|
|
Post by laughter on May 27, 2022 22:34:28 GMT -5
J Krishnamurti talked in terms of two different kinds of conditioning (basically, what is learned). One is the conditioning that forms the self, a self-point-of-view. This is the conditioning that causes all sort of problems, basically the majority of all problems in the world. [Everyone functions from their own point of view, in their own interests. With everyone functioning in this way, there is always conflict, there is a kind of unspoken rule we seem to live by, a zero sum world of limited resources]. But, secondly, he also talked in terms of things necessary to learn to be able to function in the world. Language, writing, reading, driving a car, learning a skill to make money to make one's way in the world. So, once learned, the second can operate in the absence of the first, it's possible. I discovered J Krishnamurti in 1971. I pulled the book down, Think On These Things, from a wire rack in The International Book Stand in downtown Charlotte. I browsed, and browsed. In a few minutes this became a definite buy. My spiritual journey had started in earnest in 1969. It basically started with Theosophical literature, Leadbeater and others. {Oddly, it was years later that I learned the connection between Leadbeater/Theosophy and J Krishnamurti and his brother Nitya}. So I learned the importance of meditation. The easiest route was TM, which I practiced regularly as it was given for a year. (Then the student fee was $10). When I found JK he became ~IT~ for me for about 5 years. A new book by Harper & Row came out every year, plus I ordered previous books. In the five years I learned that attention is the key. (Incidentally, zd talks about Gary Weber who had discovered evidence for two different types of neural circuits in the brain. One type of circuit is the default self mode. Other neural circuits concern ordinary functioning in life, ordinary learned skills). This gets us to your question, your fundamental issue. So what is self? Is a self necessary, as you say, to put a roof over your head, clothes on your back and food in your mouth?, to have a job, etc. Does having an ID, a passport or drivers license, necessarily mean a self? Now, the following didn't all come from J Krishnamurti, it's from 50+ years of exploring. JK asks, is it possible to operate free from one's (self) conditioning, bearing in mind the distinction he makes (above), from this point, will assume the distinction is understood. The conditioning from which self arises, comes from information stored in the brain, our memories. That is, they come from the past. So what is JK always pointing to in everything he says? He's pointing to the possibility of living without that burden of past learning, he always comes back to that. But he is almost never explicit, but the key is attention. In focused attention one is in the present moment. In the present moment, self doesn't operate. In the present moment there is no burden of the past. But self always jumps back in, that is, conditioned thinking and conditioned feelings are elicited by chains of associations. What does that mean? It means that thoughts, feelings and events ~take back attention~, it means your attention ~goes back into~, and disappears into thinking, feeling and events. [Another aside. We know from people who suffer from amnesia that they forget *who they are*, they don't forget how to speak English or how to drive a car. This also seems to show Gary Weber's two different circuits]. Does this resolve your dilemma? It's not so easy to ~stay in the present moment~, but it is possible. Now, most people here are going to tell you that once you see through the illusion of self, then the journey is over, self is no longer a problem. You just go about you life. ~MY~ view is different. As long as the circuits which constitute self, are in operation, the journey is not over. Only in unconditioned attention do we journey into the unknown. J Krishnamurti's known was much larger than ours. To his credit he never tried to describe "the other". But each has to find their own way. Everybody has to decide what it all means, for themselves. Can you see the contradiction between your sentences - the second at the beginning and the last one in your post above? There is much to unravel in our exploration into our nature, and you have been at it in earnest. You are an "expert". For that, I am grateful. I used to work with some of the leading experts in their fields on cutting-edge engineering projects. I had admiration for those guys, and there is nothing better than cooperating with smart people doing exciting things. A technical expert is not a know-all but he knows best from his point of view. And that is how, together, mankind has succeeded at great feats of technological achievement. I don't see why we can't make a breakthrough in a "fundamental transformation" of the human consciousness.
The human consciousness has different points of view: your view, my view, but not Ramana's view, or even Krishnamurti's view. Consciousness is a living existential state, and we are that. Only the living can explore that which is alive.
Technology is a different matter pertaining to building on experience, using knowledge acquired in the past, to achieve practical results. So, I have no issue with different points of view as long as they are reflective of a holistic state of harmony like the various facets that bring forth the brilliance of a beautifully cut diamond.
Not to interfere with your interest in paying attention to what others have to say on these topics. That's great. But Zen has a notion, "beginner's mind". From what I can tell, "beginner's mind" is not meant to lionize the beginner nor denigrate the notion of a spiritual teacher, but rather, to call the very dichotomy itself into question. Seems to me further, that like everything in Zen, it has a simple, straightforward explanation, and this have value, but that value is only one facet of the gem. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 28, 2022 14:50:24 GMT -5
These are all ideas about objects in your perception as filtered through your mind: the "self", the body, you, your legs, food, your mouth, chewing, swallowing, your throat, service, the reason for the self, death, what happens after death, jobs and getting fired. The heartlessness of it all ("oh! despair!  "). I agree with what you wrote here about the mystery But it is a mystery that can be penetrated, (But) 2, that penetration means setting aside all these ideas about all of these objects that appear to you because of the conditioned filter of your mind. I don't know what you mean by penetrating the mystery of the self. If you can clarify and solve this existential puzzle for us, we can shut down this forum and celebrate. All drinks will be on me. Please, I am serious. After ten years of intense but fruitless searching, I am willing to check out any discovery you have made. You are in the right place (ST's). But it cannot be put into words. Many here can help you explore this. One thing you need to consider, don't question from what you know or who you think you are, enter the place of unknowing. Somebody called it Freedom From The Known. The self you know is what you know (but a lot of that self is below the "conscious" mind, that is, it is psychological unconscious processing). Picture a door. On one side is the known, on the other side is the unknown. self is one side of the door. Attention and/or awareness can step through the door. That is, you can leave the burden of self, and move beyond. Just play with that. (Now, self will almost invariably jump in and appropriate whatever is on the other side of the door, record it as memory and claim it as conquered territory, make it a part of self. But what's on the other side of the door cannot be put into words, it has a different kind of language). Read some more J Krishnamurti, even things you have already read. You will find that what he is pointing to is to drop the psychological self, to live in the "space" where self is not. zd has an excellent practice called ATA-T (attend the actual [whatever is there, some sensation, something you see or hear, taste, touch or smell], minus thought [in the absence of thinking]). When you can do this, you will find that self is absent. In the beginning you may be able to do it only one second. When you recognize a though has popped up, go back to only-the-actual. And this is actually what laughter referred to, what Zen calls Beginners Mind. Maybe start a thread in the General section, the Teachers section does not get as much traffic. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 28, 2022 15:42:22 GMT -5
Not to interfere with your interest in paying attention to what others have to say on these topics. That's great. But Zen has a notion, "beginner's mind". From what I can tell, "beginner's mind" is not meant to lionize the beginner nor denigrate the notion of a spiritual teacher, but rather, to call the very dichotomy itself into question. Seems to me further, that like everything in Zen, it has a simple, straightforward explanation, and this have value, but that value is only one facet of the gem. But we don't have the gem: harmony. We are all broken up into pieces like a Humpty all splattered on the floor.
Do you feel connected to anyone the way the heart is connected to the lungs? Break that connection and both die. Or do you feel able to live on your own if you have to? Apparently, we all feel able to live without the Russians, and doing everything within our power to do them in.
Zen has nothing to do with peace on Earth and goodwill to all mankind. It's single focus is getting out of this hell hole not through the Noble Eight-fold Path but instantly.
Abandoning ship doesn't feel right. I am with Krishnamurti. We need to put Humpty together again. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 28, 2022 17:47:20 GMT -5
Not to interfere with your interest in paying attention to what others have to say on these topics. That's great. But Zen has a notion, "beginner's mind". From what I can tell, "beginner's mind" is not meant to lionize the beginner nor denigrate the notion of a spiritual teacher, but rather, to call the very dichotomy itself into question. Seems to me further, that like everything in Zen, it has a simple, straightforward explanation, and this have value, but that value is only one facet of the gem. But we don't have the gem: harmony. We are all broken up into pieces like a Humpty all splattered on the floor.
Do you feel connected to anyone the way the heart is connected to the lungs? Break that connection and both die. Or do you feel able to live on your own if you have to? Apparently, we all feel able to live without the Russians, and doing everything within our power to do them in.
Zen has nothing to do with peace on Earth and goodwill to all mankind. It's single focus is getting out of this hell hole not through the Noble Eight-fold Path but instantly.
Abandoning ship doesn't feel right. I am with Krishnamurti. We need to put Humpty together again. Anything that can be glued back together can be broken again. Realization of the unbreakable, is a shift in perception. There's all sorts of great advice about opening yourself up to that shift, if you're interested.  |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 28, 2022 22:15:42 GMT -5
But we don't have the gem: harmony. We are all broken up into pieces like a Humpty all splattered on the floor.
Do you feel connected to anyone the way the heart is connected to the lungs? Break that connection and both die. Or do you feel able to live on your own if you have to? Apparently, we all feel able to live without the Russians, and doing everything within our power to do them in.
Zen has nothing to do with peace on Earth and goodwill to all mankind. It's single focus is getting out of this hell hole not through the Noble Eight-fold Path but instantly.
Abandoning ship doesn't feel right. I am with Krishnamurti. We need to put Humpty together again. Anything that can be glued back together can be broken again. Realization of the unbreakable, is a shift in perception. There's all sorts of great advice about opening yourself up to that shift, if you're interested.  No, not glued back together. I am not suggesting that if we all hold hands and sing "we are the world", we can put humanity together again. Humanity is the sum of the parts: me, you, and the rest of the users online in the past 24 hours.
Strange, isn't it? The parts are a fact. "The unbreakable" is a non-fact (as Krishnamurti would put it). Be that as it may, why don't you tell me about the "unbreakable" if it is a fact to you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2022 3:45:09 GMT -5
I am with Krishnamurti. We need to put Humpty together again. In that case get ready for another 10 years. Even if you carefully glue all the individual pieces of Humpty together again you will see cracks you didn't even have before. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 29, 2022 8:12:15 GMT -5
Anything that can be glued back together can be broken again. Realization of the unbreakable, is a shift in perception. There's all sorts of great advice about opening yourself up to that shift, if you're interested. No, not glued back together. I am not suggesting that if we all hold hands and sing "we are the world", we can put humanity together again. Humanity is the sum of the parts: me, you, and the rest of the users online in the past 24 hours. Strange, isn't it? The parts are a fact. "The unbreakable" is a non-fact (as Krishnamurti would put it). Be that as it may, why don't you tell me about the "unbreakable" if it is a fact to you?
If you want a hint of the unbreakable, you have to suspend "facts". Only for a little while though. Don't worry. They'll still be there. And I can't give you that hint. Noone can. We can point you to it, but you have to find it for yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 29, 2022 8:42:28 GMT -5
Not to interfere with your interest in paying attention to what others have to say on these topics. That's great. But Zen has a notion, "beginner's mind". From what I can tell, "beginner's mind" is not meant to lionize the beginner nor denigrate the notion of a spiritual teacher, but rather, to call the very dichotomy itself into question. Seems to me further, that like everything in Zen, it has a simple, straightforward explanation, and this have value, but that value is only one facet of the gem. But we don't have the gem: harmony. We are all broken up into pieces like a Humpty all splattered on the floor.
Do you feel connected to anyone the way the heart is connected to the lungs? Break that connection and both die. Or do you feel able to live on your own if you have to? Apparently, we all feel able to live without the Russians, and doing everything within our power to do them in.
Zen has nothing to do with peace on Earth and goodwill to all mankind. It's single focus is getting out of this hell hole not through the Noble Eight-fold Path but instantly.
Abandoning ship doesn't feel right. I am with Krishnamurti. We need to put Humpty together again. I think this is a misunderstanding of K. How can we effect change in the world? Only by you yourself changing. JK always and only writes and speaks from the standpoint of ~you yourself~ changing. But then when enough individuals change, then this can shift the whole. There is a principle in Tai Chi Chuan, 4 ounces can deflect 1,000 pounds. So the emphasis cannot be on changing the whole, the emphasis can only be on the one person. And there cannot be any coercion in trying to change others, people have to see for themselves. So all you can really do is share your perspective, share what/who you are. JK asks, is there any negativity in you? Is there any violence in you? We have a certain sphere of influence. There are different collective pockets throughout the planet, different areas of different degrees of brokenness. (From the events of the last 10 days, the US is pretty broken). So, then, the message of JK and the message of Zen are not different. "Work on yourself"... is changing the world. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 29, 2022 11:13:46 GMT -5
Anything that can be glued back together can be broken again. Realization of the unbreakable, is a shift in perception. There's all sorts of great advice about opening yourself up to that shift, if you're interested. No, not glued back together. I am not suggesting that if we all hold hands and sing "we are the world", we can put humanity together again. Humanity is the sum of the parts: me, you, and the rest of the users online in the past 24 hours. Strange, isn't it? The parts are a fact. "The unbreakable" is a non-fact (as Krishnamurti would put it). Be that as it may, why don't you tell me about the "unbreakable" if it is a fact to you?
sree, I didn't go back and look at it again, but from my recollection you said earlier that you had one problem with J Krishnamurti, he says you can function without a self. But that is in fact the whole of his message, what he continually comes back to. I read yesterday what you asked of laughter, Why don't you tell me about the "unbreakable"...? So this morning I decided to go to JK and give some quotes. One of my favorite books of JK is Tradition and Revolution. In it he is dialogue with his Indian friends, they push him the deepest. Within the last year I chanced upon another such book, The Way of Intelligence, published and printed in India (1985 & 2004). I'm going to boil down a few quotes, jump to the pertinent. JK: Who is the observer? Does the observer himself realize that he is the whole movement of the past? And that as long as he is observing, that which is being observed can never be accurate? Can the observer...be aware of himself as being conditioned? ...If he is not aware of himself as the observer who is conditioned, there will be a contradiction between himself and the thing which is being observed, contradiction being a division. ...Is it possible for the observer to understand himself and see his limitations, his conditioning, and so not interfere with the observation? (emphasis sdp) pages 9,10 RMP: Can we make any observation without the interference of thought? JK: I say 'yes', absolutely. ...JK: Your question in the beginning was, can the past end? ...Can that vast story with all its tremendous volume, like a tremendous river with a great deal of water flowing, come to an end? pgs 17,18 JK: ...Can there be a pure observation of it, which is not analysis? Observation is totally different from analysis. ...the actual being that which is happening now. (threw that in for zd). Observation is totally free from analysis. Is it possible just to observe without any conclusion, any direction, any motive-just pure clear looking? Obviously, it is possible when you look at these lovely trees; it is very simple. But to look at the operation of the whole movement of existence, to observe it without any distortion, is entirely different from analysis. ...Is it possible to look at it and stay with it, stay with the whole movement of fear? I mean by staying with it, to observe without any movement of thought entering into my observation. Then I say, with that observation comes attention. That observation is total attention. It is not concentration; it is attention. ...is my mind capable of such attention, which is to bring all the energy of my intellect, emotions, nerves...? ...Can you look at it, observe it without any movement? pgs 93,94 JK: Sir, do we clearly understand that the observer is the observed? I observe that tree, but I am not that tree. I observe various reactions to greed, envy and so on. Is the observer separate from greed? The observer himself is the observed, which is greed. Is it clear, not intellectually, but actually, that you can see the truth of it as a profound reality, a truth which is absolute? When there is such observation, the observer is the past. ...Now, when I observe fear, that fear is me. I am not separate from that fear. So the observer is the observed. (OK, the following is everything, note sdp) In that observation there is no observer to observe because there is only the fact: the fear is me, I am not separate from the fear. Then, what is the need for analysis? In that observation, if it is pure observation, the whole thing is revealed... JK: Let us go slowly. I am angry. At the moment of anger, there is no 'me' at all; there is only the reaction called anger. A second later, I say, I have been angry. I have already separated anger from me. ... PJ: But, sir, who observes? JK: There is no 'who observes'. There is only the state of observation. pgs 96-98 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ While reading JK, you have to stop and do it, not just read. In the bold, J Krishnamurti leads you up to a point where self-is-not. This is not easy. self-as-thought will try to jump back in, will jump back in. So ~you~ just come back to a state of pure observation, which is bare attention. Now, you will find this in any JK book or video, I just happened to have this book handy. And when there is just this pure bare attention (or awareness), that's the other side of the door. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now, to be fair, I said earlier that J Krishnamurti was ~* IT*~ for me for about 5 years, 1971-1976. I got to the point where I could follow him in everything, every point he was making. And then he would get to the point where he said, And this seeing (or observing, he used different words) leads to action. But it never lead to any action for me. So I took where JK lead up-to, and found the next step...stumbled upon it. ...But then later...I could understand what Krishnamurti was about, he was a stepping stone for me. But he can be frustrating, he just throws you into the deep end, without explanation... |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 29, 2022 12:01:10 GMT -5
But we don't have the gem: harmony. We are all broken up into pieces like a Humpty all splattered on the floor.
Do you feel connected to anyone the way the heart is connected to the lungs? Break that connection and both die. Or do you feel able to live on your own if you have to? Apparently, we all feel able to live without the Russians, and doing everything within our power to do them in.
Zen has nothing to do with peace on Earth and goodwill to all mankind. It's single focus is getting out of this hell hole not through the Noble Eight-fold Path but instantly.
Abandoning ship doesn't feel right. I am with Krishnamurti. We need to put Humpty together again. I think this is a misunderstanding of K. How can we effect change in the world? Only by you yourself changing. JK always and only writes and speaks from the standpoint of ~you yourself~ changing. But then when enough individuals change, then this can shift the whole. There is a principle in Tai Chi Chuan, 4 ounces can deflect 1,000 pounds. So the emphasis cannot be on changing the whole, the emphasis can only be on the one person. And there cannot be any coercion in trying to change others, people have to see for themselves. So all you can really do is share your perspective, share what/who you are. JK asks, is there any negativity in you? Is there any violence in you? We have a certain sphere of influence. There are different collective pockets throughout the planet, different areas of different degrees of brokenness. (From the events of the last 10 days, the US is pretty broken). So, then, the message of JK and the message of Zen are not different. "Work on yourself"... is changing the world. JK kicked Zen out the door. This is my viewpoint while you believe that JK and Zen are no different. And we can blame JK for this fracture in Humpty of which we are parts. The "unbreakable" (laughter) developed more fissures when every Krishnamurti reader went in different directions to be a light unto himself/herself as instructed by the teacher. No two would ever agree to whatever JK taught.
I am not kidding. Several years ago, I was at Brockwood Park and ran into an administrator who was teaching at the K school there. He and I had met earlier in India at KFI in Greenways Road, Chennai, when he, like me and other young westerners, was swept up by the JK fervor. He confided in me that there was endemic dissension among staff at JK schools. A normal state of affairs. One time, as he was told, when JK was alive and came to visit, he was pestered by staff members who brought issues to him for resolution. K went straight up to his room and locked his door after telling them to sort out their differences themselves.
Discounting the above K splintering effect, humanity pushing 8 billion has a birth rate of 1%. This means some 80 million new people are arriving every year to undergo fundamental change. The majority of the newcomers probably won't even care. Meanwhile, you have the 8 billion who are already here to deal with. Your proposal for each part to work on itself to bring about global change is dead in the water.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 29, 2022 12:18:28 GMT -5
I think this is a misunderstanding of K. How can we effect change in the world? Only by you yourself changing. JK always and only writes and speaks from the standpoint of ~you yourself~ changing. But then when enough individuals change, then this can shift the whole. There is a principle in Tai Chi Chuan, 4 ounces can deflect 1,000 pounds. So the emphasis cannot be on changing the whole, the emphasis can only be on the one person. And there cannot be any coercion in trying to change others, people have to see for themselves. So all you can really do is share your perspective, share what/who you are. JK asks, is there any negativity in you? Is there any violence in you? We have a certain sphere of influence. There are different collective pockets throughout the planet, different areas of different degrees of brokenness. (From the events of the last 10 days, the US is pretty broken). So, then, the message of JK and the message of Zen are not different. "Work on yourself"... is changing the world. JK kicked Zen out the door. This is my viewpoint while you believe that JK and Zen are no different. And we can blame JK for this fracture in Humpty of which we are parts. The "unbreakable" (laughter) developed more fissures when every Krishnamurti reader went in different directions to be a light unto himself/herself as instructed by the teacher. No two would ever agree to whatever JK taught.
I am not kidding. Several years ago, I was at Brockwood Park and ran into an administrator who was teaching at the K school there. He and I had met earlier in India at KFI in Greenways Road, Chennai, when he, like me and other young westerners, was swept up by the JK fervor. He confided in me that there was endemic dissension among staff at JK schools. A normal state of affairs. One time, as he was told, when JK was alive and came to visit, he was pestered by staff members who brought issues to him for resolution. K went straight up to his room and locked his door after telling them to sort out their differences themselves.
Discounting the above K splintering effect, humanity pushing 8 billion has a birth rate of 1%. This means some 80 million new people are arriving every year to undergo fundamental change. The majority of the newcomers probably won't even care. Meanwhile, you have the 8 billion who are already here to deal with. Your proposal for each part to work on itself to bring about global change is dead in the water.
I don't think JK and Zen are at odds. I agree. The point is not to change the world, only one can change, one at a time, no guarantees. I don't think JK ever anywhere talked about changing the world. (If he did, show me a quote). I have zero illusions the world will change, that we are moving toward a great awakening. Cool story about JK, telling them to sort out their own differences. He wasn't a crutch for anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 29, 2022 13:52:27 GMT -5
Now, to be fair, I said earlier that J Krishnamurti was ~* IT*~ for me for about 5 years, 1971-1976. I got to the point where I could follow him in everything, every point he was making. And then he would get to the point where he said, And this seeing (or observing, he used different words) leads to action. But it never lead to any action for me. So I took where JK lead up-to, and found the next step...stumbled upon it. ...But then later...I could understand what Krishnamurti was about, he was a stepping stone for me. But he can be frustrating, he just throws you into the deep end, without explanation... Your familiarity with JK's work is good for our discussion on a matter important to me. My approach to fathoming the nature of the self is outside the paradigms of academic philosophy (metaphysics) and religious ideology (spiritualism). Both these paradigms are the product of culture which, as you have pointed out, conditions our points of view.
Fundamental inquiry into the self, the observer that is what I am, has a cause: the disease of human existence. Mankind is sick, and I must find a cure for this malaise However, if I cannot be free of the paradigms of culture, which is the root of our sickness, then my inquiry won't bear fruit.
Krishnamurti's record of his abnormal perceptual experience is the only thing of curiosity to me. His so-called teaching has no value, as far as I am concerned. Perception is a phenomenological fact. Consciousness is an idea, "a product of thought" (Krishnamurti). Inquiry, therefore, is the empirical study of facts related to the examination of the nature of perception.
The sole reason as to why we don't have the truth about anything is because we can't see straight. All points of views are politically biased and conditioned by culture, as you pointed out. But no one wants to take off his/her screwed up second hand eyeglasses handed down through the ages and messed up by modern day intellectuals.
If I were to hold up something that I think is the truth, are you willing to tell me what you see?
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 29, 2022 14:28:31 GMT -5
I don't think JK and Zen are at odds.I agree. The point is not to change the world, only one can change, one at a time, no guarantees. I don't think JK ever anywhere talked about changing the world. (If he did, show me a quote). I have zero illusions the world will change, that we are moving toward a great awakening. Cool story about JK, telling them to sort out their own differences. He wasn't a crutch for anyone.
You are quite right insofar as "insight" is concerned. "Enlightenment" doesn't take time. It happens instantly. I speak from experience and would be glad to share it if you are interested.
The question is "enlightenment"about what? Do you think JK was not at odds with Buddhist scholars when they had dialogues with him? They were pretty upset when they insisted that K was not the "whole river in which mankind lives" but just one guy who stepped out of that stream of conditioned human consciousness. The Buddhists were talking about individuals becoming Buddhas while K was into instant fundamental transformation of mankind - not one by one but all together in one fell swoop.
Do listen to those recordings. Those Buddhist scholars were much better at examining existential matters than the experts from the west.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 29, 2022 14:59:39 GMT -5
Now, to be fair, I said earlier that J Krishnamurti was ~* IT*~ for me for about 5 years, 1971-1976. I got to the point where I could follow him in everything, every point he was making. And then he would get to the point where he said, And this seeing (or observing, he used different words) leads to action. But it never lead to any action for me. So I took where JK lead up-to, and found the next step...stumbled upon it. ...But then later...I could understand what Krishnamurti was about, he was a stepping stone for me. But he can be frustrating, he just throws you into the deep end, without explanation... Your familiarity with JK's work is good for our discussion on a matter important to me. My approach to fathoming the nature of the self is outside the paradigms of academic philosophy (metaphysics) and religious ideology (spiritualism). Both these paradigms are the product of culture which, as you have pointed out, conditions our points of view.
Fundamental inquiry into the self, the observer that is what I am, has a cause: the disease of human existence. Mankind is sick, and I must find a cure for this malaise However, if I cannot be free of the paradigms of culture, which is the root of our sickness, then my inquiry won't bear fruit. Krishnamurti's record of his abnormal perceptual experience is the only thing of curiosity to me. His so-called teaching has no value, as far as I am concerned. Perception is a phenomenological fact. Consciousness is an idea, "a product of thought" (Krishnamurti). Inquiry, therefore, is the empirical study of facts related to the examination of the nature of perception.
The sole reason as to why we don't have the truth about anything is because we can't see straight. All points of views are politically biased and conditioned by culture, as you pointed out. But no one wants to take off his/her screwed up second hand eyeglasses handed down through the ages and messed up by modern day intellectuals. If I were to hold up something that I think is the truth, are you willing to tell me what you see?
Yes, sure. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 29, 2022 15:23:00 GMT -5
Now, to be fair, I said earlier that J Krishnamurti was ~* IT*~ for me for about 5 years, 1971-1976. I got to the point where I could follow him in everything, every point he was making. And then he would get to the point where he said, And this seeing (or observing, he used different words) leads to action. But it never lead to any action for me. So I took where JK lead up-to, and found the next step...stumbled upon it. ...But then later...I could understand what Krishnamurti was about, he was a stepping stone for me. But he can be frustrating, he just throws you into the deep end, without explanation... Your familiarity with JK's work is good for our discussion on a matter important to me. My approach to fathoming the nature of the self is outside the paradigms of academic philosophy (metaphysics) and religious ideology (spiritualism). Both these paradigms are the product of culture which, as you have pointed out, conditions our points of view.
Fundamental inquiry into the self, the observer that is what I am, has a cause: the disease of human existence. Mankind is sick, and I must find a cure for this malaise However, if I cannot be free of the paradigms of culture, which is the root of our sickness, then my inquiry won't bear fruit. Krishnamurti's record of his abnormal perceptual experience is the only thing of curiosity to me. His so-called teaching has no value, as far as I am concerned. Perception is a phenomenological fact. Consciousness is an idea, "a product of thought" (Krishnamurti). Inquiry, therefore, is the empirical study of facts related to the examination of the nature of perception.
The sole reason as to why we don't have the truth about anything is because we can't see straight. All points of views are politically biased and conditioned by culture, as you pointed out. But no one wants to take off his/her screwed up second hand eyeglasses handed down through the ages and messed up by modern day intellectuals. If I were to hold up something that I think is the truth, are you willing to tell me what you see?
Have you also looked into UG Krishnamurti? |
|
"). 
