Being overweight or obese can lead to 50 different illnesses, and it gets very difficult to lose weight with diet and exercise alone. BELVIQ can help. See www.belsuccess.com for many testimonials of people who lost lots of weight on Belviq (some lost 100 pounds without any side effects!) See www.Belviq.com for prescribing and safety information. This banner is not sponsored by maker of Belviq, Arena (NASDAQ:ARNA) (a great company with a rich pipeline of important medicines), or Eisai.
Kinfonet’s Continued Interpretation of K When you understand it you can be free from it. If you don't understand it you're bound by it. (RG)
time it’s around the subject of Insight & Understanding. And as
stated in previous publications (e.g.
what makes such interpretations even more dangerous is that they seem
to be related to a powerful organization (powerful both financially and
politically). Kinfonet site indicates “Since its inception in 1998,
Kinfonet has been continuously supported by the KLI”.
In their July 2010 newsletter, Kinfonet published a commentary called “Of Time and Timelessness”.
usual, they speak for “we” which in itself implies authority because
they do not state a fact but merely an abstraction and generalization
that we are this way, that this is how it is. In certain cases such
statements may have merit, but in the context they often use, it is
just a projection of how they see the world, and declaring it as how it
is. In this case, they somehow have come to the conclusion that insight
and understanding are very different, unrelated things. They’re free to
hold and publish their opinions and interpretations but given the
amount of energy K spent warning against interpretations and
distortions, isn’t what they’re doing alarming?
Those who argue
that K’s teachings are protected by some kind of mystical (not just
technological) force should ask themselves, if that is the case, why
did K emphasize the matter so much, over so many years, in so many
talks? Were other teachings of the past also protected? If so, why did
they get distorted? (also see article: “The misconception that K’s
teachings are incorruptible”: http://home.datacomm.ch/rezamusic/kli_kinfonet_link.html#_Toc173915681
is no question of one or more persons protecting this work – it’s about
carefulness. K put it very simply: steer away from interpretations. You
can say what it means to you, how you understand it, how it touches
your life, but to say K meant it like this and not like this, and doing
so from a platform, and doing so inaccurately, is just reckless.
continue to believe that in this regards, less is more. People might be
looking for work to do, but they should look elsewhere than to write
distorted interpretations of K’s works.
Kinfonet: “Yet this
concept of immediate change … is usually put on the back burner as we
inquire into the more accessible aspects of his teaching.”
can they talk for “we” – I’ve traveled a lot and met a lot of people.
If you think concentration vs. attention is accessible, it’s not for
some. Some view observer & observed as inaccessible, but I’ve met
newcomers who grasp these concepts like a breeze. The point is, why
make such generalizations, why set yourself up as spokesman for “we”?
“Assuming that by transformation Krishnamurti means terminating the
abstract world created by memory and thought, then it follows that this
transformation cannot be the result of an understanding. This is
because as we have seen understanding itself is the source of thinking,
the building block of the abstract world. Krishnamurti introduces the
concept of insight - a phenomenon that has no precursor and which
therefore precludes understanding or experience. Unlike understanding,
insight has no purpose and therefore no will to effect change. Like
life, it just is.”
There are a number of technical difficulties
with this argument. Their definition of transformation is interesting.
I would be careful about making statements about what K means by
something specially when it’s used to make a conclusion which does not
seem sensible. Transformation is not based on thought, that’s clear.
And thought seems to be sourced in the past (and not in just
understanding as Kinfonet argues). This can be seen in daily life, and
K also spoke about it a gazillion times.
They go on to
interpret K that he meant insight precludes understanding, and continue
to contrast insight vs. understanding. If by understanding they mean
superficial or verbal understanding, fine, but they do not say that and
do not make that clear. They’re writing from the platform of a
organization that is almost as official as any K Foundation (what I
call The Fifth Foundation (which indeed does a lot of good work, no
doubt), and very much within the context of K’s work (“Kinfonet” =
Krishnamurti information network),
Anyway, K spoke about
understanding at great length and used this term throughout the
decades. When he referred to superficial or verbal understanding he
said it as such. Otherwise, he pretty much over the course of several
decades seemed to give a great weight to this concept. Here are some
examples where he pretty much seem to consider understanding at same
“level” as insight, sometimes even as a synonym, sometimes indeed as a
precursor and not as such an antithesis which our Kinfonet friends
interpret him as. Why interpret?! I don’t get paid to write but if
someone does, it must be possible to write without interpreting, or at
least taking on a humbler position of “this is my understanding of the
subject”. Perhaps that would not be as impressive :)
Some K quotes on the subject from 1940’s through 1980’s which show how wrong Kinfonet’s interpretation is:
the understanding which brings about an insight
deep understanding, having an insight, or coming upon that truth.
the flash of understanding, that extraordinary rapidity of insight
implies an understanding not intellectually, but deeply having an
insight, into this whole question of not only suffering, but the
feeling of great intensity.
When there is an incident that demands understanding and insight
the understanding of these activities, the daily responses, the
conflicts, we will have an insight into the nature and structure of our
to have a quick perception into things, to have an insight, an
immediate understanding, immediate contact with actually 'what is'.
But the very understanding of its limitation is to have insight into the whole movement of knowledge.
insight, that immediate perception, immediate understanding
understanding implies, does it not, a mind, or a brain, the whole
structure of the mind listens not only to the word but goes beyond the
word and sees the deep meaning of that particular statement, and then
there is an insight and then you say, 'I understand it', 'I have got
it'. So insight implies a mind that is quiet
meditation implies a sense of deep understanding of that very word, and
the very understanding, the perception, the insight into that word is
the action which is to end measurement, psychological measurement.
That is why, in educating a child, deep insight and understanding are necessary.
the understanding of what you are brings great peace and contentment, great insight, great love..
here’s a great one from 19 February 1969, 3rd Public Talk at the
beautiful campus of UCSC (University of California, Santa Cruz):
Do you mean by "insight" understanding? To see something very
clearly, to have no confusion, no choice? I want to understand in
what way you are using that word "insight". Is that correct, Sir?
The question was: What is the difference between thought and insight
which, we agreed, was the same as understanding, seeing things very
clearly, without any confusion…
Clarity, insight or understanding are only possible when thought is in abeyance, when the mind is still.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: ALL AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDINGS, WRITINGS, COMPILATION, AND OTHER WORKS BY REZA GANJAVI ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAWS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.