Yes isn’t Attention as he uses the word, this other “dimension” of awareness that can “be attentive when you are inattentive”? That can not “mind what happens”?
That might be the ‘blossoming’ of the planted ‘seeds?
These questions look like they might bear fruit. To address terminology, isn’t ‘clarity’ by definition ‘true’? Or were you thinking of some other definition for ‘clarity’? Your second question is a particular instance of the general that is your first question. If we just address the intellectual understanding of K’s talks, whatever truth/clarity comes out of this will apply to the general as well.
We have intellectual understanding of K’s talks now. That’s fact. Looking at our question (I hope you don’t mind me adopting your question), what happens when it’s only intellectual understanding?
I heard K say ‘I see in listening there should be no reaction, because then I am not listening. Right? It’s an obvious fact.’ ( This is from the video ‘Why Don’t You Listen’ with K, Mary Zimbalist and Scott Forbes !4 October 1985 on Youtube search for ‘Krishnamurti Why Don’t You Listen’). So I just accept it as true without any exploration or inquiry to see the truth of it, to see if that is how I would describe listening, to see if that is how I actually listen. So I have only this intellectual understanding of K’s description of listening and my own unexplored way that I actually listen. If they are different, the intellectual and the actual, of what use is the intellectual understanding?
For example, someone said something that I strongly disagreed with. How do I know that I strongly disagreed with it? Because as soon as I heard the statement. I went into my memory bank, looked at my memory, compared it to what I heard, saw that it was different, constructed a response and may or may not have expressed it. But I thought it nonetheless and had no awareness that I wasn’t listening. That I had stopped listening the moment that my attention went to my memory. And, as a consequence, conflict had begun. Because all of that I consider listening even though I accepted as true what K said. And I won’t consider that I wasn’t listening.
Is the intellectual understanding of listening according to K detrimental to clarity?
You have now refused to discuss with me. It may be a case of showing solidarity towards your fallen “brothers” akin to maintaining an honor among thieves, or, it is perhaps a continuity of the exclusive tribal sentiments I had noticed on the ‘dead K society’ thread. Or perhaps there is fear that if you do not go along with the tribe then you may be ousted and you will have no one to “talk to”. Which is one of the oldest fears of mankind. Whether it is a case of secret handshakes, fear, solidarity among thieves, or nefarious motives, none of which concerns me nor do I care to find out. It is what it is because it is what-is, the prickly what-is of mankind. The bottom line. This is our bed rock, right? Our true reflection in the mirror, if we have the backbone to see it.
In that refusal you have not shied from attempting to prejudicially paint me as person who has a “list” of “people” he doesn’t want to engage with, while completely mis-categorizing the difference between “people” and insecure reactive trolls, in the most clinical and textual use of the terminology. But then, obviously, you perhaps have your reasons.
So……after refusing to discuss with me and asking me to find someone else to “talk to”, you then proceed to ask me a bunch of questions that have nothing to do with your op. The same type of questions you has started with when you went to my thread… The kind of questions your friend ‘Dan” was asking me above.
Sir, I had asked you 2 simple questions, fundamental to your thread. Not my thread, your thread. If you can take a breather and think about this situation.
Absolutely amazing!
I’ve accepted your request. Thank you.
Maybe we can be a little bit flexible with our language here? K himself frequently gave different valences to different words at different times, during different discussions, so I think we can give ourselves some leeway with this, so long as we recognise the possibility of further dimensions to what we are discussing (which might then require a new or different word to point to it).
So, for example, in responding to Rick’s question
I think it would be acceptable to use a whole host of words that point in the same direction that you mentioned (when you said “observation of thought without judgment”).
So, for instance, seeing or watching, listening, observation, awareness, choicelessness, attention - I think all these words point in a similar direction. Maybe they have different meanings for different people, but they all point in the direction of observation without judgement.
In simple seeing or observing or watching (or listening) there is a quality of attention, right? (I mean attention in the ordinary sense of that word). So whether it is seeing or being attentive to something outward - like a bird or the sky - or seeing what is going on inwardly - like a thought or a feeling, or a reaction - this seeing has in it the quality of attention. Perhaps if the seeing is remained with it can become truly choiceless seeing, and perhaps when it is choiceless (i.e. nonjudgmental) it can become complete attention (without an observer, without a centre), or even insight. But it is all one seeing, one attention (the quality if it), if you see what I mean. So we don’t need to break it up too much into different words.
The other thing I thought worth mentioning is that I assume we are not talking about a purely mental attention, or mental observation, right? So there is a quality of love, affection, care in the seeing, a quality of compassion in it. It is not just attention or observation from the ‘head’ (as it were) but attention with our heart also, with our whole body, our senses, etc. So observation and attention (or awareness) also has the quality of love in it (which may also be capable of being deepened into a dimension of truth or compassion that we do not need to rule out or deny). I hope this makes sense.
The observer,
You do realize that most people observe thought from the “I”… as in a part of themselves observing another part of themselves, in K terms, one fragment observing another fragment. And because of all the stuff online, many just try and push the thoughts away, (i.e. one fragment trying to suppress/control, what is happening within - there exist many incredible techniques to do that !!!).
Here, you see what happens, one says: “can “I” observe my thoughts…?” The “who” is “me”… right? So, is the “I” the right instrument to observe what is going on inside?
Will throw another wrench into this 
There is the chattering that goes on as well, right? Now K suggested to ask oneself whether or not there is anything that one can do… about this chattering? Do you ask yourself that? So is there anything one can do about the chattering?
What is expectation? Is it not anger ?
According to K’s use of “observation”, all observation is without judgment because there is no judge. But the self-centered brain is incapable of thought without judgment, and that’s why K called it the “observer”.
I’m beginning to regret using the seed metaphor, so let me put it another way: If K’s brain lost its self-center and he was speaking from freedom from all that distorts perception, he was nobody seeing, experiencing everything as it actually is, trying to awaken the brains of his listeners to the human condition itself by turning its attention to the dreamlike nature of self.
It may be, but we can’t know until/if “true clarity” is actual.
If we’re as interested in K’s teaching as we seem to be, shouldn’t we “get it” as it was intended to be received?
I have only this intellectual understanding of K’s description of listening and my own unexplored way that I actually listen. If they are different, the intellectual and the actual, of what use is the intellectual understanding?
If it’s useless, I wouldn’t know until I have no further use for it.
That sounds right to me. It’s a good metaphor though, the seed thing but like all metaphors, they only go so far.
Just to recap : K says that when we react to what we hear, we are not (no longer) listening.
@BobHearns reminds us that this is because listening and being in conflict with what is being said (due to our beliefs) is not the same thing.
The claim is that we can have a possibly correct understanding of the K theory of listening, as laid out above, but still find it difficult to listen, still be caught up in conflict with what is being said.
The answer seems to be : Intellectual understanding (especially a correct understanding) is not necessarily detrimental, but it does seem to be insufficient.
PS. So why? Unless someone wants to argue that an understanding of all the theories is necessary (not just listening, but also looking, being, self, meditation, death, consciousness, silence, attention, awareness, nature, authority, fear, freedom, fragmentation, mind, the brain, evolution, education, love, conflict, religion, sincerity, energy, innocence, motive, simplicity, desire, thought, aloneness, choice and all the other stuff) for some sort of transformation to occur.
As thought only ends listening and accessing any intellectual understanding uses thought, is it necessary at all? Is intellectual understanding only a potential distraction, only a potential to end listening? Does intellectual understanding have any other function that to move away from ‘what is’?
Is it that intellectually understanding any of these theories (your word, K does not present these as theories as far as I can tell) only has the potential to be benign, if not accessed, or has the potential to prevent transformation, if accessed. Does intellectual understanding have any value at all?
How about ‘Goodness’ is a balance or harmony between the mind, the heart and the body?
1 Like
Kindness, empathy, love? A sense of genuine connection with and fondness for others?
1 Like
Yes, but only if one believes correct understanding results in transformation.
One gets the correct understanding because we’re more inclined to misunderstand due to the fact that K talked about things (direct perception, compassion, observation, etc.) about which we know nothing and can’t imagine.
Unless someone wants to argue that an understanding of all the theories is necessary (not just listening, but also looking, being, self, meditation, death, consciousness, silence, attention, awareness, nature, authority, fear, freedom, fragmentation, mind, the brain, evolution, education, love, conflict, religion, sincerity, energy, innocence, motive, simplicity, desire, thought, aloneness, choice and all the other stuff) for some sort of transformation to occur.
Correct understanding of K’s teaching is acknowledging that one can’t possibly understand what he talked about because the brain to which he was speaking is too limited and isolated to understand. But, when this limited, isolated brain is aware of and interested in its own movement, its activity and reactivity, self-knowledge arises, and without self-knowledge there can be no understanding of what K talked about.
So, where do you stand @inquiry? Have you gone as far with the Teachings as your brain will allow, and
a)can expect no more/have earnt the full benefit humanly possible.
Or
b) still expecting some transformation through some mysterious process (some magical effect of the words themselves, some effect from your own effort at listening?)
What are you expecting (or hoping for), if anything?
1 Like
Dear Bob,
One question I have from your comments, is : What is the value in what K says? Is its value in the intellectual narrative it provides? Or Is there something else being provided by the words he says?
As in : Is K providing us with a description that we are to understand intellectually, and then experiment with. Or are you suggesting something else?
1 Like
The self-centered brain can peruse and pore over the teachings for a lifetime without expecting anything more than “getting them” correctly; understanding K’s use of the language. It’s wishful thinking to expect radical transformation as a result of correctly understanding K’s teaching because there’s no reason why the awakening of intelligence can’t happen to anyone, whether familiar with the teachings or not.
still expecting some transformation through some mysterious process (some magical effect of the words themselves, some effect from your own effort at listening?) What are you expecting (or hoping for), if anything?
I’m expecting a clear enough understanding of K’s teaching that I won’t have to keep going over it, quoting it, and participating in forums like this, hoping I’ll have no further need of such activity.
I’d like to go slowly, step by step. Understanding intellectually what K says, or anybody, it doesn’t matter who is saying it because we are not talking about the person but about what the person, K or whoever, is saying. Do we agree? If we don’t agree then we are not together and it is pointless to go further.
1 Like
What are we to agree upon @BobHearns ?
I think you are saying that we must first define what we mean by “intellectual understanding”. Am I following?
It sounds like the goal is to come to a satisfactory conclusion regarding the teachings, in order to be able to move on to something else, confident that K’s theories have been dealt with adequately?
For the self image / thought, “the observer is the observed” can’t be anything but a “theory”. Because the brain’s realization that that IS the case, that it IS true, that the duality of ‘me and the rest’ IS an illusion, that realization if it happens, means the dissolution of that false duality. It means the death of that ‘me’.