Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
binocular
Posts: 5479
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by binocular » Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:15 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:17 pm
I've listened to a few minutes of UG, read some JK, and read hundreds of your posts, and to me they all have the same evasive quality of not actually answering questions, but instead asking questions to put the questioner off balance.
A Prasangika(-like) approach gets old quickly ...

However, only neurotic people succomb to it. :tongue:
mikenz66 wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:11 am
You may well be correct, but you seem to be overlooking that to people here exactly the same argument applies to your posts and the Ks writings. Thinking about thinking. Clever wordplay and questioning...
... trying to conceal the power game going on underneath.

markandeya
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:33 am

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by markandeya » Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:12 pm

binocular wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:15 pm
mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:17 pm
I've listened to a few minutes of UG, read some JK, and read hundreds of your posts, and to me they all have the same evasive quality of not actually answering questions, but instead asking questions to put the questioner off balance.
A Prasangika(-like) approach gets old quickly ...

However, only neurotic people succomb to it. :tongue:
mikenz66 wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:11 am
You may well be correct, but you seem to be overlooking that to people here exactly the same argument applies to your posts and the Ks writings. Thinking about thinking. Clever wordplay and questioning...
... trying to conceal the power game going on underneath.

Hypocrisy is blind when theoretical knowledge comes through faculty of the sense world, totally of reality will always be vague if approached only with the empirical external senses, which includes mind or mind as center. Manos mana. lower mind measures and is not a function of true intellect~buddhi, its basic survival instinct, similar to animal consciousnesses.


This is because in general the west ( left side of brain ) is obsessed with thought and self affirmation, anything that challenges that is looked down or frowned upon or met with being vague or only for the neurotic.

Whereas dharma exists without self or thought affirmation and takes refuge in something more transcendent, above thought and arises spontaneous and automatic, free, not conditioned and limited to mundane ideas, thoughts and logic.

the conceptual minds resists, struggles against this due to its self absorbed conditioning into the realms of affirmation.

Dr Frog is stuck in the well

:anjali:

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by SDC » Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:02 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm
I think the difficulty we are having is in what we define as phenomena. For example, do we really see things or are we seeing the 'image' of things? I think Buddha as well as neuro scientists say that all experience is within our minds, the thought structure, the image making activity, our perceptions. We are not actually having a direct experience of sense objects.
Seems to me as though the Buddha was not in the business of trying to explain experience in this way, but was focused on what the actual experience was, i.e. what is there. For instance, there are feelings, thoughts, perceptions, yes, but as far as taking that additional step to say, "These things are all within our mind," was a redundancy that the Buddha avoided. Whether or not it was in the mind was beside the point; the things are there because "there is body" and anything further on the matter dealt with dependency and/or appearance, which have nothing at all to do with explaining the process by which things are there.

I do not think the idea of "seeing images of things" is wrong. In fact, it would be more accurate to say as such then to try and explain direct contact with matter. But again, to the image is in my mind, presupposes a primordial existence far beyond the scope of appearance, and that is simply not the nature of things. The "existence" or "self" appears just like any other thing, but being in that position of priority gives the impression that it is not an appearance but the reason for appearance in the first place.
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm
We have experience of our thought structure, the world mind. This gives the impression that this structure precedes the sense bases and is primordial which it is not.
Indeed, it is only the impression that gives the priority, but it is the holding/clinging to that arrangement that solidifies that as Being. That holding has craving as its determination, so it is not a simple matter of deciding to think differently. This arrangement is reality for one not free from it - held in the sense that it routinely acceptable in its appearance, and even a thought that would deny it is denied in a manner that is particular. But in a general sense, things have remained the same. I may have denied the existence in that instance, but that does not change the fact that there is that thing identified as existence in the experience and it has not ceased to be there.
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm
He often said 'there is no one here and no one having an experience'.
But is there experience? Was he careful to distinguish?

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

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:44 pm

SDC wrote:
Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:02 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm
I think the difficulty we are having is in what we define as phenomena. For example, do we really see things or are we seeing the 'image' of things? I think Buddha as well as neuro scientists say that all experience is within our minds, the thought structure, the image making activity, our perceptions. We are not actually having a direct experience of sense objects.
Seems to me as though the Buddha was not in the business of trying to explain experience in this way, but was focused on what the actual experience was, i.e. what is there. For instance, there are feelings, thoughts, perceptions, yes, but as far as taking that additional step to say, "These things are all within our mind," was a redundancy that the Buddha avoided. Whether or not it was in the mind was beside the point; the things are there because "there is body" and anything further on the matter dealt with dependency and/or appearance, which have nothing at all to do with explaining the process by which things are there.

I do not think the idea of "seeing images of things" is wrong. In fact, it would be more accurate to say as such then to try and explain direct contact with matter. But again, to the image is in my mind, presupposes a primordial existence far beyond the scope of appearance, and that is simply not the nature of things. The "existence" or "self" appears just like any other thing, but being in that position of priority gives the impression that it is not an appearance but the reason for appearance in the first place.
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm
We have experience of our thought structure, the world mind. This gives the impression that this structure precedes the sense bases and is primordial which it is not.
Indeed, it is only the impression that gives the priority, but it is the holding/clinging to that arrangement that solidifies that as Being. That holding has craving as its determination, so it is not a simple matter of deciding to think differently. This arrangement is reality for one not free from it - held in the sense that it routinely acceptable in its appearance, and even a thought that would deny it is denied in a manner that is particular. But in a general sense, things have remained the same. I may have denied the existence in that instance, but that does not change the fact that there is that thing identified as existence in the experience and it has not ceased to be there.
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm
He often said 'there is no one here and no one having an experience'.
But is there experience? Was he careful to distinguish?
He described the way he functioned. The way he functioned was without an experiencer. He said there was nothing apart (no observer, no self, no distinguishser) from what was going on. You were that. It was the play of the senses, of the body, without an interpreter. Because there was no interpreter naming the sensations of sight, sound, etc., he would call it a state of not knowing. If you asked him what he was looking at, he would immediatley say a bird or a flower or the wall. But if there was no demand for information, he would simply rest in the moment. He would often say what is there can never be known. That which distinguishes seemed absent in him. If you spent a little time with the first video I posted in the U.G. thread called 'Thinking Allowed', this might answer many things about him. I think you would find it quite interesting.

Dinsdale
Posts: 5868
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:21 am

( copied from another thread )

I'm still not clear how your approach to insight is substantially different from the Buddhist one. Looking at experience is certainly one way of describing satipatthana practice, for example.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

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

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Jul 18, 2018 2:17 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:21 am
( copied from another thread )

I'm still not clear how your approach to insight is substantially different from the Buddhist one. Looking at experience is certainly one way of describing satipatthana practice, for example.
I don't have an approach to insight. Perhaps a gave a wrong impression. I don't think insight can be approached. It is something that happens when you are investigating experience. Even the term investigation is not really my point. Being attentive to what is present is a continuing deepening into the nature of experience. Insight happens. The thought structure loosens. Openness and clarity are present. No need for descriptions. I don't do satipatthana practice but if you want to name it that, it's okay by me. What do you think?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests