Yes, in agreement, i trust that’s the K stance.
I have no idea what K’s “stance” was on this subject. As I said, this is just what I like to think. It’s my fanciful speculation. It’s not a belief, and there’s no evidence to suggest it’s a reality.
1 Like
No imagination, I assure you. Krishnamurti was not the only one entitled to be besides himself. As he said, he was like everybody else. If he can do it, so can you and I.
My point is that it is inline with Hinduism’s view point and therefore of K, and it carries sense.
K was not a Hindu and none of his discoveries are rooted in Hinduism by his own statements making this clear.
Not really. And once again: You are not Krishnamurti. And what does “besides himself” mean? I have heard of “beside yourself” but I have never seen K in that emotional stance. Either in person or on video. Don’t speak for K. If K said something you want to use then use the exact words and give a citation. Otherwise your statement is not valid. It’s hearsay, rumor or completely fiction.
Exasperated…yes. “Oh, you people are so dull!” …that kind of thing he’d say…with ‘passion’ perhaps.
You think Krishnamurti was disdainful of us even? This is important to know. We believe that Krishnamutrti was different, transformed, and incapable of falling down the rabbit hole into our conditioned world of mean-spirited violence.
I agree, Krishnamurti made sense of Hindu (Vedanta) and Buddhist philosophy. This is why Buddhist scholars study Krishnamurti.
It means “exasperation”, as pointed out by Thomas-Paine. I was not speaking for Krishnamurti. I was telling the story as I saw it. This is what historians do. And they don’t all necessarily agree. You can tell the Krishnamurti story from the “host position” and others tell the story from the “guest position”. Together, we can put together a complete picture.
He had to have been discouraged. What was perfectly clear and obvious to him was opaque and arguable to his audience. Apparently there were those who seemed to “get it” at times, and they gave him the impetus to keep going to the end of his life when he lamented that no one “got it”.
Poor chap (as he would have said). I guess this is why some of us are here to keep trying to “get it”. Are you trying to get it or just can’t find a reason to leave?
We may have started out with that intent, but after years of failure, we may have given up and contented ourselves with comparing our knowledge and understanding of the teaching. If you can’t get it, you can at least become increasingly familiar with it.
Unrequited love must be the most painful thing one can experience.
There may be a value in that, maybe not. There is really only one thing to ‘get’ here, isn’t there, and that is that the “observer is the observed”. I think many have gotten that insight or glimpsed the enormity of what that statement is pointing at…but the insight/truth recedes, gets lost, becomes a memory etc. There’s not a 'staying with it": the realization that one is that. We can have ideas about why that may be the case but it is actually ‘simpler’ than we can imagine. Effortless as has been said. The ‘insight’ is quite different than an intellectual grasping of that ‘fact’ that there is no thinker apart from the thinking…
Ok, so you have that ‘insight’ into the fact that the observer is the observed and there is no “thinker apart from the thinking”. How do you relate with your wife? (I am serious. We have a situation here.)
Krishnamurti completely removed himself from all organized religion. “Be a light unto your self” he said. Organized religion is an escape.
Network of Thought, 2nd Public Talk in Amsterdam, Sept, 1981
So one must be free, if one is serious in the enquiry into what is religion, one must be free of all the things that thought has invented, put together about that which is considered religious. That is, all the things that Hinduism has invented, with its superstitions, with its beliefs, with its images, and the ancient literature as the Upanishads and so on, one must be completely free of all that. If one is attached to all that then it is impossible, naturally, to discover that which is original. You understand the problem?
That is, if my mind, my brain is conditioned by the Hindu superstition, beliefs, dogmas, idolatry, with all the ancient tradition, my mind then is anchored to that, therefore it cannot move, it is not free. Therefore one must be free completely from all that - being a Hindu. Right? Similarly, one must be free totally from all the inventions of thought, as the rituals, dogmas, beliefs, symbols, the saviours and so on of Christianity. That may be rather difficult, that is coming nearer home. Or if you go to Ceylon or the Tibetan, North, Buddhism, with all their idolatry, as the idolatry of Christianity, they too have this problem: being attached as security to the things thought has invented. So all religions, whether Christianity, Muslim, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, they are the movement of thought continued through time, through literature, through symbols, through things made by the hand or by the mind, all that is considered religious in the modern world. To the speaker that is not religion. To the speaker it is a form of illusion, comforting, satisfying, romantic, sentimental but not actual, because religion must affect life, the way we live, that is the significance of life. Because then only when there is order, as we talked about yesterday, in our life.
2 Likes
The “enormity” of this insight is that it can’t recede, get lost, or become memory, because it changes the mind that “gets it”. There’s no “staying with it” because it’s over before you know it.
1 Like
That is just your opinion.
It’s like a jigsaw puzzle where you have all the pieces, but no clue as to what the picture will be when the pieces are all in place…or worse, you’re picturing something, and your picture conflicts with the search for compatible pieces.
or just can’t find a reason to leave?
There are good reasons for abandoning this exercise, and any one will do.