Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Paul Lanzon's Forum Activity | 55 posts in 5 forums

7 posts  |  Page 1 of 1
Forum: Awareness in our world today Mon, 16 Nov 2009
Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha

ganesan balachandran wrote:

ganesan balachandran


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.

Forum: Insights Sat, 02 Jan 2010
Topic: Seriousness

Therese Okamoto wrote: , i refer you to the firm grip of personality for further discussion on being true... wrestling with truth is always going to make you lame,

Hallo Therese, What is personality? Is it more than the skilful use of a mask which even fools the actor into believing in his or her persona? And can you actually wrestle with Truth, or is it only false notions of Truth that can be wrestled with? A chaotic mind can only wrestle with images, it cannot even touch Truth, which is wholeness.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 03 Jan 2010
Topic: Involuntary Intellectual Cannibalism

Prasanna P wrote: Wasn't K meaning it, when he said that psychological insecurity eventually causes physical insecurity ? There has been hyperactivity of human intelligence causing misuse and overuse of knowledge, due to an aberration in the state of human intelligence. It has caused a kind of involuntary intellectual cannibalism called competition, resulting in this state of the world

Hi Prasanna, You have said it so well; yes, hyperactivity is the right word for this abnormal world. It seems that there is a kind of malaria of the mind which keeps it in a state of perpetual fever. One feels so helpless in the face of it. It reminds me of a time some years ago when I was driving to my brother's town and suddenly my car started to speed ahead by itself, totally out of control. The throttle somehow got stuck fully open and I had no control over it. Fortunately the road ahead was without traffic and I turned the engine off and rolled onto a grass verge. That feeling of helplessness is like how I feel in the company of people who are, as you say, caught in this involuntary mind-web. But, unfortunately, I am powerless to turn off the engine that generates their fevered fantasies.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 03 Jan 2010
Topic: Involuntary Intellectual Cannibalism

Prasanna P wrote: I think, first I have to tune my own engine (not turn off!). Perhaps then only I can tell others to tune theirs.

I understand what you mean. I think my meaning was not clearly expressed: it was very imprecisely put. By helpless I meant not being able to communicate on any meaningful level. And who is going to do the tuning? Is there an engine there at all? To see the suchness of things is at the centre of what makes a person whole; in this 'non-state' there is nothing that can be said or need be said. Now how can one communicate this to a mind that is time-bound? That is where one is helpless. But it's not a problem, it's just a fact: one is unable to communicate this thing.

Forum: Insights Mon, 04 Jan 2010
Topic: Seriousness

Therese Okamoto wrote: i suppose im not thinking of the notion of truth im thinking of when youre not lying

Therese, I was not thinking of relative truth which has an opposite. Presonality is a good example of that truth that can change into falsehood. I was thinking of the Truth which has no opposite, like the word suchness. Forgive me as I have not read most of your post but will do so later.

Forum: Insights Tue, 05 Jan 2010
Topic: Seriousness

I think reading your last post, Therese, has left me with a mild concussion. Do you ever take a breath when writing? I've nothing against long sentences as such, but - Mercy! I quite enjoyed reading it though, even if I may not have always understood your meaning. I wonder though what honour, sacrifice and trust have to do with Truth (in the sense used here, ie, non-relative, non-personal). This Truth is allied in some mysterious way with the other thing, Love, which has nothing to do with love. K used the phrase, "choiceless awareness"; this Love could be called "choiceless Love" - you cannot generate it no matter how hard you try -It does the choosing. It is non-exclusive unlike ordinary co-called love. There is no Truth without Love. Courage, yes, the courage to die voluntarily to all the inessential things that hinder the freedom which is at the heart of Truth. We all know that relative love and relative truth are intrinsically unstable; unable to sustain themselves - always being pulled by their opposites; yet we don't seem to know it well enough. There is another thing which is almost synonymous with Truth: Suchness, which has no opposite (that is very unusual in language). There is an exchange between a monk and a Ch'an master which shows how the monk, who is expecting a highly "spiritual" and philosophically profound answer gets instead Truth:

Monk: What is the supreme teaching that transcends all the Buddhas and Patriarchs?

Master: Sesame buns.

Yun Men lived in the suchness of things. This is not meant merely as a joke although it is obviously full of humour of a cosmic kind. The sanity of humanity depends on those buns.

Forum: Everyday Life Fri, 22 Oct 2010
Topic: Handling emotions

Hallo Linda, When you say 'just' self-observation it seems to imply that you have not understood what this observation entails. If you are saying to yourself, "I'm observing this emotion" then obviously that is not going to do anything but continue the problem because you have separated the observer from what is observed. To observe the emotion (it is not your emotion)you must be, to use K's expression, choicelessly aware. No need to make any judgement about whether the emotion is good or bad as that also will continue the problem (which may not be a problem, actually). I realize the physical effect of some emotion can be invasive; but most emotion is shallow and dualistic, like thought, which is usually at the root of it, just as emotion is often at the root of thought. And this is all the province of the ego and the self-image.

The thing is to free the emotions from the ego - not to identify with them - let them come and go like visitors but not stay like residents. I apologize for making this too long but hope it's not too obscure to be of any use to you.


7 posts  |  Page 1 of 1