|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
 Posted - Feb 24 2009 : 10:26:23 AM
|
Christi said:
Krishnamurti's teachings fall pretty neatly into the yogic advaita vedanta tradition.
Yes it's possible, and fine, to place them there. But that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the way Krishnamurti places his own teachings, and his attitude to yoga in general, which leaves something to be desired; and this is the original subject of the thread. But maybe critical thinking is to be discouraged on AYP forum?
I have my explanations why Krishamurti's teachings fell short in a number of ways. My anwwers aren't mythology-preserving, but I believe they are true and real. You have your explanations which are mythology-preserving (and therefore don't recognize any way in which his teachings fall short at all). Fine. 
People who start reading Krishnamurti run into blocks of various kinds, and all sort of questions come up.
Question: Why is K poo-poohing mantra Yoga?
Answer (mythology-preserving): Oh, he isn't!
My answer (non-mythology-preserving): Oh, he knew no better. Hadn't much knowledge about it -- or personal experience. Didn't talk much to strong yogis apparantly. Etc. Etc.
I don't give mythology-preserving answers because I don't believe the mythology. It's that simple. I'm at ease with the mythology, but I'm also at ease with my answers, which are counter to it. So I just give my answers to these questions.
|
 |
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2009 : 1:02:38 PM
|
The view of ultimate reality, which is non-dual does not require a Ph.D. One can make use of it with no education. One must perhaps meet a qualified guru in a non-dual tradition. However, the basis of tantra is non-dual. The analogy is that the mind is like space, just like space. One can meditate on space, like one can meditate on a mantra or an image. Then one can utilize the appearances in the mind like sound; one can sense them arise and dissolve. Creating this distinction between dual and non-dual traditions as beginner to advanced is creating a barrier or levels that does not really exist. There are different teaching methods of non-duality to those who have differing levels of capacity. But the non-dual view can easily be introduced upfront.
Krishnamurti's flaw is that he couldn't teach what he saw. That's because he was a solitary realizer who didn't have proper guidance. There appears to be a long held bias in the Hindu yoga culture toward solitary realizers. Most people would rather meet someone who realized something on their own, from past lives or from some vision or whatever. But all the best masters had excellent gurus, even the Buddha, Jesus and what have you. What separates a great realized being is the ability to convey the meanings and the path.
If you look deeply into the meaning of AYP Deep meditation, one will notice that it is not dualist or theistic.
Love,
TMS |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2009 : 2:22:34 PM
|
TMS said:
Krishnamurti's flaw is that he couldn't teach what he saw. That's because he was a solitary realizer who didn't have proper guidance.
Amen. That's it in a nutshell.
People by and large don't learn, alone, to be good at stuff. Rembrandt and Vermeer did not arise out of the Void, painting as they did. There was a tradition developing around them for centuries, which reached its culmination at their time. It's true with painting, science, music, everything, including spiritual teaching.
Krishnamurti's flaw is that he couldn't teach what he saw.
And if Vermeer had been born in the wrong times and places, he would not have been able to paint what he saw.
And while this is true, why do contrary myths prevail? Well, maybe its mainly because people love a good story. It's the human love of narrative. Isn't Clint Eastwood riding out of nowhere to kick the baddie's butts a more appealing story than a group of fifty well-trained professionals doing the same? However, when baddie's butts get kicked, it is professional figures who do it overwhelmingly, not lone Clint Eastwood figures. Stories prevail sometimes just because they are more appealing than the reality, not because they are more true than the reality.
As it is with Baddie's Butts, so is it with the Veil of Delusion.
A person who developed in isolation is, almost by definition, an amateur.
So you have to learn to enjoy the story, but know how it is departing from reality. Then you can enjoy both reality and the story. Until then, you can only enjoy one of the two.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Feb 24 2009 2:45:01 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2009 : 2:43:33 PM
|
I think there could be an arguement made in saying that the statement of "Stories prevail...." is in and of itself, a story. What is, just is. Who are we to label someone else's view of reality a "story"? Just being difficult and not 100% serious . No harm intended.
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2009 : 2:48:44 PM
|
| Why do views contrary to reality prevail? Ignorance. Why does ignorance prevail? Karma. How do we overcome ignorance? Meet a qualified spiritual friend... practice correct meditation... |
|
|
|
Katrine
Norway
1813 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2009 : 3:12:54 PM
|
Hi
I have read quite a few of Krishnamurtis books and enjoyed every one of them immensly.
quote:
Krishnamurti's flaw is that he couldn't teach what he saw.
I am not at all able to evaluate what Krishnamurti could or could not do.....or what his flaws are.......there are no opinions here regarding him.
Only that I enjoyed reading those books......and enjoyed viewing him (especially his eyes) on Youtube....
One fact stands out:
Presence cannot be taught.
Not by anyone.
But it can be transmitted, and it can be received, all according to the resonance......which is basically dependant on the level of receptivity.....
Silence is a language.
And Krishnamurtis books emit it. |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5242 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2009 : 3:57:29 PM
|
Hi David:
In spiritual teachings, there is also the principle and practice of bhakti (spiritual devotion), which relies on the aspirant's ishta, or chosen ideal. It is the primary inspiration for all spiritual practices that may follow. Indeed, bhakti by itself is a transforming technique. It is the primary (and sometimes only) technique utilized in the world's religions.
So, yes, everyone loves a good story. But, more importantly, everyone loves their chosen ideal, whatever it may be, and we should always be mindful about that.
In spiritual matters, we cannot divorce anyone's story from the "professional" aspects of practice. To do so would be to deny someone their chosen ideal, and the primary inspiration for their path. There is no accounting for the power of bhakti, or a person's chosen ideal. It is theirs alone.
We can certainly offer helpful suggestions, but as soon as we demand a replacement, ideological or otherwise, we will be sectarian. As we know, many of the world's troubles throughout history have been caused by this.
It should also be added that if someone makes a physical guru their chosen ideal, the integrity of the guru is not the primary determining factor in the outcome. It is what is occurring in the aspirant. However we may view a particular teacher, the spiritual dynamic occurring in the student is sacred, and deserves at least a modicum of respect. No one can decide what another person's inner process will be, regardless of external circumstances that might lead us to believe we know better.
Interestingly, that applies to non-duality teachers and their dedicated students as much anyone.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2009 : 4:00:22 PM
|
Hi Katrine,
Silence is a language. And Krishnamurtis books emit it.
I'll take that.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2009 : 7:38:31 PM
|
Yogani,
I'm going to give a condensed presentation of the way I see things, and how it may differ from yours. This is a 'presentation' and I don't want it to seem like a lecture, and there's no insinuation that you don't know any of it.
There is something I call 'sacro-mythical', and it corresponds, but only roughly, to what some people call 'religious' or 'spiritual'. It's a bundle of energies associated with a 'sense of the sacred'. But I don't say 'religious' because there is stuff that is sacro-mythical that is not visibly religious, (such as some people's attitude to organic foods) and also, there is much of 'spirituality' that is not sacro-mythical, such as many meditation experiences. I use the term just for greater precision, because I can't get my point across without some precision.
Human 'sacro-mythicality' is just a human energy, like sexuality. It's all about god and me and selves and angels and souls and sins and karma and what I was and what I am and what I will be and what the universe will be, and holy and sacred, and god and love-me and my lord and forgive my sins and so on.
It is one aspect of our being, not even close to the whole of our being, and it is not actually the goal of yoga to become sacro-mythical (not implying that you think it is -- and this parenthetical will be implicit from now on). The Yoga Process is a general-purpose organic purifier, culminating in yogic enlightenment. Sacro-mythicality is not enlightenment, it's just an energy. But like all human energies, (just like sexual energy) the yoga process seems to stimulate sacro-mythical energy. And just like sexual energy, when it moves into action, the results can work out well or badly. I don't really agree that sacro-mythical energy is sacred. It's no more 'sacred' than any other human energy. It IS an energy connected with an emotional feeling of 'The Sacred', but that doesn't make it sacred itself. It has wonderful possibilities, but it is also subject to exploitation and misguidance, just like any other human energy is, including the sexual.
The Yoga tradition as it has come to us largely places yogic information in a sacro-mythical vessel. Yogic enlightenment is explained sacro-mythically. That is almost inevitable, because of the nature of the society was in which Yoga developed. But yogic enlightenment is its own thing, it isn't sacro-mythical. Your body is its own thing, it isn't sacro-mythical. It's part of a Universe, which is its own thing, it isn't sacro-mythical. It's part of That, which is its own thing, and isn't sacro-mythical.
Look: Alice gets a crush on Bob and tells you about it. Is that crush sacred and what does that mean? Do you tell her, if you know, that Bob has certain relevant flaws? Will she like it? Likewise, Alice gets a sacro-mythical crush on Guru X and tells you about it. Is that crush sacred and what does that mean? Do you tell her, if you know, that Guru X has certain relevant flaws?
In either case, there is no simple answer to what you should do, it all depends. But I don't agree, if Yogani is saying it, that one situation has a 'sacredness' that the other does not. They are both equally 'sacred' on the one hand -- and mundane and human on the other. In both cases, Alice is telling you something because her biology has told her to get some guidance or support (that's why she's talking) which means she wants some feedback. In one case it's about how her sexual energy will be used and in another case its about her sacro-mythical energy and where she's going to go with it.
If you do tell her what you know, in either case, it can go a few different ways. Maybe she has an obsessive reaction, and thinks you're bad and thinks your truths are lies; or maybe she starts to think things over and comes to realize you are right, and intends to take those flaws into account; or, maybe she starts with the obsessive reaction and moves, over time, to realizing that you are right.
Should we in general hold back from telling Alice 'like it is' about Bob or Guru X because of an obsessive reaction on her part? I don't think so. There are so many ways that would be a mistake. But the best case I can give against holding back is: I believe in information. So much bad happens, despite good intentions, because of lack of information, or bad information. Once Alice gets the information, she is ready to make an adult choice. She may decide to still 'go for' Bob or Guru X, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. In fact, when her eyes have been opened to the relevant flaws, she's in a much better position to get something positive out of the situation.
The freeness of information also advances the culture, and makes it more mature. Alice's sacro-mythical obsessiveness (leading to her intolerance of hearing anything 'negative' about Guru X, parallel entirely and in no way superior to her sexual obsessiveness leading to intolerance of hearing anything 'negative' about Bob) is not divorced from the immaturity of the Yoga culture in which she lives, and what she has already learned from that (just as the inability of some men in some parts of the world to brook non-deferential women is not divorced from what they learned to expect from women). With the freer movement of information, slowly, the yoga culture will mature; it will lose its sacro-mythically-obsessive aspects and critical-thinking-aversity (which are joined at the hip, and everywhere-evident); and it will grow to be in harmony with critical thinking, and more authoritative and powerful for it.
The Yogic Process too eventually burns out the obsessive, political aspect of sacro-mythical energy, and the need to live in illusions about people dissolves (just as the need to live in illusions about oneself dissolves). Just as too, the need to live in illusions about the universe or anything dissolves.
We are the growing Yoga culture, and the worst thing you could do is stop the information flow.
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2009 : 9:03:15 PM
|
I don't mean to step in between David and Yogani; just to give my opinion.
I would completely agree with David's analysis if I was Alice's dad, and Bob was a criminal.
But the relationship of seeker and guru is much different. If your best friend is getting involved with a jonestown scenario, by all means show them the evidence.
One of the problems with online information is there is a lot out there that is not well vetted. There is always more than one side to every story. If you talk with a man and then a woman who have been divorced, 9 out of 10 times you will find good reasons to side with both. You can find compelling reasons on the net for the correctness of the US government killing all the people in David Koresh's Waco, Texas Christian compound. And you can find compelling stories that he was a wonderful leader not harming anyone who just believed in owning guns.
I believe the same is true for probably every religious leader out there. Some, you will find a preponderance of bad evidence, many mostly good.
AYP principles are built upon tolerance, non-harming of others, and using your inner guru to find what is best for you.
If you do basic AYP meditation for a while you will find inner silence. Then your inner guru will begin to guide you.
You don't need anyone to tell you what path to follow, not an outer guru, or a fellow seeker with warning information.
Your inner guru will show you good lessons from bad people also. It's all based upon your personal karma what you need to be exposed to.
So I believe in the empowerment of the individual by virtue of inner silence first, and inner guru next. We have to honor the intelligence and inner guru of each seeker and not assume we know better than they do. Trying to guide a seeker with information you have found about bad gurus is not much different than trying to be a guru yourself.
So that, in combination with non-harming of others constitutes the reasons for allowing good posts of any guru but not allowing bashing.
As soon as bad info on gurus is allowed, threads mushroom into arguments about whether it's true, and much energy is spent outside AYP principles and support.
AYP would not be supporting deep meditation; it would become a clearinghouse of information on other gurus, and the forums wouldn't be filled with results of the system this forum is about. |
Edited by - Etherfish on Feb 25 2009 08:06:46 AM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5242 Posts |
Posted - Feb 25 2009 : 1:00:37 PM
|
Hi David:
You did not mention bhakti or one's chosen ideal, which are largely emotional, not informational, and carry great evolutionary power. Do these fit into your view? Do you see bhakti as a spiritual practice/phenomenon? If so, how would you reconcile it with your views about sacro-mythology?
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Feb 25 2009 : 4:59:22 PM
|
| Bhakti is devotion to practice. Why practice? Happiness. We all are devoted to happiness. We all have intellect and intuitive wisdom. Most of us allow the intellect to intrude rudely into what our intuition spontaneously knows better without regard to words, pictures or signs. Our wrong views and misunderstandings lead to karma and karma to samsara and samsara to suffering. We all act according to our karma. We meditate to escape the trap of karma. Of course you should warn your friend if you think a guru is no good; of course you should respect your friend if they dismiss your view. Views are the problem. They are the biggest attachment to be got rid of. Period. Exclamation Point. Debates are a hindrance. Ditto. Ellipsis. |
Edited by - themysticseeker on Feb 25 2009 5:04:07 PM |
|
|
|
Parallax
USA
348 Posts |
Posted - Feb 25 2009 : 9:10:41 PM
|
Bhakti is spiritual devotion; the devotion may inspire one to practice; the consistent practice leads to the overcoming of karma and samsara,leading to happiness...to the ability to overcome attachment...to the release of views. Practice is the key; and if one's ishta fuels the bhakti which fuels the practice what harm in that? Through practices everything will eventually fall away...why undermine someone's underlying motivation for practice?
Perhaps some don't need an ishta. Fine. For some it may be a a central motivating factor at this point on their path. Why debate whether someone's chosen ideal is valid or not? Who's to say? Perhaps a certain guru/ishta is exactly what a particular person needs at this particular point on their particular path. Why judge?
The process of deep meditation and inner silence will eventually lead the seeker to where they need to be, so if the feeling of Amma's love or the teachings of Krishnamurti resonate with someone and keep them engaged on the path of illumination why try to stamp out the fire--even if their chosen ideal may not be perfect? All IMHO
Peace & Namaste
|
|
|
|
YogaIsLife
641 Posts |
Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 05:02:44 AM
|
Talking about ishtas and motivators etc., can, say, other inspiring, non-religious or spritiual, figures be motivators?
Say I look up to Martin Luther King or to Bob Marley or somene else for their messages and their strength and I get really inspired by them. I then meditate and pray etc. because I truly believe in truth and happiness for all the world, in your views can this be a valid motivation? Or does it really have to be someone strictly spiritual as Amma or Jesus or wahtever? Can I use their messages to fuel my passion for, say, truth? (sometimes I find my heart lights up when I hear/see/read something really inspiring) |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 08:16:54 AM
|
I know you didn't direct that at me, but absolutely yes. This is why is is possible for an atheist to become enlightened.
And this is at the heart of the subject. It is not necessary to steer people away from anyone who has done bad things or made mistakes. It is the bhakti that has the power. An enlightened person, if there is such a thing, can see the divinity in anyone.
That is what is so difficult for an unenlightened person to understand. The most evil person in the world has divinity in them. It may be interfered with, and it may be hidden, but it is in there somewhere.
And it is not through the actions of the evil person that causes the divinity to be seen; rather it is through the inner guru of the seer. |
|
|
|
YogaIsLife
641 Posts |
Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 08:52:47 AM
|
That's nice Ether.
quote:
It is not necessary to steer people away from anyone who has done bad things or made mistakes.
Yes, indeed no one is perfect is it? I am sure we can all find faults with anybody else, be it an enlightened saint or not. They are always bond to do something that we decide we don't like. So, what really to do? Well, what I try is to listen to my heart - if something good lights up inside me while listening to a certain message then I trust that feeling. That is the bhakti that you people talk about here I guess. That force that drives us, that inspires us, that motivates us to higher ideals. I feel this in many ways (through music, art, a bird in the sky, poetry, a flower, sunshine, a starry sky, etc.) and have sometimes difficulty in understanding people's idea of an ishta...maybe freedom, or love, or truth, are my ishta I don't know...
quote:
The most evil person in the world has divinity in them.
Yes, I believe this is absolutely true. Can't be otherwise, although we (and many of the established religions of the world) created this idea of good and evil, heaven and hell, etc., over centuries and it became ingrained in our psyche...may the dust be blown by the wind! May we all become free!  |
|
|
|
Parallax
USA
348 Posts |
Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 11:45:58 AM
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not necessary to steer people away from anyone who has done bad things or made mistakes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can only imagine how we might have judged Jesus' level of enlightenment or validity as an ishta had we been his contemporaries...
Jesus? That guy hangs around with women who aren't his wife! Prostitutes no less! He changes water into alcohol for drunken wedding celebrations...how unbecoming! He kills a fig tree just because it was out of fruit when he was hungry; he claims the ability to forgive sins...what an ego!! 
What could teachings/examples about love, selflessness, compassion, forgiveness, endurance under suffering really mean from such a man? Well, quite a lot actually.
I totally understand/empathize with why Yogani wants to stay anonymous  . Who would want every word, every action, every movement in their life scrutinized/analyzed for faults and imperfections...???
|
|
|
|
YogaIsLife
641 Posts |
Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 12:17:07 PM
|
Hey Parallax, that thing about Jesus was really funny, and really true. Indeed, who would want to be checked out for every imperfection?
It would be great if we all became much more understanding, tolerant, and open. I think the world really needs this now. |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 12:35:18 PM
|
| What's an ishta? How do I get one? I've been meditating for a long time without one. Now I think if I don't get one I can't meditate. What do I do? |
Edited by - themysticseeker on Feb 26 2009 12:38:57 PM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 12:46:44 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Parallax
Bhakti is spiritual devotion; the devotion may inspire one to practice; the consistent practice leads to the overcoming of karma and samsara,leading to happiness...to the ability to overcome attachment...to the release of views. Practice is the key; and if one's ishta fuels the bhakti which fuels the practice what harm in that? Through practices everything will eventually fall away...why undermine someone's underlying motivation for practice?
Perhaps some don't need an ishta. Fine. For some it may be a a central motivating factor at this point on their path. Why debate whether someone's chosen ideal is valid or not? Who's to say? Perhaps a certain guru/ishta is exactly what a particular person needs at this particular point on their particular path. Why judge?
The process of deep meditation and inner silence will eventually lead the seeker to where they need to be, so if the feeling of Amma's love or the teachings of Krishnamurti resonate with someone and keep them engaged on the path of illumination why try to stamp out the fire--even if their chosen ideal may not be perfect? All IMHO
Peace & Namaste
Why debate? Why judge? Judgment and discrimination are impediments. |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5242 Posts |
Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 1:01:18 PM
|
Hi TMS:
From the AYP point of view, ishta (meaning, chosen ideal) is whatever inspires us to unfold spiritually and become more. It can be a formal traditional one, but of far greater importance is what resonates within us and inspires us. That can be our practices, our inner process, our possibilities, our lover, child, friend, artistic inspiration, our work, our health, or something we saw on the evening news. It is whatever inspires us to act, and it (our chosen ideal) will evolve to increasingly refined and expanded forms as we purify and open from within. This is because as our experience refines, our perception does also, and we "see" more. Ultimately, our ishta is found everywhere in everything. It is a never-ending unfoldment!
So, as long as you have been practicing, you have had an ishta. It is not possible to practice without a chosen ideal. This is true of non-duality teachings as well, which are very dependent on the principle of ishta, and bhakti!
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Parallax
USA
348 Posts |
Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 3:09:30 PM
|
TMS Said:
"What's an ishta? How do I get one? I've been meditating for a long time without one. Now I think if I don't get one I can't meditate. What do I do?"
Reply:
The sarcasm brought a smile to my face TMS ; I think you must have missed this line in my post: "Perhaps some don't need an ishta. Fine." If you feel you don't need one, its not necessary...no judgement from me, I am certainly in no position to judge anyone! (although I would point to Yogani's broad definition of Ishta above: the ideals of non-attachment, non-grasping and non-judgement all could be called an ishta, as could the reverence one holds towards a particular lama or lineage of teachers) No sense getting tripped up by semantics
TMS Said:
"Why judge? Judgment and discrimination are impediments."
I totally agree!! Just curious, would this statement from Tuesday qualify as judging?:
TMS said:
Krishnamurti's flaw is that he couldn't teach what he saw. That's because he was a solitary realizer who didn't have proper guidance.
Not trying to be difficult here, I just think the point needs to be made for people to be very careful about tearing down someone else's ideals/ishta/spiritual motivator (be it Krishnamurti, et al) in favor of their own (be it rationalism/scientific objectivity, non-attachment, non-duality, et al). None of us are necessarily at the same point in our paths, or come from the same background or hold the same ideal/ishta that motivates our practices...fewer still have a perfected viewpoint from the infinite to cast these judgements (I know I am certainly NOT one of them!)
Not that we can't all have different opinions, but IMHO its a slippery slope to tread when we try to convince someone that their chosen ideal is not valid. Perhaps they are not, but if they motivate us to continue to practice, eventually we will see the Truth.
May we all practice together in peace and in love until we merge together into the infinite. Then it will all fall away...
Continued blessings to all, on your path and in your practices. I appreciate all of you on this forum, each one...and especially you, Yogani. I respect you tremendously and am eternally grateful for all the effort you have made to help us along the journey.
Peace & Namaste |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 5:30:51 PM
|
| My ishta is the Cosmos. The Cosmos is my guru and my mind. Therefore, my ishta is my mind. Wait a second... My ishta is peace. I practice because I love peace. Then I can't have peace because others are so not peaceful. So I practice for theirs. May all beings find peace. Without samsara there is no nirvana. I'm very thankful for samsara... |
Edited by - themysticseeker on Feb 26 2009 6:00:08 PM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 5:36:59 PM
|
Parallax: Re: Krishnamurti. I just notice how he doesn't have a movement after him like many do. So I momentarily looked at movements and noticed that they were all started by teachers. Then, without looking at it too carefully, I inferred that Krishnamurti wasn't much of a teacher. Maybe he was... I really don't know. I also read that he didn't have much in the way of good teachers; he came into the practice by being hand selected by Madame Blavatsky or some such to be the World Teacher. At some point, he had a big kundalini event in his throat and started yapping about the meditation of non-meditation the path of no path and woo woo. That's what I remember from history. Don't take this the wrong way; I'm not knocking krishnamurti. He does describe ultimate reality. I really shouldn't have entered his thread, because I know very little about it. You know teasing, laughing and being silly is better. Taking teachers too seriously is boring. They are dead guys from the past; besides we and they are same; if they were enlightened then that mind is within us now. So I am laughing at myself.
BTW Buddha was kind of a bore and ran off whenever the crowds got too big, because he was "annoyed." Big baby... He left his wife the day his son was born. There are a lot of "buddhas" where I live. Jesus shot his mouth off too much and got himself killed before the esoteric teachings could be recorded; now all we have are bits and pieced of his biography. He taught his disciples to heal people and raise the dead; how come those instructions aren't in the bible? What a rip off. Muhammed violated the separation of church and state and outlawed eating bacon, which is very judgmental of him. Mutton smells wierd... What can I say about Krishna and Shiva? They are cartoons. It might be nice to be Krishna and have ten gopis, but at the same time that might totally suck *#!%s.
No matter how you look at samsara you can always make one judgment; it's nonsense. It's funny, but a little repugnant. At least some good meditation techniques seeped out, because then I can take a nap from it...
Nap time!...
TMS |
Edited by - themysticseeker on Feb 26 2009 5:58:11 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 8:23:24 PM
|
Krishnamurti had quite a large movement when he was alive.
If the story of jesus is true, which I'm not sure of, then he knew he was going to get killed by his actions. He would have also known that being nailed to the cross was the end of his suffering. He could have set everything up purposely in a way that would make people remember his teachings for a very long time. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Krisnamurti
