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

K's superstitions


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 180 in total
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #1
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

For someone with "no beliefs," K was certainly sensitive to all kinds of stuff that many would consider utter nonsense and superstition. Read Mary Z.'s book! Here are some examples:

He drew circles around the places he would stay, evidently to spiritually create some kind of protection field.

He said things like, "I've met very many distinguished people on the astral plane."

Elsewhere, in her book:
Krishnaji then said, “It is strange. Four days ago when I was going down to lunch, the thought came. I said, ‘Nitya, do something about Arya Vihara. They are such silly people. See that something happens about this.”
(I take this to mean that he was summoning the spirit of his dead brother to do something about the Rajagopals.)

Elsewhere, I [Mary Z.] was reading Castaneda’s Journey to Ixtlan’ ‘and Krishnaji asked me about it. I told him the part about “entities” in the wilderness and at night, which are dangerous in the book. Krishnaji nodded. He told of the sense of antagonism in the park in Madras when he went there at twilight, and at Ashdown Forest years ago, and Jayalakshmi’s going to an ancient temple at night and the sense of evil there. I asked if darkness opens the mind to such perceptions because the limited senses make one feel more vulnerable and also because of the recognition of known things fills the perception and one doesn’t see other things. Partly, he said, but there is more than that. He said he wouldn’t walk on the path we take every afternoon if it was night. Many forests have a menace at night. I asked about Sequoia, where he lived alone in a cabin. He said he never felt it there. It was a friendly place. “But I never went out at night. I was always back by six.”

Elsewere, September twentieth, 1974. Not much happened for Krishnaji other than an interview with a woman and her daughter. The mother felt she was possessed, and the daughter brought her to Krishnaji. Krishnaji talked to her, and then told her to send him something that belonged to her, like a ring or a piece of jewelry or something that was hers. And she did; she sent some sort of a silver pin or a ring; and he kept it on his bedside table, and periodically touched it. Then he sent it back.

Was K really kind of whacky when it came to the supernatural? It sure seems so to me.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 25 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #2
Thumb_k2 Ken D United States 73 posts in this forum Offline

Good question. Too bad I have no answer to offer you.

"The 'I' is not contaminated by society; it is the contamination." Krishnamurti

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #3
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5126 posts in this forum Offline

These posts about K with regard to suggesting he may have been instructed in his "spiritual" understanding by someone else or that he may have been deeply superstitious based on second hand reports taken out of context all seem to fall into the category of gossip.

These posts seem more appropriate for a muckraking reporter's filler story for the grocery store rag sheet NATIONAL ENQUIRER than for a serious topic on this forum.

How many times did K say he was not important? Don't dwell on the man but what was pointed out. Is what K said about consciousness, thought, conditioning and all the rest any less valid because of personal things said about him that may or may not be true? Are we here to dissect Krishnamurti the person or are we here to understand what he pointed out?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 25 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #4
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

Yes idiot, I think one cannot “overlook” such things - “overlook” meaning pretend not to see them. But do we have to justify, analyze, explain or rationalize them? My feeling is that it is not necessary to do that. In reading or listening to K, all that matters is the validity of his “teachings”, the things he pointed out that every human being can see if he looks inwardly.

Can one say that he did not “live his own teachings” because of the foibles you cite, or because he combed his hair over, or because he was competitive with respect to other gurus? Maybe one can. But in my case, I feel that all that matters is the truth that shines out from his “teachings” - not his eccentricities. We tend to put him on a pedestal, as he himself pointed out. But he was a human being living in turmoil and he understood that turmoil.

I once saw K saying in an interview that he had never known conflict. I don’t know what kind of conflict he was referring to in that interview. Maybe he was talking about anger or aggressive feelings, which he possibly never felt. I think he certainly did feel inner conflicts fueled by inner contradictions, as we all do. But he did not approach that turmoil in the traditional way, which is the way of analysis, repression, rationalization, justification, pretense, and so on. And because he did not approach it in that way, he came upon something sacred. Or maybe not.

That’s my take on it and I’d be interested in hearing other points of view about it.

K, as told to Doris Pratt - from “K - 100 years” (I never read it):

"By Jove, I had a myth once," he said, "I had the myth that I was to be the world teacher when I really was an ordinary young man. At that time - and I wanted to do everything that a young man wants to do: fall in love, get on a motorbike, race around - I was just a young man. I had a struggle between the myth and the fact.”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #5
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Don't dwell on the man but what was pointed out.

Well, sir, I will continue to be interested in the man and his teachings. I think both are important and very interesting. You, of course, are free to only focus on the teachings.

I'm sure you have noticed that unrepentant Trump supporters seem to always focus on what he has "accomplished" and are willing to overlook his personality and temperament: his constant lying, insults, cruelty, extra-marital affairs, rashness, lack of empathy, and on and on. They think the man is unimportant. Whereas you and I agree, I think, that both Trump the man and what has happened while he is in office are important. I am completely appalled that an apparent psychopath is in charge of the largest nuclear force in the world. Who he is matters very much.

So, with K, you can support his teachings and pay no attention to the man. Or you can look honestly at who the man was. As touched as my life is by K teaching, I don't want to become superstitious. I don't want to have an affair with a married woman (or man). So I will not turn a blind eye. I see what K taught as profound teaching, shared by someone who was human and had human foibles.

A Trump supporter seems capable of being willfully blind. A K interested person need not close his/her eyes. "Truth is not exclusion."

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 25 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #6
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I think one cannot “overlook” such things - “overlook” meaning pretend not to see them. But do we have to justify, analyze, explain or rationalize them?

Yes. I'm saying that it makes no sense to ignore what various bios and accounts say. Of course, to justify or rationalize these matters is to try to make them fit into a view or ideal about K that they just may not fit.

To me it is remarkable that someone with such deep insights also had certain curious perceptions that sure look like superstitions.

Is it relevant? Well, for example, K talked about sensitivity. And obviously he talked frequently about awareness. Does true awareness include awareness of psychic entities?

Does being free of self nevertheless involve what appears to be protection of self in drawing a circle around a dwelling?

For K, evidently, this was all part of "awareness of what is." But for me, I have to ask if imagination was sometimes, in some way, in play. And if imagination may have been involved in certain sensitivities, was it also involved in "the benediction" or "the process," some of the deepest experiences that K described?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 25 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #7
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette wrote:
I once saw K saying in an interview that he had never known conflict.

Yes, you can find this in the book Questioning Krishnamurti, the chapter What Is Your Secret?

From Questioning Krishnamurti, page 190:

K: I have never had conflict in my life.

BL: No conflict? You must be almost unique among human beings if that's so.

K: It's not because of circumstances, because I was protected, because of any outside influence that kept me safe. I think it was a realization that conflict destroys not only the mind but the whole sensitivity of awareness. So I've never had conflict; which seemed quite natural to me, it wasn't an effort not to be in conflict.

In K teaching, conflict implies conditioning. Since K claims to be free of conditioning, this is the same as being free of conflict. No conditioning, no past, no conflict.

Of course, outwardly he sure seemed to be in conflict, for example with the Rajagopals, such that it escalated to a court case. But you have to ask, was he inwardly untouched? Was the no-self, free of the past and conditioning, in awareness and love of this moment, completely without any friction at all?

Personally I don't know. I have my doubts. But I do think if you are serious about K teaching, you have to investigate if it is possible to be completely free of conflict and conditioning. And what that really means.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 25 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #8
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Of course, to justify or rationalize these matters is to try to make them fit into a view or ideal about K that they just may not fit.

Isn’t that what you ARE doing? Aren't justifying, rationalizing, analyzing, explaining the efforts of the intellect to find an answer within the known? Which is ok if that’s what it wants to do.

Do the things K points to about the mind reflect what you see going on inwardly or not? Will the outcome of such an analysis determine whether or not you look inwardly to learn about the workings of your own mind? Can the outcome of such analysis validate or invalidate what K points out about the psyche?

idiot ? wrote:
For K, evidently, this was all part of "awareness of what is."

Can we know that with certainty? I don't see that it follows.

idiot ? wrote:
And if imagination may have been involved in certain sensitivities, was it also involved in "the benediction" or "the process," some of the deepest experiences that K described?

Isn't understanding oneself in itself a benediction of sorts? Maybe not the benediction that K spoke of, maybe not the reaching of "the ground", bliss. But, for me at least, there is undeniably a freedom, a release, in self-understanding which is a benediction in itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #9
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

Oops I see that our messages crossed paths. I have to go out for a while.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #10
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Isn’t that what you ARE doing? Aren't justifying, rationalizing, analyzing, explaining the efforts of the intellect to find an answer within the known?

I'm pointing out that Mary Z.'s book about K has many moments where K seems superstitious. Some may argue that psychic entities really exist and he was simply in touch with those. Many of us are skeptical and question such things.

I hope that we are discovering together what these apparent superstitions mean and if they have any significance.

As to the unknown, which of course is central to K teaching, anything that can be said is going to be thought and therefore off the mark.

So primarily, in dealing with K's apparent superstition, we're mostly working with the known, such as statements that Mary Z. made in her book. But we can jointly investigate this without preconception.

Huguette . wrote:

idiot ? wrote:

For K, evidently, this was all part of "awareness of what is."

Can we know that with certainty?

Well, of course, we cannot look into K's brain. But I don't think Mary Z. was lying either. She was faithfully reporting what K actually said, just as K instructed her to do! If she reported that he said these things, and he did say them, can we not look into what they mean, their relevance if any, and what they imply?

Huguette . wrote:
Isn't understanding oneself in itself a benediction of sorts?

Understanding oneself is essential. Definitely! But what K described as "the benediction" was a kind of sacred presence that arrived, almost like a cloud or an atmosphere, when the mind was completely silent, open, present. When the self was not.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 25 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #11
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5126 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I'm sure you have noticed that unrepentant Trump supporters seem to always focus on what he has "accomplished" and are willing to overlook his personality and temperament: his constant lying, insults, cruelty, extra-marital affairs, rashness, lack of empathy, and on and on.

So you're comparing Krishnamurti to Trump? Why would anyone do that? It is difficult to believe someone who posts on here went that low. I must have hit a nerve. I know you have a fascination for rumor and gossip. I assume it is due to being bored with just reading or listening to what K has pointed out. Is it that you require more entertainment than just simply focusing on what K pointed out about life?.

I'm not the one who originally came up with the point that one should focus on the teachings and not the man. Krishnamurti is the one who came out with this statement. I heard and watched him say it on a couple of different occasions and I believe he was serious. Therefore I will respect his wishes and sage advice and focus on the teachings.

Why would you want to mention Trump and K together for any reason? It's rhetorical. I don't expect an answer

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 26 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #12
Thumb_k2 Ken D United States 73 posts in this forum Offline

"As I go about the street the people nudge each other and point me out; the other day one chap said to the other, 'There goes that chap printed in the papers, the Messiah!' Then they burst out laughing. I should have laughed too if I hadn't been there or involved in any way. ..The other day as I was walking along, someone said, 'Hallo, there goes that fellow with 30 lives'. I nearly collapsed on the floor. Lord how I hate it all and I dislike all the publicity and I shall have it all my life. Heavens, what have I done to deserve all this."

Letter to lady emily june 2, 1922

"The 'I' is not contaminated by society; it is the contamination." Krishnamurti

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #13
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5126 posts in this forum Offline

J. Krishnamurti Last Talks at Saanen 1985 2nd Public Talk Wednesday, 10th July, 1985

May we continue with what we were talking about the other day? I think it is important to realize that this is not a personality cult. The person called K is not important at all. What is important is what he is saying, not what he looks like, his personality, and all the rest of that nonsense. So please, if one may point out carefully and definitely, the person who is speaking on the platform is in no way important.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 25 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #14
Thumb_k2 Ken D United States 73 posts in this forum Offline

Two points.

First....Leadbeater was spot on in his assessment of Krishnamurti and his future. I have no explanation for it, and it remains a mystery. Was it a coincidence, an insight? Nobody has successfully explained this coming together.

Second....there are numerous accounts in Zimbalist's book of Krishnamurti conversing with Rajagopal over the telephone and then having to lie down in bed because he was shaking so much from the abuse Rajagopal dished out. He could be a nervous wreck, just like anyone else. So to what degree did Krishnamurti embody his own teaching? Who can say?

"The 'I' is not contaminated by society; it is the contamination." Krishnamurti

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #15
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5126 posts in this forum Offline

Ken, you have a bombastic way of posting and your graffiti-like posts have a tendency to overwhelm what others are trying to point out on this thread. Can you restrain yourself a little bit and not dominate the threads and instead share this thread with others?

Yes you're very good at posting all sorts of complicated graphics. Hurray! Does it help you understand K better?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 25 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #16
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5126 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks Ken I knew I could depend on your maturity and consideration for others. How old are you anyway? And can you do anything worthwhile besides play with computers? Are you one of those unfortunate persons who have become completely enslaved by electronic gadgets? So it appears.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #17
Thumb_k2 Ken D United States 73 posts in this forum Offline

"When in London, I stayed with Mrs. Bindley or Lady Emily. When in Ojai we led parallel lives. I lived my own inner life; I liked to look at mountains, trees, birds, to walk, work in the garden raising vegetables, plants. Rosalind has no more inner life than a chicken. She doesn’t know what it means. Though she talks about art and good taste, and all that, she has no idea of it at all.”

Zimbalist, Mary. In the Presence of Krishnamurti: Mary's Unfinished Book. Holistic Education, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

"The 'I' is not contaminated by society; it is the contamination." Krishnamurti

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #18
Thumb_k2 Ken D United States 73 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Thanks Ken I knew I could depend on your maturity and consideration for others. How old are you anyway? And can you do anything worthwhile besides play with computers? Are you one of those unfortunate persons who have become completely enslaved by electronic gadgets? So it appears.

Jack, you won't find this stuff anywhere else without hours worth of searching. Be glad it's here, because I won't leave it up for long.

"The 'I' is not contaminated by society; it is the contamination." Krishnamurti

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #19
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3122 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
.there are numerous accounts in Zimbalist's book of Krishnamurti conversing with Rajagopal over the telephone and then having to lie down in bed because he was shaking so much from the abuse Rajagopal dished out. He could be a nervous wreck, just like anyone else.

My take on this is that K wanted to protect 'the teachings' and he saw that R. was a threat to that. He wasn't shaking from some feeling of threat to his ego, but rather a threat to the teachings. There's a huge difference between wanting to protect the 'teachings' and wanting to protect one's ego or self image.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #20
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5126 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Does all this mean, that the observer isn't the observed?

I have no idea how you even yanked this question out of what Tom wrote. I agree with Tom. I think he made a very valid point.

I was going to write that this thread has become quite the circus but then I realized it was a circus from the very first post.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #21
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5126 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
My take on this is that K wanted to protect 'the teachings' and he saw that R. was a threat to that.

I think it was that and more. Rajagopal not only had control of all of the irreplaceable manuscripts but all of the money; donations for the work, money brought in from the talks and books and the real estate which was worth a considerable amount by the mid 1970's. Ojai is a very upscale place. K, according to what has been printed about this mess with R, felt like he was letting people down who supported the teachings and the existing schools. R was basically stealing everything that had been given to K and refused to even give K an accounting of what had been taken. K was summarily thrown off the K & R Board of Directors without recourse or appeal. K was essentially excluded from his own organization. What R did was truly outrageous.

I remember an instance around 1978 or 79 during a private discussion with teachers and some others at Pine Cottage or Arya Vihara someone asked K what had gone wrong with Rajagopal. Essentially the question came out (I can't remember the exact words of the questioner) like what makes a person act like that? K's unhesitant response was, "Some people just flower from the other end". You could have heard a pin drop for a few seconds before people burst into hearty laughter. K never even cracked a smile that I recall.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #22
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3122 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
I think it was that and more. Rajagopal not only had control of all of the irreplaceable manuscripts but all of the money;

Thanks for filling in some of the details Jack. It makes sense that K would be shaking after some of his conversations with R. I read Mrs Z's book but I didn't recall all the details, but was left with the impression R. was a definite threat to the teachings.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #23
Thumb_k2 Ken D United States 73 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
My take on this is that K wanted to protect 'the teachings' and he saw that R. was a threat to that. He wasn't shaking from some feeling of threat to his ego, but rather a threat to the teachings.

Fear is fear.

"The 'I' is not contaminated by society; it is the contamination." Krishnamurti

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #24
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I'm pointing out that Mary Z.'s book about K has many moments where K seems superstitious. Some may argue that psychic entities really exist and he was simply in touch with those. Many of us are skeptical and question such things.

I hope that we are discovering together what these apparent superstitions mean and if they have any significance.

As to the unknown, which of course is central to K teaching, anything that can be said is going to be thought and therefore off the mark.

So primarily, in dealing with K's apparent superstition, we're mostly working with the known, such as statements that Mary Z. made in her book. But we can jointly investigate this without preconception.

I’m just sharing with you how I see this issue which you brought up, because I too am disturbed by it. I don’t know what to make of it, and yet there it is --- if we are to believe the accounts. They seem believable.

What I'm saying IS the result of my own investigation, such as it is. Can you show me the necessity for further investigation? And what do you mean by “investigate”? Read more books, watch more videos about K to see if there’s more information there? Talk about it, analyze it, measure it, exchange ideas about it? Is there anything more we can unearth that can explain this strange behaviour, or that can invalidate what K pointed to? Isn’t it there before us as it is - incongruous, puzzling, creepy, disturbing? Isn’t it clear as it is?

For me, what K pointed out about the mind remains unmovable, like the mountain in the hurricane. K’s incongruous behaviour doesn’t shake the solidity of it. I don’t say this out of loyalty to K, or out of attachment or anything else of the sort. It is so, like K’s strange behaviour was so. Neither one can be denied. Can you show me how an investigation into K’s strange behaviour can move that solidity?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #25
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3122 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
Fear is fear.

Are you certain? One other question...are you judging....or comparing K against some ideal of perfection?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #26
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
KRISHNAMURTI IN LOS ANGELES WITH RAJAGOPAL AND ROSALIND IN THE 1920'S

An interesting video of K in the 1920s. I think they are in Beachwood Canyon near where the Theosophical Society Headquarters was. I'm wondering if the elderly gentleman that K is meeting is Luther Burbank, wealthy donor to Paramahansa Yogananda's Self Realization Fellowship, and the man for whom the city of Burbank was named.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #27
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
For me, what K pointed out about the mind remains unmovable, like the mountain in the hurricane. K’s incongruous behaviour doesn’t shake the solidity of it. I don’t say this out of loyalty to K, or out of attachment or anything else of the sort. It is so, like K’s strange behaviour was so. Neither one can be denied. Can you show me how an investigation into K’s strange behaviour can move that solidity?

I appreciate where you are coming from.

However, some here are defensive of K. They are perfectly happy to talk about biographical details that support him, but if anything comes up that is at all questionable about K, then it must be gossip. Then suddenly the teachings matter but nothing about the man matters. This, despite the fact that K instructed people to record biographical information. The whole reason Mary Zimbalist kept her diary was that K told her to!

Anyway, to me, part of the way to not put K on a pedestal is to face head on that he had certain peculiarities. If the teaching really is separate from the man, we can look straight on at his personal idiosyncrasies and his teachings remain what they are.

On the other hand, there is the question of hypocrisy. Did how K lived always match his teachings? Was there a public K and a private K? Radha Sloss certainly thought so. And Mary Zimbalist seems to show differences, too.

The Zen master Shunryu Suzuki said, "There are, strictly speaking, no enlightened people, there is only enlightened activity." Understood cleverly, this means that the self is dissolved in enlightenment so there is no enlightened person. But it could also be understood to mean that even a so called enlightened person may sometimes go astray. When they do, we can question, and not immediately jump to their defense.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #28
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

idiot,

I understand what you’re saying about K’s puzzling behaviour. As for me, the issue of K’s superstitions is not essential to understanding my own mind. Can I be misled by someone like K who himself does not “live the teachings”? It doesn't seem so to me but I don't know.

But it seems to me that now you have introduced yet another element when you say that some here are defensive of K - which I’m also not denying.

If you bring in that others put K on a pedestal, what is the significance of it in the context of investigating K's strange behaviour? Is my question legitimate? Putting myself in your shoes, I would have to ask myself why it matters to me that some are defensive of K; I would have to ask myself what the significance is of my caring about that. Do I want to prove something to those who put K on a pedestal? I ask myself such questions when I see such reactions arising in me. I’m not saying it’s a right or good thing to do. I’m just putting forward how I see it as part of us looking into this together.

Ultimately, as I see it, we are here because we’re interested in understanding the human condition, the human mind, in what underlies relationship, action, behaviour. And this can only be done by looking inwardly, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #29
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1191 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
For me, what K pointed out about the mind remains unmovable, like the mountain in the hurricane

For me too.
I think this attempt to judge K's behaviour is a futile exercise. How do we judge what & what responses are possible in a transformed person.
The teachings are truly incredible. As we go on inquiring each person will be able to see the truth of the teachings. But for that we have to inquire. Not make some flimsy attempt-if I use this word- & then start criticising K.

I feel this is falling very low. Shame.Like a bunch of some blind gossiping people.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #30
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
I feel this is falling very low. Shame.

Jayaraj,

You probably spoke in the heat of the moment but is there a necessity to shame anyone into conformity? Isn't this an effort to pressure someone to ignore or repress his inner responses and conform to an ideal? This does not bring about understanding, does it? Aren't we all in the same boat, confused and conflicted?

Added:

So I have the same question for you as I did for idiot. Don't I have to understand my own inner movements? Why does it matter to me whether or not someone else conforms to my idea or ideal?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 26 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 180 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.)