|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
UniversalMind
United Kingdom
28 Posts |
 Posted - Mar 15 2008 : 4:09:01 PM
|
Greetings everyone,
I would like to ask if krisnamurti was enlightened?
it seems that he says a whole lot of the right thing's but his attitude
appears to leave a lot to be desired! There doesn't seem to be the out pouring of love, bliss and compassion that maybe you would expect, then again maybe that is just my ignorance of enlightenment. I have read that some Buddhists classed him as enlightened, i am confused! Any ideas? |
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 16 2008 : 9:03:36 PM
|
Hello UniversalMind,
I don't believe that 'fully enlightened' is a correct concept. What does happen is that people do go through significant 'enlightenment experiences'. But I believe that it is always a mistake to believe that these are final.
So enlightened versus not-enlightened is a perspectival distinction, in the same way as educated versus un-educated is a perspectival distinction.
What you have in Krishnamurti is simply a person who developed in certain ways, but certainly didn't develop infinitely in any direction, never mind going infinitely in all. He had certain very definite strengths, and some very definite weaknesses, some of which you mention.
He was propelled into celebrity and fame by the Theosophists. If he had not been propelled and fame by the Theosophists, I don't believe he would be well-known at all. An enormous marketing job sets us all up (including him) with high expectations for him. Therefore he may fall short of expectations. If expectations are very high, his apparent weaknesses may be very confounding. When expectations are balanced, he becomes a useful resource, like some people at this forum!
|
 |
|
|
Divineis
Canada
420 Posts |
Posted - Mar 17 2008 : 12:38:18 AM
|
I don't really know of Krisnamurti, though there's quite a few folks who claim enlightenment, and to me leave a lot to be desired (haha, what a paradoxical sentence). Some just seem way too serious, almost out of this world. Like they've found their center, but it's not really grounded here on earth. Others just have that look in their eye, as if they're still looking for something.
I've always really dug Osho, some claim he's not enlightened... I think it's a bit of a silly debate... "i'm enlightened, you're not enlightened" "we're all enlightened" "you haven't realised it yet", it can go on and on. I heard some story where Osho told a bunch of gurus or religious leaders or something like that, that they were all enlightened. He wasn't lying... you realise enlightenment, the whole world is perceived as enlightened, this is your awareness, what you know :). Though they all started walking around all "high and mighty", with a certain look of pride. I think it's halarious :). They got what they were looking for, and I bet a week later they were back at square one haha. Man, this is why I love Osho, he's truly a walking paradox. A jolly guy, full of good nature and kickass stories. Wether he's enlightened or not, I don't really care, he's added a lot to my life. That's all that matters to me. It can be a huge hindrance to start defining what enlightenment means. Even to load your head with a whole bunch of beliefs that enlightened dudes tell you... don't hold on too tight until they become absolute truth for you, otherwise they just hinder the process.
|
|
|
|
UniversalMind
United Kingdom
28 Posts |
Posted - Mar 17 2008 : 2:07:14 PM
|
| I thought quite naively that there would be a kind of loose enlightened template (lol), all would show compassion, kindness and most of all a willingness to help others become enlightened! It seems some get caught up in their own bliss consciousness and have an almost aloof attitude i.e. Krisnamurti. Strangely enough Krisnamurti is quoted as saying that in his opinion the Buddha was the closest to the truth and from what we have read about the Buddha's enlightenment is that he was an extremely compassionate, kind and wonderful soul. I kind of figured that Krisnamurti would have been kind of the same! I was really taken aback when i read that Krisnamurti had affairs also. enlightenment sure is strange. |
|
|
|
Divineis
Canada
420 Posts |
Posted - Mar 17 2008 : 11:16:57 PM
|
quote:
enlightenment sure is strange.
Enlightenment is.
Stop there.
Actually start there.
:).
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4430 Posts |
Posted - Mar 22 2008 : 6:37:38 PM
|
Hi all,
Enlightened beings are free. They are free to act or not to act, and they are not bound by the constraints of the morals of the society they are living in. They are free to be aloof, angry, kind, compassionate, make love, dance... whatever is right in the moment. Krishnamurti was like this. He was actually an incredibly compassionate man, one of the most compassionate to live during the 20th century. We cannot even imagine the depth of his compassion (no-one can). He acted in a way that he felt was most helpful for the largest number of people to wake up through his teachings.
Compassion comes with freedom of the mind. Compassion means “with passion”, or “with... love” and is a natural spontaneous outcome of unity consciousness with outpouring divine love. Krishnamurti was its living expression in a human form.
Everything is not always as it seems.... 
Christi
|
|
|
|
eputkonen
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - Mar 23 2008 : 09:54:17 AM
|
First you would have to define what it means to be enlightened. Liberation, Awakened, Moksha, Nirvana, etc...all are equivalent with Enlightenment (IMO). You know who/what you are and you are no longer fooled by the world and the mind. There may not be an apparent outporing of love, bliss, and compassion. You can't expect anything for the enlightened...the zen antics of Zen masters come to mind.
As for Krishamurti, I have read a lot of his stuff and he seems to know what he is talking about. I would say he was enlightened, but as I never met him...I am not sure.
Recently, I read "Nothing Ever Happened" - the biography of HWL Poonja. He spent his time with Ramana Maharshi. Poonja was originally very bhakti and was looking for a master who could show him God. When he met Ramana, he was not impressed and did not think Ramana was enlightened (he didn't seem to be bhakti - he didn't have a outpouring of love and bliss). Later, however, when visiting Ramana a picture of Krishna (I believe) was shown to Ramana and he went into bliss...tears flowing down his cheeks and everything. Then Poonja knew Ramana was a bhatka as well, but his bhakti was hidden from public view. In time, Poonja recognized Ramana as an enlightened master...but his expectations in the beginning were getting in the way from him recognizing Ramana for what he was.
It is best not to have expectations regarding how you or anyone else would act if enlightened.
Namaste,
~ Eric Putkonen |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 23 2008 : 10:30:50 AM
|
Christi said:
Krishnamurti was like this. He was actually an incredibly compassionate man, one of the most compassionate to live during the 20th century. We cannot even imagine the depth of his compassion (no-one can).
Well, I see that as religious hyperbole. I think at some point Krishnamurti became a symbol for you. An icon. Eventually, your thoughts are really about the symbol, not about the man.
Enlightened beings are free. They are free to act or not to act, and they are not bound by the constraints of the morals of the society they are living in. They are free to be aloof, angry, kind, compassionate, make love, dance... whatever is right in the moment.
That's probably true in certain very specific senses, but disastrously wrong in other senses, and it's so easy for those ideas to go deeply wrong in the most tragic way. One false move and ... it's all over. There's a sort of cosmic law that whatever you believe you are above, you end up being below. If you believe you are above the morality of your society, you'll end up being below it almost for certain.
Any kind of exceptionalism for the morality of the 'enlightened' is a recipe for disaster. When such an exceptionalism has arisen, deep self-delusion are usually its roots. That can be the delusion of an individual about what they are, or the delusion of an individual about who someone else is, or the delusion about a group about what it is, or the delusion of a person about what they have become by membership in a group.
Those (persons or groups) who are not keeping the moral laws are immoral, and its as simple as that.
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4430 Posts |
Posted - Mar 23 2008 : 4:54:04 PM
|
Hi David,
quote:
Well, I see that as religious hyperbole. I think at some point Krishnamurti became a symbol for you. An icon. Eventually, your thoughts are really about the symbol, not about the man.
Religious hyperbole or informed perception?
Actually it is very difficult to know the mind of another, especially someone like Krishnamurti. It is relatively easy when people act directly from their state of perception. When they are happy, they smile, when they are sad, they cry, when they are angry, they shout. But when someone is free, absolutely free inside, then they no longer need to respond outwardly in a way that always reflects their inner state. They are free to choose how they respond outwardly even when their inner state is absolutely calm and at peace. Because freedom of mind directly correlates with our natural state, which is love, such a person will tend to act in whatever way will help people the most. This means that they could be overflowing with love, but out of their infinite compassion, appear to be very serious, and even harsh, or mocking if they think that is what someone needs to hear at that moment in order to wake up.
How can we know which it is? Are they operating at a gross level of consciousness and just pretending to be enlightened, or are they really infinately free inside, and making a deliberate and conscious response that will not necessarily put themselves in the best light? It is obviously not that easy unless we have higher sense perception. With higher sense perception it is easy... someone would appear to be very angry, and yet there would be no corresponding energetic vibration from their aura, and they would shine with a white light, and not with a red one.Then it would be easy to know that they are coming from a place of compassion and love, and simply acting a role to help someone. Without higher sense perception it is much more difficult to know what is really going on.
So all I can say to you is... please postpone your judgement until you are able to sense vibrational frequencies directly, and then watch a video of Krishnamurti. You will sense something quite incredible happening. Infinite patience, infinite compassion, infinite love in action, responding to each individual in a way that is tailor made to help that person wake up.
The five external senses are useful to a degree for understanding the external world, but when it comes to understanding the mind of another, or to understanding another person’s motivations, the internal senses are far more useful, or you might even say, essential.
quote:
Any kind of exceptionalism for the morality of the 'enlightened' is a recipe for disaster. When such an exceptionalism has arisen, deep self-delusion are usually its roots. That can be the delusion of an individual about what they are, or the delusion of an individual about who someone else is, or the delusion about a group about what it is, or the delusion of a person about what they have become by membership in a group.
Those (persons or groups) who are not keeping the moral laws are immoral, and its as simple as that.
One day you will be free, and the moral constraints of human society will have no bearing on you. They will not touch you in any way. You will be free to choose to obey them in order to set an example to society. Or you may choose to ignore them if you feel that they are holding society back. In the past, people who are free have chosen both courses of action. Will that make you immoral? Yes, in the minds of some people. But only in their minds... not in yours. Your actions will not be determined by the laws of humans, but by divine laws. Your actions will be determined by only one motivational force... love. Everything else will be irrelevant.
You will see moral constraints for what they are... shared accepted norms held within human societies which change over time, and change from place to place, and are not even universally held even within one place at any one given time.
Christi
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 23 2008 : 7:14:41 PM
|
I see. If and when I become more evolved, and have higher sense perception like you, I'll see that Krishnamurti is 'infinite' in these various dimensions.
Christi, I'm not sure you are great at seeing the border between your subjective experience and objective reality; I mean this only in the realm of spiritual experience. Rather than just being lower in 'higher sense perception', and needing some more evolution into higher perception, maybe I'm just have a sharp ability to distinguish my subjective from objective experience.
What I'm trying to get to is that these things you are 'seeing' in Krishnamurti, they are projections. Projections of something real? Yes, but projections nonetheless. You are looking at an idealization. You are looking at Christi's idea of what an individual should ideally become. You are looking at your 'ishta'. You are entering a subjective realm, not an objective one.
Then you are in a situation where you're telling david_obsidian that he is less evolved than you for not believing that your view of Krishnamurti is objective. If that's your way of dealing with disagreement, it is already a clear indication that there is something that you need to adjust.
Christi said:
One day you will be free, and the moral constraints of human society will have no bearing on you. They will not touch you in any way. You will be free to choose to obey them in order to set an example to society. Or you may choose to ignore them if you feel that they are holding society back. In the past, people who are free have chosen both courses of action. Will that make you immoral? Yes, in the minds of some people. But only in their minds... not in yours. Your actions will not be determined by the laws of humans, but by divine laws. Your actions will be determined by only one motivational force... love. Everything else will be irrelevant.
You will see moral constraints for what they are... shared accepted norms held within human societies which change over time, and change from place to place, and are not even universally held even within one place at any one given time.
I agree wholeheartedly with all but the bit I have highlighted in blue. When I said above that 'this is true in certain very specific senses', you have captured some of that in the brown bit. I would say though that the blue bit is a bit mythical, and leaning into the danger-area about which I spoke. All human beings are human beings. They are always human, always subject to limits, always improvable, never perfect and never entirely simple. This is simply just the nature of matter and form, understood objectively. If a person believes that the only motivational force in him is love, I believe such a person is either over-simplifying or short of self-understanding. True, at times he or she may believe that about themselves. But again, that will be the confounding of subjective with objective experience.
Am I the Grinch who Stole Christmas (or in this case, Easter -- Happy Easter!) for not wanting human beings to be mythologized? No. I believe spirituality should be on a solid foundation. My perception is that the mythologization of other human beings is a crack in the spiritual ship of humanity. It's not nearly as holy as we think, and is something we have to evolve out of. Sometimes, massive groups of people flounder and sink on this problem.
Interestingly, for what it's worth, Krishnamurti would probably have agreed with me about this. He was actually more brutal than I have ever been in exposing sacro-mythologization -- and a little less accurately focused in his criticisms, I'd say. I hate to invoke the spirit of Krishnamurti to defend my point here, but Krishnamurti gave pretty clear teachings about the perils of sacro-mythologization (no, he did not use that exact term) and one of his favorites was to tell people that if they kept worshipping a coke bottle... you know the rest. Ironically Krishnamurti has, to an extent, become such a coke bottle himself, partly despite his efforts against it, partly due to his own limitations and mistakes -- to a certain extent, he had a sacro-mythologized image of himself; he was himself prone to worship a little at the coke-bottle of Krishnamurti. Being able to characterize a mistake is obviously no guarantee of being free from it -- if it were so, all preachers would be saints. That's the way life is, that's the way people are. In your mind, grinchy Krishnamurti is now a very high coke bottle which you can aspire to be like, and grinchy david_obsidian is a much lower one which you can believe needs to evolve to be more like you. And yet my message to you about your reaction to Krishnamurti, paradoxically, is probably a message that he would have given to you, to the extent to which he could be objective about the phenomenon of himself. And I could probably have helped Krishnmurti if I had been at the right time and place with what I know now, to be more objective about the phenomenon of himself, and have a more balanced image of himself and of what he knows and does not know; because I could have shown him some mistakes he was making, and he would have understood, and he would have corrected them fortwith. The change would have increased his power as a teacher.
And you could probably have helped Krishnamurti if you had been at the right time and place with what you know now, likely in complementary ways to the ways I could have helped him. You may have been able to help him get his teachings straight about yoga, for example, and that could have considerably increased his power as a teacher.
This reality which I am exposing here is no disaster or tragedy. It is just the beautiful world of our mistakes and evolution. In what you have made Krishnamurti out to be, is the image of what you desire to become. This is not fundamentally different to what Christians do with Jesus. But there does become a time when idealizations and realities should be distinguished, especially among those who have become capable of doing it. Ultimately it leads to greater spiritual power and greater harmony.
Happy Easter, Christ-I. (Or Krisht-I -- meaning here that 'the Christ' or 'the Krishnamurti' is within you this Easter. )
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 24 2008 11:11:33 AM |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 23 2008 : 9:34:35 PM
|
RE: "Was XXX enlightened?" questions, a large number of people who claimed enlightenment at one point recanted years later (invariably in old age), confessing that further unpeelng had continued, and continues to continue, seemingly endlessly. Like an onion (or, more classically, like a lotus). I refer to figures as varied as Swami Satyananda, Daido Loori, and A. H. Almaas. Still more supposed enlightened folks have been revealed, ala Wizard of Oz hiding in the corner, to be utterly, shamefully attached to worldly things. There are more than a few out-and-out alcoholics (talk about attachment!) in the gilded list of spiritual greats.
The only conclusion I can draw is that as long as we're in these meaty animal bodies, we're always opening, and there's no end to it (until/unless you decide you've reached an end point...in which case I'd suggest you're fooling yourself). That's the challenge and the beauty of being a human being. The angels, they say, look upon us with jealousy, because there's so much juicy work to be done in this exasperating, muddy, mucky human condition.
It is possible that every millennia or so someone who was not quite all here to begin with completely and utterly merges, without an iota of conscious or unconscious holding back? A buddha or a jesus? Maybe. Or perhaps they, too, were unknowingly holding on for dear life in the dark nooks and crannies of their most peripheral vision. How the hell do I know? There's beauty and love in the opening, that's all I know. Enlightenment, for our purposes, may be best used as a verb rather than as an adjective. A process rather than a condition.
There are several sorts of openings that are popularly deemed to be "enlightenment". We've all heard about them ad infinitum. And those experiences are attainable. But there's always more to be done (check out Adyashanti's "Journey After Awakening" video - sample at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQZUrUA4y0k ), especially regarding the vast murky swamps of our subconscious that comprise the overwhelming majority of our holding back. Our shiny, well-scrubbed space at the very center of our consciousness - the part that says the right things and is "spiritual"-seeming - is just the tip of a huge iceberg. As you practice, you'll start to notice the muddy/bloody mass of the whole thing more and more. There's tons and tons to melt. In fact, it's been said that since we're all one, every single one of us must melt every single bit of it for Enlightenment to occur. Indeed, it's absurd to merge into What Is, see the fallacy of separateness, then open eyes and claim credit for accomplishing something as one individualized person. "I'm ENLIGHTENED!" The very utterance shows the folly!
To many of us engaged in practice, "enlightenment" seems like something that's going to happen... an attainment...a spiritual yum-yum tantalizingly on the verge of being tossed into our mouths by the appreciative deity. A level to reach, a brass ring to grab. We ask ourselves if person X has "reached" it. We wonder if we've "reached" it, or are about to. But that very wondering reflects the baggage we drag around with us. Once an iceberg melts, there's nowhere to pin the medal.
|
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Mar 23 2008 11:36:04 PM |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Mar 24 2008 : 04:46:54 AM
|
David, I don't want to jump into the discussion, just share a reflection. Take in what you want from it.
As I read your last post, I thought you were right about Christi projecting. And I remembered the wise guys say: Life is 100% projections from the mind. We all create the world we live in. Many people agreeing on the same projections doesn't make them more objective. And I suddenly saw "objectivity" as impossible. It sounds like that is another "ideal" that many hold, that just doesn't exist! The stronger emotional investment in an ideal, the harder to let it go. Objectivity is a very old and thought to be valid ideal.
Would it be strange for you to take the Scientist's most holy and advanced approach and every morning wake up and ask yourself: What if I'm wrong? What if the world is not as it seems, but entirely the other way around? That's true courage and open-mindedness. As Byron Katie says: Do you want to be right or do you want to be free? The mind always wants to be right, the spirit is free...
What if the world is not outside of you, David, but actually inside?  Mind-wrecking, huh?
"It’s not what we don't know that can get us into trouble, it’s what we know that just isn’t so." |
Edited by - emc on Apr 04 2008 2:41:25 PM |
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Mar 24 2008 : 10:13:04 AM
|
quote:
emc: As I read your last post, I thought you were right about Christi projecting. And I remembered the wise guys say: Life is 100% projections from the mind. We all create the world we live in. Many people agreeing on the same projections doesn't make them more objective. And I suddenly saw "objectivity" as impossible. It sounds like that is another "ideal" that many hold, that just doesn't exist! The stronger emotional investment in an ideal, the harder to let it go. Objectivity is a very old and thought to be valid ideal.
Would it be strange for you to take the Scientist's most holy and advanced approach and every morning wake up and ask yourself: What if I'm wrong? What if the world is not as it seems, but entirely the other way around? That's true courage and open-mindedness. As Byron Katie says: Do you want to be right or do you want to be free? The mind always wants to be right, the spirit is free...
What if the world is not outside of you, David, but actually inside? Mind-wrecking, huh?
It's both. And the crux of david's post is just as valid as Christi's and has nothing to do with right or wrong. Spiritual attainment needs to comply with reason and scientific advancement is just as holy as any spiritual philosophy.
Science shouldn't be viewed as happenstance, since it elimantes suffering and is from the same source. Just ask a starving culture of the importance of a spiritual philosophy compared to scientific technology to yield a grain of rice. Or ask a wealthy person this same thing. Both will give two different points of view from this same coin. Satisfy one need and then the other will be of greater benefit. Right? True courage isn't mutually exclusive.
Take care:
VIL |
Edited by - VIL on Mar 24 2008 10:17:49 AM |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Mar 24 2008 : 2:29:50 PM
|
I just saw the Truman show. Brilliant! Same theme as Matrix. They said somewhere in the film "Why did it take so long until he started to suspect anything?" "We accept the world as it is presented to us."
Films like these show how mind-boggling the twist is! Impossible after the shift in perspective to "believe" any part of the "old world" is true. It just isn't. Not the way we thought before, no matter how objectively true it may seem. It's such a fundamental twist of world view that it is impossible to grasp before we realize it for ourselves. |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2008 : 08:46:31 AM
|
Hi you guys,
quote:
david_obsidian wrote:
Any kind of exceptionalism for the morality of the 'enlightened' is a recipe for disaster.....
Those (persons or groups) who are not keeping the moral laws are immoral, and its as simple as that.
Yogi Ramacharaka says that true intuition, while transcending reason, never contradicts it.
In the same way, I wonder if the morality of of a true jivan mukti might transcend conventional morality, but never contradict it. In other words, there is true morality and societal morality.
By that I mean, everyone has the universal morality built in to the anatomy of their soul and it is experienced as conscience and when the actions of a jivan mukti are analyzed from that perspective, they are seen to be based in rock solid morality.
The description of the controlled chaos of Neem Karoli Baba in the book Miracle of Love comes to mind as a perfect example.
The uncontrolled behavior of less enlightened teachers also comes to mind but I won't name names. That is why excusing the immoral behavior of them as the inexplicable grace of the guru (bestowed upon the damaged devotee) is so dangerous when the guru actually is dangerous.
Krishnamurti abhored the guru and thought that people needed to seek their own truth. This idea is peppered thuout his writings. He wanted people to do their own thinking. "Truth is a pathless land."
He was kind of the american idol of the Theosophical Society and selected, groomed and propeled from a very young age into the role of the "the world teacher" by the spiritual marketing machine that was in place at the time, which all he renounced and walked away from to the chagrin of all his followers.
He started to do his own thing when he was about 30 and told them not to follow him and do their own thinking.
quote:
Christi wrote:
You will sense something quite incredible happening. Infinite patience, infinite compassion, infinite love in action, responding to each individual in a way that is tailor made to help that person wake up.
So he was kind of the "unguru." Anything but a Neem Karoli Baba.
There is a biography about him that is available if it isn't out of print. He and his brother Nitya spent many asleepless nite with burning spines when they were young. It is a good read.
Best, yb. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4430 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2008 : 2:23:15 PM
|
Hi David,
quote:
Then you are in a situation where you're telling david_obsidian that he is less evolved than you for not believing that your view of Krishnamurti is objective. If that's your way of dealing with disagreement, it is already a clear indication that there is something that you need to adjust.
Well... lets see how things unfold in time. With advanced yoga practices we shall all start to flower in the way Krishnamurti flowered. Lets see just how our perceptions change with that flowering, and our understanding of spiritual teachers with it.
quote:
I agree wholeheartedly with all but the bit I have highlighted in blue. When I said above that 'this is true in certain very specific senses', you have captured some of that in the brown bit. I would say though that the blue bit is a bit mythical, and leaning into the danger-area about which I spoke. All human beings are human beings. They are always human, always subject to limits, always improvable, never perfect and never entirely simple. This is simply just the nature of matter and form, understood objectively.
Do you know that humans are constrained by matter and form. If you do, how do you know it?
quote:
Christi, I'm not sure you are great at seeing the border between your subjective experience and objective reality
How do you know the difference between subjective experience and objective reality?
Christi
p.s. Happy Easter |
Edited by - Christi on Mar 27 2008 3:45:39 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 26 2008 : 11:37:45 PM
|
With advanced yoga practices we shall all start to flower in the way Krishnamurti flowered. Lets see just how our perceptions change with that flowering, and our understanding of spiritual teachers with it.
Well, I say we shall flower differently and none of us will reach a state that cannot be improved upon. Hopefully we won't repeat Krishnamurti's mistake of calling ourselves 'the final flower'. When regard for a human being becomes excessive, that human beings mistakes are magnified.
How do you know the difference between subjective experience and objective reality?
Answering that question well is beyond the scope of this forum. But one doesn't have to be able to answer that question to be making sense when one says one believes someone isn't being objective.
Do you know that humans are constained by matter and form. If you do, how do you know it?
I agree that I can't prove it to you in the strict sense of the word, so you can simply regard it as one of my beliefs if you like. This isn't to say I don't think it is a very well-considered belief, with a lot of reason behind it. (The same thing is true of Darwin's theory of evolution; it cannot be proven in the strictest sense of the word, but a great body of well-considered thinking can be presented to support it. ) Maybe I'll go into it all some day, but not today.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 27 2008 11:37:56 AM |
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Mar 27 2008 : 09:33:34 AM
|
Subjective experience can be classified as a person believing that they can literally fly, only to realize that object reality supersedes this belief when the individual jumps off of a mountain (gravity).
But then we can also look at it from the standpoint that others have believed that we can fly and so it became possible, via airplanes, space shuttles, helicopters, et al. Something that was once perceived as impossible became possible. So this universal reality of gravity was superseded by something superior to both subjective experience and object reality by using other peoples' past knowledge of universal laws to transform/and evolve the future.
It's kind of like my previous humorous take on siddhis in which I used a story of a person in the distant past holding up a cellphone for a signal, but it's not going to matter a whole lot without future knowledge of how to build a tower or to transfer the signal. Conversly, if a person in the past knew the reality of universal laws, it probably didn't matter too much if the scientific technology was not available to evolve society as a whole.
Kind of like Moses saying, 'Okay, I now have this knowledge of all things and also how to build a cell-phone, but I'm stuck in a society where nothing is available for me to construct a phone, nor build a tower and it's kind of useless to try and explain this rationality to the people of my time, but at least I can use this knowledge to affect the future by manipulating real universal laws And since I have this knowledge and no-one else does, I'd better keep quiet and hide it in symbolism so as not to confuse people who's brains aren't evolved yet.'
In other words, maybe these people didn't have the scientific means, but excelled in the spiritual attainments and knew how to use the cosmos to transfer this knowledge to others and progress the future on a universal scale? Maybe through the vibration of AUM or some other process?
Just another perspective on the topic.
VIL |
Edited by - VIL on Mar 27 2008 10:22:07 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4430 Posts |
Posted - Mar 29 2008 : 10:54:53 AM
|
Hi David,
quote:
I agree that I can't prove it to you in the strict sense of the word, so you can simply regard it as one of my beliefs if you like. This isn't to say I don't think it is a very well-considered belief, with a lot of reason behind it.
I would say that humans are constrained by neither matter, nor form. Form still exists beyond the material universe (which is in fact just a particular view of a manifestation of light). Even in the higher heavens, form exists. Humans are not constrained either by the material universe, or by any of the realms beyond the material, and are not constrained by form. I know this, not through any logial reasoning, for there is in fact no process of rational thought, or any logical deductive process that could lead to this conclusion. I know it through direct perception. From where I sit, I cannot see that there could be any rational process that could support this belief. All we can logically say is that most people only experience a world of matter and form, most of the time. But that doesn't actually prove anything. It could simply be that most people are not yet capable of seeing their unlimited nature beyond both matter and form.
Yes I think it is a belief, and under close scrutiny you will find that it is without foundation. That doesn’t mean it is true or not true, it just means that it isn’t provable at the moment, so all we can really say about it is... we don’t know if it is true or not.
Personally I question a lot of my beliefs to see if there is actually any foundation behind them, or whether I believe them just because I have heard others say them, and they sound plausible.
Beliefs that you may find it useful to question may include:
1. Can I really distinguish between subjective experience and objective reality?
2. Is there an end game in spiritual practice or is it a continual process of development?
3. Can everything be understood using the 5 physical senses combined with the rational mind?
Christi
|
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Mar 30 2008 : 3:55:39 PM
|
"This world is painted by you on the screen of consciousness and is entirely your own private world."
Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
|
|
brushjw
USA
191 Posts |
Posted - Apr 02 2008 : 9:45:56 PM
|
Here's what someone who met Krishnamurti, and whose opinion I respect, had to say:
"Listening to Krishnamurti speak was like eating a sandwich made of bread and sand. I found the best way to enjoy his talks was to completely ignore his words and quietly absorb his presence. Using that technique I would become so expanded after a lecture that I could barely talk for hours afterwards. J. Krishnamurti, while fully enlightened and uniquely lovable, will be recorded in history as a teacher with very poor verbal communication skills."
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.c...wan_osho.htm
I think the whole enlightened/unenlightened discussion is just a distraction from practice. If a teacher can help you, bless him and proceed on the path. If he cannot, bless him and proceed on the path.
aum namaste,
Joe |
|
|
|
Ananda
3115 Posts |
Posted - Apr 12 2008 : 6:46:39 PM
|
Hello everyone, personaly i think that krishnamurti is a liberated being cz i've seen some of his writings and they relate a lot to other enlightened people experiences whom i've read about and spoke to.
and there's an enlightened person who used to be one of sri atmananda's students here in Lebanon named Kamal joumblat may he rest in peace but he was known to the many as a politician.
Anyways this guy is concidered as the light bearer to many of us truth seekers here in the middle east and his writings are life changing and he speaks and quotes some sayings of krishnamurty whom he used to be a friend of his and says about him that he's an enlightened human being.
and he quoted one of his sayings as poetry of a liberated man, i'm gonna translate it from arabic into english so sorry if some1 read it b4 and it isn't the same:
(And the water of the sea entered my heart and in one hour i felt the life of a thousands springs :))
but to get back to our subject concerning love and compassion and so on well that exists but truth be told life is life and duty is duty and to each his way and as we see in the bhagavad gita: Arjuna didn't wanna fight his enemies but krishna the enlightened master told him too and explained to him the wisdom behind these actions.
meaning that an enlightened person is beyond good and evil, the cause has no attachment (meaning no karma) and can break through the laws of this realm but follows them through in order of respect for these laws.
for example if you see the way that paramhansa yogananda and his master sri yukteswar teached u'll see a lot of difference between the 2 yukteswar was hard and yogananda was good hearted and very open and autobiography of a yogi went into this paradox we have at hand here.
anyways just wanted to say that to each teacher his method and if we even look at the author of hatha yoga pradipika we see him speaking of who is noble and who is not and so on.
the list of such acts from liberated man is not new or not common it's smthg that just is.
and in the end we r all that and yet we kill each others.
enlightenment is not perfection, it's liberation.
Namaste
Ananda |
|
|
|
knowingunknown
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - Nov 11 2008 : 11:35:43 PM
|
"I would like to ask if krisnamurti was enlightened?
it seems that he says a whole lot of the right thing's but his attitude appears to leave a lot to be desired! There doesn't seem to be the out pouring of love, bliss and compassion that maybe you would expect, then again maybe that is just my ignorance of enlightenment."
You mistake the personality of a man for the Absolute Truth; as if a man can become God. Truth IS; the personality is nothing other than conditioning of any given character at any given time.
Dreams within dreams, these discussions are.
Wake UP!
Discussing who is and who is not Awake is silly nonsense not likely to get one far, as the one judging has NO FOUNDATION on which to judge.
Let go of your empty ideas, concepts and disjointed theories... they have NO Basis.
Rather than waste all this time talking about what can't be talked about, pointing what can't be Pointed to, thinking about what is BEYOND thought and looking for a "who" in Enlightenment ... STOP. Go within.
Be Quiet.
Go within.
Blessings.
|
|
|
|
Ananda
3115 Posts |
Posted - Nov 12 2008 : 04:22:35 AM
|
hello my friend, i'm sorry but why can't we do both at the same time.
live normaly and act with other people normaly while being within or even better yet bringing what's within to the outside to make life better.
after all isn't this what's yoga all about, union between our inner and outer nature.
plus why not argue, this might shed some light on the teachings of this guru or that.
speaking for myself, i just practice and let go.
namaste,
Ananda
quote:
Originally posted by knowingunknown
"I would like to ask if krisnamurti was enlightened?
it seems that he says a whole lot of the right thing's but his attitude appears to leave a lot to be desired! There doesn't seem to be the out pouring of love, bliss and compassion that maybe you would expect, then again maybe that is just my ignorance of enlightenment."
You mistake the personality of a man for the Absolute Truth; as if a man can become God. Truth IS; the personality is nothing other than conditioning of any given character at any given time.
Dreams within dreams, these discussions are.
Wake UP!
Discussing who is and who is not Awake is silly nonsense not likely to get one far, as the one judging has NO FOUNDATION on which to judge.
Let go of your empty ideas, concepts and disjointed theories... they have NO Basis.
Rather than waste all this time talking about what can't be talked about, pointing what can't be Pointed to, thinking about what is BEYOND thought and looking for a "who" in Enlightenment ... STOP. Go within.
Be Quiet.
Go within.
Blessings.
|
|
|
|
newpov
USA
183 Posts |
Posted - Nov 13 2008 : 8:00:45 PM
|
K was a genius, this is indisputable.
He was also given to service, that is why he dissolved the organization founded to honor him and his teaching.
He was a Jnana [spelling? intellect or knowledge] yogi, and he awakened my curiosity, which led eventually to my finding this site.
I agree with Christi, this was indeed a compassionate man. I don't care whether he was an ascended master.
He alluded once to "sexual inversion." This has always puzzled me.
newpov |
Edited by - newpov on Nov 13 2008 8:27:04 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Nov 13 2008 : 8:28:59 PM
|
I imagine he meant to cause sexual energy to go up instead of down.
Or maybe he just liked to have sex upside down.
The discussion of whether someone is enlightened is strange.
I assume it is based upon someone wanting to be enlightened, and thinking that it is contageous.
First, lets assume that all enlightened people want to teach others to be enlightened, and I'm pretty sure that's not true.
If it were, they would see that there are a hundred different types of personalities that learn best in a hundred different ways. Some will learn from "peace and love", and others will be nauseated by that. Some will learn from a drill sargeant tough love approach and others will call him cruel or not enlightened because there's no peace and love. Etc.
I have known people who felt most comfortable in a lofty position, feeling that they were separate and above everyone else. So maybe krishnamurti appealed to them.
But I think it is quite likely that:
1) Most enlightened people have other paths besides teaching us, and
2) We have just as much to learn from un-enlightened people. |
Edited by - Etherfish on Nov 13 2008 8:51:35 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Krisnamurti
