a snake. Or, I play make-believe and see a snake because it is more enjoyable to be afraid than to be ‘realistic.’

The snake and rope metaphor applies to all sorts of everyday situations.

Please indicate precisely what the problem is for me - I’m not sure what the problem is.

Is it that I don’t like having instinctive reflexes?

The problem is, I guess, that I experience fear and suffering due to mistaking a rope for a snake.

Or do you have a specific sense in mind of what a ‘problem’ is?

I am sure we both do - and I propose that we enquire into our beliefs together, so that we may see them more clearly.

What about this definition for starters : A problem is a perceived state of affairs that I don’t like.

If this seems accurate enough for you - Could you provide a different example (because I am having difficulty relating to what you have described above - mistaking a rope for a snake)? What kind of everyday situations might the rope metaphor remind us of?

Blend that with: A problem is something that calls for a solution or fix.

Sure. Let’s say Jimmy wrote Sally something here and her response made it clear to Jimmy that what he intended to communicate and what actually got communicated were nontrivially different. That would be a problem (assuming clear communication was what they were after) that would call for a fix, which might be as simple as Jimmy rewording his original msg.

But let’s say Jimmy felt something interesting might come from the misunderstanding. Or let’s say Jimmy enjoyed the confusion, found it stimulating.

Do you see what I’m trying to say? Understanding the nature of a problem doesn’t necessarily make it go away or resolve it, that might require something in addition to understanding.

The word “problem” means “something thrown at you.”.
“How deep is your understanding of the teachings?” is a question,a problem that is thrown at you , you must answer it, to yourself, not to me or anybody else.

Does the teaching have depth, or does it just seem that way because no one “gets” what K was saying, except intellectually?

It has very very depth.

I ‘got’ what K, a person who felt vey responsible and caring and spent his whole life in this, said repeatedly all those years,

nothing but pointing out - Look at YOU, why you are not serious and aware all moments?? Why you are escaping from fear and sufferings and loneliness - with many comforts and petty pleasures and methods, creating more conflicts by attachments?? Why can’t you see the ‘what-is’ as it is without any images/should-be, now itself without involvement of time?? Why can’t one be aware of unaware??

He does only this pointing out all time. He never gave any answers (Sorry, he gave only one answer- only in QUITE and CALM MIND there is freedom and choice-less awareness and out of that Love and Compassion act) He keep on asking sharp questions which pierce the heart. He sometimes made step by step questions, so one might look the ‘what-is’ as it is, but those questions had not impacted many because mostly everyone comes up only with 'should-be’s.

Yes. Not an achievement. But, there is an END for learning and Understanding of ‘sufferings,fear,etc…’ (i.e. There is an END for understanding and learning ‘Limitations and Conditions’) and there is NO END for understanding and learning and experiencing ‘things’ like “Physical - Beauty - etc…” (i.e. There is NO END for understanding and learning and experiencing ‘Unlimited’). :wink:

Thank you.


I can see why some people are so disappointed and dissatisfied with K’s teachings. Because they are only interested in results. And the results are the projection of their own background. Life is not about achievement ,life is about understanding and learning…

1 Like