Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

[Sam Vara]

Try as you may to analyze all this, it will not get you closer to any real understanding. You are just thinking and thinking about thinking.

I think you might speak with some kind of authority if you were to say "I will not get myself closer to any real understandin." But I don't see how there is any way that you could speak with authority concerning what might help james tan get closer to any real understanding.
chownah

[Saengnapha]

This looks as if it might be a version of Zeno's Paradox of Motion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes I'm happy to take interest and observation as sufficient evidence of the efficacy of the Eightfold Path; if that's not evidence, then what counts as evidence for anything? What counts as evidence that UG Krishnamurti was in any sense different from other people, in a sense worth paying attention to?

Perhaps the evidence I and others have that the Eightfold Path including its mental processes is necessary is as strong as any evidence you have about UG. And perhaps this "transformation" you talk of (What is "transformation"? Was UG "transformed"? Let's get a bit more clarity into this...) is completely different from the teachings of the Buddha. Perhaps there are people trying to get to Rajagaha https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .horn.html but you are advising them that motion is not required, because you are confusing the term "Rajagaja" with something else.

For those wishing to attain nibbana, do you consider the Eightfold Path necessary? Or is there no nibbana?

The 8 fold path as described in Theravada is a path of 'becoming', imo. I don't want to go into why this is so as I've posted many times why I think this. To me, this is in contradiction to what the Buddha taught about 'not grasping', 'not being attached'. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the 8FP if you want to lead a life that follows the 'rules' of good behavior. What I am objecting to is the description that has come down through the ages that meditation, altering your state of mind through it, is going to lead to nibbana, an unconditioned way of living. I have said many times that you want to use a conditioned dhamma like thought to lead to the unconditioned. Personally, I don't see this being the case. If it has led you to the unconditioned, which it seems it has not, then you are hoping and believing it will at some future date. So, I answer that time cannot be a factor in this matter.

I have no objection to you or anyone else trying all this. But, I think that is all that it amounts to, trying, not achieving. But, achieving is not what the Buddha is teaching. He is teaching that grasping is dukkha. If you believe that following this path is not grasping, then you will continue.

As for what UG put forth, it is also easy to get caught in the same thing that I am talking about when I refer to the 8fp, grasping, holding on to a view. There are very similar things in both 'teachings'. My basis for listening to UG is the real life observation of someone in whom dukkha ceased. This only proves to me that it is possible for someone to live this. It doesn't prove it's possible for me to achieve this. The achiever must cease first in my way of logic. You, who have only words, which are beliefs and hopes in someone who lived 2500 years ago and who may not have said the things that are attributed to him, think there is a path to this. Buddha may have been the real deal, but the orthodoxy is certainly not. And, that is what you are really practicing. But that's okay with me. You can try. I don't consider the 8fp necessary. As for nibbana, this image of what it is is what everyone has to stop grasping at in order for dukkha to cease. It's quite simple for me.

If you want to know about UG, read the books that have been published. I read about the Buddha and have practiced. You, otoh, have not really studied what the 2 K's have put forth and contemplated it. How can we really have a talk about this?

[mikenz66]

What I am objecting to is the description that has come down through the ages that meditation, altering your state of mind through it, is going to lead to nibbana, an unconditioned way of living.

So your claim seems to be that, from your experience, and your readings, you have determined that the suttas are so corrupt that they are useless as a guide to awakening. Well, that may well be the case, but it doesn't give us much common ground to discuss.

If you want to know about UG, read the books that have been published. I read about the Buddha and have practiced. You, otoh, have not really studied what the 2 K's have put forth and contemplated it. How can we really have a talk about this?

Since this is a "Buddhist forum about the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism", it's up to you to make the arguments, and draw the comparisons, when bringing in ideas from other paths. I've pointed out before that many of the points you make do seem to be discussed in the suttas and in ancient and modern commentaries. Unless you actually engage with those texts (as opposed to simply rejecting them out of hand), there appears to be little chance of any fruitful conversation.


Mike

[Spiny Norman]

Isn't analysis thinking?

Buddhist practice is about noticing, not thinking.

[Spiny Norman]

You, otoh, have not really studied what the 2 K's have put forth....

Could you explain in a nutshell what that actually is?

[Saengnapha]

What I see here are people desperately trying to make their lives fit into a system that is promising them some kind of reward, tranquility, nibbana, etc.

Yes, I get that. When you are interested in engaging, with how this relates to the ancient and modern Buddhist texts, I'll take some notice:
viewtopic.php?t=31983#p473452
viewtopic.php?t=31732&start=75
viewtopic.php?p=465417#p465416


Mike

[sentinel]

Try as you may to analyze all this, it will not get you closer to any real understanding. You are just thinking and thinking about thinking.

Perhaps you could elaborate what do you mean by the word thinking ?

Isn't analysis thinking? We posit a subject and then we think about it. More thoughts come up and we think about those. Always thinking......

Thinking is not merely an act of analysing or dissecting , but thinking is a process going on in the mind where there is a movement with addition subtraction and comparison and exchanging data between the accumulated information. There is certain usefulness of the knowledge of the Buddha's teaching that cannot be simply dismissed.
Thinking is a important tool without which Right View and Right Action is impossible .

[auto]

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nypo.html

(44) The thought should be produced: 'Others will misapprehend according to their individual views, hold on to them tenaciously and not easily discard them; we shall not misapprehend according to individual views nor hold on to them tenaciously, but shall discard them with ease.'

[Saengnapha]

Perhaps you could elaborate what do you mean by the word thinking ?

Isn't analysis thinking? We posit a subject and then we think about it. More thoughts come up and we think about those. Always thinking......

Thinking is not merely an act of analysing or dissecting , but thinking is a process going on in the mind where there is a movement with addition subtraction and comparison and exchanging data between the accumulated information. There is certain usefulness of the knowledge of the Buddha's teaching that cannot be simply dismissed.
Thinking is a important tool without which Right View and Right Action is impossible .

Thinking is actually an impersonal process. One thought is not more important than another. It is the thinker, which takes control, and rules. This is dukkha. As long as there is a choice, the thinker is in charge.

[Bundokji]

But there is a different level that is unchartered territory and no one can map it. An example of this is the Buddha using the phrase 'the way things are'. UG used 'the natural state', JK something else. All talk about attentiveness and observation as necessary elements.

As far as i know, UG never spoke about attentiveness and observation as necessary elements. JK spoke about "choiceless awareness" though.

[Saengnapha]

But there is a different level that is unchartered territory and no one can map it. An example of this is the Buddha using the phrase 'the way things are'. UG used 'the natural state', JK something else. All talk about attentiveness and observation as necessary elements.

As far as i know, UG never spoke about attentiveness and observation as necessary elements. JK spoke about "choiceless awareness" though.

You're correct. It is JK that did use the terms attention and observation. With UG, attention and observation were not considered tools as in Buddhism, that one used to discover nibbana or the natural state. But the implication of what he constantly pointed to, the limitation of the thought structure to sort all of this out, is not possible without some kind of attention and observation of it. It is not a practice as in Buddhism where some action is repeated like noting or labeling thoughts as thoughts. This is my personal take on it, not UG's choice of words. He considered all observations as within the thought structure and part of the delusion. Thanks for that reminder.

[Bundokji]

You're correct. It is JK that did use the terms attention and observation. With UG, attention and observation were not considered tools as in Buddhism, that one used to discover nibbana or the natural state. But the implication of what he constantly pointed to, the limitation of the thought structure to sort all of this out, is not possible without some kind of attention and observation of it. It is not a practice as in Buddhism where some action is repeated like noting or labeling thoughts as thoughts. This is my personal take on it, not UG's choice of words. He considered all observations as within the thought structure and part of the delusion. Thanks for that reminder.

J.K emphasized the psychological, UG focused on the physical.

UG denies everything including awareness. He thinks choiceless awareness is a technique

[Sam Vara]

The 8 fold path as described in Theravada is a path of 'becoming', imo. I don't want to go into why this is so as I've posted many times why I think this. To me, this is in contradiction to what the Buddha taught about 'not grasping', 'not being attached'.

For this to be a real contradiction (i.e. rather than, as you say, "for me") you would need to show why following the Eightfold Path necessarily involves grasping and attachment. Can you find some suttas or commentaries in which the Buddha says this of the Eightfold Path?

What I am objecting to is the description that has come down through the ages that meditation, altering your state of mind through it, is going to lead to nibbana, an unconditioned way of living

Why are you objecting to this? Is it because the Buddha never said it, and has been misrepresented? Or that the Buddha was wrong?

If you want to know about UG, read the books that have been published. I read about the Buddha and have practiced. You, otoh, have not really studied what the 2 K's have put forth and contemplated it. How can we really have a talk about this?

I've not asked about UG. Maybe I'll ask later. And then maybe we can have a talk about it. At the moment, I'm concerned with your numerous assertions (quotes given of your posts on request!) that the Eightfold Path (or Graduated Training, or the Path of Purification, or other epithets for accepted trajectories of Theravadan practice) don't work. As has been pointed out many times to you, it would be more honest to say that you tried it, and it didn't work for you. Are you saying that it can't work? For anyone?

Try this question again - you didn't answer it the first time, but doing so might clarify a few points:

You talk of a process or thing called "transformation". Now, you might be saying that the Eightfold Path, or meditation, is not required for this "transformation". And you might be right. But for those wishing to attain nibbana, do you consider the Eightfold Path necessary? Or is there no nibbana?

[SDC]

No, it doesn't oppose the thought structure. It 'sees' the thought structure for what it is, the source of dukkha. There is no theory involved, but I can see what you say as being true about exchanging one theory for another, which I am not talking about, but agreeing with you. Negation of theory is a logical outcome, but it is not to be attached to. If it is attached to, it becomes another view. There is a fine line between existence and non-existence. This cannot be captured by the thought structure because it is a dream itself, conditioned by the past and subject to impermanence. There is no replacement that steps in. It is a stepping out of that circle of thought. That to me is dispassion and disinterest. Not engaging in becoming, in attachment to images, ideas, etc. Not trying to attain anything. There is a difference between opposition and what I'm trying to put forth.

With all due respect, the fact that you are describing a method about how to attend to experience means that your method has footing in the realms of both thought and language, i.e. it has substance, it is there. Again, it is a radically scaled down version of that of the everyday person who tends to many more structures, but in the end you are still describing something.

That broad nature you are seeking to describe is not wrong though. The crux of the practice the Buddha described was not about leaving the realm of thought structure - as you call it - but to find the right structure of experience to work with. That is what is meant in AN 2.126 talking about the two conditions for to arising of right view: the utterance of another and proper attention. The "utterance of another" is - in keeping with your language - the right structure and when attended to properly, i.e. when contemplated upon to see if it corresponds with experience, one would come to see that it is an accurate description of reality as it is. The key here is that the view comes from external; it is a view that could not be fathomed on one's own. It had to come from elsewhere. If you take a hard look at that, you will see it somewhat corresponds with your own ideas about the inherent disorder of one's own wrong views and what is needed to be free of them.

Lastly, it is not possible to do nothing. Even that doing of nothing is the doing of something. Typically it is the denial of experience, but nevertheless it still requires effort to do so, i.e. one has to follow a predetermined method on how to deal with the arising of things. That is precisely what you are describing. ".

[Saengnapha]

No, it doesn't oppose the thought structure. It 'sees' the thought structure for what it is, the source of dukkha. There is no theory involved, but I can see what you say as being true about exchanging one theory for another, which I am not talking about, but agreeing with you. Negation of theory is a logical outcome, but it is not to be attached to. If it is attached to, it becomes another view. There is a fine line between existence and non-existence. This cannot be captured by the thought structure because it is a dream itself, conditioned by the past and subject to impermanence. There is no replacement that steps in. It is a stepping out of that circle of thought. That to me is dispassion and disinterest. Not engaging in becoming, in attachment to images, ideas, etc. Not trying to attain anything. There is a difference between opposition and what I'm trying to put forth.

With all due respect, the fact that you are describing a method about how to attend to experience means that your method has footing in the realms of both thought and language, i.e. it has substance, it is there. Again, it is a radically scaled down version of that of the everyday person who tends to many more structures, but in the end you are still describing something.

That broad nature you are seeking to describe is not wrong though. The crux of the practice the Buddha described was not about leaving the realm of thought structure - as you call it - but to find the right structure of experience to work with. That is what is meant in AN 2.126 talking about the two conditions for to arising of right view: the utterance of another and proper attention. The "utterance of another" is - in keeping with your language - the right structure and when attended to properly, i.e. when contemplated upon to see if it corresponds with experience, one would come to see that it is an accurate description of reality as it is. The key here is that the view comes from external; it is a view that could not be fathomed on one's own. It had to come from elsewhere. If you take a hard look at that, you will see it somewhat corresponds with your own ideas about the inherent disorder of one's own wrong views and what is needed to be free of them.

Lastly, it is not possible to do nothing. Even that doing of nothing is the doing of something. Typically it is the denial of experience, but nevertheless it still requires effort to do so, i.e. one has to follow a predetermined method on how to deal with the arising of things. That is precisely what you are describing. ".

I don't disagree with you. But, I do disagree with you. I find any description that I give about these matters utterly inconclusive because of the nature of description, whether it seems orderly or not, because of its source in the thought structure. It doesn't change anything. In a sense, there are only wrong views and we are like drowning men grasping at something to save us. This thought structure wants to survive. I don't think there is any 'right' structure to work with it. This is part of the illusion. It is grasping.