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

*

This topic is locked.


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 46 in total
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #1
Thumb_stringio Tomasz Gradgrind Vatican City 4 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

*

This post was last updated by Tomasz Gradgrind (account deleted) Wed, 02 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #2
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

jamie f wrote:
he considered himself to be a vehicle for the Lord Maitreya. If he was not mistaken, then why was he not more open about it? Was it really because our minds are too feeble to understand? And if he was mistaken, what happens to a public talk on 'truth and reality'. It is discredited, surely?

You should put this question to Benjamin Creme, the old guy who supposedly knows all about the Maitreya and how He operates.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #3
Thumb_avatar Om Dadhich India 9 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti was not living a double standard life.He was same in public and private.Yes, we don't have many secret interesting stories of his private life.Human mind love mystery.Because of his theosophical kidnap, a possibility of mystery is always there to stimulate our mystery love. It is interesting how human mind refuse to see the thing which is presented to him for seeing, and always want to see that, which appears like hidden.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Dec 2010 #4
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f wrote:
If he was not mistaken, then why was he not more open about it?

How many people would have understood had K talked about it?Probably none! Would it not have put many people off?

Are not the teachings what is important? Do not the teachings deal with facts of day today human life,with human suffering,sorrow? Isn't it looking at ourselves & understanding the teachings that is paramount?

This post was last updated by Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Tue, 28 Dec 2010.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Dec 2010 #5
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
How many people would have understood had K talked about it?Probably none! Would it not have put many people off?

It still isn't clear where K stood on all that esoteric stuff during the last twenty or so years of his life. What was "the process"? Did it involve disembodied beings? Was he being "prepared"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Dec 2010 #6
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

nick carter wrote:
What was "the process"? Did it involve disembodied beings? Was he being "prepared"?

There is a full account of this in "Years of Awakening' by Mrs. Mary Lutyans. K underwent intense pain which began in 1922 & apparently there is mention of disembodied beings.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Dec 2010 #7
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
There is a full account of this in "Years of Awakening' by Mrs. Mary Lutyans. K underwent intense pain which began in 1922 & apparently there is mention of disembodied beings.

Yes, this and Jayakar's account are what I'm referring to, but my question is what he had to say about it much later in his life. We know he rejected theosophy and the masters, but what about "the process"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Dec 2010 #8
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

nick carter wrote:
what he had to say about it much later in his life.

In Mary Lutyans' 'Years of Fulfillment' or 'Open Door' Mrs.Mary Zimballist asks K- 'If masters spoke to you when you were young why is it that they don't talk to you now?' Words to that effect.K's answer was, 'There is no need.The Lord is here now'. K was in his 60s when he met Mrs.zimballist I believe.So he could have been quite old when he said this.

About the process K told Dr.David Bohm that pains start when the mind is empty.I will try to find it.

I am personally wondering seriously whether we cannot get beyond a certain point without this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Dec 2010 #9
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
About the process K told Dr.David Bohm that pains start when the mind is empty.I will try to find it.
I am personally wondering seriously whether we cannot get beyond a certain point without this.

Without "pains"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Dec 2010 #10
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

nick carter wrote:
Without "pains"?

Yes.K underwent some change in 1922 which was accompanied with physical pain.It may be that the organism undergoes some change due to some new energy.

This post was last updated by Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sat, 01 Jan 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Dec 2010 #11
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Yes, I know, but you said you were wondering "whether we cannot get beyond a certain point without this", and I was asking if by "this" you meant "pains".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Jan 2011 #12
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

There is shock to the physical body, which has been completely dominated by the desires of an invented and conditioned self, when that self sees its own movement and finally lets go. There is much readjustment for the body to undergo, and this involves physical pain and even serious illness, as much of the self's excess is locked deeply into the muscles and organs of the body, and will necessarily be released.

K allowed his process to be written of because it is part of the wholeness of his life journey. He did not explain it - no need to - because like everything else he spoke of, second-hand 'experience' and knowledge is completely useless.

The only way to understand in any way what K went through is to go where he pointed and find out - and that will involve psychological letting-go and much physical pain. But don't listen to anyone else - go there and discover first-hand for yourself.

I am not sure where this vain belief of 'instant blissful enlightenment' comes from in anyone who has read K. Perhaps he was a bit 'hopeful' in the early writings, when his own conditioning within theosophy was still functioning, but he certainly spent his later years clearing out all that nonsense in everything he said. Or perhaps there is an attempt to blend the teaching of K into other valued belief systems which promise something - big mistake!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Jan 2011 #13
Thumb_avatar Om Dadhich India 9 posts in this forum Offline

A very good explanation.

People want to give importance to process, but process is not important at all, it's a byproduct, don't know is a right word.

It's surprising that we will do everything except listening what JK told us directly to listen.

Our laziness feel comfortable with possibility of masters, miracles and blessings.

That's why there are thousands of masters and religions, to fulfill our comfort.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Jan 2011 #14
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
I am not sure where this vain belief of 'instant blissful enlightenment' comes from in anyone who has read K

He does give this impression not in his early dialogs but also in later ones too when he takes the listener till a certain point logically and then, it seems, he takes a jump... to that he also calls logical but the listener cannot make head and tail of that jump.It appears though 'k' didn't say something like an instant blissful enlightenment but it appeared that way to many.Many a times he says it is not a must that you have to pass through the same process to see that ( giving Edison's inventions for example ) and since it has been seen he tries step by step to show to the other to "see" as if there wasn't anything tedious or great in seeing that. ... well i am sure he did not talk abt 'instant blissful enlightenment' but he did make it appear like that provided the listener actually walked with him in the discussions through all the necessary steps he was explaining leading to the 'truth'. It is a different matter that we could not listen to him with that intensity or clarity and like an ass agreed to whatever he said...or may be ... well i don't know what to say abt it.....

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Jan 2011 #15
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
There is shock to the physical body, which has been completely dominated by the desires of an invented and conditioned self, when that self sees its own movement and finally lets go. There is much readjustment for the body to undergo, and this involves physical pain and even serious illness, as much of the self's excess is locked deeply into the muscles and organs of the body, and will necessarily be released.

Are you speaking from experience? Is the reader to assume that you've undergone "the process" and that you are enlightened?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Jan 2011 #16
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

nick carter wrote:
Are you speaking from experience? Is the reader to assume that you've undergone "the process" and that you are enlightened?

Why look at someone else and then judge? Why not go there and find the truth - or not - of what is said first-hand? Then there is no need for opinion about another. One is dealing only with what is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Jan 2011 #17
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote:
He does give this impression not in his early dialogs but also in later ones too when he takes the listener till a certain point logically and then, it seems, he takes a jump... to that he also calls logical but the listener cannot make head and tail of that jump.It appears though 'k' didn't say something like an instant blissful enlightenment but it appeared that way to many.Many a times he says it is not a must that you have to pass through the same process to see that ( giving Edison's inventions for example ) and since it has been seen he tries step by step to show to the other to "see" as if there wasn't anything tedious or great in seeing that. ... well i am sure he did not talk abt 'instant blissful enlightenment' but he did make it appear like that provided the listener actually walked with him in the discussions through all the necessary steps he was explaining leading to the 'truth'. It is a different matter that we could not listen to him with that intensity or clarity and like an ass agreed to whatever he said...or may be ... well i don't know what to say abt it.....

Or Ravi - do you think that people see and read into things only that which they want to see?

K was reported upon extensively during his lifetime. Was the focus of that reporting defined by the desire for 'instant enlightenment' and therefore corrupted? So was it that K made it appear that way, or was it those around him? He asked to listener to walk with him, but at such times he spoke only of human disorder - not of bliss.

Perhaps humanity is not really interested in its own disorder at all, but only in the rewards it projects will be there if it can just manage to magically end the disorder.

Therefore humans are only hearing what they want to hear, and missing what is essential, because the essential is neither palatable nor pleasurable.

So K points out at the end of his life - quite rightly - that no-one heard him. They did not - they heard what they wanted to hear. They heard only an easy way out, and completely missed the truth.

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Sun, 02 Jan 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Jan 2011 #18
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Why look at someone else and then judge? Why not go there and find the truth - or not - of what is said first-hand? Then there is no need for opinion about another. One is dealing only with what is.

Would it be so difficult for you to say whether you're speaking from experience or you're just blabbing for your own entertainment? Why say anything if you can't stand by it? Why put the burden on the listener? You speak as if you know. Do you? If not, admit it. If so, do go on and share your knowledge by making it clear how you have come by it. If you can't do that, STFU.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Jan 2011 #19
Thumb_img_7089_copy Eve G. Indonesia 1570 posts in this forum Offline

nick carter wrote:
Would it be so difficult for you to say whether you're speaking from experience or you're just blabbing for your own entertainment? Why say anything if you can't stand by it? Why put the burden on the listener? You speak as if you know. Do you? If not, admit it. If so, do go on and share your knowledge by making it clear how you have come by it. If you can't do that, STFU.

Nick,

You may be right but why not look in the mirror you may just see the cat looking back at you....

The nature of the change from disorder is silence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Jan 2011 #20
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

nick carter wrote:
Would it be so difficult for you to say whether you're speaking from experience or you're just blabbing for your own entertainment? Why say anything if you can't stand by it? Why put the burden on the listener? You speak as if you know. Do you? If not, admit it. If so, do go on and share your knowledge by making it clear how you have come by it. If you can't do that, STFU.

Lots of tricky questions there from the tricky monkey. Sorry if it all upsets you so much. But really - get over it.

It isn't a 'race for enlightenment' you know. One has seen what one has seen, and does not have to justify anything to anyone. And will certainly not be bullied into SingTFU.

Get over yourselves - both of you! :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Jan 2011 #21
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

nick carter wrote:
Are you speaking from experience? Is the reader to assume that you've undergone "the process" and that you are enlightened?

Nick

Patricia may not have undergone or gone, but her reply does seem logical and true.You cannot reject that outrightly and tell her STFU.

What else, we, who are i believe are on this side of the river's bank have, except logic as tool to investigate?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Jan 2011 #22
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
One has seen what one has seen, and does not have to justify anything to anyone.

One doubts that one has seen anything.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Jan 2011 #23
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Eve Goodmon wrote:
You may be right but why not look in the mirror you may just see the cat looking back at you....

Yes, and...

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Jan 2011 #24
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
Patricia may not have undergone or gone, but her reply does seem logical and true.You cannot reject that outrightly and tell her STFU.

Go back and read it again.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Jan 2011 #25
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

Poor self! - fiercely defending its limited opinions.

Nick - those who can, do - those who cannot, sit on the sidelines and bitterly cultivate opinions and judgements to spout.

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Mon, 03 Jan 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Jan 2011 #26
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

But never mind Nick - at least you have one follower! lol. That should make it all worth the trouble no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Jan 2011 #27
Thumb_img_7089_copy Eve G. Indonesia 1570 posts in this forum Offline

nick carter wrote:
Yes, and...

and you come across as an arogant aggressive ass with an ax to grid...

The nature of the change from disorder is silence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Jan 2011 #28
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

nick carter wrote:
computer program devised and improvised to elicit angry reactions from people just to demonstrate how we react to our own images of each other.

Such a computer program will not have any enjoyment and satisfaction out of its activities.

PS- Looks like Nick deleted his earlier reply and his new post has come after mine. His post started with " for all you know I could be a...".

FLOW WITH LIFE!

This post was last updated by Sudhir Sharma Mon, 03 Jan 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Jan 2011 #29
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Eve Goodmon wrote:
and you come across as an arogant aggressive ass with an ax to grid...

For all you know I could be a computer program devised to demonstrate how people react to the images they create of others. You're reacting to words on a screen, so why not just speak to the words instead of to your idea of who or what has put them there?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Jan 2011 #30
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Such a computer program will not have any enjoyment and satisfaction out of its activities.

Of course not, but it will have been demonstrated that people form images of people that exist only in their heads.

It wouldn't even have to be a computer program. It could just be a good actor assuming a character and eliciting responses. I could come back as someone else and say the kinds of things that you, Patricia, and Eve just love to hear and would gush over. It's all rather silly and taken so seriously.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 46 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.)