Spinoza/Krishnamurti

Can someone explain me in what way the third kind knowledge of Spinoza is different of the insight of Krishnamurti?

What is more important to you:

What Spinoza thinks or believes in?

What K has said about insight?

Or what you understand about your thoughts, your conditioning? Your understanding of how everything you are; which is everything that you have learned, experienced, believe in or don't believe in, keeps you chained to the collective, to society, to tradition This collective view of the world keeps you and all of us just part of the whole of society, just another brick in the wall.*

K pointed out that to be free is to be free of the collective, it is to be an individual that is being reborn every second and not trapped in the collective thought that is destroying our world.

*Regards to Pink Floyd.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 24 Dec 2017.

Jack Pine wrote:
Or what you understand about your thoughts, your conditioning? Your understanding of how everything you are; which is everything that you have learned, experienced, believe in or don't believe in, keeps you chained to the collective, to society, to tradition This collective view of the world keeps you and all of us just part of the whole of society, just another brick in the wall.*

This point A.

But after that many other things are interesting. Trying to figure if Spinoza and K went into the same direction is one of those things. I think so. And I like to think that 2 guys got it (contrary to K belief that he was the only one ;-) )

This post was last updated by French Touch Sun, 24 Dec 2017.

Well French Touch you certainly have a right to pursue any thing that interests you. And you have a right to your opinions. Even if it means that you prefer spending your energy proving something about K, which he never claimed to be, wrong instead of understanding what K was pointing out.

Have you tried the Tolle website?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 25 Dec 2017.

I don't really know Tolle. Anytime I tried it I thought there were too many shortcuts in his thinking.
It seems to be all about stillness.
K goes from intensity to stillness. First there is an effort to be rational and logic. Then there is insight and stillness.
Tolle would recommend to start by the stillness.
But it is just an "intuition". Again I don't know enough about him.
I'm surprised that so many people have only praise about him and can't say a word about K. People like shortcuts.

« But it is important to see that Spinoza’s intuitive knowledge is not a radically different path to knowledge; it can only be reached through reason. In his definition of intuitive knowledge in Part Two Spinoza stresses its immediacy— its capacity to take things in, as it were, in ‘one glance’ (IIP40S2). But it does not bypass the rigours of rational thought. Only the mind capable of understanding the general principles of things can have this kind of immediate insight into how things must be.
Intuition understands things in relation to God. It ‘proceeds from an adequate idea of the formal essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the (formal) essence of things’ (IIP40S2). But that does not mean that it has access to a transcendent realm beyond the reach of reason. Intuitive knowledge is not a form of non-rational mystical insight into the real natures of things. »

Lloyd, Genevieve. « Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Spinoza and The Ethics. »

French Touch, I was joking about Tolle. Personally, from what little I know of him, he seems like a fraud and generally a toad working the "spiritual enlightenment" racket for all it's worth.