|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 22, 2021 13:16:09 GMT -5
At about minute 12:20 there is a subtle, or not so subtle dig at ND (conceptual ND).
This was in the Oak Grove, I was there the previous year, a wonderful month. The days he didn't speak or answer questions, I watched hours of videos.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Mar 19, 2021 5:53:31 GMT -5
just posting so i get notifications
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 12, 2022 10:49:01 GMT -5
This guy is just so adorable and funny!  And great wisdom there too re: why it is called the pathless path. What is not funny is Krishnamurti's answer that whatever we are looking for can only happen when the self is not. And he had always emphasized that there is no path to it.
I don't think it is possible to get rid of the self before getting rid of the body. Krishnamurti implied that it is possible. How? Hunger compels the awakening of the self to get off my butt to get food. Can't get food without money. Can get money without a job. Can get a job without an ID.
This is the fundamental issue I have with the Krishnamurti teaching.
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 12, 2022 16:58:13 GMT -5
"Completely awake" is another way of phrasing Krishnamurti's emphasis on the state of "total attention when the self is not".
We don't remember everything that happens like security cameras functioning 24 hours 7 days a week recording public spaces. We only remember events that have significance and are relevant to our respective lives. We operate like security cameras set to come on by motion detectors. The selfish ego is vulnerable to psychological hurts. Consequently, every emotional threat sets off our "motion detectors" and we record every perceived insult and nurse it.
"Total attention when the self is not" is a (supposed) psychologically threat-free state. Such a security camera has no motion detector, and doesn't come on to record emotional abuse that sets off other cameras wired to monitor detectors.
As I see it, Krishnamurti was somewhat misleading. It was not a matter of "attention" to willfully obliterate the self, but a state in which the self is naturally absent.
The selfless state is a curiosity to me. I have not examined it to the point where I can kick it aside as nonsensical in the manner Krishnamurti was able to make fun of kundalini yoga and dismissed it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2022 20:48:41 GMT -5
The selfless state is a curiosity to me. I have not examined it to the point where I can kick it aside as nonsensical in the manner Krishnamurti was able to make fun of kundalini yoga and dismissed it. What would you examine exactly? The selfless state is not an idea or intellectual concept so any examination on the level of mind and thought cannot be the selfless state. To reach it you have to transcend mind and experience pure non-dual awareness which is beyond all concepts. In that state there is no personal self. There is no "I". No amount of intellectual discourse could ever be that state which means you have to go within and experience that silent awareness to know that selfless state. Discussion and intellectual discourse will not reveal it. Krishnamurti is one of the most difficult and perplexing teachers I could imagine. I would recommend Ramana Maharshi. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 13, 2022 14:38:10 GMT -5
The selfless state is a curiosity to me. I have not examined it to the point where I can kick it aside as nonsensical in the manner Krishnamurti was able to make fun of kundalini yoga and dismissed it. What would you examine exactly? The selfless state is not an idea or intellectual concept so any examination on the level of mind and thought cannot be the selfless state. To reach it you have to transcend mind and experience pure non-dual awareness which is beyond all concepts. In that state there is no personal self. There is no "I". No amount of intellectual discourse could ever be that state which means you have to go within and experience that silent awareness to know that selfless state. Discussion and intellectual discourse will not reveal it. Krishnamurti is one of the most difficult and perplexing teachers I could imagine. I would recommend Ramana Maharshi. I would examine what Krishnamurti had said. It has to begin there, hasn't it?
If you were to tell me something, I would listen to you and figure out whether or not what you had asserted makes sense. Right? I would also examine you, the way you live your life, to find evidence that you are living the truth that you had pointed to.
The strange thing is that no one was able to grasp what Krishnamurti said. Even till the point of dying, Krishnamurti lamented that no one had gotten it after 60 years of teaching his stuff. Not even David Bohm who had decades of personal access to Krishnamurti. Books were published recording dialogues between him and Krishnamurti. I have studied those dialogues the way I would in reading up on academic journals about matters I have an interest in. Bohm had a sharp mind based on the way he had examined what Krishnamurti said. He was as astute as the best professor I had met in university.
I said that the selfless state (as expounded by Krishnamurti) is a curiosity to me. I have no interest in Hinduism or Buddhism that speaks to personal liberation. Krishnamurti was focused on the transformation of mankind, the ending of human conflict and the suffering it causes, instantly. He said that it is an urgent change in human consciousness. He wasn't talking about the personal consciousness that is the specialty of gurus like Ramana. One "unity-consciousness" (zendancer) changed in a flash. It would put out the danger brewing in Europe over Ukraine and take the politics out of governments coping with issues in societies everywhere immediately.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2022 19:44:38 GMT -5
What would you examine exactly? The selfless state is not an idea or intellectual concept so any examination on the level of mind and thought cannot be the selfless state. To reach it you have to transcend mind and experience pure non-dual awareness which is beyond all concepts. In that state there is no personal self. There is no "I". No amount of intellectual discourse could ever be that state which means you have to go within and experience that silent awareness to know that selfless state. Discussion and intellectual discourse will not reveal it. Krishnamurti is one of the most difficult and perplexing teachers I could imagine. I would recommend Ramana Maharshi. I would examine what Krishnamurti had said. It has to begin there, hasn't it?
If you were to tell me something, I would listen to you and figure out whether or not what you had asserted makes sense. Right? I would also examine you, the way you live your life, to find evidence that you are living the truth that you had pointed to.
The strange thing is that no one was able to grasp what Krishnamurti said. Even till the point of dying, Krishnamurti lamented that no one had gotten it after 60 years of teaching his stuff. Not even David Bohm who had decades of personal access to Krishnamurti. Books were published recording dialogues between him and Krishnamurti. I have studied those dialogues the way I would in reading up on academic journals about matters I have an interest in. Bohm had a sharp mind based on the way he had examined what Krishnamurti said. He was as astute as the best professor I had met in university.
I said that the selfless state (as expounded by Krishnamurti) is a curiosity to me. I have no interest in Hinduism or Buddhism that speaks to personal liberation. Krishnamurti was focused on the transformation of mankind, the ending of human conflict and the suffering it causes, instantly. He said that it is an urgent change in human consciousness. He wasn't talking about the personal consciousness that is the specialty of gurus like Ramana. One "unity-consciousness" (zendancer) changed in a flash. It would put out the danger brewing in Europe over Ukraine and take the politics out of governments coping with issues in societies everywhere immediately.
Yes I agree, Krishnamurti has to be examined. I've read a lot of his books. I don't like what he has to say. Ramana wouldn't say there is personal consciousness. That's the whole point. Actually these intellectual discussions are meaningless without the direct experience which comes about through practice and which is beyond all ideas and concepts. It's the great stumbling block in these kinds of discussions. The impersonal nature of awareness which is fundamental and without which you couldn't experience the ever-changing experiences of a lived life is the key on the path to being in the natural state, but none of that denies the individual and experience in the world. But finally the body is going to get sick and die and it won't matter what you have accomplished in your life or what has happened in the world. Non duality which comes from the tradition of Advaita is not concerned with the individual but with ones eternal timeless nature and the teaching is that this is accessible while living a mortal life in the body. But that in no way denies,, contradicts or diminishes worldly experience which is impermanent and which will come to an end when the body dies. Krishnamurti also spoke about that, not just about transformation of the human being on the personal level. But my personal opinion is that he wasn't a clear teacher. I think you have already pointed that out how many desperately grappled to understand him. So even if you discover that you are indeed unbounded and infinite consciousness, Ukraine is still happening. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 13, 2022 23:27:11 GMT -5
This guy is just so adorable and funny! And great wisdom there too re: why it is called the pathless path. What is not funny is Krishnamurti's answer that whatever we are looking for can only happen when the self is not. And he had always emphasized that there is no path to it. I don't think it is possible to get rid of the self before getting rid of the body. Krishnamurti implied that it is possible. How? Hunger compels the awakening of the self to get off my butt to get food. Can't get food without money. Can get money without a job. Can get a job without an ID.
This is the fundamental issue I have with the Krishnamurti teaching.
You are taking this too literally. It's all perceptual. After all, as our friend Tenka always liked to point out, both the sage and the ignorant have to go to the bathroom now and then. And if the sage doesn't live alone on a mountain top, the sage also has to function properly in society, with a name, an address, a resume, a means of support and relationships to other 'selves'. Look at it this way. The 'self' is a perspective, or more like a filter actually, that colors your ever perception, not just sensory input but literally everything, including thoughts and feelings. If you, let's say, wear a pair of rose-colored sunglasses, then whatever you will look at will have a rosy tinge, no matter what you look at and no matter how you look at it - a chair, a tree, a house, the sky, the sun... the entire world that you can see with your eyes. So how can you see the world in true color then? As long as you wear those glasses, you can't. You have to take them off and then you see the chair, the tree, the house, the sky and the sun directly, in their true colors, unfiltered, not thru those rose-colored glasses anymore, and that rosy tinge suddenly disappears. And taking off those glasses won't be the end of you or the world either. The chair, the tree, the house, the sky and the sun are all still there, and yet everything is different. It's not as you knew it to be anymore. The rosy chair isn't just a rosy chair anymore, it still has the shape of it and feel of it but it is so much more now. Similarly, seeing thru the eyes of Source instead of thru the eyes of self won't make the world disappear or be the end of you either. It will, however, be the end of what you thought the world (of things) is and who you thought you (as a person or human being) are. The world will still be there, your body will still be there and yet, the body is not just a body anymore as is the entire world of things not just a world of things anymore but so much more. Now, what did it take to see in true color? Just taking off those rose-colored glasses, right? So, what's the path to seeing in true color? Just taking off those glasses! And how long does that take? How long do you have to practice to accomplish that? Ten years? Ten lifetimes? Or can it be done in an instant, right here right now? |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 14, 2022 16:57:08 GMT -5
What is not funny is Krishnamurti's answer that whatever we are looking for can only happen when the self is not. And he had always emphasized that there is no path to it. I don't think it is possible to get rid of the self before getting rid of the body. Krishnamurti implied that it is possible. How? Hunger compels the awakening of the self to get off my butt to get food. Can't get food without money. Can get money without a job. Can get a job without an ID.
This is the fundamental issue I have with the Krishnamurti teaching.
You are taking this too literally. It's all perceptual. After all, as our friend Tenka always liked to point out, both the sage and the ignorant have to go to the bathroom now and then. And if the sage doesn't live alone on a mountain top, the sage also has to function properly in society, with a name, an address, a resume, a means of support and relationships to other 'selves'. Going to the bathroom is a bummer. Another non-starter is the body's vulnerability to disease. Krishnamurti suffered much pain in his battle against cancer until the body died. Am I taking that too literally? Is there a saner way to perceive that? How much more would seeing thru the eyes of Source get me?
I am not dismissing what Krishnamurti had been trying to do: getting us to change our perspective, as you have put it. He was just not effective in getting his message across. Granted, the consensus worldview of reality - as informed by science - has a hegemonic influence on our receptivity to ideas that are not within the existing conceptual paradigm. Bohm, a physicist, was not the best candidate for a crossing to "that other shore" where space and time are not. And Krishnamurti was reaching too far into Bohm's domain using technical explanations that served to reinforce the latter's conditioning instead of dispelling it.
So, if I am Krishnamurti and you are Bohm, I would say that looking thru the eyes of Source instead of looking thru the eyes of self, the world would not be there, and neither would you. There would still be hunger and the need to go to the bathroom. And don't try to figure it out. Only selves have the inclination to do that in their practice of spirituality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 15, 2022 1:54:54 GMT -5
You are taking this too literally. It's all perceptual. After all, as our friend Tenka always liked to point out, both the sage and the ignorant have to go to the bathroom now and then. And if the sage doesn't live alone on a mountain top, the sage also has to function properly in society, with a name, an address, a resume, a means of support and relationships to other 'selves'. Going to the bathroom is a bummer. Another non-starter is the body's vulnerability to disease. Krishnamurti suffered much pain in his battle against cancer until the body died. Am I taking that too literally? Is there a saner way to perceive that? How much more would seeing thru the eyes of Source get me?
I am not dismissing what Krishnamurti had been trying to do: getting us to change our perspective, as you have put it. He was just not effective in getting his message across. Granted, the consensus worldview of reality - as informed by science - has a hegemonic influence on our receptivity to ideas that are not within the existing conceptual paradigm. Bohm, a physicist, was not the best candidate for a crossing to "that other shore" where space and time are not. And Krishnamurti was reaching too far into Bohm's domain using technical explanations that served to reinforce the latter's conditioning instead of dispelling it.
So, if I am Krishnamurti and you are Bohm, I would say that looking thru the eyes of Source instead of looking thru the eyes of self, the world would not be there, and neither would you. There would still be hunger and the need to go to the bathroom. And don't try to figure it out. Only selves have the inclination to do that in their practice of spirituality.
Ramana said that both the sage and the ignorant say "I am the body" - so what's the difference between the sage and the ignorant? |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 15, 2022 15:38:31 GMT -5
Ramana said that both the sage and the ignorant say "I am the body" - so what's the difference between the sage and the ignorant? Wikipedia said that a sage, in classical philosophy, is someone who has attained wisdom. If the wise guy and the idiot both see the same thing, then why did Ramana make a distinction between the two?
Wisdom is something else. It has a hollow ring to it. We are all yoked to the incessant, recurrent compulsion to go to the bathroom, satiate our hunger and thirst, watch our bank accounts with anxiety, and monitor the daily news report on violent crimes and crazy politicians intent on taking down everything we have built and trying to keep above water.
Socrates was right. Neither the sage nor the idiot knows a damn thing. And our situation has grown progressively worse from the day Krishnamurti pledged to set mankind unconditionally free till he kicked the bucket.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2022 15:48:57 GMT -5
Ramana said that both the sage and the ignorant say "I am the body" - so what's the difference between the sage and the ignorant? Wikipedia said that a sage, in classical philosophy, is someone who has attained wisdom. If the wise guy and the idiot both see the same thing, then why did Ramana make a distinction between the two?
[...] Well, Ramana didn't say they the saw the same thing. He said they said the same thing. (According to Reefs; I don't have quote in front of me.) Maybe the meaning of the word "body" differs. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 15, 2022 18:11:25 GMT -5
Wikipedia said that a sage, in classical philosophy, is someone who has attained wisdom. If the wise guy and the idiot both see the same thing, then why did Ramana make a distinction between the two?
[...] Well, Ramana didn't say they the saw the same thing. He said they said the same thing. (According to Reefs; I don't have quote in front of me.) Maybe the meaning of the word "body" differs. Wow, you are right. I jumped to the conclusion that people say what they see. Now, why would the idiot say something he didn't see?
Yes, the term "body" may mean one thing to the wise guy and another to the idiot. Anyway, you are a sharp guy. I like that. I prefer sharp guys to wise guys. I consider myself a sharp guy but you have beaten me to it this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 15, 2022 22:03:11 GMT -5
So even if you discover that you are indeed unbounded and infinite consciousness, Ukraine is still happening. I respectfully question what you have asserted here. Krishnamurti said that he “felt protected”. I don’t have the citation to back this up but I remember reading that in one of his books. Anyway, it resonated with me because I do feel “protected”. I may be deluded but let me explain why I have felt this way ever since I began this quest to inquire into the “Krishnamurti teaching”. (I put that in quotes because I do not regard Krishnamurti as a teacher. We are all one humanity in communion.) I welcome any criticism you may have to set me straight. We are inquiring together and “two heads” are better than one.
About ten years ago, I was 35 when I came across a used Krishnamurti Penguine reader at a sidewalk bookstand in New York’s West Village. It was so arresting that I hunted out everything about the guy, his foundations, and his schools. It led me to a life-shattering decision to give up my professional career in corporate America. There was no way I could keep on working at my job if I wanted to find out the truth in what Krishnamurti was talking about. My work projects ran 15 months out with new ones coming on line without a break. I was living in time that could never come to an end. I had to quit.
Giving up a stable income was scary. Breaking personal relationships was emotionally wrenching. Folks in my life were convinced I had gone nuts over some Indian guru. It happens, right? Looking back, I can see that my new path in life had lifted me out of the common herd. I have no family, no wife to deal with, no children to raise, no burdens to bear. Ukraine is happening. Now that I am free, I am watching it – like a squirrel in my garden - without any movement of thought. I feel protected. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2022 0:43:19 GMT -5
So even if you discover that you are indeed unbounded and infinite consciousness, Ukraine is still happening. I respectfully question what you have asserted here. Krishnamurti said that he “felt protected”. I don’t have the citation to back this up but I remember reading that in one of his books. Anyway, it resonated with me because I do feel “protected”. I may be deluded but let me explain why I have felt this way ever since I began this quest to inquire into the “Krishnamurti teaching”. (I put that in quotes because I do not regard Krishnamurti as a teacher. We are all one humanity in communion.) I welcome any criticism you may have to set me straight. We are inquiring together and “two heads” are better than one.
About ten years ago, I was 35 when I came across a used Krishnamurti Penguine reader at a sidewalk bookstand in New York’s West Village. It was so arresting that I hunted out everything about the guy, his foundations, and his schools. It led me to a life-shattering decision to give up my professional career in corporate America. There was no way I could keep on working at my job if I wanted to find out the truth in what Krishnamurti was talking about. My work projects ran 15 months out with new ones coming on line without a break. I was living in time that could never come to an end. I had to quit.
Giving up a stable income was scary. Breaking personal relationships was emotionally wrenching. Folks in my life were convinced I had gone nuts over some Indian guru. It happens, right? Looking back, I can see that my new path in life had lifted me out of the common herd. I have no family, no wife to deal with, no children to raise, no burdens to bear. Ukraine is happening. Now that I am free, I am watching it – like a squirrel in my garden - without any movement of thought. I feel protected. If you feel protected then you shouldn't be questioning my statement. You should agree with it since I was expressing what unchanging freedom is in the midst of changing phenomena - without squirrels though, one of whom chewed through my fiber optic cable and brought my internet down incidentally. I bear no grudges. He can have all the nuts he wants. That's my statement. It has nothing to do with what Krishnamurti said. |
|
