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

K's superstitions


Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 215 in total
Sun, 15 Jul 2018 #121
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

You can't assure anybody, try to help yourself . You are lost .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 #122
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

So the conclusion of this blog is that when it comes to k's personality everybody is lost. And apparently will be lost for ever. So do what krishnamurti told you to do. He said the speaker is not important. But what he "says" is important. Do what he says and you will see the difference.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 #123
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 428 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
When I read the statements above, I get the feeling of separation. I get the idea that the writer is saying "There are two camps. Some people do this, some do that. My camp is the fearless one".

I may be wrong, but aren't we really all in the same confused camp? Isn't it ego that is constantly separating everything into camps of right and wrong?

-

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day
Ojai, California | 4th Talk in the Oak Grove 26th April, 1936:

Many of you have very strong beliefs, which you make out to be the result of intuition; but they are not. These beliefs are the outcome of secret fears, longings and hopes. Such beliefs are unconsciously guiding you, forcing you into certain activities, and all experience is translated according to your ideals and beliefs.

Do you respond to K, "Don't we all have strong beliefs, including you, K? Don't we all have secret fears, longings, and hopes? K, why are you separating those with strong beliefs and implying you are not in that group?"

The irony is that maybe K did have some beliefs, like fairies and protection circles, and maybe he did have secret fears, perhaps of the Rajagopals or of threats to the teachings?

When I talk about "two camps," I'm just summarizing the responses in this thread. I and one other person have questioned these apparent superstitions described by Mary Z. Others have defended them in one way or another. To be fair, there may be more camps, with people who are neutral, or who haven't yet made up their mind, or who don't have an opinion, and so on.

True, I started the thread. So if you want me to take responsibility for the division in the responses, for the conflict, fine. Thought, belief, superstition are all division. So yes, we are discussing division and the response has been divided. That is fact.

But it seems like some of us don't want to see K's apparent superstitions as the nonsense they likely were. Isn't this denial? And isn't denial also division?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 16 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 #124
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Do you respond to K, "Don't we all have strong beliefs, including you, K?

You know Sir, you flatly refuse to see reason & logic in this regard.

K was someone who talked about radical transformation of the consciousness. Now how are we to know what is perceptible to a person who has come to that transformed state of mind without that full transformation.
? Are you fully transformed?

No Sir, please forgive me, when you are overlooking the reason & logic we put forward you cannot be transformed.Far from it.

KFA replying to Radha's allegations said the facts related to the court case K had against Rajagopa was incorrectly stated in Radha's book.The documents related to the court proceedings are available at KFA archives.

So how to know what & what other facts were distortions? She published it after K's death isn't It?

Besides when K had this alleged relationship with the author's mother , the mother was already estranged from her husband Rajagopal according to the author herself, wasn't It? So how was the relationship wrong?

If Rosalyne was suffering K would have certainly wanted to comfort her.

Love is both for the particular & general, isn't It?

I do not know what K's relationship with Rosalyn was. But do you think if a person undergoes change the person cannot love a woman have sex?-not womanizing.I am not talking about something like that. But cannot a changed person be in a relationship while pointing out to the people facts about attachment?

What do you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 #125
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Sir, if some provable facts are incorrectly stated in Radha's book how to say other arbitrarily stated information are accurate?

How is this book valid Then?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 #126
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

We said it many times sir(Idiot). You have a belief in this regard. Not those who say they don't know about it.

It is the inverse belief.If someone says there is a person in a room it is prejudice to day there is without checking up. It is also prejudice to say there isn't without a valid investigation which is what you are doing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 #127
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

Even if you met k and talk to him you cannot say that I know the man . Because he was always a revolutionary. Changing all the time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 #128
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 428 posts in this forum Offline

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think most people here would say, "I have seen a fairy (a small, female, supernatural being)."

I don't think most would say that they believe in fairies. And I don't think most would say that there is good evidence for the existence of fairies.

What people do want to do here, if I understand correctly, is to defend Krishnamurti. It is extremely important to support K teachings. This is even enshrined in the forum guidelines: if you really disagree with K teaching, then thank you very much, please take your views elsewhere.

And I think this can be an emotional, gut level feeling.

Here we have a fact: In Mary Zimbalist's book she tells how K recounted seeing fairies in a forest in England.

And the gut level response is: the teachings of K are profound, deep, sacred. Protect them.

To do this protection, we must say the speaker is unimportant. Except when he is. When he said or did important things he was important. But with respect to believing in fairies or an affair with a married woman, the speaker is unimportant.

Now why did K say the speaker is unimportant? Was it not to prevent us from making him into a guru? Was it not so that we would investigate for ourselves and not just take his word on things? Should we not find out for ourselves if fairies exist?

Another protection is to say, "Well, maybe fairies do exist and we are just not advanced yet, not enlightened enough yet, to perceive them." Of course, scientifically it is not possible to prove a negative, the non-existence of something. Rather, the burden falls on someone making an extraordinary claim of the existence of something supernatural to provide adequate evidence. There's no good evidence for fairies or all kinds of other supernatural entities. Until there is, the rational response is to not close the door completely but to consider their existence to be highly, highly unlikely.

To say you have to be more advanced spiritually, like K supposedly was, is to again make a guru out of him, put him on a pedestal, and not investigate for yourself.

Confirmation bias and other fundamental psychological processes are at work here. We will never accept anything, even a fact, that threatens our fundamental sense of things.

I'm just suggesting that you can keep your fundamental feelings about K teaching and still think seeing fairies is kinda nuts.

But I do think it is also healthy to examine why we cling so strongly to K teaching, so emotionally, so protectively. Leave aside the truth or falsity of the teachings, is there this emotional defense of them? If so, what is going on there?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 17 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 #129
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

cite>idiot ? wrote:

And I don't think most would say that there is good evidence for the existence of fairies.

Of course not sir.

There is no good evidence for the level of thing K talked. How many people in history said so emphatically that the self is an illusion, that it's the cause of all suffering & confusion in the world?

Well for 2600yrs only 2 said that clearly. The Buddha & K. So that message has been very, very, uncommon.

So it is too uncommon to apply the arguments you have come forward with. You get the point?

I am saying you cannot judge this. You cannot go by what people say because this has been too uncommon.

This is not to say we accept everything K said. It only means the homework needed is far, far, greater than what you seem to think require for this.

As for the married woman , according to the author herself,Rosalyne was already estranged physically with her husband when this alleged relationship with K occurred.

So how is the term 'with a married ' applicable there?

Another point sir. This book contains provable incorrect facts about the court cases. Provable.Now how to consider the unsubstantiated information in the book as accurate when there are known falsehood in the book?

My dear sir in my view when you quote from this book you may be quoting from an illegal book.I mean ask a lawyer. Because it contains provable false facts it may be possible to legally ban this book from publication as it violates the rights of a human being.

Please forgive me for saying this sir. It is not our position that is questionable. It is that you are repeatedly ignoring valid reason & logic & arriving at erroneous conclusions as valid.It doesn't appear as a valid appraisal of K to me but a determined attempt to unjustly slander a very, very,great human being.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 #130
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I'm just suggesting that you can keep your fundamental feelings about K teaching and still think seeing fairies is kinda nuts." id-

When you use a word you should be clear about what you mean. Can you explain or clarify what you mean by the word "K's teachings", it is not in the dictionary . And it surely means something else to me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 #131
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 428 posts in this forum Offline

"K teachings" is shorthand for everything he said in speeches, dialogues, writings, etc. and what that pointed to.

And what do you mean by it?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 17 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 #132
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
"K teachings" is shorthand for everything he said in speeches, dialogues, writings, etc. and what that pointed to.

How can we narrow down all of someone's work in one word. Is that not too abstract ? How can we discuss all of those works in one discussion. We can't.
To me k teachings is merely another name for Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti said teaching and learning go together. Without learning there is no teaching.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 #133
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5294 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
The irony is that maybe K did have some beliefs, like fairies and protection circles, and maybe he did have secret fears, perhaps of the Rajagopals or of threats to the teachings?

The only irony I see is that you come to a Krishnamurti site and instead of listening to what he had to say about living and understanding yourself you decided to make a case for tearing all that down. You would rather gossip which shows a rather shallow mind. You want to bring K down to your level probably because you can't comprehend what K was pointing out so the only thing left for you to do is to discredit K and what he pointed out. Believe me, you're not the first one who has reacted to K in this way and you won't be the last.

When will you grow weary of your trivial opinions and either look at what K pointed out or move on to some other site where you might be appreciated?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 17 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 #134
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 428 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
To me k teachings is merely another name for Krishnamurti.

In other words, the man and his teachings cannot be separated. That's what I say. But some like to use "the speaker is unimportant" to try to separate the man and his teachings, in order to minimize issues like seeing fairies.

Of course, we can use "the teachings" for the entirety of what K said and pointed to. He himself came up with term. Perhaps he was not fully satisfied with it but it was the best anyone came up with.

The word is not the thing. But we're stuck with using words to communicate, aren't we?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 17 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 #135
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

One time k said that homosexuals make problems for the world. Have you included that into Krishnamurti teachings!? Of course not.
The thinker is thought . But listening to people talking about K is totally something else ,don't you think?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 #136
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 428 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
One time k said that homosexuals make problems for the world.

I have never heard that K said such a thing. Can you cite where and when this occurred or where it is documented?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 #137
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

It is documented in my head when I attended his talks. But as he said we should not accept what he said. We should test it out and find the truth of it for ourselves .
And also about marriage he said that marriage is personal prostitution. So to him having a sexual relationship with a married woman was not unethical at all since he spoke against possessiveness in relationship and so on.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 #138
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 428 posts in this forum Offline

I'm sorry, Goodman B, but I cannot take your word that K said something negative about homosexuals. A search of the internet does not turn up any such statement. A search of Krishnamurti Online turned up only 8 instances for "homosexual" out of their enormous archive. In those, as far as I found, he only said neutral things like, "homosexuality has existed for thousands of years."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 #139
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

Well, what can I say ,we see what we want to see . To me homosexuals can be what they want to be but they divide themselves from the rest of the society by identifying with their sexuality . Social division means conflict and problem for the world.. I am not condemning any group...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 #140
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

I don't recall that K said marriage is personal prostitution.He said that we marry & turn our wives into prostitutes.I believe he said there that we have sex with our wives whenever we want & ruin the person. Use condoms, birth control & so on & use wives as objects for sexual satisfaction.

However if I am right K didn't encourage marriage for serious people. Once said he recommends celibacy to those who are very serious.

However he also said being married or unmarried has nothing to do with seeing truth.

I think it is up to each of us how we want to lead our life. If we marry & make it a unit against the rest of the world then it becomes a divisive relationship denying everything K pointed out.

However marriage can be a different institute if we live questioning life & constantly learning.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 #141
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

K was non committal about homosexuality.

If we have lust what is the difference between indulgence be it with a man or a woman? Same, right. I think K viewed it in that context.

However if you go into yourself & end lust will you need sex? If such a person decides to have a relationship will he want a same sex relationship? I doubt that very much. No, I dont think that can happen.

So personally I think homosexuality is a relationship stemming out of lust. The thought problem.

I may be wrong.I wonder how others see this.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 #142
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 428 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
homosexuals can be what they want to be but they divide themselves from the rest of the society by identifying with their sexuality.

-

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
personally I think homosexuality is a relationship stemming out of lust.

I'm sorry but these views are very close to if not actually homophobic. Gay people can have loving relationships just as heterosexuals can. They can also have purely lust centered relationships just as heterosexuals can.

Krishnamurti Bombay 2nd Public Talk 20th February 1955:
All the religious books, all the teachers, and our own pain and pleasure, indicate that desire must be shaped, controlled, disciplined, and in that very process there is frustration, there is conflict, not only at the superficial level, but also at the deeper levels of our consciousness...Our problem, then, is not how to be without desire, or how to suppress or sublimate it, but to understand this outward and inward movement of desire, which creates its own narrowing discipline in the shape of individual and social sanctions, thereby gradually destroying this extraordinary energy.

Central to K teaching is relationship and especially awareness in relationship. This includes relationship between intimate people of any sex.

Extremely central to K teaching is love, not conventional romantic love between two people. This is fine and beautiful. However, the love K talks about is not for a specific person or thing, it is not a barter or exchange. K often talks about this true love negatively, going very carefully into what it is not. Clearly, it is not one's ideas or understanding. It is quite beyond that.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Wed, 18 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 #143
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

Any way I said what krishnamurti said that "Homosextuals create problems for the world."
Nobody can convince me that he didn't say that and I don't have to prove anything to anybody. That statement is a statement of truth and I see that happening all the time. There is no condemnation or justification in that statement.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 #144
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

I do not know whether K considered having sex with a married woman not unethical because he spoke against possession.

In 'K on Study Centres' he says don't make much ado if you have sex but don't go & fall in love with other people's wives.

K wore the traditional Indian dress while in India. In the West he wore the western suit. So where it didn't matter he didn't go to upset accepted norms.

Besides if you go on into this what is the need to have sex with someone else's wife? Sex may become a trivial issue. Is sex love although it must have some place in life?

If it's a wife in trouble then it may be justifiable.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 #145
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Gay people can have loving relationships just as heterosexuals can. They can also have purely lust centered relationships just as heterosexuals can.

What do you mean gay people Sir? Is this natural or is it thought created due to our past incidents?

When a man sees a woman what happens? The sight seeing a different organism activates hormones which lead to sex? Or is it some aspect of female energy that activates male hormones? That would be natural, right? So a relationship between man & woman is nature's writing, right?

Now how is a man's body going to awaken hormones in another man's body? The optical perception of a different organism is not there. And the smell due to different energy is not there too for it to be a natural response right?

So man & man relationship is thought made right? So is it not an aberration we have come to regard as a right of man holding democracy & freedom to mean to do what one pleases?

No Sir, I think freedom must accompany intelligence also, it must be understanding nature's real position.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 #146
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

"So should we enquire into this question, into heterosexuality, and homosexuality differently? Not condemn one or the other, or approve one and deny the other, but enquire why sexuality, both, has become so colossally important. Right? Why?" Krishnamurti
That sounds fair to me. Can we? Why has sex become so colossally important?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 #147
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

I guess K was a wise Ken. He was pointing out to the causes of disorder. Not analyse many effects of which sexuality is one.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 #148
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 428 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
Why has sex become so colossally important?

Well, Goodman B, you brought the subject up. You claimed that K said that homosexuals cause problems for the world when there is no evidence that he said such a thing. And you singled out homosexuals, rather than saying humans cause problems for the world. Why?

K spoke out against prejudice and pointed out that it functions on both a conscious and unconscious level. To be prejudiced against "homosexuals" is just as problematic as being prejudiced against a particular race of people. It is division and a kind of violence. It is wrong. It spreads cruelty and lack of caring.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 #149
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

Idiot,do you think that every single word that came out of Krishnamurti's mouth is on the archive?! What you see in the k's archive is not 100 % of what he said for example you can't find that when he said "marriage is a personal prostitution" . But there is something about marriage in the archive that says that you make your wife into a prostitute. It is the same thing is it not. As I said I am not here to convince anybody of what k said. Homosexuals either make problems for the world or they don't. It is for us to find the truth of the statement for ourselves. K has no authority and never did. It is the truth that has authority not k.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 #150
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

Thought has created this world . And everything that thought has created psychologically must be examined as being true or false. Nationalism,sectarian religions,God,marriage , reincarnation and so on.
But unfortunately most of us accept the things that thought has made and call it tradition and look the other way and live with pain and sorrow and conflict.

This post was last updated by Myself Wrote Thu, 19 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 215 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.)