Yes, we are learners, but learning about what? Are we learning something about ourselves from someone whom we see as a good teacher? Or are we learning directly about ourselves, primarily from what we are seeing in our relationship with the teacher? Then the teachings are a mirror into which we are looking and we are all the while seeing only the truth about ourselves. There is no other truth which the teachings are attempting to convey.
2 Likes
Yes - the teachings of K are a mirror that we can use to learn about ourselves. There are no abstract truths; only the facts of how we are living.
1 Like
So then it becomes a matter of finding out how we are looking into this mirror, knowing that any motive will prevent us from seeing the truth about ourselves. Probably this is the most difficult thing of all: to look at and to listen to ourselves without any motive to change what we see or hear.
3 Likes
Yes - to look at and listen to what we are without judgment. The fact of what we are needs no opposite.
2 Likes
This implies that there is no such thing as self-improvement. That’s quite a shock, isn’t it?
1 Like
Well, yes, in a certain respect, I think that is so. But, (in a manner of speech) I just don’t think it says quite enough. In a sense, the fact that “I” exist at all, even as illusion, means that some “thing” is to be attended to. Insofar as there exists “that ‘thing’ which is to be attended to,” does mean that something is to be improved upon.
A question could be, while being clear about the fact of the interconnectedness of everything, What is it to attend?
I’d think that this fact is not even touched by the conditioned besides the facade of intellectualism.
You’ll have to be more clear on what you’re saying.
Doesn’t it depend upon the quality of the shock? A shocking idea can be easily batted away. But if the shock is felt at the core, the whole system is temporarily immobilised.
1 Like
I would say that immobilization happens such that “I” is conjured. “I” always emerges in the wake of some happening. Nay, I would say that “I” is unexpected; as is the happenstance of its occurrence.
My question would be, “what is the significance that calls forward the “I” into attendance”?
Clear on what? What I mean? Because the text clarifies that.
Or is it clear on the intention behind what I wrote? Or is it something else, that I’d ask you to clarify for me plz.
I was thinking about this and could not come up with anything that is worth writing, while I have read people’s ideas on the so called ‘Essence’ of K’s teachings and they all sounded important and well decorated. Yet, each left me rather unsatisfied.
I have to ask what does Essence mean here? Because as per the definition I captured on the internet, I don’t see a difference between Essence and Core Intention.
Essence comes from an etymology meaning “to be”.
Intention comes from an etymology meaning “to stretch toward”.
So the essence of a thing is its essential character, its essential quality, its essential nature - what a thing is.
While an intention is what is intended, what is wanted, what is wished for or desired - it has to do with motive and a desired outcome.
Krishnamurti said in 1929 that his core intention was to set human beings absolutely free.
1 Like
With respect to the essence of Krishnamurti’s teachings, what would you think about the following statement:
The river of human consciousness is made up of time and thought. With the ending of time and thought there is an ending of consciousness as we know it, and the awakening of intelligence and love.
Does this sound right to you - or would you add something or take something away, or put it differently?
The purpose of the original question is not to demand a “right” answer - it is simply an opportunity for us to attempt to capture what we ourselves take to be the essence of K’s teaching or thinking. It’s an opportunity for us to explore what we think it is, by putting it in our own words - that’s all.
That’s the thing. I explored and the only thing I got was nothing. I didn’t want to add this because I did not want to interfere with whatever was/ is going on.
The essence of K’s ‘so called’ teachings is everything/ nothing 
1 Like
Ok. That’s interesting. Yes - I can see why you could say that. There is a sense in which it is “all or nothing” with K: either one has insight, and is out of the stream of time (as it were), or one is in the stream and there is no path, no way, no method to get out. - It sounds like a paradox or a trick, right?
Is this what you mean?
Not really. I meant that I literally captured nothing. Maybe it means that whatever I do capture is whatever is already captured and in that sense is not necessary to be shared as it is not different from what is captured in you.
1 Like
I’m not sure you’ve captured nothing Ayham! That’s why I still think it is an interesting question to ask ourselves:
What, for me (by which I mean, for each one if us), is the essence of K’s teaching as I have understood it?
The little that we can say is an opportunity to discover, to find out, what we have actually captured, what is of value to us in what we have understood. - It is not intended that there should be a “correct” answer that we compare with each other.
So, for instance, I might say that - for me - the essence of K’s teaching is something to do with the problems that thought creates in our lives. I know that he also talks about love, truth, the sacred, but those are outside of my personal experience (I might say): so for me, right now, today, K’s teaching is about understanding the power of thought and thinking in human life.
Do you see what I mean? - And so you could say something quite different: maybe for you K’s teaching might be about the disorder or chaos in society, or about the ending of suffering, or about the discovery of compassion, etc. There are no right answers.
So is the intention behind the question to learn from each others insights, if any, into K’s teachings? Or, is it to learn from what each has captured as memory of what one, now believes, is the essence of K’s teachings?
On another note, one person comes along and say I’ve captured nothing. I’ve realized that whatever can be verbalised is not it. If one did actually see that, would there be value in sharing that which is perceived to be Mediocre?
Ayham - I think you are over-complicating it! The question is simply:
What - to you - is the essence of K’s teachings?
If you don’t feel like answering, that’s ok.
But maybe you give an indication of what you take to be the essence of K’s teaching when you say
That’s as good an answer as any other that has been presented, and I think it captures something insightful and valuable with regards to the way K referred to truth.
1 Like