J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Saengnapha »

chownah wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:28 pm
Saengnapha wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 11:23 am
chownah wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:16 am
INdeed trying to prove your point can be a form of inner violence and also defending your point when it is questioned can yield the arising of inner violence.....and also indeed only you can determine if any of this is true in your case just like jk is the only one who could determine if any of this is true in his case.....seems like we are in agreement with this.....but this is not the point being discussed.
I don't recall calling jk's comments compete and utter nonsense....I think what I expressed was that to claim that labeling one self IS violence is utter nonsense. It seems that his is what he claims when he said "when you call yourself an indian or a muslim or a christian or a european, OR ANTHING ELSE, you are being violent." I think that this declaration is total nonsense. I call myself an organic farmer.....he claims that in doing so I am being violent.....this is nonsense as far as I can tell. Labeling ones self is not violence. I suppose that there are cases where people self label in connection with some violent attitude or subtext but to out right declare that all self labeling is violence is nonsense.
He continues on "Do you see why this is so ? Because you are seperating yourself from the rest of mankind." This too is nonsense. Seperating yourself from the rest of mankind is not violence...there are recluses who seperate themselves from mankind for long periods of times and often they are venerated and I have never heard of anyone claiming that what they are doing is violent.
He continues "when you seperate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence." This too is nonsense. It may be that violent people do so in the guise of belief, nationality, or tradition but that does not mean that seperating oneself in these ways is necessarily violent.
He goes too far. I think he is trying to make his views more urgent so he labels anything else as being violence which polarizes the discussion and this pushes some people farther into his teachings.
chownah
Seems like he is talking about the process of self-identification and its separative qualities. You don't think identifying with being an American and not with being a human being is separative? How about identifying with a self? Seems pretty violent to me.
I think that you very well may be correct about his point but I don't know for sure. Self identification when taken in a theravada context is about seperation of the subject and object.....but it really seems like he is approaching this from a much more worldly view in his mention of belief, nationality, and tradition.....I think if he is thinking of seperative qualities I think it is not from the theravadan perspective of self identification....I have read almost nothing of what he produced but the scant amount I have read seems to stay firmly in the realm of worldly attachments as oppose to the doctrine of anatta.....this is not surprising in that his audience is not theravadans I think.

Aside from that.....if you experience identifying with a self as being violent then I accept that...it does not however even approach a justification that all self labeling is violent much less violence itself as jk seems to be claiming.

Also, identifying with nationality may in many instance be seperative but that again does not even approach a justification that all self labeling is violent much less violence itself as jk seems to be claiming. Why not stick with "I am an organic farmer"?....probably because the unstated subtext of organic farming does not easily support violent/violence....why ask about identifying as being an american?...probably because the unstated subtext of "america" can easily support fabricating the association with violent/violence.

chownah
If you haven't really delved into the talks and books of JK, he covers both aspects of self-identification in a worldly perspective and a contempletive one. In fact, JK is often said to be re-vivifying Buddhist doctrine in a non-religious way. Many Buddhist scholars and teachers had gone to talk with him over the years. If you want to comment on his statements, it would be much better for everyone if you had familiarity with what he was all about. If you're simply not interested, that is fine, too.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by chownah »

Saengnapha wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:18 pm
chownah wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:28 pm
Saengnapha wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 11:23 am
Seems like he is talking about the process of self-identification and its separative qualities. You don't think identifying with being an American and not with being a human being is separative? How about identifying with a self? Seems pretty violent to me.
I think that you very well may be correct about his point but I don't know for sure. Self identification when taken in a theravada context is about seperation of the subject and object.....but it really seems like he is approaching this from a much more worldly view in his mention of belief, nationality, and tradition.....I think if he is thinking of seperative qualities I think it is not from the theravadan perspective of self identification....I have read almost nothing of what he produced but the scant amount I have read seems to stay firmly in the realm of worldly attachments as oppose to the doctrine of anatta.....this is not surprising in that his audience is not theravadans I think.

Aside from that.....if you experience identifying with a self as being violent then I accept that...it does not however even approach a justification that all self labeling is violent much less violence itself as jk seems to be claiming.

Also, identifying with nationality may in many instance be seperative but that again does not even approach a justification that all self labeling is violent much less violence itself as jk seems to be claiming. Why not stick with "I am an organic farmer"?....probably because the unstated subtext of organic farming does not easily support violent/violence....why ask about identifying as being an american?...probably because the unstated subtext of "america" can easily support fabricating the association with violent/violence.

chownah
If you haven't really delved into the talks and books of JK, he covers both aspects of self-identification in a worldly perspective and a contempletive one. In fact, JK is often said to be re-vivifying Buddhist doctrine in a non-religious way. Many Buddhist scholars and teachers had gone to talk with him over the years. If you want to comment on his statements, it would be much better for everyone if you had familiarity with what he was all about. If you're simply not interested, that is fine, too.
I'm here discussing what he is reported to have said. I have so far not heard anything which indicates that to declare self labeling being violence itself makes sense as a position to hold. If "what he was all about" can somehow make this position tenable and if there are people here who claim to know "what he was all about" then I would be very glad to hear what he says that clarifies his stated position which I find to be nonsense. Please be clear that I am not asking for someone to take what he said and then fabricate some position but rather I am interested in what he himself said which someone in the know thinks clarifies labeling as violence.
chownah
auto
Posts: 4584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by auto »

Crazy cloud wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:08 pm
auto wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:21 am Now i pretty much got satisfying text. Did have to dig it out myself.
We all have to dig it out of our listening heart, but first the heart must be rid of noise from in my case "Crazy Cloud", and then all of different "The Teacher" shines bright enough for enlightening us

It makes me happy, and that is one important aspect of Brahma vihara, so now we actually make truth of being kalyana mitta's online

pretty fantastic for us both :namaste:
heart is mind's base. <--that type of sentences i expect. I think in terms of wires, all is connected somehow even if it is some unknown type of wire..heart is an input output system, an organ and it works and responds.

if JK is teaching how to get access to body wires, then its cool. But if he doesn't get further than empting of 6th consciousness, heart mind, then he doesn't go further than that.
You need decide willingly to start study and accumulate knowledge so you have some kind of perspective, like doctors at least have to know that their subjects have a spleen, heart, blood vessels etc before they know to cut the gut wide open, if you don't know about existence of these organs you won't look there and do nothing about that front.
auto
Posts: 4584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by auto »

Saengnapha wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:11 pm
Crazy cloud wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:08 pm
auto wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:21 am Now i pretty much got satisfying text. Did have to dig it out myself.
We all have to dig it out of our listening heart, but first the heart must be rid of noise from in my case "Crazy Cloud", and then all of different "The Teacher" shines bright enough for enlightening us

It makes me happy, and that is one important aspect of Brahma vihara, so now we actually make truth of being kalyana mitta's online

pretty fantastic for us both :namaste:
That is how it began, in my case. Allowing myself to hear what he was talking about and then digging it out for myself. When it clicked for the first time, it was an ecstatic moment that was the most joyous I had ever known. Glad to see others 'digging it'. :toast:
Same thing can happen if someone yells at you and you later realize yep i deserved it i am pretty dumb.

I still think that autonomous response, synesthesya, compassion etc are sensations what already has the JK teaching included.
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Saengnapha »

auto wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:55 pm You need decide willingly to start study and accumulate knowledge so you have some kind of perspective, like doctors at least have to know that their subjects have a spleen, heart, blood vessels etc before they know to cut the gut wide open, if you don't know about existence of these organs you won't look there and do nothing about that front.
There is a fine line between practical knowledge/information used for tasks and knowledge that is based on time, that create past, present, & future. This is psychological knowledge which is the conditioned state of mind that we struggle with. We don't struggle with facts.

Here is an excerpt from JK's meeting with Rahula Walpola, a very famous Buddhist scholar.

Krishnamurti: Does knowledge actually condition the human being? Let’s put it that way. The word “knowledge” all of us surely take to mean accumulation of information, of experience, of various facts, theories and principles, the past and present, all that bundle we call knowledge. Does, then, the past help? Because knowledge is the past.
Rahula: All that past, all that knowledge, disappears the moment you see the truth.
Krishnamurti: But can a mind that is burdened with knowledge see truth?
Rahula: Of course, if the mind is burdened, crowded, and covered with knowledge...
Krishnamurti: It is, generally it is. Most minds are filled and crippled with knowledge. I am using the word “crippled” in the sense of weighed down. Can such a mind perceive what is truth? Or must it be free from knowledge?
Rahula: To see the truth the mind must be free from all knowledge.
Krishnamurti: Yes, so why should one accumulate knowledge and then abandon it, and then seek truth? You follow what I am saying?

I think this is a point that often goes misunderstood. Looking through the veil of 'knowledge', conditions the seer, the knower, into believing that this knowledge/information is the way. It seems that the letting go of this is the way, the opposite of what most believe in.
auto
Posts: 4584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by auto »

Saengnapha wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:39 am
auto wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:55 pm You need decide willingly to start study and accumulate knowledge so you have some kind of perspective, like doctors at least have to know that their subjects have a spleen, heart, blood vessels etc before they know to cut the gut wide open, if you don't know about existence of these organs you won't look there and do nothing about that front.
There is a fine line between practical knowledge/information used for tasks and knowledge that is based on time, that create past, present, & future. This is psychological knowledge which is the conditioned state of mind that we struggle with. We don't struggle with facts.

Here is an excerpt from JK's meeting with Rahula Walpola, a very famous Buddhist scholar.

Krishnamurti: Does knowledge actually condition the human being? Let’s put it that way. The word “knowledge” all of us surely take to mean accumulation of information, of experience, of various facts, theories and principles, the past and present, all that bundle we call knowledge. Does, then, the past help? Because knowledge is the past.
Rahula: All that past, all that knowledge, disappears the moment you see the truth.
Krishnamurti: But can a mind that is burdened with knowledge see truth?
Rahula: Of course, if the mind is burdened, crowded, and covered with knowledge...
Krishnamurti: It is, generally it is. Most minds are filled and crippled with knowledge. I am using the word “crippled” in the sense of weighed down. Can such a mind perceive what is truth? Or must it be free from knowledge?
Rahula: To see the truth the mind must be free from all knowledge.
Krishnamurti: Yes, so why should one accumulate knowledge and then abandon it, and then seek truth? You follow what I am saying?

I think this is a point that often goes misunderstood. Looking through the veil of 'knowledge', conditions the seer, the knower, into believing that this knowledge/information is the way. It seems that the letting go of this is the way, the opposite of what most believe in.
There are people who have read thousands of books. There is something what affect the information, if that is different you see information differently. So you don't really have to read thousands of books but one page long text or less is enough to trigger seeing impermanence of sense base information and that it is subject to something greater.

Whatever you try to do is a subject to something else. So indeed letting go and doing nothing is the option unless you know about it that what you are looking is subject. That is correct seeing or whatever 8 fold path part.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by chownah »

The truth is knowledge.
chownah
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Saengnapha »

chownah wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:02 pm The truth is knowledge.
chownah
No, chownah. The truth is not knowledge. If you've been following the dialog, it is quite clear that truth has nothing to do with knowledge as knowledge is conditioned. The unconditioned is never the same as knowledge. Even the Buddhist scholar Walpola agrees with this.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Coëmgenu »

Saengnapha wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:39 pm
chownah wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:02 pm The truth is knowledge.
chownah
No, chownah. The truth is not knowledge. If you've been following the dialog, it is quite clear that truth has nothing to do with knowledge as knowledge is conditioned. The unconditioned is never the same as knowledge. Even the Buddhist scholar Walpola agrees with this.
At the same time, though, knowledge was simply declared conditioned. No why.

Anything can be conditioned. And anything can be unconditioned. If whys aren't super necessary.

I am unconditioned.

There.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by aflatun »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:40 pm
Saengnapha wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:39 pm
chownah wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:02 pm The truth is knowledge.
chownah
No, chownah. The truth is not knowledge. If you've been following the dialog, it is quite clear that truth has nothing to do with knowledge as knowledge is conditioned. The unconditioned is never the same as knowledge. Even the Buddhist scholar Walpola agrees with this.
At the same time, though, knowledge was simply declared conditioned. No why.

Anything can be conditioned. And anything can be unconditioned. If whys aren't super necessary.

I am unconditioned.

There.
You are, actually ;)
"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
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Coëmgenu »

aflatun wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:48 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:40 pm
Saengnapha wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:39 pm

No, chownah. The truth is not knowledge. If you've been following the dialog, it is quite clear that truth has nothing to do with knowledge as knowledge is conditioned. The unconditioned is never the same as knowledge. Even the Buddhist scholar Walpola agrees with this.
At the same time, though, knowledge was simply declared conditioned. No why.

Anything can be conditioned. And anything can be unconditioned. If whys aren't super necessary.

I am unconditioned.

There.
You are, actually ;)
Actually I find that when we set ourselves apart and call ourselves "unconditioned", or perhaps even "conditioned" people, we are doing an act of violence, and so I am a violent person. Just remember that I am not a violent person.

:sage:
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by aflatun »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:54 pm
aflatun wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:48 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:40 pm
At the same time, though, knowledge was simply declared conditioned. No why.

Anything can be conditioned. And anything can be unconditioned. If whys aren't super necessary.

I am unconditioned.

There.
You are, actually ;)
Actually I find that when we set ourselves apart and call ourselves "unconditioned", or perhaps even "conditioned" people, we are doing an act of violence, and so I am a violent person. Just remember that I am not a violent person.

:sage:
JK notwithstanding,you’re not only very well spoken and polite on forum but you’re also more importantly Canadian...you probably don’t even know what violence is ! :tongue:
"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
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Saengnapha »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:40 pm At the same time, though, knowledge was simply declared conditioned. No why.

Anything can be conditioned. And anything can be unconditioned. If whys aren't super necessary.

I am unconditioned.

There.
Perhaps you missed the point that JK was making when he showed the accumulation of knowledge as being of the past. That is always conditioned. Furthermore, the accumulation of knowledge introduces Time. I was, I am, I will be. These are central points to JK and also to Buddhism. What doesn't get addressed in Theravada is this notion of accumulation and how it is supposed to help change you in the future. It doesn't work that way. It is a concept without substance. What is paramount is the cessation, the letting go of psychological time, which is perception, memory, and cognition of the conditioned 'mind'.

If you want to read the full conversation, which I suggest to anyone interested in either JK or Buddhism, it is here.

The book is called "Can Humanity Change", JK in dialogue with Buddhists.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by chownah »

Saengnapha wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:39 pm
chownah wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:02 pm The truth is knowledge.
chownah
No, chownah. The truth is not knowledge. If you've been following the dialog, it is quite clear that truth has nothing to do with knowledge as knowledge is conditioned. The unconditioned is never the same as knowledge. Even the Buddhist scholar Walpola agrees with this.
Of course knowledge is conditioned....but also, truth is conditioned obviously because truth is (one kind of?) knowledge.

What walpola agrees with means very little to me.
chownah
User avatar
Crazy cloud
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 8:55 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Crazy cloud »

rest in unknowing
The mind itself must become the unknown
To receive the unknown, the mind itself must become the unknown. The mind is the result of the thought process, the result of time, and this thought process must come to an end. The mind cannot think of that which is eternal, timeless; therefore, the mind must be free of time, the time process of the mind must be dissolved. Only when the mind is completely free from yesterday, and is therefore not using the present as a means to the future, is it capable of receiving the eternal. That which is known has no relationship with the unknown; therefore, you cannot pray to the unknown, you cannot concentrate on the unknown, you cannot be devoted to the unknown. All that has no meaning. What has meaning is to find out how the mind operates, it is to see yourself in action.
Therefore, our concern in meditation is to know oneself not only superficially, but the whole content of the inner, hidden consciousness. Without knowing all that and being free of its conditioning, you cannot possibly go beyond the mind's limits. That is why the thought process must cease and, for this cessation, there must be knowledge of oneself. Therefore, meditation is the beginning of wisdom, which is the understanding of one's own mind and heart.

Collected Works, Vol. V,165
If you didn't care
What happened to me
And I didn't care for you

We would zig-zag our way
Through the boredom and pain
Occasionally glancing up through the rain

Wondering which of the
Buggers to blame
And watching for pigs on the wing
- Roger Waters
Post Reply