Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

How does God figure in K teachings?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 44 in total
Mon, 15 May 2017 #1
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 209 posts in this forum Offline

A very important question is how God figures in K teaching.

On the one hand, K discusses how people project an image of God, how they confuse their emotional worship with reality, how their petition to God is a form of greed.

On the other hand, K uses terminology such as "the immeasurable," "the benediction," and sometimes even "God, truth, reality, or what you will." He clearly references something which may come when the mind is naturally quiet, still, and open. And this something eludes description, eludes capture by the thinking mind, eludes being grabbed and frozen into an image, a belief, an idea. It always the same and yet always different, ever in this very moment now. It is outside of time.

Is the God of K teaching a creator God? Was the universe created by this very same God?

I would have said, no, this God, if you can even call it that because K didn't use the word "God" for it that much since there are so many other associations with the word "God." I would have said it is present now but not the past creator of the universe. And yet in some later accounts, K actually describes his contact with "the source of all energy." And that does begin to sound like the primordial source that initiated the universe.

So perhaps K does reference a Creator God and perhaps not. It is unclear. He does not BELIEVE in one. He is interested only in direct experience, not in belief. But what he directly connected with, if you accept that he did directly connect with something, is subject to interpretation.

Of course, the brain cannot touch what the brain cannot touch. So all interpretation is incorrect, off. However, sometimes K used the negative approach, going into detail about what it is not. The brain can see its errors, its misunderstandings. But the ultimate is not reachable by the brain. So we may only be able to discuss what God is not. We may not be able to discuss what God is.

Certainly there are those who could also explore K teachings while being atheist or agnostic. The references to God by K may be understood somewhat poetically, symbolic of present moment awareness yet not an actual entity. I have to say I find myself more in this latter camp. Yet I cannot deny that some descriptions by K do seem to reference an entity.

Now what do you say about God in K teaching?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 15 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #2
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

Just to put some fuel in the discussion I found this quote from K. about god. I understand that you have use the words: the source, with which you are, maybe, pointing to something totaly different, I don't know for now. But were you right (?), if one eliminate first the causes and the consequences of the belief, what is left is but speculation.

K: Now, what is reality, what is God? God is not the word, the word is not the thing. To know that which is immeasurable, which is not of time, the mind must be free of time, which means the mind must be free from all thought, from all ideas about God. Because, what do you know about God or truth? You do not really know anything about that reality. All that you know is words, the experiences of others, or some moments of rather vague experience of your own. Surely, that is not God, that is not reality, that is not beyond the field of time. So, to know that which is beyond time, the process of time must be understood - time being thought, the process of becoming, the accumulation of knowledge. That is the whole background of the mind; the mind itself is the background, both the conscious and the unconscious, the collective and the individual. So, the mind must be free of the known, which means the mind must be completely silent, not made silent. The mind that achieves silence as a result, as the outcome of determined action, of practice, of discipline, is not a silent mind. The mind that is forced, controlled, shaped, put into a frame and kept quiet, is not a still mind. You may succeed for a period of time in forcing the mind to be superficially silent, but such a mind is not a still mind. Stillness comes only when you understand the whole process of thought, because to understand the process is to end the process, and the ending of the process of thought is the beginning of silence. Only when the mind is completely silent, not only on the upper level, but fundamentally, right through, on both the superficial and the deeper levels of consciousness - only then can the unknown come into being. The unknown is not something to be experienced by the mind; silence alone can be experienced, nothing but silence. If the mind experiences anything but silence, it is merely projecting its own desires, and such a mind is not silent; and as long as the mind is not silent, as long as thought in any form, conscious or unconscious, is in movement, there can be no silence. Silence is freedom from the past, from knowledge, from both conscious and unconscious memory; and when the mind is completely silent, not in use, when there is the silence which is not a product of effort, then only does the timeless, the eternal come into being. That state is not a state of remembering - there is no entity that remembers, that experiences. So, God or truth, or what you will, is a thing that comes into being from moment to moment, and it happens only in a state of freedom and spontaneity, not when the mind is disciplined according to a pattern. God is not a thing of the mind, it does not come through selfprojection, it comes only when there is virtue, which is freedom. Virtue is facing the fact of what is, and the facing of the fact is a state of bliss. Only when the mind is blissful, quiet, without any movement of its own, without the projection of thought, conscious or unconscious - only then does the eternal come into being.

Total Freedom, Third Talk in Bombay

February 26, 1950

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Mon, 15 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #3
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
A very important question is how God figures in K teaching.

Important only to a mind steeped in escape and trivial content.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #4
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4908 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
A very important question is how God figures in K teaching.

The simple and very clear answer for those who have read K or listened to him and understood how he uses the word "god" is that "god" doesn't figure in at all in his teaching. K used "god" as another word for "truth", "the unknown" etc, etc.

K made it abundantly clear that "god" is an invention of thought. Man created god and not the other way around.

Also I agree with Mr. Richard Head's post above.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #5
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 576 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
He clearly references something which may come when the mind is naturally quiet, still, and open. And this something eludes description, eludes capture by the thinking mind, eludes being grabbed and frozen into an image, a belief, an idea. It always the same and yet always different, ever in this very moment now. It is outside of time.

Hello idiot?. Thanks for this post. Yes, Krishnamurti does indeed reference this mysterious thing. With a naturally quiet, still mind, Krishnamurti was apperently able to observe and go very, very far in his understanding of many things. When you hear him explore anger, fear, attachment etc and their roots it's clear that through self-observation with this quiet mind Krishnamurti discovered and threw light on areas that remain dark and poorly understood by most of us. Below is a quote from K talking about that thing which has no measure and is nameless:

"How is the mind to allow that thing to come to it? Obviously, the mind cannot go to it; it must come, and how is it to come? You cannot invite it, you cannot make a habit of it, you cannot sacrifice yourself for it, or make yourself into this or that to get it: it must come. And, the how - in the sense of by what conduct, by what path, by what system, by what process of thinking- is not the problem. You see, to put this question seriously to yourself, you must be aware, totally, of the full implications of the question. Knowing all the habits of the mind, knowing that you can do anything now with the mind through drugs which will have no aftereffects, then surely you see that such a mind, which has been influenced, cannot possibly receive that which has no measure, which is nameless.
And yet, without that other, it is like having a perfect body, a beautiful mechanical mind, which is but an empty shell. So, how is that unknown to come? You cannot induce it, you cannot buy it through any means. It is too vast, immeasurable, and so fleeting that the mind cannot capture it. It cannot be held within the field of time."

Collected Works, Vol. XI,82

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #6
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 209 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
K made it abundantly clear that "god" is an invention of thought. Man created god and not the other way around.

It is precisely because it is not clear whether there is any God in K's teachings that the question is interesting and not trivial. If it is uninteresting to you, you need not participate in the discussion, of course.

Krishnamurti in The First and Last Freedom, On Belief in God:

I am not denying God - it would be foolish to do so.

-

Deepak Chopra wrote at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/ted...:

A Christian fundamentalist was once conversing with the noted India spiritual teacher, J. Krishnamurti.

“The more I listen to you, the more convinced I am that you must be an atheist,” the fundamentalist said.

“I used to be an atheist,” Krishnamurti replied, “until I realized that I was God.”

The fundamentalist was shocked. “Are you denying the divinity of Jesus Christ?”

Krishnamurti shrugged. “I’ve never denied anyone their divinity. Why would I do it to Jesus Christ?”

The audience laughed at this anecdote.

-

K Quote of the Day, For June 08, 2011:

Auckland, New Zealand | 2nd Talk in Town Hall 1st April, 1934

To be a theist or an atheist, to me, are both absurd. If you knew what truth is, what God is, you would neither be a theist nor an atheist, because in that awareness belief is unnecessary. It is the man who is not aware, who only hopes and supposes, that looks to belief or to disbelief, to support him, and to lead him to act in a particular way.

Now, if you approach it quite differently, you will find out for yourselves, as individuals, something real which is beyond all the limitations of beliefs, beyond the illusion of words. But that - the discovery of truth, or God - demands great intelligence, which is not assertion of belief or disbelief, but the recognition of the hindrances created by lack of intelligence. So to discover God or truth - and I say such a thing does exist, I have realized it - to recognize that, to realize that, mind must be free of all the hindrances which have been created throughout the ages, based on self-protection and security. You cannot be free of security by merely saying that you are free. To penetrate the walls of these hindrances, you need to have a great deal of intelligence, not mere intellect. Intelligence, to me, is mind and heart in full harmony; and then you will find out for yourself, without asking anyone, what that reality is.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #7
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

I think K. didn't seems to like using this old word to much. I am not a theologist, neither do I know much about religions history , but it seems clear that he have been in touch with something, realize something, and prefer to call it reality, truth, incommensurable, timeless etc, as Jack point out . What it is to him, how does God figure in K teachings?, as you ask ( he often call it: whatever word you want ...), seems clearly explain in all the quote that have been put so far in this thread. Though, he can't go further then showing the door. Whether one call it God or Reality or the Other , does it make any difference ? Or are we attach to the word itself ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #8
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 209 posts in this forum Offline

As you know, K uses words in various ways, often with his own meanings and significances. He doesn't shy away from using the word "God" on occasion. Even though the word is loaded with all kinds of different meanings for all kinds of people. Often, when he uses the word "love," for example, he goes to a great deal of trouble explaining what he means and does not mean by the word. For example, in The First And Last Freedom, he approaches love negatively, going into how it is not romantic love, not love for anything or anyone specific, etc.

"The source of all energy," is referenced at http://www.bodysoulandspirit.net/mystical_exper....

It is interesting that here he explicitly states that the source of all energy is not god or Brahman. In this case, he wants to exclude any associations anyone might have with either of those words. And yet if you asked anyone on the street, "What word would you use for the source of all energy?", is there any doubt what the answer would be?

K goes on to state that source of all energy "is the ultimate, the beginning and the ending and the absolute."

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 16 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #9
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
it is not clear whether there is any God in K's teachings that the question is interesting and not trivial

Anything that tittilates interest, is by definition trivial and not serious. But please, carry on.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3072 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
Anything that tittilates interest, is by definition trivial and not serious.

I think we're interested because we want to possess it....we want a savior...a god...to end our suffering...to protect us from future suffering. That all. Nothing truly religious about that...just the simple desire to be protected...like the primative man who prays to an idol for protection.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #11
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I think we're interested because we want to possess it....we want a savior...a god...to end our suffering...to protect us from future suffering. That all. Nothing truly religious about that...just the simple desire to be protected...like the primative man who prays to an idol for protection.

Another way of saying, "psychologicalcomfortsecurity", no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #12
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
you need not participate in the discussion, of course.

It is very very clear that Mr. Krishnamurti is pointing out that rather than speculate about whether or not there is goddeity, we might question why we constantlyconsistantly are doing so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3072 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
Another way of saying, "psychologicalcomfortsecurity", no?

Seeking God is that, yes, randall.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #14
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
randall.

That's a low blow sir! Comparing me to that vile devious bastard, really I just don't know......

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #15
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Seeking God is that, yes,

One form (escape), of many.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #16
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 209 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I think we're interested because we want to possess it....we want a savior...a god...to end our suffering...

Personally I am not interested in seeking God, believing in God, proving God exists or doesn't exist or any of that. I am interested, in this thread, in how God is, or is not, part of K's teachings. I have tried to demonstrate with K quotes and other discussion that this is not a simple, cut and dried question.

The purpose of the forum is to investigate together K's teachings. The guidelines go into what can be problematic in the forum. I encourage us to be respectful. It is interesting when there are different viewpoints. But is it helpful if we disparage?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #17
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 576 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
The purpose of the forum is to investigate together K's teachings. The guidelines go into what can be problematic in the forum. I encourage us to be respectful. It is interesting when there are different viewpoints. But is it helpful if we disparage?

Hello idiot? and all. I am not sure why this disparaging happens. It's clear that the discussion has gone off on a tangent as idiot? surely isn't talking about seeking God. Krishnamurti did talk about "the source of all energy" and this strikes me as an extremely valid topic to discuss on a thread. However, it seems that we can never approach this "thing" through thought so it remains mysterious and unknown.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #18
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Krishnamurti did talk about "the source of all energy" and this strikes me as an extremely valid topic to discuss on a thread. However, it seems that we can never approach this "thing" through thought so it remains mysterious and unknown.

It is maybe mysterious and unknown because one have never heard of such a thing. Don't we easely fall into mysticism ? Maybe many through history have been in touch with it, though it seems something difficult to convey,

Here is a dialogue with Dr. Bohm about the source of all energy, for those interested.

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teach...

(Quote)

Krishnamurti: Now I want to get at this: what is the source? Can thought find it? And thought is born from that source; and intelligence is also born from that source. It is like two streams moving in different directions.

Bohm: Would you say matter is also born from that source more generally?

Krishnamurti: Of course.

Bohm: I mean the whole universe. But then the source is beyond the universe.

Krishnamurti: Of course. It must be, otherwise. . . Now what is that? Could we put it this way, sir? Thought is energy, so is intelligence.

Bohm: So is matter.

Krishnamurti: Thought, matter, the mechanical, is energy. Intelligence is also energy. Thought is confused, polluted, dividing itself, fragmenting itself.

Bohm: Yes, it is multiple.

Krishnamurti: And this is not. This is not polluted. It cannot divide itself as 'my intelligence' and 'your intelligence'. It is intelligence, it is not divisible. Now it has sprung from a source of energy which has divided itself.

Awakening of Intelligence, The

J. Krishnamurti Conversation with David Bohm at Brockwood Park 7 October 1972

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Wed, 17 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #19
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
It is very very clear that Mr. Krishnamurti is pointing out that rather than speculate about whether or not there is goddeity, we might question why we constantlyconsistantly are doing so.

He also invite us to inquiring.

K.: Because a human being who just lives in this disharmony, he must enquire into this. And that is what we are doing. As we begin to enquire into it, or in enquiring, we come to this source.

Awakening of Intelligence, The

J. Krishnamurti Conversation with David Bohm at Brockwood Park 7 October 1972

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Wed, 17 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #20
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3072 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
The purpose of the forum is to investigate together K's teachings. The guidelines go into what can be problematic in the forum. I encourage us to be respectful. It is interesting when there are different viewpoints. But is it helpful if we disparage?

There was no disrespect intended, idiot?....at least on my part. I was attempting to point out what seemed to be a fact of human nature, that's all. It seems pretty clear to me what K felt about the concept of God and the organizations that promote such a concept. If we're discussing K's teaching he's clear about his feelings about belief in God or seeking God. But perhaps I'm mistaken. I don't pretend to be an expert. He did sometimes speak of the 'source' and the immeasurable. For me personally, I prefer to leave it at that...those terms are more than enough. 'God' seems to be such a loaded term and brings the discussion into the realm of organized religion, which he strongly opposed.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 17 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #21
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 80 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Certainly there are those who could also explore K teachings while being atheist or agnostic..........

idiot ? wrote:
I am interested, in this thread, in how God is, or is not, part of K's teachings.

When imagination is not conflated with perception, the essence of one (theism/atheism) lies in the other. The heart of one lies in the other. There is a harmony between their interdependence which is revealed in the action that unfolds. God as an entity or non-entity is equally a part of K's teachings without any contradiction. imo.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #22
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3072 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
God as an entity or non-entity is equally a part of K's teachings without any contradiction. imo.

Are you trying to say that there's no contradiction between saying God is real and saying God is imagination? Sorry if I misconstrued what you're saying Nat., but it's not clear what you're trying to say.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #23
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 80 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Are you trying to say that there's no contradiction between saying God is real and saying God is imagination? Sorry if I misconstrued what you're saying Nat., but it's not clear what you're trying to say.

Imagination has no place whatsoever in the context of God/K's teachings..to put it differently there is no contradiction between seeing and doing, perception and action.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #24
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 209 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
When imagination is not conflated with perception, the essence of one (theism/atheism) lies in the other. The heart of one lies in the other. There is a harmony between their interdependence which is revealed in the action that unfolds. God as an entity or non-entity is equally a part of K's teachings without any contradiction.

Your comment, natarajan shivan, seems very much in keeping with the K quote of the day I cited above that begins, "To be a theist or an atheist, to me, are both absurd."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #25
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3072 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
Imagination has no place whatsoever in the context of God/K's teachings

I understand. However didn't K say that God is a product of our imagination? I'm trying to get back to Idiot?'s OP. Are you trying to say that God has a place in the teachings but not the God of our imagination?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 17 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #26
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4908 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I understand. However didn't K say that God is a product of our imagination?

Imagination and conditioning. We have all been steeped in the conditioning of, as K put it, ...the god of the temple, church, mosque synagogue, etc. A big daddy in the sky. K uses the word "god", as I have already pointed out, as a term to mean many things; truth, reality, unknown, eternity as so on.

The very question that started this thread was a conclusion in itself. A subjective opinion, an assumption, a belief that has no provable basis in fact. The conclusion being that there is a god and "he" may figure into K's teachings. And then the poster sets out his intellectualized opinions on the subject and defends them. Why do we keep having these kinds of discussions that are already so flawed from the onset?

K never, that I have ever heard or read of what he said, never, ever confirmed that there was an entity that was all powerful over all of creation who may have been the beginning of creation. Is this what you are saying idiot? Do you really think there is a singular entity, a deity that rules or controls or is somehow connected with the infinity of the Universe?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #27
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 209 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Krishnamurti did talk about "the source of all energy" and this strikes me as an extremely valid topic to discuss on a thread. However, it seems that we can never approach this "thing" through thought so it remains mysterious and unknown.

Yes. Agreed. But consider how much K wrote and talked about what cannot be talked about!

"The description is not the thing." Yes, yet K did not hesitate to describe.

The Zen people have this wonderful phrase, "coming to ashes in one's mouth." We cannot say it and yet we need to!

Another problem about the unsayable is that we may be talking about very different "things." It may be unsayable for you one way and for me another. This is why going into what it is not, the negative approach, can be so important.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #28
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 209 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Here is a dialogue with Dr. Bohm about the source of all energy, for those interested.

Yes, K frequently awoke in the middle of the night in meditation with "the source of all energy" some months before he and Bohm engaged in the dialogues that became the book, The Ending of Time. So it is no wonder that this became part of their discussions.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Wed, 17 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #29
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3072 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
The Zen people have this wonderful phrase, "coming to ashes in one's mouth." We cannot say it and yet we need to!

Do we? I'm not certain that we do, though I agree that K sometimes alluded to the source or the immeasurable...the infinite. Does 'God' figure in the teachings? I would say no to that, however, for the reasons Jack articulated. I recall K one time saying that if God exists, he must be an infinitely cruel God to allow wars and such immeasurable suffering. I'm paraphrasing.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #30
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 209 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
The very question that started this thread was a conclusion in itself. A subjective opinion, an assumption, a belief that has no provable basis in fact. The conclusion being that there is a god and "he" may figure into K's teachings. And then the poster sets out his intellectualized opinions on the subject and defends them. Why do we keep having these kinds of discussions that are already so flawed from the onset?

I think if you read my original post again, carefully, you will see that this is not the case.

I certainly do not have the opinion nor have I drawn the conclusion that a creator God exists. I do not think that. I do NOT believe in a God like Christians, Jews, and Moslems do. And I did not make any such assumption in my original post. Science is discovering very natural origins for the universe that do not require a creator God. I went into this on the thread entitled, "self-created universe."

In fact I state in my original post: "The references to God by K may be understood somewhat poetically, symbolic of present moment awareness yet not an actual entity." And I said there, I tend to be in that camp, to agree with that way of thinking.

However, K apparently experienced or realized something, which he characterized as "the source of all energy" and as "the ultimate, the beginning and the ending and the absolute." And that sounds, at least in some ways, like God, possibly a Creator God or possibly not. I have no doubt that some take these statements of K, like you, as having nothing to do with God really. And I have no doubt that others take these to refer to an actual entity that K was deeply in touch with. So this is the matter at hand, the question we are going into. This is the discussion. I hope we can continue to explore together.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 44 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)