Once again not a very bright response. Clearly, making such an assumption would not help you or anyone.
I don’t see your point about organized religion. K may have been influenced by some of the teachings in Hinduism. He used to quote the bible too, where it was relevant. But none of that means he ever supported the organization of religion.
As for unsubstantiated claims, read the article and find out if there is any substance or not. Up to you. It’s an interesting article and relevant to the topic.
Yes, it is an interesting article by Alan Gullette. He comes across as a serious scholar. His comments on Krishnamurti were pretty objective. Thanks for sharing it. I am always impressed by westerners who can delve into Asian religious philosophies. It is not easy for them on account of their cultural conditioning. It’s the same with martial arts and yoga. The western body, like the western mind, is unflexible. It cannot squat.
Wow! We have here not just an essential answer, but the essential answer! Clearly you rate yourself and value your own responses, but are you credible? Are you believable?
Sir, you forgot already that we are dealing with the essential answer. “should” is far too mild. I absolutely must read this.
I don’t follow your point here. If a child (or even an adult for that matter) did not understand your opening sentences, would it mean they are at fault in some way? Would you entertain the possibility that your writing might be worth rewording in such case?
Forgive me, but I didn’t read the rest of your post. There is already so much to discuss.
I do get the humor here, but similar concepts pop up in western philosophy also, although not so often. Certainly, “western individualism” and exploring the non-reality of the “I”, don’t go too well together.
I am not a scholar of theology by any means, but there are commonalities between many religions (eastern and western) at their roots, right?
Interesting. So you are saying that there are parts of the main philosophies that exactly match what K was saying? Can you provide more detail on this?
I am not making claims about Krishnamurti. Alan what’s his name is. Are you able to tell the difference? It doesn’t appear so. Read what K says about religion for yourself. It is readily available. I’m not going to argue the obvious with you. I posted a quote from K that was very clear on his views about organized religion. I’ll stick with K and his response and not to some response to K that has no value from some unknown with a denial of K’s own words. This is a K site. Can you grasp that?
Instead of concerning yourself with who people are, making various claims about what they have written, and why you should make valueless assumptions about other people’s knowledge, why not the discuss the points raised?
The only assumption you should consider is that the other person might have something of value to say, or might raise some interesting points.
What I said is that to have a useful conversation we must start from the realization that “I don’t know” and considering ourselves all at the same level. This require sincerity and honesty,
When one sees that there is no ego, that means that the ego is gone, finished. So your statement “I have seen…” is equivalent to say you have no ego. Therefore I haven’t misconstrued what you said, perhaps it’s you who are not aware of the implications of what you say.
I didn’t find your approach to inquiring annoying, I found it ineffective and helpless. You escaped the main issue: the long quotation of Jack Pine. This is not a useful way to have a discussion. Furthermore you justified your fragmented answer saying:
“I have read enough of Krishnamurti without having to re-study every speech of his again each time someone puts one before me.”
Reading does not mean understanding. Either you have understood it and in this case you should have agreed with Jack, or you haven’t and therefore you don’t agree with it. In this last case you should have explained to Jack why you don’t agree with that. This is the only correct and effective way of discussing an important issue. Avoiding questions or not taking into consideration someone else answer is not an effective and intelligent way to have a conversation, and that answer of yours sounds a bit arrogant.
In conclusion: my last answer to you is the consequence of your approach to the discussion and it’s a chance to be more aware of yourself.
Why you are so concerned about someone being credible? You are not able to understand what I said?
You are avoiding to answer my argument. If you think that my affirmations are wrong you can explain why, after all that is what a forum is for.
It seems that you have not read anything of what I said in my two posts. How do you think to discuss a topic not considering what one has to say? You are simply refusing to have a conversation with me. You should have told me directly: sorry I don’t want to have a conversation with you. Finished! (
(P.S.
Perhaps what prompted your reaction here was my way of wording what I wanted to say. You must understand that English is not my mother tongue. It came to my mind that my nswer to you was not “organized” in the best way,)
If you had read my (first) post you should have understood why I advised you to read it first: because there I pointed out the source of all knowledge (profane or “spiritual”) and that is relevant to your answer about the similarities of K. and Vedanta. Again if you don’t agree with what I said you can explain why.
It seems you have read he wrong answer. What I referred to was:
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.”
[
That of course referred to Natarajan post]
So, my statatement that even a child can understand that, referred to the simple fact that we all get our knowledge from reality. And this explains why we find similarities in the teachings of different people/philosophies like K. or Vedanta, etc.
Your admission that you didn’t read the rest of my post shows an unpleasant psycological resistence. I wonder why. Did you find my answer disturbing?
It didn’t sound lika a joke, but of course not being of English mother tongue I may be wrong. Next time add a smiley so that one can understand.
“I haven’t found those proclamations to be wrong so much as unwise.”
In this case, being in a forum, both for clarity and politeness, you should explain why you find it unwise. I’ll listen to you with all my ears (
And by the way, your use of the world “proclamations” is IMO, unwise and misleading, and your irony is out of place. I stated something which seems obvious to me, again I must repeat that if you don’t agree with what I said you have to tackle the issue and explain your point of view.
That is exactly what I meant to say to you if only I had the fluency in English you posses! (
It seems that you behaved with me the same way you blame Jack Pine for…
“if you had paid attention to the other posts on this thread, perhaps you might have got it.”
I accepted your suggestion and read your post in reply to Jack. Sorry, but it’s not fair to reply to someone else mimicking the answer you received from another. Anyway I must say I agree with you on this point.
I’m really sorry I can’t read, (as I could not do in the first instance) your initial post. I wonder why you have deleted it.
Things being as they are, it’s impossibile to me to understand the sense of your replies to Jack Pine and to me. I intruded in your conversation (did you resent that?) to introduce a completely different kind of argument from the “credibility” issue you discussed with jack. And my point is something which I think is important for having the right approach to ALL “spiritual” or religius teachings, i.e. how to find an answer or truth. One of the basic statement of K. is that we cannot find truth through the words of another person, whoever he/she is. And that implies that - once we have studied some relevant and useful sources (as I guess we both have done) - and have understood the uselessness of sticking to mere words - if our intent is really learning and not being content with explanations - THEN we have to turn to reality, to our daily life. If you ignore this point and don’t want to discuss it might mean that you have no real argument against it. (
Natarajan
“It’s too obvious for me and I think he was dishonest in denying any connection to the influences from Hindu”
What ever truth K saw was through insight. He said that like a drum producing sound because being empty inside or a calm pond generating waves when a pebble is thrown, his mind being empty, when a question is thrown, there is insight . So K’s teaching are based on his insight and as he himself said that they are not K’s teaching/truth but are universal. There have been many occassions before K , when people have seen same truth. They belonged to different religions. So just because others have seen the same truth , does not mean K was influenced by them. What he spoke was from his own seeing. Hindu saint Adi Sankara who gave Advaita philosophy to the world, quoted extensively from vedas but it does not mean he did not see the truth but his was only book knoweldge. So I should be careful that my liking for a particular religion should not make me doubt the sincerity of K.
It seems that I have responded to your opening sentences, and that there has been a verbal exchange of ideas, and so, no, I don’t see any refusal to converse. We might not be conversing about the topic you wish, but that’s another matter, isn’t it?
Again, I don’t really see your point. Some children gets things, some don’t. Some adults get things, some don’t. Either we understand your point or not. Either it’s poorly articulated or not. I don’t see how different stages of human development are relevant to this discussion.
Your use of the word admission seems misplaced. As in admitting guilt, or coming round to accepting a difficult truth.
I wrote that there is already so much to discuss, yet you ignore that and come up with your own conclusions. And then out of many possible motivations and reasons, you choose displeasure, resistance and disturbance. I wonder why.
It seems that way to the non-discerning eye. No, I am not concerned about your qualifications, or how many Krishnamurti books you’ve read. No, I am not making claims about what you have written. No, I am not asking you why I should assume you know more about me than I do. Yes, I am trying to discuss the opening points of your initial post.
Please sir, rest assured that you are not being discriminated against. We’ve been over this already,
and I’ve explained to you that it was for humourous effect.
Perhaps you could ask these questions to Jack, as such matters are of considerable importance to him.
