UG Krishnamurti

[elduderino]

Hi, folks.
What do you think of U.G. Krishnamurti? Has he ever been of any help to you on your spiritual path?

You see, it is interesting to ask you that because in my experience UG is the most useless spiritual teacher in the world (he is not a teacher, in fact). At first I thought I was really interested in what he was saying (sorry, if my grammar is not correct in this sentence). But mostly he is talking nonsense. In my experience it can't be of any value to me. I never had any insight while listening to UG. Nothing.

And yet I very often find myself watching any video I can find with him on Youtube. Including wordless ones such as the video which depicts UG cooking some odd pancakes. So I concluded that I am really fascinated by his physical qualities. There is something so beautiful and natural about this man. Watching him move or do anything is an aesthetical pleasure for me so to say. Reminds me of the good old days when we lived very close to each other in tribes or something. Naturally connected with the environment... But sorry for my sentiment

I now tend to think that the whole phenomenon of UG has nothing to do with spirituality of any kind. He was just one of the most beautiful people I ever saw depicted on photo or video.

[karen]

UG has been profoundly helpful to me. He helped rip the last remnants of religious and spiritual belief from me. And for that, I will always be grateful!

[elduderino]

karen,
Have you ever met him in person? Were you helped by his philosophy or by his presence? Or both?

[karen]

I never had the privilege of meeting him in person.

I was mostly helped by his philosophy or non-philosophy. His unrelenting bashing of the "holy business" really hit home. Plus, his insistence that all who seek knowledge from him should blast him and work on their own - that also helped me give up any hope in finding a teacher who will give me anything.

[jimmytantric]

U.G., along with Jed McKennas "Spiritual Enlightment -the damdest thing" put an end to me seeking outside myself for Enlightenment! Highly recommend if your'e still seeking/searching. Good LUCK Eld

[frustratedwanter]

I just ranted and raved a beautiful ranting and raving about how much I hate the guy.
Seems I lost my ranting before I could post it.
Now I am spent.
Seems overly pissed off for my blood.
As a pissed off dude,
that's not what I'm looking for.

[bruppy]

Ha ha, I remember reading that UG reckoned he only saw 2D as in a flat screen. I see it too. Everyone does, but dont think they do. ha. Its interesting, its challenging knowledge, belief. I dont feel its a thing in itself, but part of a process that this sort of thing is a part of. Questioning and exploring our basic assumptions. my 2.5cents worth.

[mamza]

Mar 10, 2011 1:13:55 GMT -5 bruppy said:

Ha ha, I remember reading that UG reckoned he only saw 2D as in a flat screen. I see it too. Everyone does, but dont think they do. ha. Its interesting, its challenging knowledge, belief. I dont feel its a thing in itself, but part of a process that this sort of thing is a part of. Questioning and exploring our basic assumptions. my 2.5cents worth.

You know, I'm curious about this. I've had instances where the world appears 2D like a giant painting, and I've had instances where the world appeared suddenly 'more' 3D, like there was an intimate awareness of layers (ie. - see the tree closest first, and its branches overlap part of a storm drain, which is closer than the car down the street..).

Is any of that worthwhile? Any experience is pretty useless in the grand scheme of things (other than getting one to notice certain things), but how does this 2D / 3D business translate? From what I've gathered it's just perception, which is entirely relative. This is seen when this is done; this is seen when this other thing is done. Neither seen thing is important, only the seeing of the seeing. Maybe?

[Deleted]

Mar 22, 2011 12:28:42 GMT -5 mamza said:

Mar 10, 2011 1:13:55 GMT -5 bruppy said:

Ha ha, I remember reading that UG reckoned he only saw 2D as in a flat screen. I see it too. Everyone does, but dont think they do. ha. Its interesting, its challenging knowledge, belief. I dont feel its a thing in itself, but part of a process that this sort of thing is a part of. Questioning and exploring our basic assumptions. my 2.5cents worth.

You know, I'm curious about this. I've had instances where the world appears 2D like a giant painting, and I've had instances where the world appeared suddenly 'more' 3D, like there was an intimate awareness of layers (ie. - see the tree closest first, and its branches overlap part of a storm drain, which is closer than the car down the street..).

Is any of that worthwhile? Any experience is pretty useless in the grand scheme of things (other than getting one to notice certain things), but how does this 2D / 3D business translate? From what I've gathered it's just perception, which is entirely relative. This is seen when this is done; this is seen when this other thing is done. Neither seen thing is important, only the seeing of the seeing. Maybe?

worthwhile??

it seems helpful metaphorically (to me). it points to the fact that attention and perception start distorting, adding a whole other dimension based on beliefs and imagination.

if, in attending the actual, the actual, in this case, is more like something 2D, then any extra dimension comes from the mind.

[michaelsees]

He's worth listening to. Some like Karen get what they need.
This is the way with all teachers. I have listened to over 100 teachers.
You pick up some little gems from most of them and with a few you find a big pearl so just listen and see it's really all you can do other people opinions don't count because they are not you in the relative sense.

Michael

[mamza]

I wasn't asking if it's worthwhile to listen to Krishnamurti.

What I'm asking is whether or not seeing the world as 2D rather than 3D is worthwhile. What makes the actual 2D as opposed to 3D? In the absence of distinctions, 2D and 3D disappear.

So is it worthwhile to see the world as if it were 2D? I ask because I've had times where both 2D and 3D seem 'legitimate' (not that either are).

[michaelsees]

Mamza,

Maybe I missed it but can you give a simple clear description of seeing in 2D and 3D without getting too abstract?
Thanks
Michael

[grapefruit]

The two eyes layer images on top of each other to give depth. I don't really know what UG means by this.

[michaelsees]

Mar 22, 2011 16:21:31 GMT -5 grapefruit said:

The two eyes layer images on top of each other to give depth. I don't really know what UG means by this.

There was a movie made called flatland where the people lied in a 2D world. IT was from a book by the author Edwin A. Abbott I believe I will see if I can dig it up. It was not the new movie called Flatland that is out it was much better.

Michael

[mamza]

Mar 22, 2011 15:22:23 GMT -5 @michaelsees said:

Mamza,

Maybe I missed it but can you give a simple clear description of seeing in 2D and 3D without getting too abstract?
Thanks
Michael

The clearest I can get is saying that it was like life turned into a big painting. There were no audible noises around so nothing was distracting me in that regard, and suddenly everything in my field of vision was distinctly visible. So much of my peripheral vision was clear that it was like me, and everything around me, became one big picture.

Nothing was moving, and as I mentioned there was no sound going on, so it SEEMED like time stopped for a half-second or so and then everything went back to normal. Like stepping so far back that everything almost seemed like it was just a snapshot from a camera.