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

Gurus


Displaying posts 31 - 47 of 47 in total
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 #31
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3139 posts in this forum Offline

Thank you, Ken!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 #32
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Is this habit is known to be among animals?

Homosexuality exists in wild animals to various degrees. You can search the internet for it and you can read about it on Wikipedia under "Homosexual Behavior in Animals."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 #33
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1315 posts in this forum Offline

The 'neurotic' aspect of this that I think was being pointed to is the 'identification', or the 'continuation'...,the sex act is pretty natural and simple in itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 #34
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
I was able to locate the source of the quote.

Thank you, Ken. Now we know the quote is legitimate and the context. (Probably the spelling "phoney" versus "phony" prevented us from discovering it earlier by computer search.)

The entire talk is excellent and well worth reading.

In this quote, K says "all gurus." Well, how does he know? He hasn't met all gurus. Could there be someone genuine hidden away in some unknown part of the planet? Maybe since K's death someone has come along? So to say "all" is rather extreme. Although perhaps he means that anyone who considers himself/herself to be a guru is already disqualified by that.

In any case, I agree that seeking and following spiritual teachers at all is itself problematic. We are wise to understand the why and how of the process.

He also says, "you can take it for granted." I have to say that I prefer it when he says, "Investigate for yourself" versus when he says, "You can take it for granted." However, if investigating for yourself involves coming under the sway of a false guru, of course, it is to be avoided. Still you can investigate for yourself why a guru is sought, the danger of surrender of will to another human being, the limit of freedom of inquiry involved in being influenced by another, and so on. It is very important to understand this.

And he says, "all of them are phoney because they are still functioning in a very small part of a field that has been spat on and trodden upon and destroyed." This is not entirely clear. But since he has been talking about the gurus being part of a tradition like "Lamas, Catholics, or Hindus" you can see how that kind of separative identification limits one to a "a very small part" rather than the whole. And I think "spat on and trodden upon and destroyed" refers to the fragility of the truth and the whole. Of course, the truth/whole cannot in any way be harmed, and yet psychologically it is easily bulldozed over.

As I said the entire talk is superb and this bit about gurus is a side issue in it. Overall, the talk is about seeing with one's whole being, un-fragmented.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 02 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 #35
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3139 posts in this forum Offline

Idiot?: In this quote, K says "all gurus." Well, how does he know? He hasn't met all gurus. Could there be someone genuine hidden away in some unknown part of the planet?

Tom: I think he’s saying that by definition, they all are phony. There’s no ‘how’ as he often said...no method...so what is there to teach? You can’t teach ‘how’ to observe....how to be aware. You can’t teach the movement and immensity of life, which is not stagnant.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 02 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 #36
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
what is there to teach? You can’t teach the movement and immensity of life...

K had a lot to teach. He pointed to the movement and immensity of life. He need not be the only one to do this.

The world is in conflict, violence, crisis. That fact demands that we point to what is true. If there really is love, that itself is pointing, functioning.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 02 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 #37
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3139 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
K had a lot to teach.

He shared his observations, yes. And pointed to the immensity of life. Not sure that is the same as teaching. But he did say, I am not your teacher, didn’t he? Or ‘I am not teaching’. OK, I suppose you want the exact quote, so I’ll do a little searching on jkrishnamurti.org.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3139 posts in this forum Offline

Madras 1947, group discussion:

During these few weeks of discussion have you learned anything? If you caught a few phrases or a few sentences from me, that is not learning.

I was not teaching, but we were travelling together in deep communion, and therefore there was an understanding simultaneously, at the same time and at the same place.

A man who is merely teaching is not living any more than a man who is merely listening. If we can alter fundamentally that attitude of learning and teaching, we can enter into communion with each other. It is a mistake to go to somebody to learn.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 #39
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3139 posts in this forum Offline

Madras, 1958, public talk:

Now, is there a meaning to life at all, in the sense of a significance which we can grope after, and is there a teaching and a teacher in life at all? There is, of course, a teacher in the mechanical sense, in a school, for those who are seeking specializations, special techniques and specialized knowledge, such as mechanics. All such knowledge, surely, is a process of acquiring and storing up a technique and utilizing that memory for the purpose of a livelihood. But I am asking myself whether there is anything to be learnt from life, and if there is anyone who can teach me about life. Someone can teach me the mechanical process of living but I can also see that so long as we are accumulating knowledge we do not seem able to go beyond the limitations of that knowledge. Obviously we must have knowledge - know some mathematics, how to run cars, aeroplanes, how to do a job, and all the rest of it - and for that there must be teachers. But can there be `teaching' apart from that? And if there is no teaching apart from that kind then what is the function of a talk like this? This is really quite an important question if you will put it to yourself. One can learn dancing, to play the violin, or how to read and write, how to fly a machine, how to go to the moon and all the rest of it and obviously for that, one must learn from somebody. But are we learning from this talk, and what do we mean by learning? If I say I am learning to drive a car, that is very simple, - I am accumulating knowledge and the more I drive the more expert I become, until without much thought I can drive. There knowledge is necessary. To apply a technique I must store up knowledge. So are we learning here, in that mechanical sense? Do you learn from the Gita or the Bible and what is it you learn? How to interpret or how to conform your life to what is said, is it not so? That is again mechanical. That is, you think that there you might find a significance to life which means that life in itself has no meaning except for the significance you choose to give to it.

Please let me here remind you, if I may do so without boring you, that you are not just listening to a talk by someone else. We are journeying together, if we can, into the whole problem of living. I am not teaching you and you are not learning from me. All that business is too immature, puerile

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Aug 2018 #40
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti, Madras, 1958:
We are journeying together, if we can, into the whole problem of living. I am not teaching you and you are not learning from me. All that business is too immature, puerile.

This way of K's talking always struck me as kind of a ploy.

What happens when someone preaches to you or lectures to you about life? You get your guard up. You question and doubt what the person is saying. You have your own conclusions already and you resist the presentation. K had his way of working around that.

To lower your resistance, K invited you to walk with him, to journey together. "We are friends inquiring together." That kind of thing. But of course it was him talking, not you.

He also would explore many angles of the question, bringing up and dealing with many issues that might be raised. He would pose questions and let them linger. He would pause and say that he would later come back to some question that was particularly pertinent. Sometimes he actually did but often maddeningly he did not.

In short, he had a way of drawing you along, just like the mystery books he liked to read. A red herring here. A potential lead there. And finally a conclusion to pull it all together.

Also, if you watch his talks very closely, you will see that he sometimes closed his eyes and pulled things out of himself. Other times he looked about and took the temperature of his listeners, how they were following. If they weren't he might say something like, "I don't know if you're interested in all this."

So he was extremely skilled. But basically it was him talking to the world.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 03 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Aug 2018 #41
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 480 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
What happens when someone preaches to you or lectures to you about life? You get your guard up. You question and doubt what the person is saying. You have your own conclusions already and you resist the presentation. K had his way of working around that.

To lower your resistance, K invited you to walk with him, to journey together. "We are friends inquiring together." That kind of thing.

Yes, that’s true where the preacher or teacher is giving unsolicited, unwanted lectures.

But most of K’s listeners either came out of Theosophy or else they were already familiar with him through books. Either way, they were in fact predisposed to accepting his authority. So on the contrary, they did not “put their guard up”, they were eager to accept his authority, they wanted him to tell them what to do and what to think - as it is seen with all the other preachers and teachers, no matter how outlandish or deceitful their words. That’s the fact of it.

That’s why listening - the art of listening - is so important. Not just listening to K, but listening to others and to each other, to all that life tells us. That attentiveness is the only way to discern the truth for ourselves, and that actual discernment is all that matters. Then we cannot be misled.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 04 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 #42
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
In this quote, K says "all gurus." Well, how does he know? He hasn't met all gurus. Could there be someone genuine hidden away in some unknown part of the planet? Maybe since K's death someone has come along? So to say "all" is rather extreme. Although perhaps he means that anyone who considers himself/herself to be a guru is already disqualified by that.

It is because of the meaning he had for the word 'guru's. It meant someone who instructs, who exercises authority over another.

Now if someone instructs we know what that means.It is merely some information that doesn't fundamentally change our lives. And a person who wields authority over others is necessarily violent. He doesn't see that each human being is like any other in the world, that nobody is any special.

So all gurus are misleading people,corrupt & ignorant.

When K days let us walk together, let us inquire together, he removes the instructor pupil relationship. In inquiring together we use the description to see facts for ourselves. Not accept the description. So each person is actually inquiring using the words to look & find out.

That only has validity with regard to human suffering isn't it?- because unless we ourselves look can we see? Obviously we cannot.So learning is only in inquiring yourself which is the same as inquiring together.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 #43
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To lower your resistance, K invited you to walk with him, to journey together. "We are friends inquiring together." That kind of thing. But of course it was him talking, not you.

Krishnamurti had question and answer sessions at public talks, I think. He also met people in small groups and of course must have spoken individually with many people. If you have a public meeting where there are several hundred people or even more, it's obvious that not everyone can talk at the same time. A speaker speaks and an audience listens, at least for some part of the time. I don't really see any alternative to this with a speaker at a public event addressing hundreds of people. If I were the speaker, I'd try to get some communication going to break down the formality of the setting. I don't see anything negative about Krihnamurti saying "we are friends inquiring together". It's a modest, friendly thing to say. If you don't engage the audience and draw them in, the whole thing can be a bore. I never found Krishnamurti boring.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 #44
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5305 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To lower your resistance, K invited you to walk with him, to journey together. "We are friends inquiring together." That kind of thing. But of course it was him talking, not you.

In my opinion you have totally misunderstood what K was saying as indicated in your above statement. Maybe if you heard him say it; his tone of voice and the inflection of his voice you wouldn't be confused.

I've heard him say this many times and it struck me that he meant it literally. He was asking that we not just sit back waiting for K to tell us what is but work with him as you listen, see for yourself the validity or not of what was being said. If you weren't somewhat exhausted after K's talk you probably were just sitting there listening and being entertained by the stillness and beauty of the Oak Grove rather than working to see what was being said.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 #45
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5305 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Krishnamurti had question and answer sessions at public talks, I think.

The way K handled this in Ojai was to have the talks on Saturday and Sunday and then to have discussions with questions and answers on Tuesday and Thursday. This schedule would continue for two or three weekends and week days.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 #46
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3139 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
When K days let us walk together, let us inquire together, he removes the instructor pupil relationship. In inquiring together we use the description to see facts for ourselves. Not accept the description. So each person is actually inquiring using the words to look & find out.

Just saw this in my Facebook feed today:

In 1983 Krishnamurti said in a talk -" The speaker is speaking for himself, not for anybody else. He may be deceiving himself, he may be trying to pretend to be something or other. He may be, you don't know. So have a great deal of skepticism: doubt, question...."

Jack: see for yourself the validity or not of what was being said.

Tom: And all of the above is fundamentally different than any ‘guru/disciple’ relationship, isn’t it?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 04 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 #47
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 288 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
In 1983 Krishnamurti said in a talk -" The speaker is speaking for himself, not for anybody else. He may be deceiving himself, he may be trying to pretend to be something or other. He may be, you don't know. So have a great deal of skepticism: doubt, question...."

I have follow this thread and this is what I had in mind from the beginning: the speaker speaking for himself. If one read or listen k. from that perspective, really, it is fundamentally different than any ‘guru/disciple’ relationship.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sat, 04 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 47 of 47 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.)