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

K's superstitions


Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 180 in total
Sun, 08 Jul 2018 #121
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 679 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
I joined the whacky club!!

Hello Jayaraj. I found your "whacky" observations interesting. You are certainly a brave man to have talked about this. Of course, "whackiness" is relative. In many societies stories of possible contact with the supernatural would be seen as quite normal. Perhaps people who spend their lives close to nature are more propense to encounters with "other worlds" or maybe it is all superstition. Who knows?

It seems that in occidental societies, where many of us lived divorced from nature and live almost entirely in the intellect, any talk of other worlds beyond our own is seen as too "whacky" to be acceptable. Perhaps Krishnamurti should have realised this and avoided the subject completely.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Jul 2018 #122
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1191 posts in this forum Offline

Yes Sean. You are right. I also don't think this type of thing can be discussed openly.

K however talked these things with close friends. But since he was a known teacher it got on to books.

I believe K said in ' One Thousand Moons' that there are various occult societies that look after different people. So if that is correct this factor may be there for some people although they are unaware of it.

K said he talks to the tiger consciousness. Surely -if that is true- tigers are unaware of that. So a spiritual being -if that exist & they can talk to us-may talk to the subconscious mind of some of us.
But we may not be knowing that.You see like sudden a intimation.

Even this thing 'we give intelligence also depending on the person's ability & what the person can achiev' may be possible if the consciousness goes in a stream if there are beings who are mainly of energy. Say they encompass a consciousness before it manifests energizing it? Intelligence is of energy & such energizing may make him able to see things better.

Well lot of suppositions.

However I agree fully with you. This is something that cannot be proved.Best is to avoid the subject.(I wouldn't have opened my mouth but K was getting knocked about over something that may be true but cannot be proved)

Thank you very much.(I have not awakened love & compassion or seen this sacred - which I believe is truth-K talked about although I talked about spiritual beings. I think each has to work for self knowledge)(There are some groups who take meditation instructions from seances!)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Jul 2018 #123
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1191 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks again Sean. I really appreciate your post.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2018 #124
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 350 posts in this forum Offline

There seem to be some people for whom K was a kind of avatar and his every word is truth. They would say, yes, question what he says. After all, he said to question for yourself. But it will stand up to the questioning because it is truth.

Secretly they seem to have faith in K, rather than a healthy and investigative doubt. When something comes along, like the apparent superstitions of drawing protection circles or seeing fairies, they would sooner question their own common sense than K.

I am not in that camp. I say question and then re-question what you stopped questioning. K's teachings have had a profound impact on my life. All the more reason to look again and see "the true in the true, the false in the false, the false in the true and the true in the false."

To accept everything K said just because he said it is to completely go against his teaching on spiritual teachers. It is taking him as a guru.

To question K, question others, question yourself, isn't this true freedom? But this requires a certain confidence, a freedom from fear.

"Truth sets you free."

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 13 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2018 #125
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 430 posts in this forum Offline

I read over 50 comments in this blog . Our problem is over the word "superstition". Here I got from the dictionary:
superstition (?su?p??st???n)
n
1. (Alternative Belief Systems) irrational belief usually founded on ignorance or fear and characterized by obsessive reverence for omens, charms, etc
2. (Alternative Belief Systems) a notion, act or ritual that derives from such belief
3. (Alternative Belief Systems) any irrational belief, esp with regard to the unknown
[C15: from Latin superstiti? dread of the supernatural, from superst?re to stand still by something (as in amazement)]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2018 #126
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 430 posts in this forum Offline

If one likes to know who k was I suggest listening from the horses mouth, Krishnamurti himself. In the commentaries on living he tells you all about it.
I don't see any conflict between what krishnamurti said and what he did in his life.
And once I heard k in his talk said : " Don't listen to anybody saying anything about anybody else."
So I don't believe in anything that anybody says about K.

This post was last updated by Goodman B Fri, 13 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2018 #127
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 679 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To question K, question others, question yourself, isn't this true freedom? But this requires a certain confidence, a freedom from fear.

There is an implication here that idiot? does the things he lists above while others do not. If one feels that one does certain things that others should do it is probably a good idea to question this feeling.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2018 #128
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1191 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To accept everything K said just because he said it is to completely go against his teaching on spiritual teachers. It is taking him as a guru.

My dear sir, what is accepting? It is to say something is right without actually seeing it , right?

Now when you say drawing circles for protection or seeing fairies is superstition, have you seeing factually whether such exists in a heightened state of mind?

So when you say these are superstitions have you not stated something without seeing facts? So it is still accepting isn't it? Accepting your personal hunch, your conditioning of the given?

So it is like what communists did right? Some believers said God is there & communists said God is not there. Neither knew facts about it.

So to say we don't know about is to be open to inquiry, not the inverse of belief by saying I don't accept it.

I guess I commented enough on this particular topic.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Jul 2018 #129
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 430 posts in this forum Offline

One other thing that k would do when he went into a new room was touch the walls all around him. Is that out of fear ? Of course not . So as walking around a building and drawing a line. There are such a thing as negative energy. Oh by the way it is too late to question k because he has passed away . He had no slogan to be questioned any how.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Jul 2018 #130
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 679 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
There seem to be some people for whom K was a kind of avatar and his every word is truth.

idiot ? wrote:
I am not in that camp.

idiot ? wrote:
To question K, question others, question yourself, isn't this true freedom? But this requires a certain confidence, a freedom from fear.

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? This is not said in the spirit of trying to prove anybody wrong, but is actually a straight question. Sometimes interchanges like these can go to interesting places if we can possibly leave right and wrong out of it.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Jul 2018 #131
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5119 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
One other thing that k would do when he went into a new room was touch the walls all around him. Is that out of fear ?

Really? Have you seen K do that? Don't get sucked in by the likes of Idiot who is on this site to troll it.

I've personally seen K walk into rooms varying from the auditorium at the local high school, Nordoff, to his own living room and many other rooms and I can assure you he never once walked around touching the walls. Don't be so gullible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Jul 2018 #132
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5119 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".

Sean, your above post, from which I have copied just a part, is brilliant and at the same time it offers to bring people together rather than dividing. Well done.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Jul 2018 #133
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 430 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
I can assure you he never once walked around touching the walls. Don't be so gullible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Jul 2018 #134
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 430 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 #135
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 430 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 #136
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 350 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 #137
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1191 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 #138
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1191 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 #139
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1191 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 #140
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 430 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 #141
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 350 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 #142
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1191 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 #143
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 430 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 #144
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 350 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 #145
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 430 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 #146
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5119 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 #147
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 350 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 #148
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 430 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 #149
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 350 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 #150
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 430 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
Displaying posts 121 - 150 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.)