J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
auto
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by auto » Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:55 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:42 pm
I understand what you are referring to. The problem that the 2K's put forth is this: You have read/heard about Truth, Enlightenment, etc., and it has been associated with following a path to its discovery for thousands of years. This path that is talked about is supposed to lead the practitioner to enlightenment if you follow the directions. At the same time, they all say that the practitioner, self, needs to come to an end. Why would you further the cause of the self to attain something when that very self should come to an end? How can this possibly happen that you use the self, a supposed illusion, to attain Truth which is supposed to be timeless and which the self, a creation of time is supposed to attain? Something has gotten lost in the translation that these religions put forth. The burden is on the believer to shed these beliefs and look for themselves at their own state. This means the use of teachings, philosophy, words, concepts, must be put aside in order to see what this creation of path and attainment is all about. Neither of the K's would suggest reading anything that the Buddha or themselves have said, putting all of them aside and examining for oneself what is really going on. Many Buddhist masters have even claimed that there is no Buddha, Teaching, or Sangha that exists. Were they just madmen? Personally, I don't think we have any idea of what Truth is, just what it isn't. We are only computers talking to another computer.
wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetter_(Buddhism)
Ven. Kotthita: "How is it, friend Sariputta, is ... the ear the fetter of sounds or are sounds the fetter of the ear?..."
Ven. Sariputta: "Friend Kotthita, the ... ear is not the fetter of sounds nor are sounds the fetter of the ear, but rather the desire and lust that arise there in dependence on both: that is the fetter there...."
---

So the self isn't a fetter, it is the desires what rise in dependence on the identity view.
Sensual desire isn't a fetter its the desire what rises in dependence on the sensual desire.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16419
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by mikenz66 » Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:49 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:42 pm
The problem that the 2K's put forth is this: You have read/heard about Truth, Enlightenment, etc., and it has been associated with following a path to its discovery for thousands of years. This path that is talked about is supposed to lead the practitioner to enlightenment if you follow the directions. At the same time, they all say that the practitioner, self, needs to come to an end. Why would you further the cause of the self to attain something when that very self should come to an end? How can this possibly happen that you use the self, a supposed illusion, to attain Truth which is supposed to be timeless and which the self, a creation of time is supposed to attain? Something has gotten lost in the translation that these religions put forth.
Well, of course, the Buddha and his followers addressed this in various teachings...
“If that’s so, Master Ānanda, then it’s an endless path, and not one with an end, for it’s impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire.”

“In that case, brahman, let me cross-question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think? Didn’t you first have desire, thinking, ‘I’ll go to the monastery,’ and then when you reached the monastery, wasn’t that particular desire allayed?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Didn’t you first have persistence, thinking, ‘I’ll go to the monastery,’ and then when you reached the monastery, wasn’t that particular persistence allayed?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Didn’t you first have the intent, thinking, ‘I’ll go to the monastery,’ and then when you reached the monastery, wasn’t that particular intent allayed?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Didn’t you first have (an act of) discrimination, thinking, ‘I’ll go to the monastery,’ and then when you reached the monastery, wasn’t that particular act of discrimination allayed?”

“Yes, sir.”

“So it is with an arahant whose effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?”

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN51_15.html
:heart:
Mike

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Saengnapha » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:52 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:49 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:42 pm
The problem that the 2K's put forth is this: You have read/heard about Truth, Enlightenment, etc., and it has been associated with following a path to its discovery for thousands of years. This path that is talked about is supposed to lead the practitioner to enlightenment if you follow the directions. At the same time, they all say that the practitioner, self, needs to come to an end. Why would you further the cause of the self to attain something when that very self should come to an end? How can this possibly happen that you use the self, a supposed illusion, to attain Truth which is supposed to be timeless and which the self, a creation of time is supposed to attain? Something has gotten lost in the translation that these religions put forth.
Well, of course, the Buddha and his followers addressed this in various teachings...
“If that’s so, Master Ānanda, then it’s an endless path, and not one with an end, for it’s impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire.”

“In that case, brahman, let me cross-question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think? Didn’t you first have desire, thinking, ‘I’ll go to the monastery,’ and then when you reached the monastery, wasn’t that particular desire allayed?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Didn’t you first have persistence, thinking, ‘I’ll go to the monastery,’ and then when you reached the monastery, wasn’t that particular persistence allayed?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Didn’t you first have the intent, thinking, ‘I’ll go to the monastery,’ and then when you reached the monastery, wasn’t that particular intent allayed?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Didn’t you first have (an act of) discrimination, thinking, ‘I’ll go to the monastery,’ and then when you reached the monastery, wasn’t that particular act of discrimination allayed?”

“Yes, sir.”

“So it is with an arahant whose effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?”

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN51_15.html
:heart:
Mike
It's a complex issue, Mike. Your quotes still don't address the issue of time. Until that moment of 'seeing', everything that was attempted, thought about, stops. The whole notion of a 'person moving in time' is gone. As long as you are trying to attain anything, you haven't come to terms with this movement. Spin it any way you want, you are either free or not. There is no middle ground in this. It doesn't hold up to logic. Plus, I don't trust 2500 years of interpretation to lead me anywhere.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16419
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:22 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:52 am
Your quotes still don't address the issue of time. Until that moment of 'seeing', everything that was attempted, thought about, stops. The whole notion of a 'person moving in time' is gone. As long as you are trying to attain anything, you haven't come to terms with this movement. Spin it any way you want, you are either free or not. There is no middle ground in this. It doesn't hold up to logic.
How do you know that it will play out like that? I thought this was something that couldn't be put into words?
Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:52 am
Plus, I don't trust 2500 years of interpretation to lead me anywhere.
So why do you come to a Buddhist Forum, then?

:heart:
Mike

auto
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by auto » Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:46 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:42 pm

I understand what you are referring to. The problem that the 2K's put forth is this: You have read/heard about Truth, Enlightenment, etc., and it has been associated with following a path to its discovery for thousands of years. This path that is talked about is supposed to lead the practitioner to enlightenment if you follow the directions. At the same time, they all say that the practitioner, self, needs to come to an end. Why would you further the cause of the self to attain something when that very self should come to an end? How can this possibly happen that you use the self, a supposed illusion, to attain Truth which is supposed to be timeless and which the self, a creation of time is supposed to attain? Something has gotten lost in the translation that these religions put forth. The burden is on the believer to shed these beliefs and look for themselves at their own state. This means the use of teachings, philosophy, words, concepts, must be put aside in order to see what this creation of path and attainment is all about. Neither of the K's would suggest reading anything that the Buddha or themselves have said, putting all of them aside and examining for oneself what is really going on. Many Buddhist masters have even claimed that there is no Buddha, Teaching, or Sangha that exists. Were they just madmen? Personally, I don't think we have any idea of what Truth is, just what it isn't. We are only computers talking to another computer.
You need put your body into certain position there isn't a zero position, you have to put your eyes somehow, your mind constantly moves around not stay in one place. Desires have already forced you into a frame what you need move every once in a while to relieve suffering..
Like a nightmare, you can use any trick, there is no way out. You can investigate mind so much you want, but you won't change into a pokemon this way.

You need ask help and get an upgrade. With the intent of getting a subtle body at least some magical substance into body what starts change dna you want to see real progress on a tangible/physical level.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Saengnapha » Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:57 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:22 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:52 am
Your quotes still don't address the issue of time. Until that moment of 'seeing', everything that was attempted, thought about, stops. The whole notion of a 'person moving in time' is gone. As long as you are trying to attain anything, you haven't come to terms with this movement. Spin it any way you want, you are either free or not. There is no middle ground in this. It doesn't hold up to logic.
How do you know that it will play out like that? I thought this was something that couldn't be put into words?
Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:52 am
Plus, I don't trust 2500 years of interpretation to lead me anywhere.
So why do you come to a Buddhist Forum, then?

:heart:
Mike
Because the subject is a universal one and it interests me.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Saengnapha » Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:59 pm

auto wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:46 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:42 pm

I understand what you are referring to. The problem that the 2K's put forth is this: You have read/heard about Truth, Enlightenment, etc., and it has been associated with following a path to its discovery for thousands of years. This path that is talked about is supposed to lead the practitioner to enlightenment if you follow the directions. At the same time, they all say that the practitioner, self, needs to come to an end. Why would you further the cause of the self to attain something when that very self should come to an end? How can this possibly happen that you use the self, a supposed illusion, to attain Truth which is supposed to be timeless and which the self, a creation of time is supposed to attain? Something has gotten lost in the translation that these religions put forth. The burden is on the believer to shed these beliefs and look for themselves at their own state. This means the use of teachings, philosophy, words, concepts, must be put aside in order to see what this creation of path and attainment is all about. Neither of the K's would suggest reading anything that the Buddha or themselves have said, putting all of them aside and examining for oneself what is really going on. Many Buddhist masters have even claimed that there is no Buddha, Teaching, or Sangha that exists. Were they just madmen? Personally, I don't think we have any idea of what Truth is, just what it isn't. We are only computers talking to another computer.
You need put your body into certain position there isn't a zero position, you have to put your eyes somehow, your mind constantly moves around not stay in one place. Desires have already forced you into a frame what you need move every once in a while to relieve suffering..
Like a nightmare, you can use any trick, there is no way out. You can investigate mind so much you want, but you won't change into a pokemon this way.

You need ask help and get an upgrade. With the intent of getting a subtle body at least some magical substance into body what starts change dna you want to see real progress on a tangible/physical level.
I don't see it like this.

auto
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by auto » Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:08 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:59 pm
I don't see it like this.
well there is a video in youtube JK talking about meditation. That meditation practice becomes a routine and makes the mind up leading to mechanical mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARbciOozq0

at 4:11 he says i haven't done any algfkahgjklah ... he discarded meditation practice instantly.

His excuse is that these are others peoples/gurus illuminations, practices and therfore should discard them.
Truth, god is over there, and you practice to get there. So again JK finds it wrong..

So you get the gist.

6.18 put that all away and ask what is meditation, asking that question we start to meditate ourselves. We should start from not knowing what meditation is..it brings a great sense of humility..freedom from established known*(*or what word the K says?)
-----------
So now if i look waht JK say, so i really don't have to read all what he says like in hundreds of texts or meditate at all, if i know that all i need to understand JK is to get the sense of humility. So why not JK tell it immediately that you need have sense of humilty. It can be gotten "much easier" on other circumstances..too

important point is on 8:20 is mediation divorced from daily living?..meditation covers includes all otherwise meditation would have no meaning..

part 2 around min 2 JK again puts his plate on this time talking about mantra how it is self-imposed to arrive into certain point.
---
i guess that JK neglects conditions derived outcomes. Like how anxiety is triggered or phobias etc. You can set up conditions and then get the fruits.
Last edited by auto on Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

auto
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by auto » Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:48 pm

JK doesn't do discipline, no meditation, because JK no meditation covers all daily activities.

Ok, but when you get into body routes, then you need do meditation, there is a reason for it because there is a need and that need needs to be satisfied like you go to pee.

His philosophy doesn't take into account that you could look out of the eyes through eyes that the eyes are like window and you are in the house and see objects through window. So you can turn gaze inward and then see the air space between window and the watcher, there are so many things to do and cultivate thats its sickening.

Yan kong
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 4:16 pm

Re: What is the Dark Night of the Soul in Buddhist terms?

Post by Yan kong » Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:39 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:12 am
binocular wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:21 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:31 am
Why speculate about this kind of stuff when it is meaningless for anyone who is interested in truth? Freedom is not about adapting to any kind of behavior or thought program. Comparing Fransciscan monks to Thai Forest meditators is laughable. Just sayin'.

Questioner: ...but you say nothing about any intimation of the transcendental, the divine, or whatever you like to call it.

J.Krishnamurti: The intimation of that can be found only in freedom, and any
statement about it is the denial of freedom; any statement about it becomes a
verbal communication without meaning. It is there, but it cannot be found or
invited, least of all imprisoned in any system, or ambushed by any clever tricks of
the mind. It is not in the churches or the temples or the mosques. There is no
path to it, no guru, no system that can reveal its beauty; its ecstasy comes only
when there is love. This is enlightenment.


Does this get any traction in anyone here?
It doesn't get any traction in my mind, because it's just another religion, even while it purports not to be one.
How do you arrive at J. Krishnamurti teaching a religion? Is there a JK temple? Path? Doctrine? Lineage? Of course, people will parrot what he says, but where are his precepts? So, in your view, anything that is a religion gets no traction? Yet, you are here on a Buddhist site. Please explain this great mystery.
It's a flawed religion at best since there is no lineage. There's a doctrine, I've read just three threads on this forum where people go on and on and on about it.

Also, the quote about violence is rather silly. It's a bit ridiculous to ignore the complex conditions that make people different.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: What is the Dark Night of the Soul in Buddhist terms?

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:52 am

Yan kong wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:39 am

It's a flawed religion at best since there is no lineage. There's a doctrine, I've read just three threads on this forum where people go on and on and on about it.

Also, the quote about violence is rather silly. It's a bit ridiculous to ignore the complex conditions that make people different.
All religions are flawed. Just take a look around you! If you feel that JK has a doctrine, you are missing his points or haven't really read very much of what he has said. Perhaps you are looking for something that doesn't exist. Whatever that might be, it might be a good idea to examine your own motivations and see what it is that you want and how you might go about getting it. Getting it is the hard part because there is nothing to get, yet your whole being is looking for some kind of identity. Lineage is an idea that you've latched on to and given some 'special' meaning to. This is just more conditioning coming from our shared past.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guests