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

K's superstitions


Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 208 in total
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 #151
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 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 #152
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 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 #153
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 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 #154
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 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 #155
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 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 #156
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 480 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 #157
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 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 #158
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1241 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 #159
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 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
Fri, 24 Aug 2018 #160
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
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.

Back to trees. K seemed to be able to look at a tree and see it as if for the first time. You and I may also be able to do this.

idiot ? wrote:
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.

Yes, I think you illustrate my above point here.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Sep 2018 #161
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1215 posts in this forum Offline

This quote is from a K talk that Ken posted today on the "me" thing thread.

Perhaps Ken might post that link here on this superstition thread. I don't know how to do that.

Krishnamurti: "So, where there is the cunning pursuit of domination, which is the operation of will, there is the beginning of evil.

You see against that evil we try to protect ourselves. We are ourselves creating evil and yet we draw a circle a diagram round the doorstep of the house to seek protection from evil, and inwardly the serpent of evil is operating.

Keep your house clean. Forget all the mantras; nothing can touch you.

We ask protection of the gods whom we have created. It is really quite fantastic.

All these wars, all the racial hatreds, all the accumulated hatreds which man has been storing up, that must have a collected hatred, a gathered evil. The Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the Stalins, the concentration camps, the Atillas; all that must be stored, must have a body somewhere.

So also, the feeling of “do not kill, be kind, be gentle, be compassionate” – that also must be stored somewhere.

When people try to protect themselves against the one, the evil, they are protecting themselves against the good too, because man has created these two"

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 17 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Sep 2018 #162
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5305 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
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.

No one can convince you of anything because frankly you have shown yourself to be an idiot. And yes you do have to prove that K said that. He didn't. The reason you don't provide citations for what you say K has said is because most of them simply don't exist. You are paraphrasing K to make him conform to your own twisted understanding of what K actually said. That not only makes you a jerk but a dishonest one to boot.

What kind of a person would come onto a Krishnamurti discussion forum and lie and provide phony quotes? May I suggest that you have a serious mental problem?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Sep 2018 #163
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5305 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
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" .

Then if K said it it is your responsibility to provide the citation. Then the discussion ends and we can move on. But the fact is you are paraphrasing K. That means you think K said something, you believe he said something and you put it in your own words. But the fact is you can't give a citation, a reference, that proves he said it.

And no we don't have to take your word for anything. That's not the way discussions work. It K said something and you use it to make a point you MUST give a citation otherwise it's garbage and doesn't mean anything.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Sep 2018 #164
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 680 posts in this forum Offline

Jack ,you must be married and try to defend marriage. I don't care what you think because you get pleasure of conflict and I have no interest to prove anything to you. But if anybody else (but you and wim who lack understanding and are merely verbal.) Wants I can show them . After all it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that marriage is personal prostitution . She gives you sex and cleans the house and you give her money and shelter. It is a simple contract.
Anyway you are so dependent on K's words that you can't think for yourself. That is why you haven't said a wise thing since I have been in this forum. Always agreeing or opposing what others say.
You have made K's words into authority. Something k spoke against it. To be able to think for oneself one has to let go of what others including Krishnamurti have said.

This post was last updated by One Self Tue, 18 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Nov 2018 #165
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 posts in this forum Offline

There was some talk about Krishnamurti and the Masters. I can't remember if it was on this thread or another. This is something I knew little about. Here is a very interesting audio dialogue with Krishnamurti talking about this subject to Alain Naudé.

Malibu 1972 - Dialogue with Alain Naudé 2 - Masters and hierarchy

Click here to listen.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Nov 2018 #166
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Malibu 1972 - Dialogue with Alain Naudé 2 - Masters and hierarchy

Every time I listen to that dialogue I want to bang my head on the wall, it is so maddening. Alain Naudé asks the question about the Masters and for once K seems willing, not to avoid it, but to deal with it head on. Then Naudé keeps interrupting him right when he is on the verge of telling us whether the Masters really exist. So frustrating.

The Masters, Lord Buddha, Maitreya, etc. do NOT exist for me. But it remains ambiguous whether they did for K. Despite all he says about whether they are necessary to understand yourself and so on, he NEVER says they do not exist.

If anyone can find me one quote where K says the Masters absolutely do not exist, that they were purely a figment of the Theosophical imagination, I would jump for joy. But I bet you cannot find such a quote. There is always a hedge. He never says the words, "The Masters do not exist." I really think he went to the grave believing in the Masters, even though he likely felt they were unimportant for the general public and probably even an impediment for the general public.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Nov 2018 #167
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Okay, I got past my frustration with Naudé's interruptions and kept listening to the end.

Here's my transcription from that dialogue. In it K refers to the "two realms" which they earlier established as being something like: the pool of mankind’s goodness and the pool of mankind’s evil.

Krishnamurti in the dialogue with Naudé at 28 minutes in:

Personally… This is a rather difficult question to answer, and also, to commit oneself, which I hate to do. To say yes, and then for the rest of my (life?) to have said yes, therefore it must be. You follow? I… For me, there is a sense of… vast silence, a vast emptiness in which there is this extraordinary sense of energy, beauty, all the rest of it, which…may express itself in the Master, in that, you follow?, only if you’re out of these two realms, out of these two categories of opposites.

(Then Naudé interrupts and tries to summarize.)

Therefore it becomes irrelevant. That’s my point. But you see? This is very important. There is. For me, there is. Not, I’m not saying this out of vanity or that stupid stuff. I was going to say something which is…

When I… When someone asks if there is a hierarchy, if there is a Master, they’re asking from these two points, from these two opposites. And they WILL find the Master of these two opposites. And… when the real thing touches someone, and lives in him, they only think in terms of these two.

So K is saying that for him, the Master is real, is connected with vast emptiness, and is outside of the opposites of good and evil.

A rarity for K in its hesitant forthrightness on the existence of the Masters.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Wed, 07 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Nov 2018 #168
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti concludes the dialogue with Naudé at 41 minutes in:

We must be terribly careful this idea of something beyond doesn’t become another myth. Therefore it’s a very dangerous thing even to talk about it. You follow? And one has to kind of hedge round it.

Any assertion that it is, or is not, is a lie! Therefore one has to be terribly watchful and not be caught in a lie.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Wed, 07 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Nov 2018 #169
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Every time I listen to that dialogue I want to bang my head on the wall, it is so maddening. Alain Naudé asks the question about the Masters and for once K seems willing, not to avoid it, but to deal with it head on. Then Naudé keeps interrupting him right when he is on the verge of telling us whether the Masters really exist. So frustrating.

Yes, I found Alain Naudé to be a very intrusive interviewer. He asks some really good questions but his interruptions at crucial moments are indeed frustrating.

idiot ? wrote:
If anyone can find me one quote where K says the Masters absolutely do not exist, that they were purely a figment of the Theosophical imagination, I would jump for joy.

Isn't this because this would then fit in with what you already believe? I mean, when we approach a question like this, surely we can never know. I understood that K made the point, early on in this interview, that we are always trying to get things to fit in with what we already know. If we already know, can we ever discover?

Anyway, the interview merits a second listening for me as I found parts of it absolutely fascinating while at others my concentration drifted off a little. Thanks for transcriptions which I found useful.

This post was last updated by Sean Hen Thu, 08 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Nov 2018 #170
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Isn't this because this would then fit in with what you already believe?...If we already know, can we ever discover?

I already know that Santa Claus doesn't exist. Does that mean I'm unable to discover the true meaning of Christmas? Maybe.

Similarly, I know that the Masters of Theosophy don't exist. They were made up by Blavatsky. She channeled them. She received letters from them for various people which just happened to be in her own handwriting. It was nonsense. Besant and Leadbeater bought into the nonsense and were able to rise to the top of the Theosophical hierarchy. Then they indoctrinated K.

In this very dialogue with Naudé, K talks about the intensity of being surrounded by constant talk about the Masters when he was brought up by Besant and Leadbeater.

Did K free himself from the indoctrination? Clearly, in some ways, yes. But did traces remain? Did a tiny bit of Theosophical conditioning remain?

The part of the dialogue that I transcribed above is fascinating! Listen closely at a little after the 28 minute mark where I have transcribed it. When K says, "There is. For me, there is," it is totally clear that he is saying that the Master is for him! Listen really carefully to that section I have transcribed. K is saying the real Master "lives in him," and that vast silence/emptiness/energy expresses itself in the Master, beyond the opposites of good and evil.

Amazing! Thank you so much, Sean Hen, for bringing this to our attention. I had heard it before but never zeroed in on how K really states that for him the Master is.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 08 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Nov 2018 #171
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Amazing! Thank you so much, Sean Hen, for bringing this to our attention. I had heard it before but never zeroed in on how K really states that for him the Master is.

Hello idiot?. I appreciate you expressing gratitude here :)

Seriously, if I have in any way helped you to find clarity on this extremely complex subject then I am glad. For me, things are far from clear though. In one of the parts you transcribed from the audio K says the following:

"Personally… This is a rather difficult question to answer, and also, to commit oneself, which I hate to do. To say yes, and then for the rest of my (life?) to have said yes, therefore it must be. You follow? I… For me, there is a sense of… vast silence, a vast emptiness in which there is this extraordinary sense of energy, beauty, all the rest of it, which…may express itself in the Master, in that, you follow?, only if you’re out of these two realms, out of these two categories of opposites."

Can we possibly grasp what K is saying here? This vast silence, vast emptiness can express itself in the Master. What on earth does that mean? Clearly K was being very careful with his words here and did not want to give a straight answer in case it became another myth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Nov 2018 #172
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Can we possibly grasp what K is saying here? This vast silence, vast emptiness can express itself in the Master. What on earth does that mean?

To me, in this audio dialogue, K realizes that in the past people have claimed he doesn't answer the question about the Masters directly, and so he really wants to do so here. In the first transcription I made above, he is really pulling out of himself what is real and yet very, very difficult to put into words. He really does want to answer directly for once.

For him, what is real is beyond the pools of mankind's good or bad, beyond all opposites, beyond the relative, beyond the thinking world/stream. For him, reality is vast silence, vast emptiness, beauty. And out of that, somehow expressed, "there is." For him, there is. Now what is? Clearly, the Master is. That is what they are talking about. You can hear it in his voice when he says this. For him, the Master, beyond the relative, is. And it lives in him. It is the genuine Master quite beyond what the people imagine who ask him about it.

As K continues to discuss this, you can feel his growing excitement. It is important and freshly being discovered. It is only later that K suddenly feels concerned about the danger of talking about this.

In my next post, I'm going to quote a fascinatingly similar situation.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 09 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Nov 2018 #173
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Pupul Jayakar in Krishnamurti, A Biography wrote on pages 292, 293:
(K) then spoke of the Theosophical Society hierarchy - the highest was the "Lord of the World," then the Mahachohana, then the Buddha. The Bodhisattva Maitreya was considered equal to the Buddha. Below them were the Masters; each with a different name - one a Tibetan Lama, another an Indian aristocrat, another a Polish count.

The boy, who was totally innocent and unaffected, still had to be protected so that evil could not touch him, could not enter him.

Suddenly, in the middle of the conversation, Krishnaji stopped speaking. He said, "We are speaking of dangerous things. It can bring it into the house." The voice of Krishnaji was strange, his body gathered itself together. "Can you feel it in the room?" The room was pulsating. Strong forces were alive and in movement. Krishnaji was silent for a long time. When he started to speak again, the atmosphere in the room was transformed; there was silence, an active quality of goodness.

Krishnaji continued. Mrs. Besant had insisted that two initiates accompany Krishnaji all the time. She said, "Since you are always alone within, you must never be physically alone." There was a reservoir of good in the boy that could not be contaminated. He said he needed the protection even in 1969, for his character was still unformed. "The other night, while meditating, I could see the boy still existed exactly as he was, nothing had happened to him in life. The boy still is as he was. The body still needs to be protected from evil." He paused again, and said, "I still feel protected."

There is some more before and after what I have typed out from this book that is interesting and relevant to what we are discussing. So if you have the book, check it out.

But you can see again that discussing the Theosophical hierarchy and the Masters too directly can be "dangerous."

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 09 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Nov 2018 #174
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Pupul Jayakar in Krishnamurti, A Biography wrote on page 293:
There were long silences between his sentences. K said the body had to go through a lot of pain (as in Ojai and Ootacamund) because there were still imperfections in the brain.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Nov 2018 #175
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 680 posts in this forum Offline

The word "master" comes from meg- meaning great,mega and so on.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Nov 2018 #176
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 680 posts in this forum Offline

K said you are the master and the pupil. You are the teacher and the student. There is no master without the pupil and no teacher without a student. What matters is learning. Not who is leaning.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Nov 2018 #177
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
We all wear many hats.

Yeah, and gorsh, yours is a pink artist's beanie!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 #178
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:(quoting Mary Zimbalist)
"The mystery, K said, was why Rajagopal and Rosalind were ever permitted to come near him. “You’ve no idea how careful they [the TS] were - Masters, the body must be looked after, no one rough or rude, no violence must come near him.” Listening to him it sounded like an admission of the existence of Masters. I said this to him when we went for a walk before lunch. “No,” he said. “I didn’t mean Masters, but something has acted, something has looked after things. I don’t think, I know that.”

Thanks for posting this Ken and for your cartoon montages. I don't comment on them but they do make me laugh.

It seems clear that K felt that "something" was looking after things around him. I don't know where that leaves us. Surely this does not in any way detract from the teachings.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 #179
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 680 posts in this forum Offline

K did feel safe and secure otherwise he would have not talked publicly for over 70 years.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 #180
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 posts in this forum Offline

Have you had mysterious experiences? K answers this question in a short video here.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 208 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.)