Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Paul Lanzon's Forum Posts

Forum: Awareness in our world today

Displaying all 24 posts
Page 1 of 1
Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha Mon, 16 Nov 2009

ganesan balachandran wrote:

ganesan balachandran

India

20 posts in this forum

Offline Sorry Sri Paul Lanzon, I should have verified before mentioning the fundamental differences.However this inquiry lead me to one more aspect of Buddha. Lord Buddha was not against Veda. Some ignorant people think so as they have heard the opinion of the Hinayana Buddhists only. Lord Buddha had the highest regards for the Veda. He told the brahmins that they should understand the true meaning of the Veda. Vedas are not just for the rituals. Lord Buddha quoted vedic verses when he was talking to Bimbisara. Kindly let me know if this is authentic. gb

Hello Ganesan, You are certainly right in my opinion when you suggest that the Buddha was not against the ancient teachings. I hope you do not think I am any kind of expert on the subject - I depend on whatever insight I have - I must say that, for me, it is the Mahayana that comes closest to the spirit of Buddha dharma. In the Theravada e.g. Majjima Nikaya and many other collections, the language is not at all inspiring as in the Vedas and Gita, but if your spirit is grounded in a longing and love for Truth and a deep reverence for all the buddhas, then these plain, matter-of-fact words spring to life and become like flames to burn out ignorance.

The Buddha was a truly radical thinker as well as having gone beyond all suffering. He saw that society no longer knew how to REALIZE the old teachings and that it had become mere repeaters of stale formulae. K seems to have travelled the same road; when he rejects all religions he is being, like Buddha, expedient. Seeing the urgency of the situation he cannot afford to compromise on this point. But neither K nor Buddha denied the truth of the older wisdom. It is the tyranny between the religious 'authority' and the blind 'believer' and also the danger of attachment to dogmas and words, that they see as so harmful, as I understand it.

In my opinion, for what it's worth, if you have genuine insight you may read any of the great religious books without any fear of becoming attached; or equally, you may read none of them - but not because you are afraid of becoming attached to them, but simply because you have not the inclination. Apologies if this seems to long or irrelevant.

Topic: Is vegetarianism a must for saving the world and ourselves? Sat, 14 Nov 2009

Hi Krishnan, Some while back in an earlier post you mentioned insensitivity of the mind. I think this is a really important factor. Is it purely a matter of the upbringing? the early encounters and conditioning. It seems to me that if you take for granted that you are a separate self that very fact is a powerful source of insensitivity; me first; you second or last! All the time we are surrounded by insensitivity in one form or another. We don't have the time or inclination to really look at nature - not with the romantic idealist's eyes - but to observe the processes of nature with a mind that does not judge - see what sensitivity is there in animals and even plants. But, more important, to look at one's own insensitivity - but what really insensitive person can do that? Once this insensitivity has crystalized can it ever be dispelled? It always comes back to the question of the false self. It seems that human beings who were once fairly sensitive can be desensitized by persistent conditioning - as when someone joins the army etc. Anyone who has taught young children has witnessed the gradual diminution of sensitivity as the children approach the final year of school, though I'm thinking here of the state schools system in UK. Thankfully there is usually one or two in each class who manage to retain some of their integrity - but then comes the world of work... or unemployment... I seem to have rambled on more than I intended.

Topic: Is vegetarianism a must for saving the world and ourselves? Sat, 14 Nov 2009

Prasanna P wrote: According to me, non-vegetarianism, population explosion and other innumerable problems of mankind are merely the results of a disorder in the mind. Instead of removing each problem, perhaps it is easier to focus on the disorder of the mind. What do you think?

Hi Prasanna, You have hit the nail on the head. People talk about these things as though it's a matter of choice between vegetarianism or meat. Anyone who has a natural compassion and reverence for life cannot possibly harm an animal, let alone kill one to eat. The idea of breeding animals for human consumption is criminal and definitely the sign of a mind that is in pieces.

I hesitate to judge the aboriginal people of Australia, who do eat animals - perhaps the terrain does not provide enough vegetation - but they seem to have a deep respect for the animals, and, anyhow, they would never kill more than they require. I was thinking of the appalling slaughter of the american bison by the white usurpers of that once harmonious land. The indiginous people revered the land and never took more than they needed - it was sacred to them. Along came Pale Face and the result was there for all to see: a masterpiece of chaos which is with us still.

Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha Thu, 12 Nov 2009

ganesan balachandran wrote: This is true and i too agree with this and I dont see the difference in the individuals. gb P.S:The dos and donts which Buddaha said also, iam of the opinion it is some body else quote.. Am I correct?

Thanks Ganesan. Well, about the dos and donts we really cannot say, as the scriptures were written down well after Buddha's time by his followers. So it is believed. Some of the Pali scriptures (I am no expert in Pali) do give the feeling of being authentic , but others not so much. But somebody must have had a deep insight into Shakyamuni's teaching for there is no doubt that, if you have patience enough, you will sense that unmistakable fragrance of Truth coming through these suttas.

Personally I think the scholars may be mistaken in thinking that nothing was written down in Buddha's time - can you believe that none of those disciples were tempted to make notes of what they had heard? I think that followers are usually more dogmatic than their teachers and can become fanatical, maybe this accounts for some of the doubtful passages in the Nikayas. We cannot be certain that we are hearing the actual words of Buddha - but, all the same, somehow I think the true spirit does come through these very dry, very prosaic and repetative works, to awaken the Mind (the One Mind) without attachment.

Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha Wed, 11 Nov 2009

ganesan balachandran wrote: i mean a fundamental difference.

I hope you will tell me of this fundamental difference. But do so only if you have studied Buddhism from the inside and not from a superficial hearsay of Hindu prejudice; that would be pointless.

Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha Tue, 10 Nov 2009

ganesan balachandran wrote: I can point out many differences with Buddhas teachings and JK's. gb

I'm sure you are right, Ganesan. But maybe they are not very significant differences -perhaps you think they are. Both teachers wanted above all to free mankind from (self-inflicted) suffering, and the tyranny of conceptaul thinking. And both put the highest importance on compassion and wisdom (prajna).

I suppose there are bound to be differences as they lived in such different times and conditions. Buddha went from material security and wealth to almost the opposite, whilst with K it happened around the other way. It goes to show that external circumstances don't count for much where insight is concerned.

Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha Tue, 10 Nov 2009

ganesan balachandran wrote: I can point out many differences with Buddhas teachings and JK's. gb

I'm sure you are right, Ganesan. But maybe they are not very significant differences -perhaps you think they are. Both teachers wanted above all to free mankind from (self-inflicted) suffering, and the tyranny of conceptaul thinking. And both put the highest importance on compassion and wisdom (prajna).

I suppose there are bound to be differences as they lived in such different times and conditions. Buddha went from material security and wealth to almost the opposite, whilst with K it happened around the other way. It goes to show that external circumstances don't count for much where insight is concerned.

Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha Tue, 10 Nov 2009

ganesan balachandran wrote: I can point out many differences with Buddhas teachings and JK's. gb

I'm sure you are right, Ganesan. But maybe they are not very significant differences -perhaps you think they are. Both teachers wanted above all to free mankind from (self-inflicted) suffering, and the tyranny of conceptaul thinking. And both put the highest importance on compassion and wisdom (prajna).

I suppose there are bound to be differences as they lived in such different times and conditions. Buddha went from material security and wealth to almost the opposite, whilst with K it happened around the other way. It goes to show that external circumstances don't count for much where insight is concerned.

Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha Tue, 10 Nov 2009

ganesan balachandran wrote: I can point out many differences with Buddhas teachings and JK's. gb

I'm sure you are right, Ganesan. But maybe they are not very significant differences -perhaps you think they are. Both teachers wanted above all to free mankind from (self-inflicted) suffering, and the tyranny of conceptaul thinking. And both put the highest importance on compassion and wisdom (prajna).

I suppose there are bound to be differences as they lived in such different times and conditions. Buddha went from material security and wealth to almost the opposite, whilst with K it happened around the other way. It goes to show that external circumstances don't count for much where insight is concerned.

Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha Tue, 10 Nov 2009

Patricia Hemingway wrote: K made it very clear that the only manner in which to approach the teaching is with an empty and clear mind.

If you have an empty and clear mind then why should you need to approach any teaching? K negated Buddhist belief (and all other belief) but he couldn't negate what is at the heart of Buddha's teaching because he was 'that'. Buddha didn't teach anything that required belief. Strangely I've never encountered any K 'enthusiast' who has ever actually studied any kind of Buddhism, yet they always seem ready to make slashing generalizations. Could their minds be too full of K 'ism' ?

I don't wish to be taking a position for or against either Buddhism or k but simply to 'see' them without the labels. I don't identify with the teachings of Buddha or K but I revere them both as great seers - and yet I see that ultimately they have spoken not one single word, and that is as it should be.

Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha Mon, 09 Nov 2009

Patricia Hemingway wrote: And that is what happened in that talk with Buddhists. So busy were they - trying to 'fit K in' - they missed altogether what he was saying. And so it continues.......

You're right about comparisons. But because someone dons a robe and takes some vows doesn't make them 'Buddhas' - most so-called Buddhists are not much more 'enlightened' than most Christians, although they may have a better intellectual understanding of certain principles. We should only be considering those who actually embody, but also go beyond, the teachings, because all teachings have limits.

And if these 'Buddhists' were trying to fit K 'in' then that proves they were acting out of keeping with the true spirit of Buddhism (which is shown at its best in K's work).

Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha Mon, 09 Nov 2009

Yes indeed, Madhav, I believe we can consider K as another Buddha. He was profoundly impressed by the Buddha's teaching in his ealier days and anyone who has studied Buddhism deeply can see all through K's teaching an unmistakable parallel.

Unfortunately, few people today, either in the west or the east, have anything but a superficial understanding of Buddhism. It takes much patience and humility, as well as intelligence, to fully grasp this immensely subtle teaching -which seems so simple on its surface, and which shallow minds stupidly conclude is easy to understand - of course they only see it intellectually. The Buddha, like K, was eager to clear every vestige of emotional and intellectual garbage from the mind of man. They were like great and skilfull physicians wanting to restore complete health, wholeness, to their patients.

But, as you are probably aware, there are many variations of Buddhism and there have been many more than just one Buddha. The Dzogchen teaching of Tibet in its essence is identical with the central point of K's teaching. And anyone who has studied the Ch'an masters of T'ang dynasty China will know that 'Buddhahood' was not always such a rare state. But K was undoubtedly his own man, even though he is, to my mind, a continuation of that great indian tradition from the vedas and upanisads to Buddha, to Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Asanga, etc.

Topic: Nobel prize for peace to Sri.JK Thu, 05 Nov 2009

ganesan balachandran wrote: Thank you Patricia for the information. There is a need to understand JK with ourselves first and also we have a comitment to inseminate his teachings or propagate. This will become easier if he is awarded nobel prize, and if you can suggest some thing else in lieu of it , it is most welcome

Hallo Ganesan,

Hope it's ok to chip in here. I must agree with Patricia in this matter; after all, what is the point of reducing K's significance by putting him on the same level as, for example, Willem De Klerk, The Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, or The International Atomic Energy Agency? If K were to become known through this prize do you really think people would seriously look at his teachings?

Anyhow, the whole business of awards (or rewards) is a part of that dualistic delerium which is at the root of all our problems. You award some and punish others. Nothing could be more absurd than a prize for peace; it reveals the incurability of human vanity. Sorry to sound so unhelpful.

Topic: Under total awareness, fear changed into bravery&courage Mon, 19 Oct 2009

Prasanna P wrote: My observations at some places could appear to be slightly different from that of K. He generalised that people are either completely free or not at all free and there is nothing in between. It is like 'all or none' principle. This won't explain, why there is such a vast difference in levels of understanding in various people.

Yes, I understand what you mean; I think he was sometimes a little too absolute about some things, and too general in others; but perhaps this was the result of his intense and passionate nature which knew no compromise. And also - perhaps it might be relevant - K's way of exposition was like that of a skilled artist or musician in his delivery of a talk. I often felt, after a talk, as though I'd just heard a masterwork. And this may give some hint as to why some of his 'themes' were uncompromising. There is a certain lack of tolerance, sometimes, but I believe K didn't have much time for that particular concept, as with most others.

Ultimately I have to say that I have not myself witnessed such a vast difference in understanding in the various people I have encountered throughout my years. Yes, certainly in degrees of intellectual understanding, but not in the 'big matter' that was the theme of K's talks. I have met one person who had apparently swallowed all of K's books and videos and knew more about his teaching than k himself. But the moment he opened his mouth I could see he had considerably less insight than my neighbour's cat.

Topic: Under total awareness, fear changed into bravery&courage Sun, 18 Oct 2009

Prasanna P wrote: True. But does this conclusion end the misery ? The fact is not only the misery, but also that the unfragmented consciousness is generally aware of its bondage to something. Hence, it is trying to become free from the influence and domination of that fragmented part. What do you think?

I wasn't intending to make any conclusion there. Doesn't the misery rest upon the belief and identification with the ego? which is a kind of perpetual hunger to become. I am not sure that the unfragmented consciousness could be in bondage. Perhaps to a very minor extent, but then that would be only a partially unfragmented mind. Do you mean in moments of insight you see the bondage? I guess that would be true, but the insight must be all-embracing. And that habit-energy is not going to disappear without persistent attention - but no strained effort.

The effort to free oneself from the fragmentation is only to strenthen it - it would be better to stay with the fragmentation and just be aware of the processes going on - not to be too concerned about any outcome.

Topic: Under total awareness, fear changed into bravery&courage Sat, 17 Oct 2009

Prasanna P wrote: All great men tried to liberate mankind from misery, but not from death or pain. Misery happens to be unnatural and avoidable and obviously when one is free from sorrow, one can easily face not only pain or death but any situation, because a fearless mind is a single mind. Most of us lack courage, because of fragmentation.

This is all very true and well-said. But I wonder why misery, sorrow etc., are unnatural; aren't they the logical outcome of fragmentation? When something is not functioning properly certain bizarre things happen, but they are natural in relation to the malfunction. True they are unnatural in relation to the unfragmented mind. Just a very trivial nit-picking point.

Prasanna P wrote: All great men tried to liberate mankind from misery, but not from death or pain. Misery happens to be unnatural and avoidable and obviously when one is free from sorrow, one can easily face not only pain or death but any situation, because a fearless mind is a single mind. Most of us lack courage, because of fragmentation.

Topic: Under total awareness, fear changed into bravery&courage Fri, 16 Oct 2009

Yes, when mind is right the body is light. It's funny in a way to speak of these two as though they were unacquainted with one another. Negative thoughts can harm the body and make it feel heavy; affirmative thoughts can revive it.

I don't know whether that girl acted from complete awareness or not, but it was certainly a very brave thing she did. Perhaps it was the response of outrage which temporarily overrides fear and gives a powerful boost of energy - perhaps she had a stronger survival instinct than usual - who knows.

Just a thought: would K have commended this action? Or, like Buddha and Christ would he turn the other cheek? This is a tremendous problem for some; not many have the capacity to turn the other cheek - that takes even greater courage than to face an armed enemy - that takes complete fearlessness, which may be just a by-product of Love, Metta in its highest manifestation. But then, I have to ask, if you would protect another from harm why would you not do the same for yourself since you are another and he is you. Oh dear, words are so easy, so delusive - so seemingly brave. It's so true, most of us lack courage.

Topic: What is not based on truth and love will wither away.... Mon, 21 Sep 2009

Peter Stephens wrote: i think it is a sentiment. I am questioning love is something i attain and make the world a better place.

Hi Peter, The problem seems to be that you are thinking of dualistic love, which, as krishnan pointed out, is merely the other side of hate, and has absolutely no relationship to unmotivated love. You cannot 'will' this love to happen - it is not the result of intention. You are passively 'activated' by it, like a run-down battery that's receiving a charge. It is totally inexplicable. And if it were more common there would be no need of organizations at all - cooperation between people would be second nature - you would not feel seperate from anything.

The big question is: Why is this love such a rare bird? For those who know only dualistic love (which is, as you rightly suggest, just sentiment) this 'rare bird' type will sound like an impossible ideal - and that would be natural since they've never caught even a glimpse of that rare bird. This bird can never flourish where thought dominates, where time is a preoccupation - its breeding habits are determined by a mind at ease in emptiness, unattached to emptiness and awake to the mystery of Being, (not the opposite of non-being).

Peter Stephens wrote: i think it is a sentiment. I am questioning love is something i attain and make the world a better place.

Topic: What is not based on truth and love will wither away.... Sun, 20 Sep 2009

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: If truth and love are missing, harmony actually does not exist and hence the result of such interactivity would become failure and wither away. This appears to me the law of NATURE

Hi Krishnan, If by love you mean that which is totally unmotivated, comes from NOWHERE, but unites all things (dharmas), or maybe reveals that things have never been ununited, (except by thought) then there is nothing more to be said. But we will say more because we are such blabbermouths; love can make you want to communicate, or stay quiet.

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: If truth and love are missing, harmony actually does not exist and hence the result of such interactivity would become failure and wither away. This appears to me the law of NATURE

Topic: Organization per se is not the answer to human problems Fri, 28 Aug 2009

Hallo Krishnan & Monic, When I hear the word 'organization' I shiver. I'm sure, however, that there are organizations that work really well, but they are not those that deal with the welfare of people. There is something of a lottery about large organizations which aim at doing 'good'. The education systems, for example in uk, are experts in spreading ignorance and boredom. I spent 21years teaching art (or trying to) in state education and not once did I come across a teacher with even a glimmer of awareness of the issues K discussed. I encountered only 'closed off' mentalities. Yes, there were those with 'good intentions', as usual, and genuinely dedicated and enthusiastic in their own way, but they invariably lacked that insight that makes 'right education' possible. Organizations are certainly not the answer to human problems; they are the result of human problems. The main problem being the misplacing of thought as the primary, most important factor in life, when it is only a secondary mechanism whose function it is to implement the insights of Intelligence and Compassion, and of course, to construct things that are useful to mankind.

Topic: Young boy kills to please his fiancee`` Wed, 12 Aug 2009

Hi Krishna, That's a real horror story; but it would be uselful to know just how common such things are; in the U.S. for example, where mind-manipulation is very pronounced. It opens up the question of 'evil', whether a certain person is more prone to evil thoughts and actions than another and why that should be. Is evil just a by-product of ignorance or is it something more active, as some people believe - is it out there, an entity waiting to take possession of any 'promising' subject. I tend to agree with you when you question the explanation of the police. Of course it's difficult to make a judgement without knowing those two youngsters and their backgrounds. But if I may give a purely personal comment, for what it's worth; I should think that both these kids were the victims of the intense negative energy generated by a badly inflamed ego, involving fear on the boy's side and hatred on the girl's. Perhaps there was also sadism involved, who knows. But it all comes down to the image that is hurt; and that is pure ignorance. Of course this does not explain the fact that some people seem to have a natural capacity for compassion while others have none whatever, and cannot empathize at all. Is it all the result of past karma, or is it the mental and moral confusion of the present? Human beings are such bizarre creatures!

peace, Paul

Topic: Cleaning corruption in Politics by Satyagraha Tue, 11 Aug 2009

Hello, Krishnan, I hope you don't mind if I stick up for Buddhism. I mean the real thing, without the ism. You cannot justly call this teaching another ism like the rest. K himself regretted the fact that India chose to ignore, for example, Nagarjuna, (there are several others he could also have named). Of course, there will always be the majority who never see into the whole depth and beauty of the Dharma, that includes most of those who like to call themselves buddhists, and almost all of the so-called scholars. Yes, it's true what you say; you can't teach others until the 'monster' has been tamed and put in his proper place, instead of assuming he is the centre of the universe. But even this unruly beast will prove surprisingly useful when he's finally accepted he has no substance and is truly a nonentity. Thank you krishnan; my little brain has come to a halt.

best wishes

Paul

Topic: Cleaning corruption in Politics by Satyagraha Fri, 07 Aug 2009

Hi Krishnan, You say anything goes in India; I suppose you could say in some sense that it is both a good and a bad thing. But then India has been a kind of fountainhead for so much of the world. I must say I lament the virtual demise of Buddhism in India - not that I think it would have provided a miraculous cure for human corruptibility - but I think it would have brought about a saner way of living. We know that Asoka's reign brought stability to the country. K, as usual, was right to emphasize the vital importance of right education. I can see no other way of creating a well-balanced society. But with the world population as it is, where are the right kind of teachers to come from? Yet the only thing that keeps despair at bay is the feeling that in this world anything may be possible - especially when there is a will, or many wills. Best wishes, Paul.

Topic: Cleaning corruption in Politics by Satyagraha Thu, 06 Aug 2009

hello Krishnan,

It seems that corruption in politics is endemic. The Brits have (until recently) usually felt their politicians were reasonably free from corruption, which shows how naive they have been. Firstly, there are apparently no politicians who are sensitive or spiritually aware; and they are all badly educated. Not having associated with wise or aware people, compassionate or rational, they know only those of the same ignorant class as themselves, educated in institutions that promulgate ignorance and disseminate lies and hypocracy. First of all they learn the glib tongue, in which they all excel, and practise how they can convince the populace that black is actually white. But they, of course, are often trained as lawyers which should be reason enough not to trust them.

But all this is rooted in a fundamentally corruptible society. Anyone who is bereft of compassion or wisdom must create problems in the world; that is inevitable. Of course there will sometimes be exceptions to this bleak picture, but they are soon snuffed out by the sheer weight of the opposition. Why, after so many centuries do people still put their trust in this appalling gang of shysters?

Paul

Displaying all 24 posts
Page 1 of 1