On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
I ran across this on a Buddhist blog and thought I would post it here for people to read. Having personally known U.G. for almost 40 years (he died in 2007), he has left an indelible impression on me. He was not an easy man to pigeon-hole. He knew your game better than you did and never ceased to point it out. This often went misunderstood as 'personal' criticism and many got the idea that he was a cranky bastard ready to read you the riot act on a moment's notice. But, his underlying composure of peace and clarity was unmistakable for anyone who cared to look further. So many misunderstandings and interpretations about who or what he was circulate through the 'spiritual' circles of people who never really knew him or spent any time around him. So much judgement and petty perceptions were common among those who were casually interested in a 'philosopher'. For myself, he was the most honest man I have ever met, but he was certainly not 'perfect' by any means except in his natural perfection of his own nature. As someone else said of him: 'He was an event of nature'.
Re: On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
Wow you have known him for 40 years. I'm jealous!
Re: On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
The impression gained here is U.G.K thought thought/thinking is a self, as follows:
If this is true, this gives the impression freedom from "selfing" can only be temporary because a human life cannot function without thought, which included the life of U.G.K; where every word U.G.K ever spoke was obviously the product of thought (vaci sankhara).Therefore, freedom from suffering could only be temporary if every time a thought is born the 'self' or 'you' are born. The Pali suttas say conceiving the idea of self is suffering, as follows:There is no such thing as a seat located in any particular individual. What there is, is thought. Whenever a thought takes its birth there, you have created an entity or a point, and in reference to that point you are experiencing things. Every time a thought is born you are born.
Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn140
Therefore, it seems the doctrine of U.G.K was different to the Pali suttas (SN 22.59), which say thinking is not-self (anatta)....he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising... SN 12.15
While the Pali suttas (SN 22.81) do say 'self' is a product of ignorant thought fabrication, the Pali suttas, unlike U.G.K, do not say every thought is a 'self' or an 'entity'.
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.
SN 22.81 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Re: On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
it would be interesting to.hear more about U.G....
Re: On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
The article which was linked to in the OP shows some ugk writings which are consistent with the buddha dhama. Probably cherry picked out of all of his writings. I'm wondering what we would find if someone cherry picked the things where are most at odds with the buddha dhamma.
chownah
chownah
Re: On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
One click away, as so much is now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U._G._Krishnamurti
Interesting guy.
Kim
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
Re: On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
Just ask Doo Doot. He'll find something.chownah wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:19 pm The article which was linked to in the OP shows some ugk writings which are consistent with the buddha dhama. Probably cherry picked out of all of his writings. I'm wondering what we would find if someone cherry picked the things where are most at odds with the buddha dhamma.
chownah
Re: On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
Loaded question, but can you give a summary of his teachings based on your experience with him? I've watched some videos and while I find some things he says interesting, and his sometimes rough handling of his followers entertaining, I have to say I can't quite follow him!Saengnapha wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:37 pmNot sure what you would like to know. Is there something in particular?
And...How did he feel about your interest in Buddhism?
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Re: On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
Does this imply that everything you know of him is pretty much in line with the buddha's teachings?Saengnapha wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:37 pmJust ask Doo Doot. He'll find something.chownah wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:19 pm The article which was linked to in the OP shows some ugk writings which are consistent with the buddha dhama. Probably cherry picked out of all of his writings. I'm wondering what we would find if someone cherry picked the things where are most at odds with the buddha dhamma.
chownah
chownah
Re: On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
Anything at all. Maybe an interesting anecdote..Saengnapha wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:37 pmNot sure what you would like to know. Is there something in particular?
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
Re: On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
According to some, even Mahayana, Zen, Pure Land, & Dzogchen are not in line with the Buddha's teachings. Obviously, I have no problem with his teachings as there was no teaching from U.G.chownah wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:36 pmDoes this imply that everything you know of him is pretty much in line with the buddha's teachings?Saengnapha wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:37 pmJust ask Doo Doot. He'll find something.chownah wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:19 pm The article which was linked to in the OP shows some ugk writings which are consistent with the buddha dhama. Probably cherry picked out of all of his writings. I'm wondering what we would find if someone cherry picked the things where are most at odds with the buddha dhamma.
chownah
chownah
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
Re: On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
To further what I replied to chownah, when you visited him, he would often ask why you came and tell you that he had nothing to give you. He insisted that he had no teaching. He always threw you back on yourself and confronted you with your own search. He would often remark that what you are looking for doesn't exist. That what he was talking about was the complete end of 'you'.
Re: On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
Who is this "you"?Saengnapha wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:31 pmTo further what I replied to chownah, when you visited him, he would often ask why you came and tell you that he had nothing to give you. He insisted that he had no teaching. He always threw you back on yourself and confronted you with your own search. He would often remark that what you are looking for doesn't exist.
I wouldn't go to see UGK. I read a bit of his teachings and I realized I had nothing to ask him, no reason to visit him.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
Re: On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist
You, is a second person pronoun. This was the answer UG gave to people who asked 'what is I, what is you, and so forth. For him, it was just used for communication purposes with no reference to a 'self', or 'no-self'. I must go to the bathroom doesn't imply a 'self' going to the john.binocular wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:15 pmWho is this "you"?Saengnapha wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:31 pmTo further what I replied to chownah, when you visited him, he would often ask why you came and tell you that he had nothing to give you. He insisted that he had no teaching. He always threw you back on yourself and confronted you with your own search. He would often remark that what you are looking for doesn't exist.
I wouldn't go to see UGK. I read a bit of his teachings and I realized I had nothing to ask him, no reason to visit him.