What Is Dialogue?

I certainly hope so, I do it all the time.

Now to put on my “conscious dialogue” hat for a minute (and I am a complete noob here, foreign territory for me, so to be taken with a pinch of salt) the idea would be that instead of making the conversation about who’s got the more correct worldview, we rather experiment with “conscious listening” - as in being aware of our reactions (thus letting them die/subside - they are neither the important nor the dominant thing when it comes to listening), and thus be free to inquire together into the statement at hand (and its source : the speaker and their confusion/conditioning/suppositions)
How does that sound?

It sounds really good Douglas - count me in!

1 Like

:joy:

Good luck! Maybe I could be considered for the post of spokesperson for the movement?
I suppose that you are aware that Kinfonet offers live zoom meetings for the purpose of “open dialogue” every Wednesday and Sunday - I even tried it out a couple of times myself : Tricky stuff as you might expect, humans being involved and all.

But seriously folks - I’ve been experimenting a bit with this here on the forum too, but not getting anywhere - mainly because I think it takes (at least) 2 to tango. (I presume that others are doing it here in written form too, but its hard to tell)

I propose that you and I (for starters) give it a go : lets have one of these weird dialogues next time it seems appropriate - the secret code that we are in conscious dialogue mode will be :exploding_head: - what do you say?

1 Like

But they (our reactions) are the important, dominant thing when it comes to listening because they are distorting what is heard. Conditioned response is the problem.

1 Like

True - true. Its tricky stuff - and there’s also the criticism of method. Just like “meditation” its not clear what’s what.

The thing with methods (of relaxation for example) is that there may remain the problem of understanding the trap of motivation/self

It is not possible to have a true dialogue if the two parties are debating, arguing or opposing each other. Correct?

So how is it going in this forum and or in zoom dialogues? Any updates?

I am interested in hearing more about these kind of things, deeply fascinated about this whole thing called dialogue, whether in written forum or zoom dialogue.

I am trying to really understand this and I have read over and over how difficult it is, to meet other human beings and dialogue.

I see words like reaction, conflicts, difficult come up a lot in regards to any form of dialogue between people. And that we have to listen better, be aware of our conditioning, our reactions - to watch them, etc.

I also have seen that love and affection are needed for a dialogue too.

Examiner wrote: “It is not possible to have a true dialogue if the two parties are debating, arguing or opposing each other. Correct?”

Well, I dont know, that is a question I have too. If there is conflict in a dialogue, does that mean it is no longer a true dialogue? Or if one is debating or arguing, that disqualifies it from being a dialogue, because of the attitude? These are all good questions worth exploring more.

Yes, communication implies having the same meaning for the same words at the same time together. Correct?

Honestly, I dont know. I dont know much about any of this stuff, from listening to reactions to conditioning, etc. I wanted to hear from others, I dont know, I am interested in hearing from others experiences on here. To me, what you wrote is just Krishnamurtis words and just to repeat them are meaningless to me.

Anyways, I dont know why I keep posting, honestly, I am only interested in reading others, I dont have much to say or contribute. I just want to learn from others.

But when I asked questions about listening in another thread, I was told to not look to others, but to look at my own self. Well, I can do that on my own, I came to an forum to hear others experiences and sharings. I am mostly into asking questions.

Anyways, I think I am reacting, this is an reaction, and I better stop now and just read, listen, contemplate, on my own. But please dont take this personally, Examiner, you did nothing wrong, I just need a break from this forum and trying to interact, dialogue with others, for as others have shared, it can be quite difficult and lots of reactions.

Not really - I’ve been shying away from the zoom dialogues recently (laziness on my part).
My main practise with listening these days has been with my 10 month old dog.

It’s not a judgment if it’s a fact, but if what’s wrong about it can’t be made clear, it seems like a judgment.

I remember Doctor Parchure being told he’d asked a wrong question once - K was undoubtedly a great educationalist but I think he could have expressed “a fact” in a more helpful manner sometimes.

His manner was not helpful because, as he told Aldous Huxley’s daughter, he despised people who wanted to help others. When she replied that he’s helping others to realize what they’re doing, he said, “I know, but I can’t help it”.

Did K despise some people? “Despise” is a strong word and the connotation of the word suggests a deep contempt that I’ve never come across in my contact with K’s works and life.

My point was really that telling someone that they had asked a wrong question probably led to confusion rather than greater understanding sometimes.

Yes, and my point was that if he didn’t make it clear why the question was wrong, he should be judged.

Did K despise some people?

Read the passage in the book before you draw any conclusions. My recollection is not verbatim. The title of the book is “You Are Not the Target”.

https://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Not-Target-Bewildering/dp/1569246998

Thanks for the link to the book. The thing that I find strange about the possibility of K despising people, or a certain group of people, is that he spent his life talking about the root causes of separateness and division, pointing the way to greater understanding amongst humans. If somebody despises someone else, there is a division created and the possibility of understanding and affection is gone. How do you see this?

Yes, “despises” is the wrong word. Spite is hate.

But there is such a thing as an aesthetic judgement in relationship to the kinds of question that can be asked in an inquiry. A “wrong” question is a lazy question, a question that includes obvious assumptions or a motive or an obvious incoherence or a bias that prejudices the outcome of the question.

A ‘wrong question’ is a question asked abstractly, without any possibility of awakening the depths of the mind. But this is an aesthetic judgment, and depends on the sensitivity of the person listening to it (because they might just be wrong in saying that the question is ‘wrong’).

K: Can we ask the right question? What do you mean by ‘right’, and what do you mean by ‘question’? The right question will inevitably bring about the right answer. But if we ask a wrong question, that wrong question evaporates into nothingness. So can we ask the right question which will awaken our own intelligence, our own native perception? (Seminar 1, Brockwood Park, 1978)

1 Like

As I said, I don’t recall whether K said that he despised the intention to help others, the people who try to help others, or if he used the word “despise”. It’s in the book.

From " This Timeless Moment: A Personal View of Aldous Huxley by Laura Huxley "

After lunch Signora S. tactfully suggested that I might want to speak alone with Krishnamurti. She and Aldous went into the living room. A large French window opened onto the terrace, where Krishnamurti and I were left alone. The French window was closed, but, as I realized later, Aldous could see us silhouetted against the sweeping view of the Alps. An hour or two later, when we left our hosts, Aldous could not wait to ask, “What in the world happened between you and Krishnaji? You two were gesticulating with such animation and excitement–it almost looked as though you were having a fight. What happened?”

The silent pantomime Aldous had seen through the French window must have been descriptive of our conversation–an extraordinary conversation against an extraordinary panorama. Krishnamurti and I had stood, walked, and sat on the terrace of the Swiss chalet, enveloped by high peaked mountains and pine woods of all gradations of green, light exhilarating green, and the deeper green of the vast mountain pastures. Brightness again, in luminous sky and in shining flowers, in sensuous undulating valleys, in Krishnamurti. Brightness everywhere.

The first thing I asked Krishnamurti, continuing our table conversation about psychotherapy, was how he dealt with the problem of alcoholism. He said nonchalantly that it had happened quite often that people, after one or two interviews with him, stopped drinking. When I asked how this came about, he said he did not know. He dismissed the subject and asked me whether LSD, mescaline, and the psychedelic substances in general were really of any benefit or just gave a temporary illusion. I told him of the medical research done in Canada in the field of alcoholism–of unexpected and successful results reported by Canadian doctors with a number of hopeless alcoholics who stopped drinking after only one or two administrations of LSD, and without further therapy. Krishnamurti seemed surprised.

He was silent for a few moments. There was something that he was going to say; also I had the feeling that his inner intensity was too powerful for the medium of words. I had no idea what was coming, but I knew something was about to happen. Silently he was holding my eyes with his dark burning look. Then with an extremely tense voice, he exploded, “You know, I think that those people who go about helping other people … .” He stopped–then, with an even more piercing gaze, he spat out the next words like bullets of contempt: “those people … they are a curse!”

After the conversation at the table I had no doubt that “those people” included me. The accusation and the fire with which he flung it at me were for an instant paralyzing. Then, almost without thinking, I asked, “What about you? What do you think you are doing? You go about helping other people.”

As though he had never thought of himself as belonging to that cursed category, Krishnamurti was taken aback for a moment, totally surprised and perplexed. Then, with disarming simplicity and directness, he said, “But I don’t do it on purpose!”

It was the most extraordinary of statements. Aldous was enormously impressed by it, and also very touched and amused. Of course he understood it. But I must have looked bewildered, for Krishnamurti, in a softer, calmer way, said, “It just happens, do you see?” Alas, I did not see very well. Krishnamurti continued, “I am not a healer, or a psychologist, or therapist, or any of those things.” The words “healer,” “psychologist,” “therapist” burst from him like projectiles ejected by compressed power. “I am only a religious man. Alcoholics or neurotics or addicts–it doesn’t matter what the trouble is–they get better quite often–but that is not important; that is not the point–it is only a consequence.”

“What is wrong with such a consequence?” I asked. “I only give people techniques or recipes or tools to help them to do what they need to do–what is wrong in using the transformation of energy to change those miserable feelings into constructive behavior?” That had been what we had discussed at lunch. I knew that Krishnamurti was violently opposed to dogmas, rites, gurus, and Ascended Masters–to all the gadgetry of those organized powers whose aim is to impress the masses with keeping the godhead and its graces as their supreme and private monopoly. But I had no idea that he also objected to psycho-physical exercises, such as my recipes. Unaware of this fact, I had innocently exposed myself and my work. Now I realized that he had restrained himself during lunch, tactfully waiting until we were alone. He did not restrain himself now; vehemently, with unspeakable intensity, he spoke.

“No! No! Techniques–transformation–no–rubbish! One must destroy–destroy . . . everything!” Fleetingly a thought crossed my mind: how easily such a man can be misunderstood, misinterpreted! I wanted to understand–I knew that he wanted me to understand, but how to ask–that was the question. “But what do you do?” I repeated.

And he repeated: “Nothing–I am only a religious man.”

1 Like

Thanks for the excerpt - its nice to be able to follow along with what is being discussed.

The first thing that comes to mind is the question of whether all existences are worth living?

We (compassionate human beings) look at the misery in the world - the psychological misery - the issue of practical problems like poverty, education, human rights etc must of course be addressed together, as a society living together on one planet. We look at the the psychological misery of the masses “out there” and treat it as a foreign problem to be solved. Gather them up, and treat them, chemically, institutionally, with psychological training. Is this love? Would you accept an existence forever enslaved in a tiny circle of fear? Is that life worth living - even if you are supplied with pills to stifle brain function, a padded cell and given some occupation? If not, why is it love to help others live such a life?

I realise its a complex issue - and dogma is no solution - K was talking to one person in one moment, not proposing legislation.