1. They don't understand the K's explanation of the 'experience' of his mind. Hence they imagine those experiences through one's own 'experience' of one's mind, or they don't have the ability to look at one's own mind, therefore imagine something else, to understand based on those imaginations.
2. K explains outside world problems as an outcome of the problems within, in the mind. This leads to a superficial understanding, where the person who is unable to understand the inner problem of what K speaks about. starts from the outside problems, which is easy to understand and tries to come to the inner problems, which K explains. Then makes a lot of hypothesis of the inner problems or does not have any idea of them.
Now let us examine how K was tring to relate his inner experience of Dvision to the outside world.
Quote K:
When there is a visual awareness of the tree without any psychological involvement there is no division in relationship. But when there is a psychological response to the tree, the response is a conditioned response, it is the response of past memory, past experiences, and the response is a division in relationship. This response is the birth of what we shall call the 'me' in relationship and the 'non-me'. This is how you place yourself in relationship to the world. This is how you create the individual and the community. The world is seen not as it is, but in its various relationships to the 'me' of memory. This division is the life and the flourishing of everything we call our psychological being, and from this arises all contradiction and division.
-K -The Urgency of Change | Awareness
End of Quote.
When K tries as here, i.e. "This is how you place yourself in relationship to the world. This is how you create the individual and the community.", one is misled by his own understanding of the outside world. If he cannot understand the Division, which is the inner experience, what K want to explain, the reader will begin with this superficial explanation of the outside world by K, in order to come back and understand the inner experience. This will result in a superficial understanding.
But surprising thing with some of the people who have formed Superficial Understanding is that they have more conviction in K. This is due to the fact that they have definitive theorems for every aspect of what K speaks about.
Your error is measuring 'other people' and entering into comparison, interpretations, and analysis - which in itself is superficial.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as 'Krishnamurti followers', equally there is no need to be a Buddhist to find out what the Buddha had to say, etc.
The teachings of JK are open to all, we all make our mistakes and can learn together - if we are friendly and approachable, and only face to face, not this internet verbal stuff.
Ano,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Your error is measuring 'other people' and entering into comparison, interpretations, and analysis - which in itself is superficial." But you did not show how it is superficial, by examples, as I have done by taking examples from K's quotes, to explain things. And when I come to the "Factual Understanding of K", that is also by taking examples from K's dialogue with others, I hope you will understand more.
It is only a hope because, only a few understand K. So I cannot expect every one to understand me, but I will try my best to present my understanding of K as clearly as possible with as much as examples are needed.
There are internet social media like facebook and websites which one can create to have a dialogue, but this 'blog' thing gives a sort of freedom to go on feeding one's thoughts, little by little every day. I love it.
I don't know what you meant by, "if we are friendly and approachable.", Does it means that the people who are in dialogue must have same conviction of the things that they are discussing? That means, in order to discuss K, should both agree that 'K is right'?
You said, "There is no such thing as 'Krishnamurti followers". Yes I agree and I would be discussing the same in one of my future postings. But do you know why that one cannot be follower of K? if you don't know, wait for that future blog of me.
Kind Regards.
Many thousands of people attended the talks of K, as well as read his books, its not possible to 'know' what all those people understand in K's teachings.
ReplyDeleteYou can only speak for yourself.
With respect, leave other people alone, and leave them the freedom for themselves to work with the teachings.
Why are you wanting to classify what people understand of K or not, and being so occupied with the misunderstandings and multiple confusions that come out of that - forums?
You are also making the error of making interpretations of K's teachings - explaining what you think K means, rather than explaining what you have actually understood, or not understood - and stick to that.
To start over, as the Americans say, would require a clear description what 'understanding' means to you in the context of K and K's teachings.
Your interpretation of K's teachings into three levels of understanding is not actual, an invention of your own, a sort of "philosophy." Why create levels, when none exist? Who creates the levels? Its a contradiction to the fact that "truth is a pathless land."
If you need me to quote you, from this blog page you have written -
1. "They" don't understand the K's explanation of the 'experience' of his mind.
Who are "they" ? = Forums?
Your communication is an intellectual understanding and a speculation on what others understand of K, and then to classify people into "levels." How heartless.
Buddhists, have made that error and created Buddhism with their levels of understanding and teachers to explain all that. "Be a light unto yourself" negates the teachers and levels. "Levels" comes from priests, teachers and interpreters.
The internet is a verbal limited medium of communication, when we are face to face then we are aware of each other, like this its just minimal, and always will be. To read the teachings, ok its a first step, the next is to work face to face with friends of the teachings - or anyone else wanting to go deeper than verbal communication.
I feel you are wasting your time and life being so occupied on the internet with these serious subjects, and miss finding the sacred, instead just discussions and speculation on other people.
Go and meet "other people" - and help them to be free of their suffering as a "first step."