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

K's superstitions


Displaying posts 151 - 175 of 175 in total
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 #151
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 338 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 #152
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 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 #153
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1158 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 #154
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1158 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 #155
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 338 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 #156
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 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 #157
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1158 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 #158
Thumb_k2 Ken D United States 67 posts in this forum Offline

"Religion has totally failed. It has no more meaning anymore, except to old ladies and slightly demented people." Krishnamurti

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 #159
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1158 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
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 #160
Thumb_k2 Ken D United States 67 posts in this forum Offline

"This has been a question for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. It isn't something new. How would you, we are not taking sides in this matter. We don't condemn it or approve it or disapprove it. These are facts. Right? As heterosexuality is a fact. Homosexuality exists in the world, in different parts of the world very common, other parts of the world it is practically unknown. So how do you answer this question? What is the question? Why do we make it into such an enormous problem? Apparently we don't make heterosexuality a problem at all, but we make this into a problem, why? It is a fact. 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
OJAI 2ND PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER MEETING 24TH MAY 1984

"Religion has totally failed. It has no more meaning anymore, except to old ladies and slightly demented people." Krishnamurti

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 #161
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 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 #162
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1158 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 #163
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 338 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
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 #164
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 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 #165
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 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 Goodman B Thu, 19 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 #166
Thumb_k2 Ken D United States 67 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
I guess K was a wise Ken.

Thank you. Yes, I taught him everything he knew.

"Religion has totally failed. It has no more meaning anymore, except to old ladies and slightly demented people." Krishnamurti

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 #167
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 657 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
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.

I really appreciate your comment Jack.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 #168
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 657 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
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 think the question here is what exactly did K see or didn't see? If Krishnamurti were here, I'm sure he'd like us to go into this deeply so I will humbly try to do that now.

K saw a tree. Or did he? Well, he saw a tree but he maybe saw it without the filter of conditioning and thought. He didn't see all the past knowledge of the tree but actually had direct perception of the tree without any separation. I have no idea what this must be like.

K saw a fairy. Or did he? Whatever he saw, it surely wasn't what we imagine to be a fairy. Our projections of what a fairy is are based on our previous knowledge. Fairies don't exist, do they? What exactly did he see? Was he imagining this?

In the tree scenario we perhaps accept that K had some kind of direct contact with reality which is only possible when the mind is absolutely still. This certainly squares with K's extraordinary inward observations of anger, attachment, fear etc.

In the fairy scenario, we perhaps conclude that this man, who at other times seemed more in contact with reality than almost anyone else, had taken leave of his senses and lapsed into wild superstition.

I think that there are many unanswered questions here. But then again, I may be in denial. Who knows?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jul 2018 #169
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 338 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
I think the question here is what exactly did K see or didn't see?

Of course, we cannot know. K is dead. Anything he saw is gone. It's not only the past, but it's his past, so it is doubly inaccessible.

But you and I can discuss seeing.

Sean Hen wrote:
K saw a tree. Or did he? Well, he saw a tree but he maybe saw it without the filter of conditioning and thought. He didn't see all the past knowledge of the tree but actually had direct perception of the tree without any separation. I have no idea what this must be like.

I'm so glad you brought up trees! I love trees and have looked at them since about the earliest times I can remember.

You are suggesting that K looked at a tree without subject and object, undivided. You think that K had a way of looking, different than the way you and I look. But you admit you don't know what that is, what it is like. Of course, K talked about "perception without a center" and other descriptions. But the description is not the thing.

There's a beautiful tree right outside of my window right now that I love to look at. The morning sunlight edges its leaves. Today it is calm, barely stirring in the slightest breeze.

Now what happens when we look at something? Often we give it a name or description. This is really a way of dismissing it, of not really looking at it. It is saying, "Yeah, yeah, I've seem a million trees and this is another one." So the first thing to notice is that we often don't really look. We glance, name, and dismiss.

If we really look without naming or describing, there's a completely different feeling. It's overwhelming! I cannot take in all the detail of each leaf and branch and light and shadow. How the sky comes through in certain places. The brain cannot hold it all.

There's a certain suspension of thought. And a feeling of deep calmness. Yet there may still be a sense of "I." I feel my body and my eyes and the me that is looking. Yet the looking continues, quietly, silently, just like the stillness of the tree itself.

Then there is noticing further! For a split second there is no self, just the looking. Then there is noticing that there is a self looking. It is shifting back and forth a hundred times or so per second. You have to look really closely to catch this. Thought is suspending and kicking in, in rapid alternation.

But it can also just suspend. Then there is no way to say anything. You cannot say if the self is or is not, because thought has not yet kicked in.

Because the brain wants to grab, wants to claim the experience, it will try to lengthen the duration of the suspension. But this is utterly meaningless. Because it is not something the brain can touch. And being outside of time, it is without duration, because thought which measures duration has not yet begun.

Anyone can look at a tree. But you must really do it!

We cannot know what K saw. But we can see. We can see seeing. And the seer can dissolve. This is not something special, available only to K. Anyone can do it. Everyone does it, if only for split seconds. And yet how many really realize it?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 22 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jul 2018 #170
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 338 posts in this forum Offline

The point is, "investigate for yourself." K said this again and again.

Why not look at a tree, or whatever, and discover whatever there is to discover?

K didn't say, "I see in a special way. Speculate about that."

He said, "Look into it for yourself!"

He also said to Mary Z that he saw fairies in England. Did he see fireflies and mistake them for fairies? Did something move in his peripheral vision that he mistook? Did he see energies that you and I cannot? Did he imagine fairies?

We cannot know.

But we can examine ourselves. We can see if our feelings and respect for K are giving him the benefit of the doubt in a way he may not deserve. We can see whether we are speculating and assuming rather discovering for ourselves. Yes?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 22 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 #171
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 657 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Why not look at a tree, or whatever, and discover whatever there is to discover?

Yes, I think this is all we can do. Whether it's a tree, our own anger as it rises within us or the face of an old man on the bus sitting opposite us, the challenge is just to observe with a silent mind without thought rushing in to interpret and distort everything. Sounds easy, doesn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Jul 2018 #172
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 456 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
He also said to Mary Z that he saw fairies in England. Did he see fireflies and mistake them for fairies? Did something move in his peripheral vision that he mistook? Did he see energies that you and I cannot? Did he imagine fairies?

We cannot know.

I can't shed any light on the question of the circles and other apparent superstitions. But perhaps I can shed some light on the question of fairies.

I researched Ashdown Forest on Google. K was 17 when he and Nitya lived in Ashdown Forest - which is when and where he "saw" the fairies. He was by all accounts a naive boy who had been exposed to visions as a small child in India, unsophisticated for his chronological age.

I myself saw monsters when I was a small child. I don’t deny having had those visions then but that doesn’t mean I believe monsters are real today. Nor would I believe in monsters even if I should have such a vision again. Once as a young adult, I was frightened by a menacing intruder in my room. Even as I was having this vision, I knew logically by the fact that he kept advancing into and retreating out of the room that he was not actually there, just as one knows that a nightmare is not “real”. But, as in a nightmare, the fear itself was real. I do not deny having had this vision either although in fact I have never mentioned it to anyone before.

When K said “Look into it for yourself!", did he mean judge it, evaluate, analyze and adopt a conclusion about it?

Or did he mean observe, be aware, choicelessly of what is going on inwardly as well as outwardly and the relationship between the inner and outer? He exhorted us to look into things like this: “to think positively about something we do not know is to continue the problem,” and many other things which have to do with suffering, relationship, action, fear, and so on.

By K's own admission, he put a stick on a mantelpiece for some weeks and offered it flowers daily. And he observed himself growing attached to it. Well, in this case, he did say that it was an experiment.

There are fashions in law, dress, medicine, social organization, in ideas, and so on. Those fashions are the so-called evolution of society. But truth/actuality, love, compassion are not subject to passing fashion and time. And isn't that what we hunger for?

If a question is unanswerable, can’t one “draw a circle around it” psychologically, realizing that “I don’t know what it means and I have doubts about it”, without coming to a conclusion about it? Can’t one stay with the doubt just as one stays with fear, anger, jealousy, vulnerability, and so on? There no need to pretend the doubt is not there. It doesn't prevent observation or awareness.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 27 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Jul 2018 #173
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 338 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I can't shed any light on the question of the circles and other apparent superstitions. But perhaps I can shed some light on the question of fairies...

Huguette,

Thank you for your interesting and caring post. I appreciate it.

However, I remain skeptical about a lot of nonsense many people seem to believe. And a careful reading of Mary Z. suggests (even the older) K may not have been immune.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 27 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Jul 2018 #174
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1093 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
If a question is unanswerable, can’t one “draw a circle around it” psychologically, realizing that “I don’t know what it means and I have doubts about it”, without coming to a conclusion about it? Can’t one stay with the doubt just as one stays with fear, anger, jealousy, vulnerability, and so on? There no need to pretend the doubt is not there. It doesn't prevent observation or awareness.

Huguette,

Very accurate wording of the tranquillity of knowing not knowing and staying away from conclusions. Thank youj.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 #175
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 657 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I'm so glad you brought up trees! I love trees and have looked at them since about the earliest times I can remember.

My wife recently read "The Hidden Life of Trees (what they feel, how they communicate)" by Peter Wohlleben. It certainly sounds like a fascinating book. One reviewer said, "If you read this book, I believe that forests will become magical places for you, too." Well, as long as people don't start seeing fairies ......

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 151 - 175 of 175 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.)