It’s the human condition. The brain can’t be silent, empty, and selfless because thought is constant, regardless of how rational or irrational it is.
We are in a Krishnamurti forum, let us center our exploration on that to which he pointed: freedom, observation, awareness, attention, intelligence.
Yes, but can you accept what K meant by “freedom, observation, awareness, attention, intelligence”? I ask because his use of these words are not always the conventional meanings.
Regarding what is happening when we listen to K - which is different from what happens when we listen to ordinary idiots - what is the main difference? And where is this difference taking place? Is it to do with the presence and words of a special man and his words (out there) ? or is the relationship all about the images in my head ?
Probably a subtle mix of both non?
I remember listening to a dialogue (involving Krishnamurti) where something similar was discussed.
He was saying that there are those people who are interested in the person - K - who work in the schools or attend his talks because they are drawn to the person; and there are those people who work in the schools and attend his talks because they are drawn by his teachings. And that there is a certain degree of tension between these two groups.
Probably something similar takes place here (on Kinfonet).
Most people who are interested in K or his teachings are a combination of ‘A’ and ‘B’; so it seems to me that problems arise when these two approaches are taken to the extreme.
So, for example, if some people in the group you are calling ‘B’ become dismissive of the person K, or dismissive of his teachings (because their true interests are in other teachings), then this will obviously be a catalyst for friction with people in group ‘A’ (and other people in group ‘B’).
And similarly, if some people in group ‘A’ become intolerant of other perspectives or questions/doubts, ways of framing, etc - because of their assumed allegiance to the person K - then this will obviously create friction with people in group ‘B’ (and other people in group ‘A’).
So, for me it is a question of extremes.
Thought is present pretty much constantly, ja. But that’s true whether you are reading Krishnamurti, Buddha, Shankara, Lao Tzu, usw. You are the (agent of) thought. Krishnamurti points beyond thinking, but so do others.
We are in a Krishnamurti forum, let us center our exploration on that to which he pointed: freedom, observation, awareness, attention, intelligence.
Yes, but can you accept what K meant by “freedom, observation, awareness, attention, intelligence”? I ask because his use of these words are not always the conventional meanings.
I am able to accept it within the context: Krishnamurti’s way of understanding reality. I have a reasonably deep sense of the meaning of the words within that context.
I agree that As and Bs can get along, that there’s room for both, as long as they can play nicely together. Extremes are great fun: they’re dramatic, feel important, provide stability and status. There are people who learn well via extremes, probably. But going extreme has a dark side.
Extremes aside, I can also see how there is a danger of relativising Krishnamurti’s teachings in a way that takes the sting out of them.
While there are interesting similarities between Krishnamurti’s teachings and certain aspects of Buddhism, Advaita, Taoism, etc (and I willingly accept there are), there are also critical differences (and as a computer specialist you should know that any difference makes a difference).
If the uniqueness of K’s approach - one might call it the perfume of his teachings - is ignored, then something important has been lost, wouldn’t you say?
I would. The word ‘perfume’ rang a bell, I rummaged around and found a quote from Sadhguru (whom I am neither endorsing nor condemning) about Krishnamurti:
He was a fantastic human being, but he lived like a flower and he withered like a flower. When he was there, there was a fragrance. When he is gone, only books remained because there is no living process. – Sadhguru
I wonder whether the last bit is true? Without the living fragrance, has the heart disappeared? What do you think?
Bollocks. I read a load of K over and over, saw him many times in person, never tasted the slightest bit of freedom from the known - nor any observer/observering magic.
Insight (into the self) does not seem to be tied to magical people, magical teachings, or any accumulation of understanding of those teachings on my part whatsoever (in my experience).
The best that K offers us I reckon is uncertainty - he’s a bit Rinzai. (with all his mysterious koans)
Freedom comes from acceptation, acceptation comes from having no choice. In my experience this is not a situation we choose - we do not end up forced to face suffering by choice. Freedom comes when death is the only possibility available.
The perfume that James speaks about, “Bollocks” to that?
No, Bollocks to magical saviour gurus. Everyone smells a bit different.
(although I do think there was magic involved in the K story - which I like, would have made a good x files episode)
But I think James is talking about a fragrance more than just his ‘aromatic fingerprint.’ Unless I’ve misunderstood, James is talking about a significant, deep, near-mystical “je ne sais quoi.” ?
I think he means : put a whole load of unrelated buddhas in a row, and they’d all have differzent styles.
Guess we need to wait and see what he actually meant! In the meantime:
Are you saying that the form/style/vibe of a teacher is way less potent (for ‘learning’ to happen) than the quality of their content? And are you talking about your learning style, or general?
Nope - I’m saying that the teacher and the teachings has no direct relationship to my enlightenement.* That my study, understanding of the teachings, accumulation of knowledge, also has no direct relation to freedom from the self either.
*although being in the presence of love has a similar (though opposite) effect to trauma.
That leaves you where? Vis-a-vis spiritual growth, enlightenment?
He responds with silence.
I don’t know much about Sadhguru, except that according to some of my Indian friends he is known for his support of Modi and Modi’s Hindu nationalism, and has been accused by prominent environmental groups of greenwashing. His wife also died in suspicious circumstances (he claims that she achieved a voluntary ‘spiritual death’ while meditating).
However, when this ‘guru’ (who you neither endorse nor condemn) talks about a “living process” he seems to be repeating the traditional Hindu criticism of Krishnamurti that he left behind no system of practice, etc. This is sufficient to inform me that his criticism may not be based on a clear understanding of Krishnamurti or his teachings. You might as well have quoted Osho.
So no, I don’t agree that “the last bit is true.” The heart of K’s teachings is in both the effect he had on those who listened to him, and in the talks and discussions he held throughout his life many of which are still available to listen to or watch.
There is nothing more I can say in private that has not already been said.
There are no hard lines as such. This forum is for the most part self-regulated. I rarely need to have conversations like this with anyone. The majority of the people are here because of an interest in Krishnamurti’s teaching - that is, they are interested in the nature and ramifications of human conditioning - and that is what determines the tenor of the conversations. That interest is the only moderator needed. I only step in once it becomes clear someone does not share that interest or has grossly misinterpreted the gist of it. It is a red flag for me if someone has to ask about crossing lines.
Another thing, this continued testing/taunting of the boundaries by posting only tangentially relevant or frivolous material will not be tolerated for much longer.
What’s the difference between “acceptance” and “acceptation”? When I have no choice, am I acceptationing rather than accepting choicelessness?
Should Sadhguru have meant that, I agree he failed to grok a key part of Krishnamurti’s work. But I interpreted it differently, that the ‘living process’ absent after Krishnamurti’s death is the vitality and present-moment immediacy of the living and charismatic man.