I think merely reading his books may not lead to getting what he says. There is a saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. I say a video is worth a thousand pictures.
If I am to get what K says I have to be willing to listen to him talking and having dialogues. His books are amazing to read for English though.
Words are symbols of the real things. Never the real thing itself. That is why reading Krishnamurtiās books never changes anyone as we know in hereā¦
Understanding what Krishnamurti was talking about does change anyone determined to āgetā what K was trying to get across. But because the change isnāt total insight, the radical transformation of the brain, it goes unnoticed.
If I may, I would say that even more important than listening to Krishnamurti, is listening to the psychological shock that attentive listening to his words can cause in our-selves.
If change is possible, it can only come about in that attentive observation of the effects of listening attentively to what happens in me when I listen attentively to someone who is speaking directly to me in the way Krishnamurti did.
What if āchangeā is the end of your little voice that you believe announces insight?
The āobserver is the observedā realisation is the fundamental perception. Everything comes from that.
2 Likes
You need to do the work yourself, meaning serious inquiry. Doing it together with K probably helps but reading or listening to his words is missing out on everything he said.
What if āchangeā is the end of your speculations about others imagining what they believe or they believe not? 
1 Like
Not if you are able to listen to your inner noise through the sound of his (or anyone elseās) words. At that moment you are already doing the work yourself, and K is there without being there.
Listening to K (or anyone else) and doing the serious inquiry of which you speak are not two separate things.
To truly listen whether to K, to another, or to oneself, requires an awareness free of division. If the words of another are used as a mirror for self-inquiry, then yes, the work is being done.
But isnāt there also a danger that one clings to the words, to the authority they represent, and in doing so, misses the immediacy of observation? The description is not the described, hence the symbol alone has no value.
K often emphasized that true inquiry begins and ends with the direct perception of what is, not through the lens of another, however profound their words may be - his included. Can we listen, then, without attachment, without dependence, so that the inquiry remains alive?
1 Like
What is the right way to listen Kās teaching? Is it different to listen to someone else , the voice of raining fall or a song of bird?
1 Like
This question leads nowhere if it is not first clearly stated what is meant by ālistenā in the context of the question.
If I am listening to K without listening deeply to myself, am I listening to K?
1 Like
Arenāt we always listening and looking without the the observer for a second or two before the observer (I, me, mine) intervenes by distorting, denying, or dismissing observation?
Arenāt we identifying with our conditioned reaction to choiceless awareness instead of seeing reaction for what it is?
When I forget to awaken , I re -awaken , that means when thought arise, donāt follow it but donāt have the action of not - follow
I apologize for for not be careful in writing. Now, the question is :
Is the way I hear to K the same with the way I hear a song of bird? And is that when I listen to K, I listen deeply to myself (as you said) , and I also listen to all the other sounds outwardly at the same time?
I feel Listening deeply to myself can explain : my mind doesnāt ārush outā to understand , it is still and know passively.
One description could be that the brain is conditioned to āidentifyā with the body system: thoughts, feelings, sensationsā¦ excluding and rejecting the awareness that it is ānothingā? Staying with the āpettinessā as K. called it and rejecting the immensity through fear?
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe this is just a romantic idea/illusion that thought has created on the subject?
All the Krishnamurtis who have existed since the beginning of human history (Buddhas, Jesuses, etc., etc.) have been nothing more than provocateurs of human thought, and as such, creators of conflict in all those who stopped, stop and will stop to listen to them, and therefore of division. To deny this would be like denying the spark that ignites the fuel of inquiry. So we cannot say that listening to Krishnamurti, or anyone else, requires an awareness free of division, because if I had a awareness free of division, what would be the point of listening to Krishnamurti or anyone else talking about the causes of my suffering?
So the scenario is: I walk by and I hear someone talking to whoever wants to listen, so I stop and listen, and what I hear doesnāt match my perspective of life up to that point at all, except for the fact that Iām suffering (which I donāt need anyone to tell me). So, unwittingly, I come into conflict with what I thought up to that moment about what my life was and that new vision that seems to say that what I have lived up to that moment might just be a fabrication of thought. Now, what do I do with that conflict, not having an awareness free of division?
Yes, that is one of the possibilities that the previous question leaves in the air. The other, that one somehow sees that the logical intellectual understanding of the words is not enough and he goes a step further despite the difficulties, and without knowing where that step (or steps) will lead him.
Of course! One can always go beyond the logical, intellectual understanding of the words. This means that from that moment on one completely leaves behind the words of the other and tries to solve the puzzle by oneself, which implies that one is alone in the face of ādangerā, without depending on anything, or anyone to hold on to in a moment of doubt or uncertainty.
Now, is one willing to walk this solitary āpathā in spite of the difficulties that one will surely encounter along the way?
This is the actual question, and not whether I can listen without attachment, without dependence. If the answer is ānoā, or āit is too difficultā, or āI donāt have the courage to do itā, then it is obvious that your question is meaningless. Simply because you cannot know without trying. And if one does not try, any answer given to your question is a mere digression, a mere entertainment that has nothing to do with the actual thing.
Too many begin their spiritual quest (whatever that means) as a game, and at the first sensation of loneliness they feel, they back out and end up shaping that spiritual quest according to what they imagine it should be, since they will never dare to experience the total insecurity that entails such spiritual quest (whatever that means).
1 Like
If I can be aware of being nothing, I am awareness, no? And since I am obviously a living organism, I am something. So what do you think Krishnamurti meant when he talked about being nothing?
As I just said in another thread, there is no need to apologize. One expresses what one feels/sees/understands in the best way one knows how, so the dialogue with the other, the questioning of the other about our words does the rest offering the possibility to refine on the fly what one really wants to express. Thatās all there is to it.
I understand what you mean, but I am afraid that no one can give an answer to this question except oneself. For one can listen to a birdās song in the same way one can listen to K, that is, with attention or without it. So the only one who really knows how one is listening is oneself, no one else.
But I think your question is trying to go beyond this, that it is actually asking or trying to inquire about what is listening, and whether one can perceive the same beauty when listening to the song of a distant bird while walking quietly in a forest, as when listening to the challenging words of K, am I wrong?
Yes, that is what we would call āattentionā, or if you prefer āchoiceless awarenessā, in which one is able to listen without being entertained by any of the particular external or internal sounds. It is like when you are talking to someone on the street, and suddenly someone you know passes by and you have a brief dialogue with him or her, and when that person leaves you go back to the conversation you had left pending with the first person, without having lost the track of what you were talking about.
After that, do you remember what you have āknownā passively?
Can we contemplate the possibility that āI can be aware of being nothingā may not be awareness at all but thought once again ā more so when one adds after saying that, that he is some-thing?
To end being that thing that makes us afraid of being not-a-thing.