Re:다시 라망이 보내온 편지 하나--첨부

[벅수]

X-DAUM-WEB-MAILER-FIRST-LINE From sentto-9550488-70-1059825724-krishnakorea=hanmail.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com; Sat Aug 2 21:02:09 2003
X-DAUM-INTERNAL-HOST received by 211.43.197.108
Received from n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.81]) by rmail-17.hanmail.net (8.12.9/8.9.1) with SMTP id h72C24IJ013598 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:02:05 +0900
X-Hanmail-Peer-IP 66.218.66.81
X-Hanmail-Class W
X-eGroups-Return sentto-9550488-70-1059825724-krishnakorea=hanmail.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received from [66.218.67.195] by n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Aug 2003 12:02:05 -0000
X-Sender Raman2345@aol.com
X-Apparently-To AsiaCommittees2003@yahoogroups.com
Received (qmail 1118 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2003 12:01:57 -0000
Received from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2003 12:01:57 -0000
Received from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 2003 12:01:57 -0000
Received from Raman2345@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id r.1c7.d51ce0e (16335) for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 08:01:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID <1c7.d51ce0e.2c5d0230@aol.com>
To AsiaCommittees2003@yahoogroups.com
Content-Language en
X-Mailer 7.0 for Windows sub 10500
From raman2345@aol.com
MIME-Version 1.0
Mailing-List list AsiaCommittees2003@yahoogroups.com; contact AsiaCommittees2003-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To mailing list AsiaCommittees2003@yahoogroups.com
Precedence bulk
List-Unsubscribe
Date Sat, 2 Aug 2003 08:01:52 EDT
Subject [AsiaCommittees2003] Kishnamurti - Dialogue
Reply-To AsiaCommittees2003@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding quoted-printable





Greetings
Some how the attached files are not getting sent fgrom my computer so am
sending them a mail.

Cieo

raman

A SELECTION OF PASSAGES FROM THE TALKS AND WRITINGS OF J. KRISHNAMURTI ON THE
SUBJECTS OF "DISCUSSION" AND "DIALOGUE."

It should be noted that from 1933, when the word discussion first appeared in
Krishnamurti's talks and writings, until 1986, he used it interchangeably
with dialogue. In the late 1960s he began to distinguish a fundamental difference
between the two types of serious communication. As is evident in the
following passages Krishnamurti suggested that the difference between dialogue and
discussion lay in the intent of the participants and the quality of their
self-revealing interchange. These selected passages are presented unedited and in
chronological order.


"It is very difficult to discuss in the sense of exposing oneself. We may
intellectually, verbally exchange a few ideas. But it is quite another matter to
really expose ourselves, to be aware of the fact that we have committed
ourselves to something, to a particular course of action, to see the limitations of
that pattern, and to find out by discussing, thinking it out together, how to
break it up. Such a discussion would be highly worth while, and I hope we can
do it."

January 31, 1960 - Banaras

It is not a schoolboy or college debate in which you put forward one set of
ideas, and I another, and we wrangle about it to see who comes out victorious.
If that is all you are interested in, then you are victorious already; you
have already won. But if we want to understand the problems of life, then we must
not be in a debating mood, we must not discuss in an argumentative or
contentious spirit. Life is a problem to most of us, and words will not solve it,
explanations will not heal our wounds. We have to understand it; and to
understand requires a great deal of love, gentleness, hesitancy, humility, not
argumentation as to who is right and who is wrong."

February 7, 1960- Banaras

In the very act of listening, if one does listen with awareness, without any
effort, in that very act there is a strange miracle that does happen, which is
like light penetrating into darkness. But that listening is not a mere
acceptance of propaganda, nor being hypnotized by a series of words. Listening has
importance only if, in the very act of that, you can go within yourself and
uncover your own ways of thought, feeling, and discover how one is a slave to a
symbol, to a word, and actually, emotionally, directly experience that thing
which is being talked about.

December 17, 1961 - Madras

But first we must find out what it means to discuss, what we mean by
a question. A wrong question receives a wrong answer. Only a right question
receives a right answer, and to ask a right question is extraordinarily
difficult.
To ask a right question--not of me alone but of yourself and all of
us--requires
a penetrating mind, a mind that is astute, alert, aware, willing to find out.
So


please do not ask questions which are not relevant to what we are discussing.
And in discussing, let us not discuss like schoolboys, you taking one side
and I taking the other--which is all right in colleges or debating societies-;
but let us discuss to find out, which is the approach of the scientific mind
and of the mind which is unafraid. Then such discussion becomes worthwhile; then
we will proceed and discover for ourselves what is true and what is false.
Therefore the authority of the speaker ceases; because there is no authority in
discovery. It is only the dull, lazy mind that demands authority. But a mind
that wants to find out, to experience something totally, completely, has to
discover, has to push through. And I hope these meetings will help each one of us
to see for ourselves-not through somebody else's eyes--what is worthwhile,
what is true, and what is false.

July 25, 1961 - Saanen

"I feel it will be worth while if we can, in exchanging words, see clearly
the pattern of our own thinking; that is, if we can expose ourselves, not to
another, but to ourselves, and see what we actually are and what is inwardly
taking place. To be worthwhile, a discussion should serve as a mirror in which we
see ourselves clearly, in detail, without distortion, taking in the whole
picture and not merely looking at one particular fragment.

June 10, 1962 - London

I mean by discussion not merely answering a question that is put, but rather
to explore together a problem. Not that I explore for you, but you and I
together investigate, uncover the problem or the particular issue that we are going
to talk about or discuss, this morning. And to discuss really intelligently
and with significance, one has to put away altogether the idea that someone
knows and you don't know; that the speaker knows and he will tell you what to do.
On the contrary, there is no authority here at all. And I think that is one
of the principal things to realize: that every form of authority prevents
inquiry. And to discuss intelligently and deeply, every form of assertion,
dogmatism, or the maintenance of a particular theory must be put aside as they deny
exploration.


November 20, 1964 - Varanasi

If you assert and I assert, if you stick to your opinion, to your dogma, to
your experience, to your knowledge, and I stick to mine, then there can be no
real discussion, because neither of us is free to inquire. To discuss is not to
share our experiences with each other. There is no sharing at all; there is
only the beauty of truth, which neither you nor I can possess. It is simply
there."

August 1, 1965 - Saanen

I do not know if you have ever examined how to listen, it doesn't matter to
what, whether to a bird, to the wind in the leaves, to the rushing waters, or
how you listen to a dialogue with yourself, to your conversation in various
relationships with your intimate friends, your wife or husband. If we try to
listen we find it extraordinarily difficult, because we are always projecting our
opinions and ideas, our prejudices, our background, our inclinations, our
impulses; when they dominate we hardly listen to what is being said. In that
state there is no value at all. One listens and therefore learns, only in a state
of attention, a state of silence in which this whole background is in
abeyance, is quiet; then, it seems to me, it is possible to communicate.
July 9, 1967 - Saanen


I think we ought to be clear what these so-called discussions are. They are a
dialogue, a form of conversing seriously together about problems, going into
them not only analytically, carefully, but also seeing the whole structure of
each problem: not merely the details of it, but its whole form and content. As
this is a conversation, a dialogue between you and the speaker, we ought to
be vulnerable; that is, not have any defence, any resistance, but be willing to
expose ourselves completely not only to the problem, but to what is involved
in the problem, giving our whole attention to it. So this dialogue, this
conversation is not an intellectual amusement, a mere exchange of arguments-one
opinion against another, or one formula against another formula, or one
experience against various other experiences. Rather it is to look into the very
problem itself and not merely be concerned with how to be rid of it, how to go
beyond it; nor how to have a concept or a formula, which we hope will solve all
problems. So we are not dealing with ideas, we are not concerned with an idea,
which is yours, or that of the speaker. What we are concerned with is the fact,
with what is--what actually is! Then if you and the speaker both accept that
we are starting with what actually is - not what you think about it or what you
think it should be--then our relationship in this dialogue will be entirely
different; it won't be a one-sided affair. It will be worthwhile to be
vulnerable to everything that is said, not rejecting anything; so that one begins to
be very sensitive, alert to the problem itself.

August 2, 1967 - Saanen


What shall we discuss this morning? The word discussion is not right, it is
more a dialogue. Opinions will lead us nowhere and indulging in mere
intellectual cleverness will have very little meaning, because truth is not to be found
through the exchange of opinions or of ideas. So if we are to talk over
together any problem it must be on the level which is not intellectual, emotional,
or sentimental. "

April 7, 1970 - San Diego

A dialogue is different from a dialectical argument; it is not seeking truth
through opinion, or discussion, which means reasoning, logic, argument; that
will not lead us very far. Can we take one problem this morning and go into it
completely, not deviating from it but go into it step by step, in detail,
hesitatingly, not offering an opinion--because then it is your opinion, your
argument, against somebody else's--and also not indulging in ideologies, not
quoting others, but take a problem that is vital to each one of us and work it out
together? That would be worthwhile, I feel.

Saanen 1st Public Dialogue 4th August, 1971

I think the word discussion is rather misplaced. Discussion means exla1~t0n
or examination through argument, opinion against opinion, Judgment against
judgment, one's characteristic conclusions against another. I think that word
discussion we shouldn't use, if I may suggest. But rather use the word dialogue,
which means converse together, talk over things together.

August 2,1972 - Saanen

The word discussion means, I have just looked it up in the dictionary, ~rough
argument find what is truth; and dialogue is a conversation between people
who are seriously interested in understanding certain problems; and dialecticism
is the discovery or the examination through opinion of what is true. And
opinion means, judgement based on a belief, a prejudice, or on a preconceived
idea. So it is none of these that we are going to do; neither discussion-the root
meaning of that is 'to shake'-- nor a dialogue, nor an opinion or offering
opinions and investigating those opinions to find out if they have any value. But
what we are trying to do is to expose certain problems, which one may have,
and understand those problems by looking at them, not offering an opinion, a
judgement and your criticism, exposing them. In the very exposure one discovers
what is the truth, what is the meaning. That is, we may have many problems,
human problems, not technological problems, the speaker couldn't possibly deal
with those--human problems, such as violence, sorrow, relationship and so on.
And it is like talking over together with friends who are serious, not casual
friends, who want to find an answer, who want to discover an approach through
which the thing is resolved, not carry on day after day, day after day. That is
the meaning of our gathering here…..to converse, rather amicably, with care,
with a sense of real affection, so that we understand the problem, our many
problems, and go beyond them."

July 31, 1974 - Saanen

A: The discussion started on the very crucial question of authority. The
point of starting this discussion on authority lies in this, that we make an
authority of what you have said, then that is a barrier.
K: Obviously.
D: Something is missing in this.
K: Look, sir, there is something very interesting which comes out of this.
Are you learning or are you having an insight into it? Learning implies
authority. Are you learning and acting from learning? I learn about mathematics,
technology and so on and from that knowledge I become an engineer and act. Or I go
out into the field, act and learn. Both are the accumulation of knowledge and
acting from knowledge--knowledge becomes the authority. Either, you accumulate
knowledge and act or you go out, act and learn. Both are, an acting according
to knowledge. So knowledge becomes the authority, whether it is the authority
of the doctor, the scientist, the architect, or the guru who says `I know' -
which is his authority. Now, somebody comes along and says:Look, acting
according to knowledge is a prison; you will never be free; you can not ascend
through knowledge.' And somebody like K says: `Look at it differently, look at
action with insight - not accumulate knowledge and act but insight and action.
In that there is no authority.

Exploration into Insight - Self-knowledge and the Teaching


You all want to escape from something. I am lonely, and most people are
very, very lonely, they want to escape from it, through various forms of
entertainment, religious and otherwise. But is there a freedom which is not a
reaction? And to find that out one has to enquire what is love? Is love a reaction?
Is love attraction, whether it be sexual or otherwise? Please ask those
questions of yourself to find out the right answer. How do you find the right
answer to a question? I ask a question, the speaker asked the question, you
naturally reply to that question, if you are at all thinking, going along with the
question, then you respond to that question. Then the speaker then answers
your response. This is really dialogue. Answers to your response, then you
respond to my response. Right? Are we following this a little bit. So that
there is both question and answer, answer and question. If we maintain this
answer, question, question, answer seriously, intensely, then in that process you
disappear and the speaker disappears, only the question remains. Do you
understand this? Then that very question has vitality. Don't agree please, test
it out for yourself. It's like a bud, a rose bud; if the question is left in
the air, as it were, then it is like a bud which gradually unfolds and shows
its nature. The depth of that question, it has its own vitality, energy,
drive. That is a dialogue, not just accepting what the other fellow is saying.

Bombay 4th Public Talk 12th February 1984

See what happens: if I pose a question, and you reply to it, and then I reply
to your question, and we keep this dialogue going until only the question
remains and you and I disappear - you follow all this? There is only the
question, which then has a tremendous vitality. You understand what I am saying?
That is we have posed a question. That is, can the rhythm of thought which has
been going on from the beginning of one's life until we die, can that rhythm of
thought come to an end? You reply and this dialogue goes on. And then you
said, look, in that process only the question remains - right? You don't
answer, I don't answer. Now when the question remains your brain is quiet, because
you are not acting, I am not acting, only the question. Right? And this has
been a problem of every human being, to have some quietness inside there, some
peace, say, for god's sake stop. Right sir? And they have invented various
methods to stop it

Brockwood Park, 3rd Brain Seminar June 12. 1984


It's a dialogue; you ask a question, and the speaker replies to that
question. Then you respond to that question. You ask a question, the speaker then
responds to your question, then you respond to the speaker's response, and so
keep this going till only the question remains and not the persons. You have
understood this? Probably you have not gone into this question of dialogue. I
think it is important to understand this because we are together going to
investigate these questions. And in the process of investigation you ask a
question, the speaker then replies to that question, and you respond to the reply,
and then I pick up and reply to that - we go on this way - until only the
question remains. You understand? So the question then has tremendous vitality, it
is not tinged by any personal prejudice. Have you understood this? We are
going to do it, we will see it for ourselves.

Ojai 1st Public Question & Answer Meeting 22nd May 1984


The Nature of Dialogue

During his many talks and dialogues, Krishnamurti described in different ways
what he meant by the word "dialogue". He talked of awareness, the art of
listening, seeing, and learning; he investigated the question of the division
between the observer and the observed, and the necessity of being free from
attachment for inquiry to take place. Krishnamurti also frequently expressed the
need to be hungry, to be passionately interested in understanding the nature of
thinking, otherwise only words would be exchanged in talking together with
others. And although many of these topics were not discussed in relation to
dialogue alone, these areas of consideration are valuable for those interested and
involved in understanding the dialogue process.

Though we may have seen Krishnamurti either in person or on videotape,
listened to cassettes of his talks, or read his books, we are not automatically
imbued with the complete understanding of everything that he was pointing to. We
may then ask, what do we do if we are not generally aware, if we do not know
the art of listening, seeing, learning? How can we communicate with each other
if we do not see the division between the observer and the observed, except as
echoing the words of Krishnarnurti? In what manner can we truly talk things
over together if we are not free from attachment? How can inquiry take place?

There may be no easy answer to these questions, yet when we meet in dialogue
there are innumerable different opinions and ideas expressed. Although we give
verbal assent to the possibility that the knowledge we possess is limited,
when we discuss things together most of us express ourselves as if we have
answers to the many fundamental questions being considered. Often these answers are
presented by using Krishnamurti's words as our own. Yet there is no certainty
that because Krishnamurti said something the statement remains appropriate
and true in our dialogue. Many of the conflicts that arise in dialogue stem from
the different way such statements are perceived. To the listeners the
statement appears to be theory. To the person speaking it appears to be true.


Dialogue cannot be forced to move away from opinions and ideas to a deeper
consideration of life's many problems. The desire to move to a deeper level may
itself be an impediment to reaching a deeper level. As long as we cannot stay
with and observe the fact of what is taking place in the dialogue on a
personal level (our reactions of fear, frustration, boredom, daydreaming,
occasionally even anger) the dialogue tends to remain superficial. However, if each
participant carefully observes the movement of the thinking process, both within
themselves and in others, then the dialogue may move to greater depths on its
own, without anyone doing something to bring it about.

We do try to create an environment where a harmonious relationship can take
place. It is necessary to have a friendly atmosphere in which everyone can talk
freely but where no one person dominates. This implies that those who find it
easy to speak may need to give space to those who are more reticent, while
those who are more reluctant to vocalize may need to express themselves.

To speak honestly, saying exactly what we are thinking without undue worry
about how our statement will he interpreted, is equally important. It often
takes a while for people to feel sufficiently safe to express exactly what they
are thinking.

This is a brief introduction to dialogue. The dialogue process can be going
on in our daily life all the time, if we are sufficiently interested, examining
those aspects of our being that do not make sense and are creating conflict
either within us or in the external world.


On Dialogue

I think that to understand properly, and to formulate one's questions
properly, it is necessary to approach such questions with the desire of affection. I
will explain what I mean by that. It is no good merely criticizing
intellectually; you must approach the subject of your criticism with a great deal of
affection - not for me personally, but for the subject. Otherwise, if your
criticism is merely intellectual, it will not be serviceable in your daily life. So
the first requirement for understanding is affection for the thing concerned -
not for the person who represents the idea, but for the idea itself. I know
that many people kindly like me, and so on; but that is neither here nor there.
Fundamentally that has no value. Whereas if you examine, analyse, criticise,
with affection, then that idea will become practical and can be translated into
daily action. When there is affection for that central idea, then there is
friendship for all who are approaching that idea. At present, you are all
seeking that idea separately, individually, as separate entities, each elbowing the
other out. There is a contradictory spirit, an antagonism, between individuals
who are all approaching the same idea, all trying to realise it, to
understand it. But to understand, to approach, and to realise, you must come with
affection - not in the sense of possession, not in a spirit of rivalry as to who
understands more and who understands less. The idea must become the dominant
factor, not individuals; the reality must become a living, perceptible,
enthusiastic realisation of itself in activity, in conduct. In that way one does not
lose oneself in theories or philosophies; but one is all the time highly
concentrated on translating one's understanding into daily action, which is conduct.
Conduct does not need the backing of a highly complicated philosophy. True
conduct is self-realised conduct, not based on any philosophy but based on one's
own experience. Hence conduct becomes the translation of one's realisation
into activity. One is not judged by one's beliefs, by one's philosophy, but by
what one is - by the manner of one's treatment of other people, the manner of
ones friendship, the manner of one's behavior; not what you hold intellectually
as your philosophy. As soon as we try to realise the central living reality to
which everyone, however awkwardly, is walking, then our affection, our
thought, our whole enthusiasm is turned towards that; we cease to be antagonistic
towards other individuals who are also approaching it.

J.KRISHNAMURTI, EERDE GATHERING 1930 EARLY WRIT1NGS VOLUME 4 pp. 82-83



A dialogue is very important. It is a form of communication in which question
and answer continues till a question is left without an answer. Thus the
question is suspended between two persons involved in this answer and question. It
is like a bud with untouched blossoms. If the question is left totally
untouched by thought, it then has its own answer because the questioner and the
answerer as persons have disappeared. This is a form of dialogue in which
investigation reaches a certain point of intensity and depth, which then has a quality
which thought can never reach. --- K


ON DIALOGUE

I think there is a difference between dialectical questioning and dialogue.
Dialectical questioning or investigation implies, according to the dictionary,
to find the truth through opinions. That is the literal meaning of dialectical
approach. Whereas dialogues are between two friends who know each other
fairly well, know their vocabulary, the usage of words and together, with a spirit
of real enquiry, find truth--by enquiring, not by asserting opinions. So, it's
up to you to choose which you want: either, through opinions to investigate
if there is truth--which I question very much for opinions imply prejudices,
personal idiosyncrasies and so on--whereas dialogue implies that both of us are
deeply interested in a problem. We are not prejudiced. We don't want a certain
definite answer, but together we are investigating to find the truth of the
problem. You see the difference--one is dialectical approach, the other is
approach to truth through careful . . .demands personal investigation, objective
investigation. That means we, both of us, start with no opinions, no
conclusions, no assertions, but together as two friends--and I mean by friends we are
really concerned with a problem, to investigate it together by sharing it and
thereby, perhaps, coming upon what is truth. Right? So if that is clear--during
all these dialogues that we are going to have--which is not asserting opinions
or prejudices or conclusions: I believe--that's a conclusion. Whereas, if we
are investigating, we are both open and we can go very far if we both are free
to look objectively into things.

From Saanen 1976 Dialogue # 1


Pointers to Dialogue - Unknown Writer:

These pointers to dialogue are like dots on a circle: they may not constitute
the whole thing-they don't say everything there is to say-but, if joined
together, they may well add up to, or lay the basis for, real communication.

Dialogue is a process whereby we can come to know ourselves by going beyond
the word or through the word (dia-logos). It is this, above all, that
distinguishes it from discussion (related to per-cussion) and debate, which are, by
their nature, dialectical. Each inquiry begins anew, without any given platform
or agenda:
there is no psychological or spiritual authority, and whatever question we
take needs to be looked at hesitantly so that we do not come upon it via a
theory. In this way, perhaps, we can really communicate and touch the reality of
what we arc talking about, rather than remaining at the verbal level. This
requires openness and vulnerability, as well as clarity in our use of words. It is
good to hear in mind that we are exploring the unknown and that the movement
in not-knowing has its own strength and "edge." Although this may sound new &
strange to some of us, it is important to the process of "thinking together," a
process Krishanmurti often spoke about.

In considering the question of dialogue, we need to bear in mind that it is
NOT a means to an end; indeed, one could say that the means is the end. In
talking over together the issue of Questioning Everyday Life: Can We Become Aware
of our conditioning? We are not attempting to arrive at a conclusion, but
rather to explore without a fixed agenda. It is like turning an object around in
one's hand-again, the metaphor of the circle is key-so that one sees it from
every conceivable angle,
minutely, notici minutely noticing all the nooks & crannies. Only
then can we see what we are talking about: see, that is not
just talk about. This is the crucial difference between being in dialogue and
reflecting & talking to or at one another. Because of this difference,
something new can happen. First of all, do we question our everyday life, that is, are
we in contact with the fact? And, the fact of conditioning is quite different
from the word. So far, in human history, we have largely been content with a
structure of words--the "scaffolding," as Krishnamurti calls it--philosophies,
ideologies, a good deal of religion. Since words & language are so
compelling, since they offer a sufficient description of the world, we are apt to take
them for the reality of what is and then act on that descriptive reality. When
Krishnamurti says, "The word is not the thing," or, "The description is not
the described," he is referring precisely to this state of affairs: the
operation of the word takes over from the direct perception of the phenomenon itself.
Normally, this happens so quickly that we are not even aware it is taking
place. Here-and-now, however, we have a unique opportunity to arrest the mind in
its verbal flow, trace it back to its source, and be with what is.

The invitation to dialogue is an invitation to move to the very
core of our existence. This core is not the individual, as we know it,
with his/her idiosyncrasies, experiences and life-story; rather, it is that
common matrix of consciousness, which all of us inherit and each of us lives
out. In coming together without any fixed agenda, we may touch upon that
untenanted ground from which thought arises, which is the common ground. This may
then open up the possibility of an entirely new & different response to our
conditioning.

















Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
AsiaCommittees2003-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[페르조나]

여기에는 메일로 보내주신 글이 없네요....

[벅수]

없기는요.. 가운데 부분만 쏙 뽑아서 보내 준 건데요.^^