But this is exactly what he said. That it’s not enough for the ‘glimpse’. You have to see that you are what you are observing. That is the fact. And then it changes. The ‘escaping’ ends because you see it is yourself that you are attempting to escape from, that is being resisted…
If Krishnamurti said that you have to stay with the realization that the observer is the observed, otherwise you’ll forget it, I’d be surprised. Surprise me and provide the quote.
If I may, the picture is never complete. The picture is always ‘now’. There is no completion. Nothing ends. There is only creation, beginning…
No you have to see first what he said. In yourself. Then we can speak about what happens with that insight. If yiu wish.
I was using the picture as a metaphor. You’re taking it literally. If course there’s only now, and of course, always in flux. I’m not talking about a picture but about “seeing”, as Krishnamurti used the word; seeing through all the misunderstanding and confusion that distorts and disguises what-is.
No he meant ‘seeing’ the distortion as it is. As a “jewel”. There is nothing that can “see through” what is. Certainly not ‘you’. You are the “distortion”.
Of course, and seeing the falseness of it is seeing through it to the truth it distorts.
No, You made the claim that Krishnamurti said something which I doubt he did. The burden of proof is on you. Provide the quote.
Yes, in the sense that he rejected religious dogmas and superstitions. There are dogmas and superstitions even in Krishnamurti circles. His teaching is not immune to gross minds cleaving to it for security the way Hindus put ash on their foreheads and break coconuts at the temples to worship Lord Ganesh.
We must not turn Krishnamurti’s teaching into scripture. This is why inquiry into his teaching must be brutally honest to keep each other honest.
Quite right. But there is the lingering scent of that perfume. Love is indeed a many splendored thing.
You are saying something intelligent here and I am trying to make sense of it.
The picture I am picturing conflicts with the search for compatible pieces? In that case, either the picture I am picturing is wrong or the compatible pieces are. Is that what you meant to say?
Your reply is a fine example of the fragmantation of thought. JackPine quoted a long a detailed speech of K. which has to be understood in its entirety. But you just cling to one single sentence ignoring the rest.
And your anser to that sentence is not even relevant: the discussion was about what K. said and not to what his supposed “followers” do. And this shows that you are only defending yourself and your beliefs.
3 Likes
We have agreed to disagree on this aspect. It’s too obvious for me and I think he was dishonest in denying any connection to the influences from Hindu scriptures. The consequence of it is that listeners will struggle to make sense on where he’s coming from with his observations.
I’ve also recently recognized that an old poster named John Perkins too have unearthed this connection.
Not sure about that Nat. I had zero concept of Hindu philosophy but often have no problem understanding K…in a talk or a video on youtube. But he also said, that all that past (religious beliefs and ideals and precepts…ideas and concepts that condition one) needs to be discarded, totally. Didn’t he? Then, I am where I am…I’m not trying to get somewhere else. Not saying he should be believed. To believe is to follow, obviously.
So in other words you are right because krishnamurti was a liar? Are you by any chance a Hindu?
1 Like
Watching the video of K. here on one of the threads, he goes into quite clearly the fact that when one is angry, for example, you are the 'anger,… and sadness, loneliness, greed, fear ,etc. Not a ‘you’ having and experiencing these emotive states, no, you are them… by not seeing that fact, then there must ensue the conflict involved in escaping, changing, opposing, desiring, etc. All of which reactions disappear with the realization that there is no separate ‘you’ to react to what is seen, to what is taking place. That is the end of conflict. I know little of Eastern religions but isn’t K.'s “You are that” similar to something I’ve read: "Tat Tvam Asi " (sp.?) …Doesn’t that translate also to “You Are That”?
Let’s look at that process of “discarding”. We have beliefs. They give us comfort, security perhaps. So ‘who’ is the ‘discarder’? There is none. Beliefs, ideas, conclusions fall away when they no longer attract, are no longer viable, right? Then they are replaced with other beliefs, ideals, conclusions. They are ‘accumulations’ of knowledge. We are never ‘empty’. I think that is a key point in this K. teaching: that accumulation in the psyche, whatever it is of , no matter how sacred, or idealistic, it has no place there. It is the past. And it leaves no room for the ‘new’ right? The new is ‘what is’? So the ‘discarding’ is a process of ‘negation’, an ‘emptying’ of accumulation and attachments…freedom from the known? That may be the point of difference between his message and all others is that there is nothing to hold onto?
1 Like
I would say that any (residual) sense of ‘you’ can be brought into the ambit of observation, and therefore belongs to the realm of matter/thought/limitation. And when there is nothing left to be brought into the ambit of observation, that’s where self knowing will encounter a discontinuity. And then what?, we are again back into the awareness of inattention.
Accept my apologies Dan, Iet’s skip discussions which are intended to compare.
Your way of reasoning is false and is not rooted in reality. The source of all knowledge, present, past and future, Hindu, European or Greenlander, is always and only the reality. Someone opens his eyes and look in Greenland and says: “The sun is warm”. Another person ten years later in India open his eyes and say: “the sun is warm”. Your conclusion (according to your line of thought) is: the latter took his knowledge from that guy in Greenland.
And pay attention: this shows that you are so entangled in intellectual, second hand knowledge that don’t even conceive that there is another way to arrive to discover things. You are like the people who lived in Plato’s cave and could only see the shadows of things, never being in contact with the real thing.
You are right on that, but note, there indeed was an unmistakable intellectual element/patterns in K’s work which needed clarification to me and without which would have caused much distress and confusion down the line. (speaking for myself only here).
As for getting entrapped in intellect and not actually living, I think we all know on whom the responsibility lies for self deception.