It’s possible, I guess, but improbable. K. Buddha, Christ, some others went through something very rare it seems. But as K. said, he came to “set man unconditionally free”. And he thought what he had to say could facilitate that. But he couldn’t do the work for you. You have to ‘do it’. He pointed out in Madras in Jan 5 1966, the “inertia”, that is our consciousness. Nothing folks have dreamed up over the centuries has touched it… only increased it…And “the house is burning”.
But did someone set him free? DId he attribute his “process” to someone’s teaching or guidance? He said that he intended to inspire others to inquire into their own behavior and motivations, but I doubt that he felt no one could find freedom without his teaching. If he did feel that way, it would mean he had a messiah complex, was completely egotistical.
1 Like
aka habit. It digs deep river beds and gullies.
I heard Krishnamurti say the other day:
“I used to have a lot of Communist friends at one time, card-carrying Communists, not easy-chair Communists. They were real Communists. And, we used to discuss a great deal in Paris and other places, and they would go up to a certain point and then say, “Sorry, Marx is the limit.” Do you understand? Like fundamentalists in this country, the Bible is the limit. You can’t discuss with them, finished.”
Do you get what I mean?
So yes, I say it is an error. And not exactly that kind of error that all those who are challenging racial and gender discrimination nowadays will think that one is talking about, but a completely different error that they surely will not want to hear about, let alone question it due to their own self-imposed limitations. The same kind of limitations that Krishnamurti talked about in Los Alamos, New Mexico 1984 - Scientists Disc. - “Creation comes out of meditation” (min. 56:01).
Are you saying that you are not interested in what Krishnamurti is talking about, since you are the society and the society is you?
The so-called society knows quite well that it is suffering. And she has perfectly listened to everything that all those whom it venerates have said for centuries. So it also knows quite well what are the actual causes of its suffering.
Even so, the so-called society has not changed after all these centuries endlessly worshiping its idols, who are considered by it, without any doubt, as perfect human beings (unlike itself).
To the point that today she does not hesitate to fill Internet with quotes taken from those (the same quotes that were read and used by the so-called society of the past to wish itself a Merry Christmas or whatever). Quotes that she itself claims to understand when she, over and over again, uses the familiar exclamation of “What a wonderful words full of meaning!”. Sharing them with itself while she continues to retain its selfishness, violence, discrimination, etc., etc., etc. (the same selfishness, violence, discrimination, etc., etc. that those quotes that she shares with itself talk about and that she says to understand).
So I would like to remind you (plural) that it is not true that the so-called society has never heard anything about its suffering and its causes, and that it is now necessary for it to listen to them in order to bring about a change.
Therefore, the real question is: Why has the so-called society, after centuries of hearing about suffering and its causes, still not done anything to free itself once and for all from these causes and therefore from suffering itself?
P.S.:
I once told a friend of mine (a girl): “If you go to a record store and buy a record that you like a lot and after a few days or weeks it goes bad and you can’t listen to it anymore, you suffer.” To which she replied: “No, I don’t suffer! Because I go back to the store and buy another one like it.”
Do you get (any) what I mean?
***
It’s not rare at all!
The only difference between them and us is that they had no fear at all in remaining completely alone with absolutely no psychological crutch at hand. So they sat under the tree, threw away any psychological crutch that might hinder them, and made a firm decision not to get up until they discovered the truth of suffering and its causes … for themselves.
P.S.:
Only ignorance considers that what happened to them was something very rare. The same ignorance that thinks that she itself is light years away from that state and that it will never reach it. But is it actually true that our ignorance cannot be dispelled by ourselves as they did with their own?
Good night all! 
That is:
He was a simple human being that discovered something that emptied his whole life filling it with “the otherness”. After that he spend nearly 60 years trying to meet with another simple human being with whom share “the otherness” without any words … without success! (according to his own words at the time of death).
1 Like
I’d love to have an answer to this question, like for example : By seeing what it is? By seeing that the only basis for suffering is itself?
But that only begs the question : how can the mind see itself?
For which I’d love to have an answer, like for example : It cannot? Or by seeing that there is nothing to be seen - only the past?
But that only begs the question : How can a thing that is, not be? etc…
Is it my imagination, or are my answers only complicating matters?
Nice reasoning. The only problem though is that the one who puts this question has never existed in the way he thinks he exists beyond his own imagination (likewise with the “you” that he believes divided from him). And this is a fact either we see it or not.
So something that is non-existent, can’t ever “be” or “not be”.
The mind cannot be dropped while one is in this world with which one has to interact.
The only thing that mind can do is see that any interaction is merely an illusion (i.e.: neither “existent” nor “non-existent”, totally free from any attachment or rejection) … and that even so, it works perfectly in relationship to this world and everything in it.
How so? What do you mean? Ego is essential for interaction?
1 Like
It is quit simple. Once one has died to the “self” (that is, to consciousness and its content) he will still need concepts to relate to his fellow men (unless, of course, he decides to leave this world by retreating to a cave until the moment of his death and not see anyone else). The only difference is that now one “knows” that these concepts are mere illusions, conventions that one uses to continue relating to others, for nothing else.
Okay. Like language, and other shared cultural symbols? Although, this knowledge is not easily lost, nor is any effort needed to hold on to it - The issue of confusing any model of reality with reality itself seems to be the only problem.
1 Like
No. Just take a look at this: Krishnamurti (and others) have always said that the word is not the thing. However, all of them have used words to share the truth of that freedom that they (supposedly) have found in themselves with their fellow beings so that they too could be absolutely free from suffering and its causes (i.e .: ignorance).
Why do they do so? Well because the minds of their audiences were (are) trapped in words and concepts to understand anything. It is that simple, otherwise they could not communicate in any way with our limited conceptual minds.
So communication (words and concepts) need, yes or yes, a conceptual mind. That is why the conceptual mind cannot be dropped (unless, of course, once the non-conceptual mind has become fully present one decides never to relate to another human being again … like (supposedly) did Buddha after his Enlightenment).
Now, the only difference between their minds and ours is that they only use words and concepts to communicate with us, while for us those words and concepts appear before us as if they were (or not were) “the actual thing” … just until our mind, for whatever reason, transcends the word and the concept and suddenly comes face to face with “the other”…
… and the cycle starts all over again with the new person (who may or may not be known to humanity).
Sorry - I don’t understand
What don’t you understand?
Nearly everything - and thats a lot! Even what I do understand is most certainly not quite correct.
However, in this case I was referring to your writings above, in general ie. the topic under discussion or the point you are trying to make - and also specifically the arguments/concepts being used.
Okay - reading your last points again - I think you are saying that humans use words to communicate - and that there is a confusion between the symbol and the reality in our minds.
1 Like
So if you think that what I say is not correct, it is not that you do not really understand what I am saying but that you simply disagree with what I say … So please go on! … What do you think is not correct and why, and what is the problem with the arguments/concepts being used?
Yes, words AND concepts, that’s obvious.
What is the meaning of “symbol” and “reality” in this context for you? Could you give an example?
Nice, thank you … Now could you explain us how do you communicate with Krishnamurti and vice versa? … Thank you again.
Yes if I’m reading you correctly, ‘liberation’ is not an achievement but a ‘letting go ‘ of whatever psychological conclusion or “model” that thought comes up with…no matter how beautiful or clever or ‘brilliant ‘. And there’s no end to it. K told a story about a woman who spoke with him who had a disease and she said to him pleadingly “But I’m dying!” And he said “I die everyday!”…Liberation is a not holding on?
1 Like