| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Parallax
USA
348 Posts |
 Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 8:51:09 PM
|
TMS,
Very much enjoyed your post, had me laughing throughout! If you ever catch me on here taking myself too seriously please snap me out of it. While we are all trying to evolve ourselves to the highest states possible, no reason you can't have some lighthearted fun in the process 
What I love about this place is that there are so many different people, from so many different backgrounds all united in the desire to reach THAT...it really is quite beautiful. 
PS: I didn't know who Krishnamurti was before I opened this thread 
PSS: I love bacon
|
 |
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 9:34:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Etherfish
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.
I can't raise the dead with his teachings. But there are tantric yogas held by Tibetans that allow you to transfer consciousness into a fresh corpse or little dead animals. That would be cool... |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 10:49:46 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
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.
A very good question you ask Yogani.
I don't think bhakti (spiritual drive) is hurt at all by coming in contact with The True. It's shaken-up, but not hurt. Quite the opposite, it is strengthened -- provided the person remains flexible, and humble in the face of new information.
The negative reaction that a person experiences when seeing their idols knocked over, (or even a little 'negative' light of realism shone on their idols) is really a pretty ordinary phenomenon of human psychology -- a political reaction really, not much different from the typical reaction of a person when their mythology of their nation or leader or identity-group is offended. There's nothing 'sacred' about their reaction, and their discomfort does not need to be defended to the extent of keeping the truth away.
Bhakti, spiritual drive, will survive the shaking-up that happens when a sacro-mythical idol, of whatever kind, is shaken up. Bhakti is strong, resilient. If the receiver is flexible, humble, and their bhakti is real, their 'bhakti' will find a firmer foundation. No problems at all. As you say yourself Yogani, 'like that'.
Personally I am not opposed at all to sacro-mythology by the way. I just see it as needing to be informed, not eradicated. There are people out there these days who demonize human sacro-mythology, as if it is the source of all evil. Others give it more than its due, as if it is in itself sacred. But sacro-mythology is not in itself 'darkness', nor is it 'light'. It is just another aspect of human beings that becomes strong, powerful and clean in the presence of the required light, but gets all murky and unhealthy and problemmatic in its absence.
There is still plenty of room for 'God' when we realize that our teachers were not gods and are not gods -- or that we are not going to become anything like gods any time soon. Quite arguably, more room for God than there was before. Because then we may be more apt to seeing 'God' in a more real way that gives credit to more of creation.
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 11:06:31 AM
|
Kind of an off topic question for you David....
Based on what you say above....what would you say your definition of a "god" is?
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 11:30:35 AM
|
Carson, I don't really have any precise definition of 'God'. I use the word sometimes as a convenient metaphor. I see 'God' as a sacro-mythical symbol or metaphor for the Totality of Reality -- with emphasis on its structure and wholeness. It can also be a metaphor for the result or goal of spiritual development -- which is the way I'm using it. Ultimately all definitions go around in circles, so I can't really answer your question. Let's put is this way -- if the religionists want to define 'God' broadly enough, they can have me in their camp. But if the atheists want to define 'God' narrowly enough ('God has a white beard or a temper'), they can have me in their camp. So I which camp do I belong? Whatever camp is fool enough to take me. 
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 02 2009 11:39:33 AM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 11:56:17 AM
|
So if you can't accurately define what "God" is, then how can you with confidence say that someone sacro-mythologizing a human being, is NOT "worshipping God"? In other words, how can you say that someone is NOT God or that whatever they chose to worship is not God, if you can't even define what "God" is?
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 12:20:46 PM
|
Hi Carson,
here we see the problems of approximations. Metaphors are great for keeping it simple, but sometimes aren't good enough for the fine details.
other words, how can you say that someone is NOT God or that whatever they chose to worship is not God, if you can't even define what "God" is?
They're doing what they are doing. When I say that I don't think a human being should worship another human being as god, that doesn't really mean that I'm commited to the metaphor of god all the way up and down; that doesn't mean that I think that 'god exists' according to 100 different meanings of 'god exists'. It just means that I think that there is something going on that I think is very unwise and that I would very much advise against. For better or worse, I sometimes invoke 'god' as a rhetorical device. 
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 12:38:07 PM
|
Hi David,
To me it seems like you are skewing things in order to prove a point. This to me signifies a weak arguement.
In my opinion, if you are going to say that it is "very unwise" for human beings to worship another human being as an incarnation of "God" you had best have a pretty good definition of what "God" is, or else what are you really arguing? If you are going to say statements like these, it is imperitive that you define (at least for yourself) what "God" is. To say that it is "very unwise" for "a human being (to) worship another human being as god" is to say that you know what God is, and you know the "right" way he/she should be worshipped. And you just said above that the idea of God to you is a "rhetorical device"....meaning you don't know how to define it. So if YOU can't define it, who is to say that anyone else's definition of God is more "wrong" then yours? Even if their definition happens to include the possibility of a human being being God incarnate.
Love,
Carson |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Mar 02 2009 12:41:27 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 1:30:04 PM
|
So if YOU can't define it, who is to say that anyone else's definition of God is more "wrong" then yours?
Hello Carson,
to a considerable extent, you're putting words in my mouth, as you did above. I'm saying I think it's unwise for people to worship another human being as 'God'. There are all sorts of ways I could qualify that, but I don't have the time. In my meaning, there is indeed a certain sense of what it is to 'worship another human being as God'. It is not right though that a sense of what it means to 'worship another human being as God' requires a precise definition of God, let alone a clear knowledge of God. I can have a very clear sense that it is very unwise to worship me as the Second Minister of the Great Wise Ones of Gotham, without having a clear definition of the aforementioned Second Minister, or what qualifications are necessary to achieve the post.
Are your questions really sincere Carson, and concerned with the meaning and intent of the conversation, or is it turning into pettifoggery? I'm giving you the benefit of my doubt so far.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 02 2009 1:37:42 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 1:35:41 PM
|
Sure....I can let it go if you want. I just think that it is very easy for someone to say "It is wrong to do this, or it is wrong to do that" especially when they refuse to define "this" or "that". I am fien with disengaging in this conversation if you do not feel it is worth continuing. For what it's worth though, I wasn't trying to turn the conversation into "mere pettifoggery" I just think it's too easy for you to say what you are saying without making any qualifications.
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 1:38:40 PM
|
I just think it's too easy for you to say what you are saying without making any qualifications.
Some of that, my friend, is just the limitations of the written medium, and my time!
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 1:41:04 PM
|
Is there a possibility that perhaps you are making generalizations as well as having limitations of the written word and your time?
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 1:44:53 PM
|
Ain't nothing wrong with generalizations. It's only bad generalizations that are bad. If you have an opinion that my generilization is a bad one, I'll accept that you have it. We'll agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Mar 02 2009 : 1:48:25 PM
|
How can there be "good" or "bad" anything? Everything just is as it is. To impose "right" or "wrong" on something is arguing with reality. Reality just is...it isn't right or wrong. Same with your generalizations. They aren't right or wrong. But they ARE generalizations and there are exceptions to EVERY rule.
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
windh2o
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - Mar 21 2009 : 8:04:21 PM
|
| JK concurs w/ Yogani: "you are your own guru" |
|
|
|
windh2o
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - Mar 21 2009 : 8:06:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Christi said:
Many people experienced other things in Krishnamurti's prsence. To each his own.
No doubt about that. But that is about what those people experienced, not about whether Krishnamurti was in Sahaj Samadhi or not.
touche! |
|
|
|
windh2o
USA
27 Posts |
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Apr 15 2009 : 12:26:39 PM
|
Found a gem of a book this weekend at a used "spiritual" bookstore.... it's called "At The Feet of the Master" by Krishnamurti....if anyone finds this book I highly recommend picking it up.
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4430 Posts |
Posted - Apr 16 2009 : 07:23:33 AM
|
Hi WindH20
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Christi said:
Many people experienced other things in Krishnamurti's prsence. To each his own.
No doubt about that. But that is about what those people experienced, not about whether Krishnamurti was in Sahaj Samadhi or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
touche!
It's not entirely irrelevant. When it comes to spiritual teachers, the experiences that people have when in the presence of the teacher is often a direct result of the state of spiritual consciousness of the teacher. This is especially true when people experience states of bliss or transcendental states from being in the teacher's presence, even when the teacher is not speaking, or is speaking about quite mundane matters. I have experienced this many times myself, and many people experienced it when in the precence of Krishnamurti (when at the feet of the master).
Christi |
Edited by - Christi on Apr 16 2009 07:25:06 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Krisnamurti
