Why is intellectual understanding insufficient?

That may be true in other forums, but to my knowledge, no one here (besides you) has asked for this “courtesy”.

There are posts directed to me that I don’t consider worthy of a reply, and I don’t mind if someone decides not to reply to me, but asking someone not to speak to me is so haughty and pompous it’s risible.

If you think someone is trolling you, don’t engage them when they reply to your posts, and report their alleged trolling with a flag.

Personally I dont hit “like” on any posts, not because I dont like many of them, but because I feel that is too silly, too much like Facebook/Social Media and also I dont want to show favoritism to certain posters and leave others out.

Also, personally, I would never “flag” another post, even if they swore at me or told me something I dont like. That never crosses my mind either.

We are all grown ups and supposedly can communicate with each other and work things out, without too much conflict. And also if someone asked me not to contact them on here, I would respect that, it is a pretty easy thing to do.

1 Like

Mr. David

I have seen some of your posts and i have also seen your recent request directed at the above poster/troll to stop. It can be seen on this thread

Clearly the poster continues even after you have asked him to stop. From what i have seen on the older threads you aren’t the first person to do so. There have been others before you. This poster and his plausible friend seem to have a history of doing this. That is attempts at creating conflict.

Please be aware my reason for saying this is not to secure your support, but simply to highlight the facts. The facts of what-is.

While some may find these juvenile and amateurish failed attempts at creating and perpetuating conflict “risible”, but i don’t find them funny. Because this is a major problem on the net. People who won’t have the backbone to say anything to you in person have no problems running their mouth behind anonymity.

So when we are talking about trolling and designating someone as a troll. we are doing so by taking into account their conduct. We are using both words per their textbook definitions and according to the meaning of the words, that is, their referent. We aren’t talking about individual variations as enforced by various online groups.

While some may laugh at the degree of insecurity, anger, resentment, which is possibly at the source of such trolling, but here in our context of K’s teachings, this is a really serious matter that trolls can verify in the “mirror of relationship”.

Thanks for the post.

Yes, I did try to tell him to not comment on my posts regarding certain things, too lazy to look up exacty what i said. But to be fair, I didnt tell him to stay away from me totally. But I am learning slowly here who I can have communication with and who I cannot.

This poster actually has been saying a few interesting things lately in some of his posts. However, I still dont want to interact or communicate with him for the most part. And that is my right, as it is his right to ignore my posts.

I have found a few threads where Paul D and also Voyager try to connect with him, but he will not reveal much or communicate on that level. I found that sad, but it is what it is.

I dont like calling anyone a “troll” for I find that term a little offensive, but some of the actions of some of the posters on here does seem to fit the definition of trolling behavior.

What I am trying to get at is it is best to not engage with certain posters, for it seems to go nowhere except possibly a total waste of time.

I am not perfect and very human and have made many mistakes on here with what I said, and continue to do so, but I like to think I am willing to look at myself, what I am doing, and will apologize or admit I was wrong.

p.s. - Sorry to talk about this in this thread about intellectual understanding, it is probably best to go back to the original topic.

Yes, i was being fair and describing in all fairness what you had actually said. Since you say you are too lazy to look it up here is verbatim quote - “Edit: Inquiry, I thought we had a deal, I wont bother you about your business, and you wont bother me about my business. But you seem to have broken this unwritten rule. I was letting Inquiry be Inquiry, even if that means he keeps talking about Paul, and you were supposed to let me be David, even if that means David asks questions about what others think…Please stay out of my business now and I will do likewise for you!”. Seems like in all fairness, you as asking him to stop. Whether you are asking him to stop “totally” or partially is anyone’s guess since that hasn’t been clarified. But in all fairness, it does sound like a request to stop until further notice.

You are within your rights to feel whatever you want to feel, however, if you can separate your feelings and see the word as a fact, which it is, then you may stop adding your personal value judgments to that fact. and won’t suffer from being offended.

Well, seems like as the expression goes, you are preaching to the choir, Since i had only one interaction with that troll several months ago and had no engagement with him since, even though he as been following me around like a 2 dollar…well i am not gong to say that word.This time he brought in a friend.

I agree. Again, thanks Mr. David.

Ouch! Damn.
Worst thing is, I agree that my response was pretty poor.

Anyway, I’ll go lie down now, lick my wounds, and hope you find someone else to talk to.

PS. Actually, after reading the comments above, it seems that there is a list of people (at least Inquiry and DanMcD) that you no longer wish to engage with - I would like to be added to that list if possible.

Also a few questions come to mind :
If someone chooses to be dishonest, they obviously have some mental deficiency (or the situation demands it) - so what is the point of chastising them?
If someone is not capable of being honest, the same applies.
Is aggression the best solution?

I know we have the opportunity to lash out on the internet, but imagine if we all did.

Yes, my pet theory is that confusion usually arises from holding 2 opposing views at once - or failing to understand one model due to dependance on another.

If so, would it be useful to hold as true that an intellectual understanding is detrimental to “true clarity”? Even an understanding of K’s teaching?

Intellectual understanding is partial say in the sense of ‘swimming’. I can learn everything about the movements, the different strokes, etc from books and videos but until I’m actually in the water :sweat_drops:

1 Like

Why do some ‘spiritual’ seeds germinate, others not? It’s a fascinating question! And hits deep, the difference between seeds germinating and staying dormant is life changing.

It’s a metaphor, a story, there are in actuality no spiritual seeds that do or don’t germinate. But staying with the metaphor might be illuminating.

In the world of plants, how does germination work? It’s not fate or magic or grace, it’s causes and conditions: light, water, proper temperature, oxygen, soil. What causes and conditions might cause Krishnamurti seeds to germinate?


Observation of thought without judgement.

1 Like

Yes, that sounds right.

How about: attention. It’s required for nonjudgmental observation of thought, but goes beyond it, includes more, right?

1 Like

I don’t think this fully answers the question - because of the question : how does observation without judgement arise? Is this something we can do? decide to do?


You are missing the point, for anything to “germinate”, it must have the right soil, and from what is within, that means a good foundation, in other words, goodness.

There are all sorts of people who think they are meditating, and observe thought endlessly (apparently without judgement), and nothing happens.

1 Like

Yes. ‘Seeds’ won’t water themselves. If it’s too difficult to follow each thought, maybe this would prove a valuable excercise: listen to the ‘others’ thoughts without judgement. Understanding that their thoughts / thinking is the same process as your own but issuing from a different ‘content’. No judgement, just listening and then it may be possible to listen to your own.

That’s it!


I wasn’t trying to “fully” answer, Charley’s bringing in “goodness” as a major ‘condition’ is important is it not?


Ah!, Then, who is observing thought?

I wouldn’t call it a “who”. Simple awareness? The interesting thing about ‘doing’ it is that it brings into the light the ‘sense of an identity’ that the brain associates automatically with thought. It’s always ‘me’ thinking ‘my’ thoughts. This excercise drops the judgemental ‘me’ and tries to simply follow whatever thoughts are arising. I find it difficult to maintain for more than a few minutes and weeks may go by before something reminds me to ‘try’ it again.

Btw I never associated this excercise with ‘sitting quietly’. I did that years ago but this I took to be watching thoughts in the normal ‘walking around’ day.

Apparently so - we seem to be saying its essential. Anybody like to clarify what they mean by “goodness”? What is this goodness that is essential for there to be Observation without Judgement?

What is observation without judgement ? Without the entity that observes (or that makes the effort)? This I think might be hard to follow, if we have not experimented.

Is there an agent that observes? And without that agent (if that is possible), can we still call what occurs : observation?