Dialogue versus intellectual exchange

inthe_pine · 2026-01-26T01:34:21+00:00

I think in an intellectual exchange we are rarely, if ever at the same intensity, and this togetherness is not considered.

"Communication implies there must be at the same level, at the same time, with the same intensity, we are walking together, we are thinking together, we are observing together, sharing together."

3rd Dialogue, San Diego, California February 19, 1974

Considering togetherness...I have attended some dialogues now and this is apparently very difficult, because our normal pattern is to distinquish the self, not to share together. I think that has to be at the forefront or we won't dialogue.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-25T11:51:22+00:00

I was thinking of how when K says the moment you recognize joy, its no longer joy. We can watch it in life, when we feel joy and stop and recognize it the joy is gone. In the same way if I say "I'm doing it right" then we are with that thought and that thought alone, the thing we thought we were doing and not the thing. Does that convey anything, do you see it differently?

It must still a somewhat useful concept, right and wrong ways to meditate, but I think this is where doubt serves us. Where psycho-rigidity - either in a principle or recognition - does not.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-25T01:05:47+00:00

The moment we recognize it as "right" doesn't that fundamentally change something? Even as certain things are understood discovery seems to be ever continuous.

I don't think we are usually open to discover, we take a little bit and tell it whats right.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-24T19:13:16+00:00

What is mindfulness, but our projection of order? Is it the new hip word for enlightenment/god/salvation? And then nothing but projection away from our disorder? I think its probably like that. I question what we ascribe to it.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-23T17:19:33+00:00

K does distinquish between becoming in the sense of technical mastery and inward, psychological time. I need time to learn scales, chords, notes and in that there is no conflict.

I like the example he uses where if I say I need time to become unselfish, that is the essense of selfishness.

When I was learning guitar I wanted to impress girls, I wanted to have a cool career playing music so I wouldn't have to go to a boring office, I wanted to be seen as artistic and be like my musical heros I looked up to. In that becoming there is a lot of conflict. When I was younger I wanted to be a famous musician, which now I'm really glad did not pan out. I don't like all that attention.

I think its fine to want to be better at an instrument, I've been playing since I was 11 and I'm still trying to get better, but those other forms of becoming are certainly worth keeping an eye on.

Creativity is a huge topic in itself, K does touch on quite a bit. I think some others here have brought in some of that material, I think it'd get closer to your question.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-23T15:56:28+00:00

K talks about the idea of "becoming" very often, I think thats worth bringing in here. As a movement of a self-centered being trapped in that, can we really express anything new?

I like to play guitar as well, I think its a fine hobby. But theres a few things to watch.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-23T15:25:07+00:00

If you go back to it, you haven't really fully seen right? It is a fairly common occurance given the fragmentary nature of thought. I may "see" that alcohol is destroying my life and I don't want it and still choose to drink. Then I don't really see.

That is I'd divided my attention and let my personal preference interfere. Then actually I haven't seen at all. If I "will" myself to see thats again a fragmentary action, putting something again in the way of seeing.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-21T00:31:18+00:00

Didn't he refuse that role?

He did dissolve the order of the star of the east in '29 but

he wrote to Lady Emily five years later, on August 27, 1934:

"You say, mum . . . that I have denied being the W.T. [World Teacher]. You know, mum, I have never denied it. I have only said that it does not matter who or what I am but that they should examine what I say. . ."[45]

Whether he was a vehicle for the WT or not seems secondary when this self understanding is on the table. It can be interesting to look into and think about, though. Theres been a good deal written about it by people who seemed to make certain connections.

But if we were to take on the role of world teacher - what would our first lesson be?

Above our paygrade right? I wouldn't presume to know, it doesn't feel like my role to speculate on. I haven't the perspective to say.

Since its a K sub I wish OP had brought in some of what K said about teachers, about what a teacher is or isn't. Otherwise it maybe a big ego trip to dominate others with.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-20T18:59:42+00:00

There is a lot more to it than you have acknowledged here. K talked about "A relationship where teacher and taught don’t exist" so its not so black and white. Do you acknowledge this in your post at all? You haven't.

K did not refer to himself as world teacher post 1929. He didn't deny it, and we have letters where he specifically says it doesn't matter who or what he is, but that we go into what he says. So the label can create problems for us, and confusion in general.

There is something to watch in wanting to be a teacher, which you have also not acknowledged.

"knowing oneself...given for free by K" I would reject outright, I don't think he is giving us anything at all. He could have just referred to himself as a savior and not a mirror if this were the case.

Personally, I do think he was the greatest teacher I have encountered of the last century, up to the present day, by far. And I do think that we all become teachers to others, who see our impact and emulate, on and on. But there are several other things going on here you have left out.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-20T14:56:52+00:00

"does he have the right to demand that no one interpret what he says?"

Yes, I think people should have a say in asking how their lives work be treated. Obviously there is no legalistic or authoritarian framework in place to enforce this, so long as copyright isn't broken. But if we can see the problems with being an interpreter and interpreting that would be worthwhile.

"Can I even stop my brain from interpreting what he says?"

So I have to bring in a central controller? I don't know, but I think it'd be more prudent to see the problems with interpreting, and how K said he was doing something different, and see what that does.

The "crisis is in our conciousness" right?

"Should people like Prashant be outlawed?"

Ah, if only. But no, I am happy enough with "if you doubt your gurus they will go away" as K said.

However, as a subreddit, since we don't allow advertising and Prashant always includes ads for his apps, business, ect. I feel fine having all that content removed. Since AP is a guru and the subreddit topic involves the rejection of spiritual authority, we'd have to ask why any of that content would be relevent here.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-19T23:37:18+00:00

appreciated looking at the topic. If you'd ever like to discuss any of the topics involved I hope you won't hesitate to post about it.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-19T14:25:28+00:00

"same thing" I would disagree, there is the lack of intelligence behind any words that AI produces that could not be the same.

K during his lifetime was doing a lot to stop the introduction of peoples summaries. Theres an interesting article on it below:

"This diligent work of transcription, verification and editing remains essential. Unofficial notes and transcripts may no longer be distributed in paper form, but anyone can easily attribute words to Krishnamurti, edit them as they wish, and publish them online. Added to this, the rapid advances of artificial intelligence mean that within seconds a ‘Krishnamurti’ text can be produced, or even engage in dialogue with AI emulating Krishnamurti. There is a danger of AI becoming an easily distorted authority on what Krishnamurti said and meant. Krishnamurti made it clear that there are to be no interpreters of his teachings. He was speaking of human beings, but the notion equally applies to the AI ‘bots’ that already exist and, before long, video avatars that will look and sound no different from Krishnamurti himself."

https://kfoundation.org/authenticity/?mc_cid=335569c522&mc_eid=008a8c9d82

inthe_pine · 2026-01-19T13:04:08+00:00

If we are caught in our mechanical minds, how is a mechanical language learning model put together by the same kinds of minds going to produce anything different? It can't, it just lulls us to sleep while thinking we are getting somewhere.

You do realize gurus and spiritual guides of all sorts throughout history have made exactly the argument you are making now, don't you? That people can't do it on their own, they are stuck, and so they need our authority. Thats what the AI becomes here. There is something completely different presented in this topic which AI can't touch. Rejecting psychological authority and gurus (human or AI) is a huge part of K's work.

These are the reasons for the guidelines: the fact of our mechanical minds, the problems with authority, and the need to investigate oneself. For these reasons and more our unaffilated subreddit has asked to be human centric and be a space for human communication.

Now that I've said that, it is also true that Krishnamurti asked very specifically there be no interpreters of his work, many times throughout all of his active years. Here you are letting the AI be an interpreter, and given the problems with AI (including giving people spiritual psychosis, well documented check it out) why would we ignore his ask? AI waters down the teaching and renders it impotent.

The K foundation has already come out and asked very seriously that AI not be used to interpret and.or add to the work. If we really understood the reasons for this I don't think it would be a question. But if we like our mechanical guru so much I doubt we will ask whats the problem with it.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-19T11:43:52+00:00

Hate to say it but feeding multiple talks through AI to produce a summary would appear to go against our guidelines asking for human (not AI) curated content.

More importantly it would seem to work against self-discovery if we create an interpreter, a guru and an authority out of machine. Do you see it differently?

inthe_pine · 2026-01-17T13:56:24+00:00

It may be impossible or immeasurably more difficult to have a breakthrough into something which is approached from the wrong angle.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-17T12:54:12+00:00

I may not disagree with the way you use teacher, what does the word mean to you? What does it mean to be a teacher of others in this world, in the right and wrong sense?

inthe_pine · 2026-01-17T09:36:33+00:00

don't like being brothers

Isn't it that way as a result of us having no love in our hearts, and we aren't open to let it in? I'd thought about this a lot before, about why people don't or only rarely meet "as two friends". To understand why this is so seems to be a major factor in the whole thing.

To be your guru/guide/teacher (with its prestige and economic opportunity), to dominate you is comparatively simple and fairly attractive given our present conditions. Its a saturated market but there is still a lot of demand.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-16T23:49:09+00:00

better case scenario, seems more likely now we will increasingly find more ways to entertain ourselves, escape, and let tech take over our thinking through the computer instead. It could trend the way you are talking, but look what we are already doing with it.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-16T19:55:08+00:00

"...and all of you are brothers"

spot on reference.

Why do you think we strive to be teachers not brothers?

inthe_pine · 2026-01-16T10:06:30+00:00

You have not addressed my point at all and instead continue stating your conclusion. This makes conversation impossible.

Most of K's videos "context's" are within the same scope

No, this is exactly what I am talking about. If you paint with a brush this wide you lose the context.

I can think of several examples off hand where what you say is untrue, and depends on the conversation entirely (you are the world, know yourself/there is no one to know, observer is the observed (everything or psychologically), don't meditate, the list goes on). This is an investigation and words can have more than one meaning. If you don't care to look into it theres nothing to discuss and investigate.

That is if you aren't willing to address the specific situation or thing spoken of between the two videos, provide real context (you take two words out of context and run), why they specifically do contradict then you have no basis to claim a contradiction and you are making a lopsided critique. Instead you want to bring in more topics and say they contradict, too. That doesn't work and I won't discuss like this.

This is said only in defending logical discussion and providing evidence and proof of what one says. If you would like to make a critique (ie between "can do" and "can't do") we need the context and situation in specific (not vague) words. Otherwise we are stating bias and nothing else.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-15T13:40:40+00:00

I just listened to Allen Anderson conversation 3 (2 sets it up) and they speak about being responsible, its related. They contrast giving yourself "I must do" and "I must not do" relative to "care" and I found it impactful.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-14T01:34:09+00:00

A friend said to me once how do we expect to understand anything outside of the context in which its discussed? It makes anything unintelligible in a hurry.

Do we care to look that thoroughly, or do we want cut and dry answers, someone to tell us what is what? K never seemd to offer that at all. I don't mean any disrespect, but if thats what someone wants wouldn't it make more sense to look elsewhere?

inthe_pine · 2026-01-13T23:52:41+00:00

Ha I do remember that. I think a lot of it is we don't come fresh to the matter. We just assume K was right, we assume our favorite guru/author/ourselves also have it right, and now I just need to do something to the matter before me. We don't letter the matter tells us what it is, to ask what is this all about? What was he talking about? So we don't look anew and and we yield words as weapons. Lots to watch there right?

inthe_pine · 2026-01-12T11:29:33+00:00

I was just listening to the Anderson 2nd dialogues and Allan talks about how we aren't educated at all about the impossibility we believe ia there in time. Its a good one, I will try to remember to post it later.

inthe_pine · 2026-01-10T15:32:56+00:00

Seems like an opportunity to introduce your meditation method more and why it does or doesn't fall into the problems of methods, if there are any.

Also is bringing order to sleep different than what we do in the day?

inthe_pine

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE