True, but if I can’t grasp the meaning of something K says, I make that clear to the reader, as I’ve done with “complete security”. That K said it matters, but that I don’t know what he meant by it matters even more. Do you see why?
We’re here to talk about what K said and what he meant by it. If one doesn’t honestly know what he meant by this or that, that’s what we’re here to discuss.
But don’t you see, we can never know what he “meant” by this or that! It is up to you and me to find that out in yourself. We’re here to talk about that. With never being certain about what we will find in ourselves. You bring “honesty” and “pretending” into it. How will you ‘judge’ all that? Don’t make K into an authority, he warned over and over about that.
In most cases we do know what he meant; we grasp the meaning of it, but we have no experience of it.
Of course we’re trying to find out for ourselves whether what he said was true, but this is not the same thing as puzzling over the meaning of something he said that isn’t supported or illuminated by everything else he said.
No, Kimo, things are not like you say. I have not crafted explanations. What I have done, and you can read it, is to ask you:
“Don’t you think it’s much better to go and look for yourself rather than trying to understand what another person has said? You have a brain, are you not aware of its needs and reactions?”
Your subsequent three answers had nothing to do with this question of mine, therefore you are eluding it. I’m talking about a direct exploration in yourself about this problem of security and not about crafting answerto this problem. There is no point in discussing K. if you don’t do such an exploration in yourself.
The only thing in question here is whether there is such a thing as “complete security”. You seem satisfied that there is because you’re not puzzled by K’s use of the term. As for the exploration you advise, the only thing to explore is why K said this. No one can say with certainty because complete security is inconceivable, and K isn’t alive to explain his use of the term.
Wow! Wonderful! You are saying that the only reality here is K.!!! There is no Kimo, nor myself with my body, brain, mind, feelings, thoughts, anything to explore, just K.'s word.
You’re clutching at straws!
You’re jumping to conclusions. In this discussion group, what matters is what K said, and what he meant by it. Do you come here to talk about other things?
Yes, what K. said. And what K. said is the he was not important, what was important is our life, and that we have to be the light to ourselves, and that we have to know ourselves in the mirror of relationship, and that one must stand alone, and that unless we explore ourselves and see with our own eyes what he said had no value.
Words are not reality, not even K.'s words. Sticking to words means to confuse the simbol with reality. It’s obvious that there must be a certain understanding of his words, but when it’s too difficult to understand what he meant the only solution is to forget about K. and look for ourselves. Why look for water far away when there is a spring of fresh water just where you are?
So I’m here to talk just about what K. said.
Anyone who has studied K’s teaching knows there are many phrases and terms K used that cannot be conclusively understood. This is why Dr. Moody has denounced interpreting K’s words. Nevertheless, as this discussion group demonstrates, interpretation is rampant. There is so much misunderstanding and personal interpretation that it’s practically impossible to carry on a coherent dialogue.
This being the case, instead of arguing over what K was trying to say, we should take your advice and “forget about K and look for ourselves”. But that isn’t going to happen, so I would advise that those here should explore and find out what K intended by what he said instead of deciding for oneself.
If, as K said, nobody “got it”, is it because he couldn’t make it clear, or because we couldn’t help muddling it?
And when we do what you are saying and explore and ‘find out’ what K “intended”, shall we check with you to see if what we ‘found out’ is correct?
Well which of your two ‘interpretations’ have you ‘found out’ is what K ‘meant’ when he said “no one got it’”?..I say he said “no one got it” because no one got it!
Are you sure? Could K have known if no one on earth had “got it” or not? Perhaps, if those who got it came to him and demonstrated that they got it. But what about those who got it and felt no need to assure K or anyone that they did? For all we know there could be many who got it and went on without notifying or acknowledging Krishnamurti.
All we can honestly know about K’s statement that “no one got it” is that he was expressing how he felt at the time: that all his teaching may have been in vain. Whether he felt that we failed him or he failed us, we may never know.
Yet 'Dr Moody (?) said his words must not be “interpreted”?
There is the question of authority, which needs to be looked at directly, psychologically, for oneself, as the thinker.
Are you saying that if K said it, it must be true?
There is no “thinker”.
This is all your interpretation, your conclusion .He may have known that it was not possible to have ‘got it’ until he, the ‘messenger’, had gone… So let’s now ‘get it’…Censorship isn’t the way.
‘There is no “thinker”.’
Don’t you see, that is authority speaking.
I am using words to communicate together. Think about what the words point to, share the communication, not react to some idea the brain is getting on a level of what I know or don’t know. .
Your theory hinges on the notion that he had knowledge of the future (which makes him supernatural), but if he knew no one would get it in his time, he never expected anyone to get it while he was alive, and would have no reason to announce that “no one got it” at the end of his life.
Exactly. People who stick to autority, to “only him could know”, never ask themselves what is the source of information. The only true sorce of all knowledge is reality not another person. So the person who sticks to authority is someone who is not in touch with reality, both external and internal.