Im fairly new to kinfonet.org and have been enthused to be here with others that are familiar with the teachings of Krishnamurti. Ive been reading some of these forums and i couldn't help but notice a pattern in the manner of communication most seem to be taking. It seems like many people are taking a 'guru' or 'poet' position in their expression. Many writing somewhat unclearly with their paragraphs saturated with so much imagery, one either looses the point or has to read it again. Some paragraphs with so much vocabulary that one gets lost in first trying to find out what each word means then the whole thing loses its articulation. Im not sure what the motive for that is, but this isn't a spelling-B contest or a 'whose more intelligent' competition. To act that way is completely immature.

To some extent we are all here to learn and share. But if people here are concerned only with How I seem to come across (poetically, sage-like, etc.) rather than if I'm conveying myself clearly, then it has all become superficial. There is no sincerity in the sharing and the communication. Logically if I don't understand something I ask. Which I have done already.

If im not mistaken, kinfonet.org pretty much stands for: Krishnamurti information network organization; correct? Where does the Vedic god Agni fit into all this? I don't know!?

• SM

Communication requires clarity. Thank you for pointing this out.

max

This is what I see:
I know that when my communication starts getting over decorated with imagery, rhymes, comparisons, dualities- its not communication anymore, it becomes 'expression'. And in 'expression' there is alternative motive. Alternative motive meaning motive to express my 'self'; motive to perpetuate a 'guru', 'poet' or 'enlightened' image about me; motive to paint a picture and show prowess of that rather than to convey the point; there is a motive to confuse; motive to seem mysterious, enigmatic, and spiritual, etc.. Its all so childish.

Obviously communication must always be clear, otherwise its not communication.

-SM

Santos,

I wasn't being sarcastic, and sorry if it came across like that. I really feel that both of your posts, above, ought to be read by everybody posting on Kinfonet. I feel the same as you do.

max

santos madrid wrote:
then the whole thing loses its articulation. Im not sure what the motive for that is

Very well said Santos. Too many unnecessay words and sentances is a clear sign the writer has nothing much to really say. The motive is quite clear also.

santos madrid wrote:
rather than if I'm conveying myself clearly,

Why do you care to convey your self clearly or other wise? Isn't it enough to observe the insanity that goes on with people, which you very clearly described? What can you convey that does not add to the clatter? Was that too sage-like? ;o)

santos madrid wrote:
communication anymore, it becomes 'expression'. And in 'expression' there is alternative motive

Is the distinction you are making between communication and self expression, real? Other than self, what is there to communicate? Psychologically speaking.

santos madrid wrote:
rather than to convey the point;

First it was important to convey your self, now it is important to convey the point. I'm confused (not really).

max greene wrote:
I wasn't being sarcastic, and sorry if it came across like that. I really feel that both of your posts, above, ought to be read by everybody posting on Kinfonet. I feel the same as you do.

Im so glad you understand what I am saying. My apologies if I seemed as if Im scolding monsieur. Thanks!

• SM

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Why do you care to convey your self clearly or other wise? Isn't it enough to observe the insanity that goes on with people, which you very clearly described? What can you convey that does not add to the clatter? Was that too sage-like? ;o)

I want to learn. I want to share what I understand clearly and see clearly, so therefore, I communicate clearly. I don't arrive at a point where I understand something so beautiful and profound and then keep it to myself. Enlightenment and compassion are not apart, do you see this? I see some 'insanity' as you have put it with the manner of dialogue. I can't come in here to this proxy and ignore it. We are all looking for clarity in our life right? So where do I begin? With myself? There must be clarity in me right señor?

If I convey clearly what I am saying, and I ask questions - therefore asking you to be clear about what you are saying, then we are all moving to a point where there is clarity.

• SM

santos madrid wrote:
Many writing somewhat unclearly with their paragraphs saturated with so much imagery, one either looses the point or has to read it again.

Well Said Santos. I joined about 3 weeks ago and was on the point of giving up. There were just one or two contributions which prompted me to persevere.

Having said that...this is an immensely difficult area we are exploring...."it teases you out of thought" (WS). When the dialogue goes deep, and there is real communion ....the words begin to emerge more slowly and sit in a kind of silence......real real silence.

But one has to be very simple and laconic in style to get there.

It's nice to share that silence!!!!

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Is the distinction you are making between communication and self expression, real? Other than self, what is there to communicate? Psychologically speaking.

What constitutes the self? Beliefs, ideas, divisions, knowledge, experience, emotions; all that is me- correct?
Now we are all seeking clarity? -is this safe to assume? So I leave all that -beliefs, philosophy, etc. I don't say; 'I believe that we are gods, blah blah, Agni, blah, blah, chariots, etc.,' like our local Vedic Mythology Poet. Or I don't say as someone recently told me in these forums,' your generation sees something different from mine', in that I've already divided myself away. And all experiences are complete subjective- not meaning we cannot share them, but don't accept them as fact. I may have experienced being bitten by a dog, and then I say that all dogs are dangerous, and if you accept this as a fact- immediately you are a follower. You are operating from experience.

The difference is; If I see something clearly to be true, which is not dependent on anything else, as true and as factual as the keyboard before you, I can talk about it- but I don't just make a poem about it and leave it like that.

-SM

santos madrid wrote:
I want to share what I understand clearly

But Santos, you are saying you want to express your opinion, like everyone else, aren't you? As you so clearly (or maybe not so clearly) pointed out, everyone believe themselves to have seen and understood clearly. And they are sharing that understanding. It is the intellectual that I/we have the urge to express. Not clarity or understanding.

santos madrid wrote:
and if you accept this as a fact- immediately you are a follower. You are operating from experience.

In some areas of my life, like dog bites, (they hurt, I might die from rabbies), experience is helpful and useful. I don;t want to be bitten again. It is with things like psychological hurt and such, that knowlege/experience is not helpful to me, no?

santos madrid wrote:
The difference is; If I see something clearly to be true, which is not dependent on anything else, as true and as factual as the keyboard before you

Santos, we are not talking about keyboards and stuff like that, are we?
We are talking about illusions and ideals and things not seen so clearly. The ideas/opinions, in other words, intellectual/verbal, understandings that are "seen" and "understood" by "others" here, are what we are looking at, right?

Randal Shacklett wrote:
But Santos, you are saying you want to express your opinion, like everyone else, aren't you? As you so clearly (or maybe not so clearly) pointed out, everyone believe themselves to have seen and understood clearly. And they are sharing that understanding. It is the intellectual that I/we have the urge to express. Not clarity or understanding

I recommend any dialogue or talk by Señor Krishnamurti on 'Belief' and 'Knowledge' to you with much enthusiasm monsieur, it is quite enlightening. Also, when I say we must communicate with clarity, I mean exactly that. If I say, 'in my opinion, blah,blah,blah', or if I say 'I think that, blah blah blah.'; there is much clarity in that! So I don't combine fact and belief- if I do, then I am trying to influence you. Belief being dependent on something, fact- independent.

Dictionary says Opinion is this: 'a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.'(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion)
If I want clarity in my life and we are trying to find out how to have clarity in my life, then I don't bring in opinion because there is no certainty in opinion nor in belief. Clarity and absolute certainty are not apart, therefore, fact (truth) and belief can never be together. If I 'believe' that I see something clearly, there is no certainty that I do, so therefore it is not clear. Do you understand this monsieur? Im not saying that you cannot express your opinion, but tell me first that it is your opinion!
And-
Im not saying that anyone cannot share what they are thinking, but tell me so sir. Tell me that it is something that you are thinking, and don't tell me in a manner to influence me to believe what you are saying as fact.

-SM

Randal Shacklett wrote:
In some areas of my life, like dog bites, (they hurt, I might die from rabbies), experience is helpful and useful. I don;t want to be bitten again. It is with things like psychological hurt and such, that knowlege/experience is not helpful to me, no?

That is not what I mean. If in such a case, operating from experience- I then think all dogs are dangerous, all dogs bite, all dogs have rabbies and I live in constant fear of dogs. I live in constant fear. Are all dogs rabid and dangerous monsieur? That is what I mean by operating from experience.

-SM

santos madrid wrote:
'I think that, blah blah blah.'; there is much clarity

Sorry Santos, there is no clarity in blah-blah-blah. That is what eveyone is saying.

santos madrid wrote:
Clarity and absolute certainty are not apart, therefore

I recommend you read some Krishnamurti, senor! ;o)

Randal Shacklett wrote:
santos madrid wrote:
The difference is; If I see something clearly to be true, which is not dependent on anything else, as true and as factual as the keyboard before you
Santos, we are not talking about keyboards and stuff like that, are we? We are talking about illusions and ideals and things not seen so clearly. The ideas/opinions, in other words, intellectual/verbal, understandings that are "seen" and "understood" by "others" here, are what we are looking at, right?

Sir, Im answering your previous question with that explanation. My point is; If we are seeking clarity, our dialogue must be shared with absolute clarity. You can't get anymore more fundamental than that monsieur.

-SM

This post was last updated by santos madrid Thu, 18 Feb 2010.

santos madrid wrote:
Do you understand this monsieur?

In an intellectual/verbal sense, everyone understands. We are not talking about that Kind of understanding. I recommend you read some Krishnamurti concerning understanding. ;o)

Randal Shacklett wrote:
santos madrid wrote:
'I think that, blah blah blah.'; there is much clarity
Sorry Santos, there is no clarity in blah-blah-blah. That is what eveyone is saying.

That was an example to convey a point sir. Im not going to make up an entire dialogue to convey the same point. Monsieur, your not paying attention. What is your motive? are you really trying to understand? Or just analyzing what I am saying?

• SM

This post was last updated by santos madrid Thu, 18 Feb 2010.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
I recommend you read some Krishnamurti, senor! ;o

I have read much of Krishnamurti. If your asking ME questions, I recommend YOU read some Krishnamurti.

• SM

santos madrid wrote:
If we are seeking clarity, our dialogue must be share with absolute clarity.

Although most are content (temporarily) with intellctual certainty, there is no need to seek it, it is what is. That-however-is not the kind if clarity K speaks about.

santos madrid wrote:
I recommend YOU read some Krishnamurti.
SM

Thank you for the advice.

santos madrid wrote:
are you really trying to understand?

I'm not trying to understand, no. I am not seeking anything, from your words or anywhere else.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Although most are content (temporarily) with intellctual certainty, there is no need to seek it, it is what is. That-however-is not the kind if clarity K speaks about.

There is only Certainty sir. Why do you divide it into temporary certainty, and intellectual certainty? Im only talking about certainty. And Im talking about Clarity. there is no other kind of clarity, there is just clarity. Are you a follower of K and only see Clarity according to K?

-SM

Randal Shacklett wrote:
I'm not trying to understand, no. I am not seeking anything, from your words or anywhere else.

Then why are you asking me questions? If your not trying to understand -then what Are you doing here sir? I don't want you to seek anything from my particular words; sorry to decline but I don't want any followers.

-SM

santos madrid wrote:
what Are you doing here sir

Just hanging out. I am not welcome to hang out and make comments on posts?

santos madrid wrote:
Im only talking about certainty. And Im talking about Clarity.

Why do you say there is only certainty, then say there is clarity? If you are defining intellectual certainty with the word clarity, in a krishnamurti discussion forum, then you were wrong when you said you wanted to communicate. You will create confusion, not communication redefining terms.