Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Do we intentionally try to misunderstand or are we conditioned to misunderstand and argue with each other like politicians do all the time?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 93 in total
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #1
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

Apparently there is an option of quoting others and fighting against it in this website (it seems that it was meant to produce such effects! Do you think that such an argumentive set up can possibility lead to truth?

This post was last updated by One Self Fri, 12 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #2
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 728 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
Apparently there is an option of quoting others and fighting against it in this website (it seems that it was meant to produce such effects!

Hello Goodman B. I would say that the best way to avoid misunderstandings is to be as clear as possible. I don't really understand what you mean here when you say "fighting against it".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #3
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Sean. I intentionally used the word fighting instead of arguing. They are the same thing. To argue is to fight. Just like what politicians do. They fight to win . Now if that is clear my point is that I have used (making an example here)about 40 words above and you have picked the word fighting and now we are focusing about that word and forgetting about what was actually said. We do have a problem in this site. This site is turned into a highschool English class. We are not here to learn English from each other. That is so silly.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #4
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 728 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
This site is turned into a highschool English class. We are not here to learn English from each other. That is so silly.

Hi Goodman. No, we're not here to learn English but as in any form of communication, it's important that we try as much as possible to send clear messages. This will minimise misunderstanding. The problem I had was that I didn't really understand the point you were trying to make in your first message. You spoke about the option of quoting each other and fighting against "it". To be honest, I don't know what "it" is here. Anyway, if we try to communicate our ideas as clearly as we can and be tolerant when there is poor communication I think we can reduce energy wasted in fighting/arguing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #5
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

Well, in above paragraph you have explained what you mean. But if I pick part of what you said and quote it and merely respond to that part what happens? The mind gets narrowed down. In the part the whole is not but in the whole the part is. So if I base my conversation on understanding then I have to respond to the whole paragraph not respond to a phrase that I think that it is a flaw in your response. Don't you think so?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #6
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

Sean part of what GB is trying to complain about is that he doesn't see the need to give citations for quotes. Citations, as any educated person knows, are absolutely imperative. For example, all K sites provide citations for the quotes that they put up on their sites. When Dev puts up a quote everyday on this site he never fails to tell the reader where this quote came from.

Also what GB seems to do consistently is to conceptualize something, or fragment something K has said. There are these examples taken from GB's post on this thread alone: In the part the whole is not but in the whole the part is.; I intentionally used the word fighting instead of arguing. They are the same thing. To argue is to fight. Just like what politicians do. They fight to win .

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 02 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #7
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
This site is turned into a highschool English class. We are not here to learn English from each other. That is so silly.

Sean, what I think GB is pointing to here is that I once wrote to him and said it is as important to give citations to quotes as it is to have proper grammar and sentence structure. GB completely misunderstood this simple example I gave and later wrote that I was trying to turn this site into an English lessons class. Which, of course, to a person with normal reading skills would know that I was just saying it is important and necessary to give citations for quotes. Giving citations allows the reader to look up the quote and read more about the subject matter. I often do that to the quotes Dev posts on this site.

I now understand why GB refuses, or is reluctant, to give citations. He doesn't know what I mean by "giving citations for quotes" or how to include one with a quote. Which, of course, is a whole different problem.

So rather than learn what a citation is and using them where appropriate he has decided to blindly fight against "citations".

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 02 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #8
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 728 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Sean part of what GB is trying to complain about is that he doesn't see the need to give citations for quotes. Citations, as any educated person knows, are absolutely imperative.

Hello Jack. Yes, of course, if you quote Krishnamurti you must give the source otherwise it's confusing and worthless.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #9
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
if you quote Krishnamurti you must give the source otherwise it's confusing and worthless.

This citation thing needs some serious discussion. If one says k said "the observer is the observed" is it worthless.? If someone had talked to krishnamurti and there was no recording there and says k said so and so. Is it worthless? These things are really not worth discussing for the man of truth. He is not concerned with who said the truth. He is only concerned with truth. But here we are (not me) concerned with who says what. So we are constantly stuck with these images. And these images are against each other. And they fight and argue endlessly. And apparently there is pleasure in cleverly projecting imagery on others who also get pleasure out of this image making.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #10
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 728 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
This citation thing needs some serious discussion. If one says k said "the observer is the observed" is it worthless.? If someone had talked to krishnamurti and there was no recording there and says k said so and so. Is it worthless?

If there is no citation, it's possible that K didn't actaully say what is being quoted. This can be very confusing. A citation allows one to go to the source and read more. If someone had talked to K and references this then of course. it could well be very interesting.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #11
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
If there is no citation, it's possible that K didn't actaully say what is being quoted.

Exactly Sean. If it became permissible to quote famous and important people without citing the source of the quote then anyone could misquote a prominent person's words to suit their own need or purpose.

For a person who claims to be a "man of truth"* why is there a problem with giving the source of the quote?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #12
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

Another thing. If you think someone is "speaking truth" there is a problem. Can someone else "give you truth"? Is there any such thing as "my" truth and "your" truth? No. Truth doesn't belong to anyone. There is just truth and it is up to each person to find out for his or herself what truth is.

Krishnamurti cannot give you the truth. He can but point the way. You have to take the journey yourself. Because when a person claims to have the "truth" it is really a subtle form of exploitation. It's a trick religion uses to exploit it's followers.

Religion says if you want to know the truth, know god, then come to my church, accept my traditions and dogma and don't forget to drop something in the collection basket.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #13
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

If I talk to my friend and quote k without citation he has no problem because there is trust . But in here because everybody is against somebody else and we don't trust each other we require citations. Any way ,the last few quotes that I have posted from k I pasted the citations there . So let's get on with it. It is over.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #14
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
it is no measure of a healthy mind to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

If that statement is true then who cares if k said it or X said it. Krishnamurti didn't want his talks becoming blue prints and slogans which becomes authority. That would destroy every thing he did to set man free. .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #15
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

Ken, Thank you very much for that very interesting and perceptive Huxley quote. What a mind he must have had

I have another quote for you that most of us have heard and it seems relevant given one reaction to the quote.

In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast. ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them. under their feet, and turn again and rend you. John: 7:6

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 03 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #16
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast. ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them. under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Sounds gibberish.:-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #17
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 480 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
There are a number of quotes attributed to K that he never uttered, the most famous one being something to the effect that it is no measure of a healthy mind to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. It appears on t-shirts, posters, coffee mugs, etc. But K never said it.

In fact, K did say it: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society". I jotted it down in a notebook decades ago for myself because I kept forgetting the words and I had been struck by how simply and concisely he put into words something that I felt but could not express no matter how many words I used for it. What Aldous Huxley is quoted as saying points to the same thing but to me it is not as stirring in its beauty and simplicity.

Unfortunately, I didn't write down the source reference since it was only noted for myself.

Of course, you will believe or disbelieve it. Since it has come up several times, I wanted to submit it. It really doesn't change anything.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #18
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
it is no measure of a healthy mind to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

I wonder who said it first. Did K paraphrase Huxley or did Huxley expand on what K had said? I suppose it doesn't matter. I've always found the quote interesting and accurate. Anyway thanks for posting what you know about it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #19
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
it is no measure of a healthy mind to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

A measure of healthy mind doesn't make sense since health is a relative term. K doesn't compare and measure health. So I think that statement is abstract and k never spoke abstractly. I discard that statement as not being true.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #20
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
it is no measure of a healthy mind to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

A measure of healthy mind doesn't make sense since health is a relative term. K doesn't compare and measure health. So I think that statement is abstract and k never spoke abstractly. I discard that statement as not being true.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #21
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
R.Nixon(?): "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"

Ken D wrote:
A.H. "Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness."

Isn't it a form of mental illness for one to have earned, gained, amassed enough 'capital' to take care of one's physical needs and those of one's family say or others close to one into the foreseeable future , and knowing that millions of others have little or nothing and barely enough to feed and clothe themselves or their children, couldn't it be called a 'mental illness' for someone in that situation of 'wealth' to continue to attempt to amass more? And also to attempt to not only 'make' more money but to change laws and regulations that make it easier for them to add to their store of riches to the detriment of others? I'd say it was a kind of mental derangement to act in this way. As well as those others who pay respect and admiration to these 'amassers' and hope one day to emulate them. That sounds like a 'sick' society, doesn't it?.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 03 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #22
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

Dan, to a certain extent one is obligated to take care of one's self and one's family and not be a burden to others. But of course you are referring to acquisition and accumulation way beyond one's needs. K talks about acquisition and greed as part of the problem. Not only acquisition of material goods but acquisition spiritually/psychologically. One becomes better and better or more and more. Which is an illusion. But that doesn't stop most of us.

They have a name for what you are talking about in your post. It's called capitalism, among other things. Recently I ran across this definition. Capitalism: The psychopathic idea that some people are more entitled to food, water and shelter than others.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 03 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #23
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

Ken:has anybody actually read Krishnamurti?
Apparently everybody exploits Krishnamurti to strengthen their soul.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #24
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
It's like saying Richard Nixon wrote the Gettysburg Address.

He couldn't have Ken, Nixon was just a child when that was written.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #25
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
Huxley is expanding on a comment by Erich Fromm

Well OK. I remember reading a few books by Fromm back in the day but I don't remember anything from them. He was a psychologist wasn't he? It definitely reads like something a psychologist would say.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Oct 2018 #26
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
He couldn't have Ken, Nixon was just a child when that was written.

Dan, I assume you're joking. Thanks for not putting a stupid smiley face at the end of your sentence. I appreciate a dry sense of humor. The Gettysburg Address was written in 1863 as I am sure you know.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Oct 2018 #27
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Dan, I assume you're joking.

Your assumption Jack, is correct.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Oct 2018 #28
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 442 posts in this forum Offline

There is no rule here that you must cite the source of a quotation. Nevertheless, it is a kindness to do so because it permits people to verify that the quote is authentic, to study the context of the quote, and to perhaps go deeper into the issue.

It is quite common for someone to paraphrase K or to say that K WOULD say such and such, and nearly always the person who does this adds his or her own slant. That's why it can be helpful and clarifying to find out exactly what K did or did not say, and citations can help.

They are not mandatory. Anybody can say anything. Anybody can attribute total nonsense to K. But if you expect an attribution to be taken seriously, it is often best to back it up, and that means citing the source. Since most of K teachings are online and since computers excel at search, this is not so hard.

Now what is misunderstanding? And what does it involve? Sometimes communication fails, either partially or completely. Not all of us write clearly in English. For some of us, it is a second language. For others, it is a skill that has not developed for whatever reason. Hopefully, we look to the message someone is trying to share and we don't get bogged down in how it is expressed. Because little can be done about someone's style. But we can jointly investigate ideas, as well as pointing beyond ideas.

On the receiving end things can go awry, too. We may not listen very carefully. That could mean rapidly scanning or dismissing something someone has written. Perhaps they gave great care to their post and we treat it in a cursory way. Perhaps we have a preconceived idea about the person and we read the post with that coloring. Perhaps we, for some reason, want to attack the person posting, and so we pick and choose from what they have written to find fault, rather than really looking for the deeper intent.

The brain, subsumed in thought, can be quick to dismiss.

There are all kinds of ways communication can fail. To care is to be aware, in relationship. When there is awareness in relationship, whether here or anywhere, then there can be something entirely new: true communication. Is this not so?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 04 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Oct 2018 #29
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Now what is misunderstanding? And what does it involve? Sometimes communication fails, either partially or completely. Not all of us write clearly in English. For some of us, it is a second language. For others, it is a skill that has not developed for whatever reason. Hopefully, we look to the message someone is trying to share and we don't get bogged down in how it is expressed. Because little can be done about someone's style. But we can jointly investigate ideas, as well as pointing beyond ideas.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Oct 2018 #30
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

Idiot, you are the first person who has responded correctly to the discussion's topic . If everyone was as objective as you write then this place would be a holy place as Dan wishes it to be. There is one point that I can add and that is people who merely know English as their mother's language I find are more attached to the words than those who know a few languages . K himself new more than five languages . It is better to speak broken English and have something to say than write correct English endlessly without having anything to say. When I was in the university some teachers asked the students to write a report . You could write the whole report in one page but they insisted that you write it in ten pages or more. If you didn't they would give you a D . Most intellectuals can read and write English correctly but they can't relate to the teachings.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 93 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)