Yes…and the rest of what you wrote too. That’s the essence of the ‘teaching’ as I see it as well.
Can you please explain what you mean with that? Or show a example of K.'s intellectual element?
“As for getting entrapped in intellect and not actually living,”
Wait… you are stretching what I said. I didn’t speak of “living” (which we all more or less do with a variety of results) but of learning, getting to know, knowing life, knowing ourselves, and therefore understanding life. And in understanding life, real life, we may encounter the source of all life. This source does not belong to any country, to any culture, to any scripture. So what is at stake here is the attitude we have in learning, our approach to truth and reality. When you approach it through a culture, a tradition you are not going anywhere. The first step is the last step. And clinging to a particular culture is a wrong step.
If you understand this you throw away all your sacred books, etc., etc.
I think I have spoken about it before, unless one has undergone that suffering in life which forces a turn around in attitudes towards things in life, learning will continue to be accumulative and understanding discontinuous.
I think you are stretching religion towards it lower aspect, i.e. culture and therefore of having a nature of continuity, think of it as spirituality. What we call as religion is actually sandwiched between the two.
Sorry, I did’nt speak of religion, I never used that word. I talked of learning, of understanding life.
The wrong approach in learning is looking for understanding in the context of a culture. And I said that because you stated:
“he was dishonest in denying any connection to the influences from Hindu scriptures.”
Hindu scriptures are culture, aren’t them? Of course you can say that they have a “spiritual” source, but that is only a gratuitous and wishful-thinking opinion.
But you forgot to tell me when and how K. “was an unmistakable intellectual”.
2 Likes
This may be applicable here. You recall the beautiful way that K. spoke about the “flowering”. As I heard it, this is a possibility open to all of us. What is it that keeps ‘it’ from happening? We get to a certain point and stop. Is it that because the observer in us feels separate from what he is observing, there is a certain level of friction that is created by that duality. The ‘observer’ reacts to what is being seen? That reaction is ‘naming’, judgement, and if the judgement of what is being seen and felt, is ‘negative’, then the reaction is to change it, substitute for it, escape from it to something more ‘agreeable’. We can watch this, experiment with it to see if it’s true or not…I have a feeling come over me of ‘sadness’; one day I will die and I will be gone from here, from all this beauty, people, animals, trees, sky, etc. There is not a reaction to the feeling but an awareness of its presence, I am immersed in it. There is no movement to get away from it. It is what it is. And that is the ‘blossoming’ or ‘flowering’ that was spoken of, the allowing it to come forth and fulfill itself without being ‘denied’. Without any movement in any direction. And then it can “wither”.
Who is Alan Gullette? And why should I assume he knows more about K than K knows about himself? This whole discussion became ridiculous the moment Natarajan responded to it by calling K “dishonest”. I’m moving on.
“Who is Alan Gullette?”
Why does it matter? What are you asking for? His life history? Qualifications? Aspirations? Favourite pizza topping? Publication list? A personality profile? The link and its content are clearly relevant to the discussion.
“And why should I assume he knows more about K than K knows about himself?”
Why would such an assumption help you discern the truth or falseness of the link content?
I quoted one single sentence from JackPine’s post which I glanced through. I have read enough of Krishnamurti without having to re-study every speech of his again each time someone puts one before me.
What Krishnamurti said about devotees of religion is not different from my take on the manner a Krishnamutri reader relates to his teaching. What his followers do is the crux of my argument against outright condemnation of religion based on people indoctrinated by watered-down forms of religious thought. Krishnamurti stated unequivocably that he was a religious man. The question is, what is religion? Do you know?
Yes, definitely. You are right on the money. The human consciousness did not begin with Krishnamurti. It did not begin with the Big Bang either. We are the consciousness of mankind, that stream in which we live since the beginning of time. “Tat Tvam Asi” came before “You Are That”. And it is very possible that one of us could come out with another way to say it in differently.
This is the problem. It seems that you know it, as it seems you know all about K. without understanding his basic teachings. It’s a big problem, so big that nodody can solve it. When someone is sure, convinced that “he knows”, nothing will make him/her to change his mind. Not even God in person, if such a person existed, could do nothing with a person who think he knows.
The purpose of a discussion about the problems of life - which is all K. talked about in all his life, as it should be done here, is to expose our ignorance and not our knowledge. Exposing our ignorance means realizing that “I don’t know”, and that all I know is just a bunch of empty words like “religion”.
If you want to have a useful conversaton - useful for both you and me or any other person - there must be the sanity of realizing that we are all at the same level and not claming - as you once did with me - that you have no ego (“I have seen it with my own eyes, as you put it.” Your words). And that means you are beyond hurts, desires, fears, attachments, etc. because all those are expressions of the ego.
My dear sri, let me tell you something which is so obvious, evident from all you say, and I’m saying it with a great experience in that field, as a father to his child, because I guess I’m much older than you.
You are playing an old and dangerous game, the game of the guru, the person who knows. God bless you! Perhaps there is a possibility that you open your eyes and see the absurd pretence you put on, perhaps not if this pretence satisfies you and your have built your security and your shield through it.
2 Likes
It matters a great deal who he is. Do you believe just anyone you read? I don’t know this guy and I certainly don’t know how credible he is. What does it matter? This is a surprisingly unintelligent question to ask.
Once again a not very bright question. Because this guy is basically denying what K has said about his involvement with organized religion. My question was a fair question. One a person would ask who wants to establish the credibility of someone who is making unsubstantiated claims. K, and many of us who are interested in what K pointed out, deal with facts not opinions.
I have already given the essential answer to this topic of yours in my reply to Natarajan here above. You should read it first.
Then, having said that, which is something that even a child can understand, we can expand this issue.
First one question: did you study Vedanta or any other eastern philosophy or spirituality? If you do, did you tried to put into practice their teachings?
I think I can say I’ve been through all that deep enough. I’m not an expert though, but I do not think experts in those matters have something useful to say. I consider my studies deep enough because I could discover the ineffectiveness of those ancient teachings.
As I said to Natarajan, the source of all knowledge is reality. That means that we can learn ONLY from reality. There is no other guru or teacher than reality and our openness to it. All through the centuries there have been people, very few I guess, who managed to learn from reality and spoke about what they had learnt. What happened then? Did you ever ask yourself that? Their teachings have been put down on paper by other people, their disciples or such. And what they wrote was according to their limited understanding. Then even after about one century language changes, and even a precise report soon is no longer clear. That is all spiritual teachings are subject to corruption.
That happened with Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tse, etc. teachings, and with Vedanta too. We can of course notice – as I did – the similarities between those teachings, but then what? Can you learn from that? The problem is that we are not interested in learning, we are only interested in explanations, theories, words. We are easily satisfied with words. If we were not, we would address to the only thing which can teach us something true and effective: life or reality.
K. can teach us nothing, this is his real message. We must turn our focus from him or from Vedanta -or whatever we are attached to, to life, our day to day daily life and be able to learn from that. No book can spare us that. No book can do anything for us.
1 Like
That is so important to keep in mind as we navigate these waters. Freedom from the known.
It would serve us well to keep an eye on the ball.
Thanks for the link, Advaita Vedanta makes up only one-sixth of the main philosophies, so those two divergences the author mentioned will be covered by remaining five-sixth’s.
I am not taking that route, especially in a K-forum, but it’s quite possible to establish that.
Source is of secondary concern, not as much important as what it leads to.
Why? Is not a forum a place to discuss topics?
There is a Latin proverb which says:
“Sapiens nihil adfirmat quod non probet”
In English it means: The sage does not affirm anything which cannot prove.
You should follow this advice Natarajan. Only in this way you earn credibility.
But are you serious when you say this?
It seems to me that you are playing with words without following any logic course. Can you remember what was your initial answer to me?
Maybe you write too many answers/posts and make confusions. (
It’s unfortunate that you find my approach to inquiry annoying to you even though there is no intent on my part to upset anybody. You have misconstrued what I said about the ego when you engaged me in private conversation. Below is what I actually said in our exchange:
Voyager: You cannot say: “the ego does not exist” unless you have seen it with your own eyes, did you?
Sree: Can we drop “ego” and use “self” or “person”? This way, I can state outright that the “self” or ”person” doesn’t exist. I did tell you that this doesn’t mean I am no longer living as a person. It’s a character I inhabit in keeping with convention. I am now chatting with you as a person called Sree. Right?
Yes, I have seen it with my own eyes, as you put it. And it is not second-hand knowledge but something that has been having tremendous practical impact to my life. This doesn’t mean that I have become Superman or, as many people here think that Krishnamurti had Buddha-consciousness. There is one fundamental fact: the human body to which I am yoked to. It can get hungry, get sick, get old, and can die. Krishnamurti’s body suffered great pain and died of cancer. Ok?
This is a surprisingly unintelligent response. Are you believable? Are you known to us? Are you credible? Please send a CV and psychological profile next time you respond to us.