Reply to Posty McPostface Well, read the speech.. He makes his meaning pretty clear - doesn't endorse any religion, sect, cult, or such things, which are 'man-made cages' that enslave rather than liberate. And yet:
[quote=Krishnamurti]Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. [/quote]
Solo climb, no ropes, definitely no sherpas. Good luck with that!
ChangelingNovember 20, 2018 at 22:21#2297400 likes
Reply to Wayfarer If "Truth is a pathless land" why would it necessarily be on a mountain-top?
If Truth is a pathless land" why would it necessarily be on a mountain-top?
Do you know the story of Krishnamurti?
He was a reluctant guru. Fate cast him in the role of ‘world spiritual teacher’. That speech was given when he formally dissolved the organisation which had been built around him, the ‘Order of the Eastern Star’, in (I think it was) 1929. He might then have returned to anonymity in India but as it was he continued to talk, always on the same themes, up until his death in 1986.
He’s definitely worth reading in my opinion even if only one or two books. First and Last Freedom, foreword by Aldous Huxley, is a modern spiritual classic.
ChangelingNovember 20, 2018 at 23:12#2297510 likes
Reply to Wayfarer Yeah known about him for many years. I used to listen to the 'Freedom from the Known' dialogues with David Bohm, in which they were talking about 'truth' being distinct from 'reality'. Apparently we live in reality but not truth.
They said reality cannot reach truth and the twain can only meet in a one-sided movement where truth visits reality from the 'ground of being'. Or something like that...
If "Truth is a pathless land" why would it necessarily be on a mountain-top?
That does sound like the voice of Evil.
Well played.
I think you make a good point. A complete absence of structure would be unintelligible. Some kind of minimal journey somewhere vaguely good is presupposed. Blake might mention the crooked roads without improvement.
Why are there no sherpas? Many of us need a sherpa or two to get through the day. Somebody to carry the groceries home; somebody to help us off the bus; somebody to clean the eave troughs out in the fall.
Reply to Bitter Crank Tongue in cheek, of course. Krishnamurti jettisons the image of ‘the path’ by which he means any kind of organisation, church, dogma, or religious ideology. But - there’s still a mountain to climb! And, the implication clearly is, climbed alone. (People often seem to remember only the first point, and forget the second.)
What does Jiddu Krishnamurti mean when he said: "Truth is a pathless land"?
Yea, a Krishnamurti thread, thanks for that. It's cool to see how many of us are already interested in his work.
I think I should leave JK to explain what he meant by this. I can only report my own interpretation.
I understand "truth" to be a living thing, reality in the present moment. Religions, philosophies and ideologies typically try to capture truth in some collection of ideas, but by doing so they kill it, because truth is not an object one can possess, just as one can not capture a breeze blowing by.
At this point in my life I probably disagree with JK that there is no path. Simple mechanical exercises can train our minds to shift focus on to the present moment. Such exercises are likely more useful than doing what I did in my youth, reading every JK book 19 times in an attempt to "figure it out".
JK can be very appealing to people like us because he gives us a million things to think about. However, it's possible that thinking is not the cure, but rather the "disease". That is, thinking shifts our focus away from the present moment where truth resides. It doesn't really matter what we're thinking, thinking is thinking.
I find it quite interesting that all of JK's books put together are actually not as useful as these three simple words....
Be here now.
To me, that's what philosophy is largely about. A process of digging through vast mountains of unnecessary complexity to find the often quite simple wisdom hiding at the bottom.
unenlightenedNovember 22, 2018 at 15:40#2302490 likes
[quote=Chuang Tzu]A path is made by walking on it.[/quote]
There's a snippet of conversation where someone asks Krishnamurti about another of his sayings, "You are the world." , asking, "When you say it, it seems true, but would it still be true if I said it?" And K's answer is something like, "It would still be true, but there would be no truth in it." I take this to mean that there is a world of difference between understanding the theory that all is one, and experiencing the fact. Krishnamurti speaks the truth as he experiences it, not as he understands it theoretically, and as Jake intimates, there can be no path to here and now, one is present, or else one is absent.
I take this to mean that there is a world of difference between understanding the theory that all is one, and experiencing the fact.
Yes, I think what JK is referring to is not something one understands, but something one experiences.
If true, this premise is somewhat undermined by the process of writing many books (or forum posts) on the subject. Such an prolific process suggests that what is being discussed is some complex, sophisticated, mysterious thing one has to analyze, dissect, take apart piece by piece etc. And so JK books can be quite inviting to philosopher peeps like us, as we tend to be looking for complex, sophisticated, mysterious things to analyze.
I now tend to see JK books (and similar writings) as a kind of circus act which draws us over thinkers in to the tent. The bait in the trap, so to speak. Once within the tent we may come to realize that overthinking isn't the solution, but rather the obstacle to overcome.
I credit JK with teaching me that "thought is inherently divisive" which imho is the key to understanding much about the human condition. I still find this insight philosophically interesting (see my many mentions of this in many threads) but the understanding on it's own is of limited value. What one does with that understanding seems rather more important.
More to the point, the understanding is actually unnecessary. Simple meditation techniques, walking, fishing, a thousand ordinary actions can get the job done without any understanding being involved. As example, food provides nutrition to our bodies even if we know nothing at all about the processes of digestion. It doesn't matter what we understand, it matters only whether we pick up the food and eat it. Like that.
Reply to Evil The way I handle this problem myself and also recommend to others is the instant that you mention any technical term or word that requires a deeper understanding of its meaning is then to stop and define it right then and there, before you proceed further with any other sentence. While this may not be the only solution it is the one I recommend and use myself.
I went through a period of fascination with Krishnamurti’s books, starting with the Penguin Krishnamurti Reader. When I read that it had immediate, intuitive appeal. Over the next five years I read everything I could get my hands on including the two biographies by Mary Lutyens and Pupul Jayakar. But I found in the end that his talks didn’t really penetrate, they didn’t bring about the ‘revolution in consciousness’ that he spoke about and exemplified. Around the same time I had become interested in Buddhism and it seemed to provide a better means. And also Krishnamurti’s teaching has a great deal in common with Buddhism, much more so than with Vedanta, even though he would of course never agree. I definitely learned some important things from reading Krishnamurti’s books, which became part of me, but I question the ability of his teaching to bring about the radical change that he demands.
ChangelingNovember 22, 2018 at 20:34#2303210 likes
I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment. I've always felt that concepts link to other concepts in the mind and lead to new ideas. Cross domain fertilisation is part of the process. So I'm not sure truth is completely pathless?
If all lost together then not alone, no? If we all find or make our own paths, we need not do so in isolation, do we? Indeed it would be impossible to find your own path in isolation, but that does not necessitate that you follow a teaching. you might take what you need from all teachings and from the others you meet. Alone or follow a teaching: seems to be a false dichotomy.
ChangelingNovember 22, 2018 at 20:43#2303290 likes
The point about pathlessness is that to follow a path is to slavishly submit to others; to a guru, a formula or to traditional beliefs, rather than to exercise your own creativity and forge your own way.
ChangelingNovember 22, 2018 at 20:58#2303400 likes
I mentioned it, because everyone remembers his saying 'truth is a pathless land', but rarely mention the following sentences:
[quote=Krishnamurti] Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. [/quote]
But if he agree that 'no teaching could bring about a radical transformation' then why spend the next forty years speaking? There is an obvious paradox, which once again is well understood in Zen.
Since you seem to think thought is the enemy you might prefer U G Krishnamurti.
I met U G in Sydney long ago, and thought him an utter phoney (which is what he said about K, whilst all the time riding along on his coat-tails by virtue of sharing the same name.)
But if he agree that 'no teaching could bring about a radical transformation' then why spend the next forty years speaking? There is an obvious paradox, which once again is well understood in Zen.
Even if no teaching could bring about a radical transformation, it doesn't seem to follow that people could not be helped to transform by what K, or anyone else for that matter, had to say. Insofar as K did play the guru, then I would say he was a phony just as UG claimed, and just as all gurus are including the anti-guru guru UG. But even if you are a phony it wouldn't seem to follow that nothing you have to say could be transformative, even radically transformative. Life, after all, is itself a radical transformation, and we all transform in different ways.
Reply to Janus The key is the idea of 'sadhana' which means 'disciplined and dedicated practice or learning'. It's true that some individuals have a spontaneous awakening, like Krishnamurti himself, but the vast majority of people will require the adoption of a conscious discipline.
Perhaps, but how would you know whether K, or anyone else, is awakened? How many awakened people have you met in your life? I have never met anyone I considered to be awakened and not a phony, not playing at it, including the Dalai Lama. All human beings are phonies, we all play at our social roles; and gurus are no different.
Also there is the problem that seeking awakening is seeking something that cannot be anything more than an idea for you. When it comes to living with presence such seeking can only take you away from it. I say this as someone who meditated daily (or at least very nearly every day) for a total of about 18 years.
Meditation bore a great deal of 'fruit" for me in terms of learning to relax, still the mind, and to be in the present. humble gains, I know; but the rest is wank IMV.
You didn't answer my questions: how many awakened individuals have you met? How would you know they are awakened? More to the point, how would you know if you were awakened?
You didn't answer my questions: how many awakened individuals have you met? How would you know they are awakened? More to the point, how would you know if you were awakened?
I do not know of any; but, I do know that those claiming that they are awakened are most likely not.
I read K, in my teenage years. It taught me some important lessons about the value of knowing what I don't know. Don't know how to phrase it differently.
One of the things Krishnamurti would often say, is that in that state there is no concept of 'me'. Maybe that's a bit hyperbolic, because I sure have plenty of awareness of myself. But what I have learned through studying writings like his, and also through meditation, is a sense of indwelling or upwelling love. And also frequent flashes of bliss. One of the things your trained not to do, is either seek those states or cling to them - actually being 'addicted to meditative bliss' is one of the 'subtle hindrances' - but they definitely occur.
The Diamond Sutra is a key text in this regard. It is the text which speaks of 'when the Buddha awakens, he realises there is absolutely no being, person or self to be awakened'. That's the paradoxical element of the Buddhist path, again. It is why the Diamond Sutra is one of the fundamental Zen texts.
. But what I have learned through studying writings like his, and also through meditation, is a sense of indwelling or upwelling love.
Well maybe I have benefited more than I thought from svriptural studies and meditation, since I am no stranger to feelings of bliss and love. Actually playing music, painting and writing also often evoke such feelings, so I don't believe for a moment that svriptural study and/or meditation is the only way.
In fact everyone is different and that is precisely why there is no beaten path to the truth, just as there is no beaten path to becoming a poet.
unenlightenedNovember 23, 2018 at 12:55#2304370 likes
Meditation bore a great deal of 'fruit" for me in terms of learning to relax, still the mind, and to be in the present. humble gains, I know; but the rest is wank IMV.
Wank it may well be, but it is what Krishnamurti is claiming. Meditation, like any other path, produces fruit and humble gains. But though one polish the mirror assiduously and thereby can see more clearly, it remains a mere reflection that one sees.
[quote=Jimi Hendrix]I used to live in a room full of mirrors
All I could see was me
Then I took my spirit and I smashed my mirrors
And now the whole world is here for me to see.[/quote]
I do not know of any; but, I do know that those claiming that they are awakened are most likely not.
Yes. In fact, those of us who explore such topics are likely to be, on average, a bit nuttier than the norm because those seeking solutions of any kind are typically those in need of a solution. That's how I got here at least.
No amount of books and practices etc are likely to sweep the nuttiness away, but they can help to manage it. It's like if your whole family is fat and you were born fat too. There's unlikely to be any diet which will turn you in to Twiggy. But you can manage your weight to avoid serious problems. Those declaring themselves "awakened" or "enlightened" are typically expressing a desire, not a reality, as best I can tell. As example, if you subject their claim to any serious inspection they often fall apart, run away, and can become hysterical etc.
Regrettably, there's a great deal of hero worship in this field. As example, I once chatted with a guy online who was the lead teacher at the Krishnamurti school in Ojai California. He told me JK was just short of a God. In my mind I pictured JK coming up behind him to whack him upside the head with a rolled up newspaper. :smile:
Anyway, lots of people come to these topics because they don't like the story they have about themselves, their self image. And then they see somebody up on a stage who everyone is applauding, and they want to be that guy with that story so they start playing the role. The role is appealing, because it looks like a way to be rich and famous and adored etc, without actually having to do much of anything.
That said, life is short and sometimes tough, and if some fantasy story helps someone get from one end to the other with less pain than they would have experienced otherwise, that's not such a bad outcome. Better to be a fantasy guru than commit suicide, eh?
I know all this stuff because I am His Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo, the founder of Bozoism, the next great world religion. Now where did I put my turban??
But what I have learned through studying writings like his, and also through meditation, is a sense of indwelling or upwelling love. And also frequent flashes of bliss.
Imho, this is fundamentally a mechanical issue. Thought operates by division, so while focused on thought we feel divided. To the degree we turn down the volume of thought the experience of division is replaced by the reality of unity. It's really no more complicated than turning down the volume of your TV so you can hear what your friend is saying. The problem of course is that the shows on our mental TV can be pretty compelling, and we typically part with them reluctantly.
Looking at this as a mechanical issue tends to be unpopular with philosophers and new agers etc, but it's actually good news for the person who is serious. It's like getting a flatter stomach by doing situps. All that's required is sticking patiently with the situps over time. Serious people will stick with it, those who aren't serious won't. And not being serious may not be a bad thing, maybe it just means one doesn't really have a problem, and thus doesn't need a solution. If one is content with how one's stomach looks, why bother with situps?
One of the things your trained not to do, is either seek those states or cling to them
More realistically, we can seek these states and cling to them a bit too just as we do any positive experience. But, try not to get all carried away. Hold on lightly, be grateful for what comes, and let it go when that time arrives. All things in moderation etc.
Easier said than done. I spend a LOT of time in a nearby state park where I explore the quiet quite earnestly. It's great, except, um... Now my normal suburban neighborhood seems so noisy I'm about to give up on hanging out in the yard. Barking dogs send me running back inside etc.
A sense of humor comes in quite handy in such inquiries.... :smile:
But though one polish the mirror assiduously and thereby can see more clearly, it remains a mere reflection that one sees.
I don't deny that more radical transformations do, rarely, take place, but I don't believe they can reliably be achieved by any deliberate form of disciplined search. I think it's always a matter of natural talent and that such transformations when they do occur, are more to do with feeling than with seeing.
We say the world is seen anew, but it is only because we feel totally differently about our relation to others and the world, not because we gain some radical new discursive esoteric knowledge. I think the belief I can achieve the latter is an ego-driven fantasy.
How many such radically transformed individuals do you know, or even know of?
One of the things Krishnamurti would often say, is that in that state there is no concept of 'me'.
Of course there must still be a concept of "me', it's only my feeling towards me that changes. In the most radical case I may no longer fear death, or illness and suffering, and so I can relax, and focus on whatever my creative nature leads me to.
If I cling to a path or traditional faith it shows that I am excessively concerned about my own salvation and such concern is always a manifestation of the fear of death. No strategic discipline or incantation can save me from that fear, but can only serve to distract me from it.
....how would you know whether K, or anyone else, is awakened? How many awakened people have you met in your life? I have never met anyone I considered to be awakened and not a phony, not playing at it
So, yes, I do believe in the 'reality of awakening'. I think many beings embody that quality. After all, the word 'bodhi' ( ????) which is also translated as 'wisdom', was what was translated as 'enlightenment' by the Pali Text society, which is the origin of the use of the word 'enlightenment' in this context. But 'Bodhi' could just as well be translated as 'awakening'. The term for a spiritual aspirant in Mahayana Buddhism is bodhisattva, 'wisdom-being'. So whether I myself am 'awakened' or have met anyone I would consider as such, I certainly accept what this term signifies, I don't think it is a mere empty gesture.
My response was a gesture towards what Krishnamurti said about the self:
[quote=Krishnamurti]You know what I mean by the self? By that, I mean the idea, the memory, the conclusion, the experience, the various forms of namable and unnamable intentions, the conscious endeavor to be or not to be, the accumulated memory of the unconscious, the racial, the group, the individual, the clan, and the whole of it all, whether it is projected outwardly in action, or projected spiritually as virtue; the striving after all this is the self. 1 [/quote]
Krishnamurti used to say, can you see without any sense of 'the me' standing back from experience and judging it? He used to speak of 'dying to the known'.
Compare to this Buddhist sutta:
At Savatthi. "Monks, I will teach you the burden, the carrier of the burden, the taking up of the burden, and the casting off of the burden. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "And which is the burden? 'The five clinging-aggregates,' it should be said. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. This, monks, is called the burden.
"And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden.
"And which is the taking up of the burden? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. This is called the taking up of the burden.
"And which is the casting off of the burden? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving. This is called the casting-off of the burden. 2
I think the resemblances are clear.
In the context of Western philosophy, there are similarities in Neoplatonism:
Plotinus wishes to speak of a thinking that is not discursive but intuitive, i.e. that it is knowing and what it is knowing are immediately evident to it. There is no gap then between thinking and what is thought--they come together in the same moment, which is no longer a moment among other consecutive moments, one following upon the other. Rather, the moment in which such a thinking takes place is immediately present and without difference from any other moment, i.e. its thought is no longer chronological but eternal. To even use names, words, to think about such a thinking is already to implicate oneself in a time of separated and consecutive moments (i.e. chronological) and to have already forgotten what it is one wishes to think, namely thinking and what is thought intuitively together. 3
When you talk about 'traditional faith', what I think you're influenced by is the rejection of whatever you see as being religious.
unenlightenedNovember 23, 2018 at 20:26#2305350 likes
How many such radically transformed individuals do you know, or even know of?
I don't think I'm in any position to make the judgement; it seems like a rather combative question. One hears tell, but personally, I am not that interested in another's enlightenment. But even if no one has conquered this mountain, still perhaps someone may...
You haven't answered my question. How many awakened individuals have you met? How do you know they are awakened (assuming you have met some or at least one)?
I can't see why it should seem a combative question. Its perfectly reasonable to ask people to justify any claim they care to make. On the other hand i am not in the business of questioning anyone's personal faith if they don't put it out there in the form of some claim or set of claims. Once someone does that they invite critique.
I can't see why it should seem a combative question. Its perfectly reasonable to ask people to justify any claim they care to make.
The constant repetition makes it seem combative, and that without any explanation of its significance. I'm here to discuss Krishnamurti's teaching, not my own faith.
When you talk about 'traditional faith', what I think you're influenced by is the rejection of whatever you see as being religious.
That is nothing more than your conveniently dismissive assumption about my psychological motivation. But you don't know me, and thus have no idea what you are talking about.
What I reject are groundless claims, and most of the claims associated with traditional faiths are rationally and empirically unsupportable. Why should I not reject a claim if there is no reason to believe it?
On the other hand if you tell me what you love and reverence I have no argument with it. You always seem to want to pretend you know that it is more than that though without being able to say why. Even if you merely said 'I feel it is more than that' I would have no argument with that either and would just say ' fair enough'. Feelings require no argument.
As I understand it Krishnamurti's 'teaching' is a 'no-teaching"; in other words he rejects tradtional systems and faiths, beliefs in the guru and so on. In other words I think he agrees with what I have been saying.
So we listen to Krishnamurti not because we think he has achieved and embodies some magical higher esoteric knowledge but because he makes good rational sense.
If me saying what I think and giving reasons for it and asking for your reasons for what you think seems combative to you I can only conclude that you have something you feel defensive about.
What I reject are groundless claims, and most of the claims associated with traditional faiths are rationally and empirically unsupportable.
You're customarily anti-religious, or 'aggressively secular' in your approach to philosophy. This is not my ascribing motivations to you, you make it abundantly clear.
You always seem to want to pretend you know that it is more than that though without being able to say why. Even if you merely said 'I feel it is more than that' I would have no argument with that either and would just say ' fair enough'. Feelings require no argument.
But then it is mere subjective feeling. My general view is that philosophy really is philo~sophia, love~wisdom. It is embodied in the figure of the sage and requires spiritual discipline. The answer I provided was not 'pretence', it was a structured philosophical argument, with references and footnotes. But I get that you don’t like that kind of thing.
You haven't answered my question. How many awakened individuals have you met? How do you know they are awakened (assuming you have met some or at least one)?
I used to go along and see various speakers. Also when I did comparative religion I went to seminars and conferences. Stand-outs include Lama Yeshe, Ama Samy, Venerable Bede Griffith, although there were many more that I have probably forgotten. Although I never did ask if they were enlightened, and I don't know if they would claim to be. Difficult thing to ascertain.
we listen to Krishnamurti not because we think he has achieved and embodies some magical higher esoteric knowledge but because he makes good rational sense.
Krishnamurti is no rationalist. If you read his biographies, his whole life he underwent an intense process - he used to call it 'the process' - which entailed a great deal of physical pressure or distress, lapsing into unconsciousness at times, and revelations of what he would simply call 'the presence' or 'the beneficence'. He wrote of encounters with spiritual beings, not all of whom were benevolent. These were vividly depicted in Krishnamurti's Notebook, which is another modern spiritual classic.
Krishnamurti was anti-religious in the sense that he rejected spiritual organisations, gurus, churches, and anything associated with it. But his entire teaching mission, if you like, was dedicated to imparting 'the only revolution' (the title of one of his books.) So of course he embodies ‘magical higher esoteric knowledge’. He just doesn't describe it in the tropes and symbols associated with religion.
You're customarily anti-religious, or 'aggressively secular' in your approach to philosophy. This is not my ascribing motivations to you, you make it abundantly clear.
This is simply untrue. I consider religion to be a very significant aspect of human life. But philosophy seeks to establish truth, and religious claims to truth, like any other claims to truth, are rightly subjected in philosophical discussion, to critique and rational questioning.
If I question your religious beliefs it is only because you put them out there in the context of philosophical discussion. When I do ask for reasons for your beliefs you usually respond defensively claiming that I am being rude, or dismissive, you respond dismissively and condescendingly yourself with adhominous comments such as "It seems not to have born any fruit for you" or you simply fail to respond at all. Can you not see what you are doing, and understand why I might find it frustrating?
Yes, but you forget what I have told you a few times now: that I had studied religions (mostly Zen Buddhism and Sufism and Christian Mysticism intensively from the age of about 15 until I was about 50, and intermittently since then (only a couple of years ago I read many of the works of Rudolph Steiner and Tomberg and others along a similar vein and I also took three units in Buddhism at Sydney uni just a few years ago). So, I have thought plenty about these issues.
I still believe all these ideas, faiths and teachings have great value, but the value lies in religious feeling, and social effects, not in any determinate esoteric knowledge. This common religious feeling is not merely subjective either, because it is a potential common to all human beings. But I am not elitist about it, claiming that its possibility is confined only to the guru context or to certain practices or disciplines, or particular religions or that it is esoteric and not attainable for the common man (or woman). For example, I believe that sensible use of psychedelics is also a valid way to access such 'altered states" of feeling and seeing, and may be lastingly and positively transformative, but this idea is scorned by most traditional religions.
Although I never did ask if they were enlightened, and I don't know if they would claim to be. Difficult thing to ascertain.
Yes, so what could it even mean? I have no doubt you would have been impressed by their intelligence and seeming compassion. This would have been an intuitive feeling on your part concerning the feelings that you believed must underly their manifest behavior, or something like that. What else could it be? So, of course it is subjective. You could be totally wrong about those people.
On one of my landscape projects I once sub-contracted to a brushwood fencing contractor who was a disciple of Da Free John. He invited me to come along to a meeting. It all seemed phony to me, but he was a nice and sincere person who genuinely believed that Da Free John was the current 'world teacher' and that he was on the path to awakening.
If you read his biographies, his whole life he underwent an intense process - he used to call it 'the process' - which entailed a great deal of physical pressure or distress, lapsing into unconsciousness at times, and revelations of what he would simply call 'the presence' or 'the beneficence'. He wrote of encounters with spiritual beings, not all of whom were benevolent. These were vividly depicted in Krishnamurti's Notebook, which is another modern spiritual classic.
All that may be be so, but we don't listen to him on account of that because we have no way of knowing if any of it is true or is merely K's own delusions. We listen to him (if we are sensible ourselves) if what he says makes sense to us, not for any other reason And 'making sense' when it comes to spiritual matters is always going to be an individual matter of what "feels right" or "rings true" for me, hence it is always going to be subjective. You have never provided any cogent argument as to why we should think it is something more than this, something esoterically objective, so to speak. I don't believe it is possible to provide such an argument; so it is not a matter for philosophy at all.
So of course he embodies ‘magical higher esoteric knowledge’. He just doesn't describe it in the tropes and symbols associated with religion.
But how do you know K does "embody magical higher esoteric knowledge", as opposed, for example to figures like Osho or Da Free John, in other words how could you know that any of them do? I say you can't know, and that you can only trust your own feelings in the matter; which is fine: I don't have any argument with someone following their feelings. but the feelings of one can never be a good argument for determining what others are to believe. Religion is, and always will be, an individual, subjective matter.
I definitely learned some important things from reading Krishnamurti’s books, which became part of me, but I question the ability of his teaching to bring about the radical change that he demands.
In every field of endeavor there are people with rare talent way out at the end of the bell curve. Mozart could write many books on music which might help us play better music, but such books are not likely to turn any of us in to a Mozart. Point being, if radical psychological change even exists it's likely so rare as to be irrelevant to the vast majority of us, and there's not much evidence that the rarely talented have the ability to share their gift with us. Mozart was born to be a great musician, and you can't pass that roll of the genetic dice on to someone else.
As example, as I understand the story, Krishnamurti had an affair with his best friend's wife and then blamed his friend's distress on his friend's lack of enlightenment etc. Is that radical change? Sounds more like being really stupid and very human to me.
As I see it Krishnamurti was quite insightful and very articulate. While these talents can be appreciated, they probably don't qualify as radical change.
Is radical change a poor goal? How about we start by better managing our normal nuttiness first, before we get carried away with the radical change dream? It seems to me that the radical change dream is just another fantasy becoming trip, like wanting to be rich and famous etc.
But then, on the other hand, if we remove the radical change dream, then few of these guru guys could make a living selling books etc. Maybe the radical change dream is necessary to keep such writers in the marketplace of ideas?
But then, on the other hand, if we remove the radical change dream, then few of these guru guys could make a living selling books etc. Maybe the radical change dream is necessary to keep such writers in the marketplace of ideas?
So, then I must conclude from the above, that these men are con artists. Luring people into an idea that they realize that nobody can ever achieve through following in their footsteps. So, Krishnamurti was right in dismissing the very organization that was dedicated to following in his footsteps towards enlightenment. Is that correct?
You haven't answered my question. How many awakened individuals have you met? How do you know they are awakened (assuming you have met some or at least one)?
This seems a reasonable question to me, but perhaps not one that will be effective. People chase the awakening dream for emotional reasons that are not likely to be significantly impacted by logic calculations. As example, I lust after Diane Lane. Go ahead and try and talk me out of this fantasy folly. Good luck! :smile:
But it's not a dismissive attitude because I am open to hearing good reasons to support belief in what you say I am merely dismissing. If I then dismiss it will only be because you seem to be unable to present any such good reasons.
So, then I must conclude from the above, that these men are con artists.
Some of them clearly are, but the bigger picture seems more complicated, as is typical of all human affairs. JK and many other such teachers may be entirely sincere in feeling they have achieved some transformation and that they can communicate that to others. And they may be right to some limited degree. We don't know how many people were substantially changed by reading these books and didn't bother to start a writing career of their own, so we never know about them.
I agree; I do think people chase the awakening "dream" or myth for emotional reasons. I have done it myself! And there's nothing wrong with chasing things for emotional reasons, if you want to; but in this context (of philosophical discussion) if you want to say there is more to it than merely chasing it for emotional reasons then the onus is on you to provide an account of that purported "more".
I don't expect or even want to convince anyone to give up their beliefs because they can';t provide rationally supportable reasons for them, and I don't even expect (although I do want) them to admit that it is really only an emotional matter, so I will keep asking the hard questions of anyone who wants to claim anything like "objective esoteric knowledge".
BTW who is Diana Lane? Is she someone I should begin lusting after? :joke:
On one of my landscape projects I once sub-contracted to a brushwood fencing contractor who was a disciple of Da Free John. He invited me to come along to a meeting. It all seemed phony to me, but he was a nice and sincere person who genuinely believed that Da Free John was the current 'world teacher' and that he was on the path to awakening.
I encountered those books and even went to a meeting, but I was suspicious about him and never took it further. Some of his books and the Laughing Man magazine were phenomenal at the time but it all blew up in late 80's. He was an extremely complicated character, brilliant in some ways, charlatan in others.
As example, as I understand the story, Krishnamurti had an affair with his best friend's wife and then blamed his friend's distress on his friend's lack of enlightenment etc. Is that radical change? Sounds more like being really stupid and very human to me.
That was the subject of the book, Lives in the Shadow with Krishnamurti, by Rosalind Rajagopal Sloss. Found that a sobering read. You can't gild the lily, but on the other hand, if you read what Krishnamurti has to say about sexual relationships, he was never sanctimonious. But that book provided insights into Krishnamurti as a man, as distinct from Krishnamurti the teacher.
which in turn was a response to this post here. When I said that it seems it had not 'borne fruit', what I meant was that you seem to be saying you had practiced meditation for 18 years, yet you think all spiritual teachers - and teachings? - are 'phony'. Perhaps I was misinterpreting?
ValentinusNovember 24, 2018 at 03:22#2306530 likes
Well, for myself, I never listened to Krishnamurti as a giver of direction. I was galvanized by his question of whether I had thought anything on my own. And his follow up question of how I would be able to tell if it was my thought.
I never got past that lesson. If I had, maybe I would view his words in another way. But as it is, I am still working on the first assignment.
JK obviously understood the different perspectives his statement “Truth is a pathless land” held, but I believe it was extremely bold and risky to state such ‘truth, in his point of view’ in a world where ignorance will always remain especially to those who allow years of fear to drive them instead of trying to understand the limitations they bind upon themselves by doing so, which of course leads them to seek contradictions defending their beliefs (speaking on religion) to further fuel the rage against whoever opposes them.
It’s the sad truth that the majority will come down to individuality from ones own illusion of strength through an ignorant, yet, some with admirable loyalty and how great their emotional attachments are towards their devoted beliefs that appears easier to let define themselves by giving them a purpose to live, a lighter burden or a possible second chance to dream, which in hindsight isn’t even their decision to make. But without truth, leaves faith blind, and with our natural human instincts to survive it’s inevitable to avoid the subjects of death, purpose, happiness, life, etc.
This is why I believe JK’s statement to be bold and extremely risky because regardless of how influential he was at the time and the impact he’s had and still has on our evolved technological society today not everyone is supposed to crawl down the rabbit hole asking dangerous questions whist potentially spending the rest of their lives in the dark completely unaware of a way out. This is why many people need to cling on to what they believe is the truth because it’s the easiest and most likely the safest way for many individuals to get through life, and now with technology evolving so quick I’ve been blessed to witness someone so devoted to Jesus Christ that nothing else would matter. I’m sure there’s many more, and I wouldn’t want anything more for them if they’re happy.
JK’s statement also relates to Leo Tolstoy’s quote “All we can know is that we know nothing”, but that in itself tells us we can still know ‘nothing’, which leaves us with something. Some foundation if you will, that can help us seek & create a more balanced understanding of truth to stand on.
I’ve been on a journey for years now and I’ve thought about taking the easy way out a few times when there doesn’t seem to be any point making the effort to pursue the light I couldn’t see at the end of the tunnel, but with meditation and other forms of practices I’ve been lucky enough to reach a real one time awakening for now.
It was near the brink of believing there was no hope where I was able to detach myself from everything that wasn’t serving me. I wouldn’t say I detached these toxic burdens in a gentle and subtle way as I would’ve liked, but I could finally see light at the end of the tunnel as 70% of my burdens just vanished. I was able to be a lot more mindful during my journey eliminating bad habits along the way and one day after many years, but only weeks this time practicing consistent meditation my mind became so clear that I broke down in happiness. I couldn’t stop crying. It felt as if my life energy was completely connected to the source and every obstacle or heavy thought that flowed through me I had an answer for. I believe in that moment of time I was one with truth itself. I am very grateful that I overcame this darkness because it was understanding the yin and yang, (dark and light) that helped set me free.
This kind of enlightenment only happens by luck, but being present with the help of meditation, detaching myself from anchored emotions, looking and sensing what really is/was beyond what my ego limited my understanding of life by judging and labelling, I woke up.
There’s a good chance you guys have read this book already but I remember reading “The way of the peaceful warrior” by Dan Millman years ago.
Regardless of his breakthrough after a tragic misfortune his extensive research in many subjects to do with the mind/enlightenment and practice in breathing techniques/mindfulness meditation he continued on for years before and later after he had regained his faith in self. He claimed to have isolated himself from society like all the gurus do, but he still had no answers. And then he heard this story that shifted his being forever.
“Milarepa had searched everywhere for enlightenment, but could find no answer--until one day, he saw an old man walking slowly down a mountain path, carrying a heavy sack. Immediately, Milarepa sensed that this old man knew the secret he had been desperately seeking for many years.
" 'Old man, please tell me what you know. What is enlightenment?' "The old man smiled at him for a moment, and swung the heavy burden off his shoulders, and stood straight.
" 'Yes, I see!' cried Milarepa. 'My everlasting gratitude. But please, one question more. What is after enlightenment?' "Smiling again, the old man picked up the sack once again, slung it over his shoulders, steadied his burden, and continued on his way."
Idk. I still haven’t hit 30 years young, but I know my life experience isn’t regrettable because It wasn’t without the exp of living in despair for years that showed me the truth that if you don’t give up you are on the right path. Obviously after the day I reached enlightenment for a short period I was able to connect some dots, but at least I’m for certain that there was a shift. One where it’s given me a massive leap towards reaching a state of ‘nothingness’.
But that book provided insights into Krishnamurti as a man, as distinct from Krishnamurti the teacher.
Yes, if we just look at these guys (and they're almost always guys, which might be enough to make one at least a bit suspicious) as philosophers, speakers and writers instead of saints, then there is no conflict or scandal, and normal human business is to be expected and accepted.
Krishnamurti can be a bit tricky, because while he repeatedly and sincerely rebelled against any process of authority, as a person he carried himself in an authoritative kind of manner, probably because he was a dignified fellow by nature and people had been looking up to him since he was a child. It might have been a bit better if JK had slipped a lame fart joke in to his talks now and again to pop the authority bubble. :smile:
I still believe that JK was a very articulate insightful person who many will find worth investigating. I'm still intrigued by his insight that "thought is inherently divisive" to this day, 40+ years after first encountering that idea in his writing. To me, that one concept explains quite a bit of the human condition.
I agree; I do think people chase the awakening "dream" or myth for emotional reasons. I have done it myself! And there's nothing wrong with chasing things for emotional reasons, if you want to; but in this context (of philosophical discussion) if you want to say there is more to it than merely chasing it for emotional reasons then the onus is on you to provide an account of that purported "more".
Yes, I can vote for that. This is a philosophy forum so your challenge is appropriate.
I don't expect or even want to convince anyone to give up their beliefs because they can';t provide rationally supportable reasons for them, and I don't even expect (although I do want) them to admit that it is really only an emotional matter, so I will keep asking the hard questions of anyone who wants to claim anything like "objective esoteric knowledge".
I do stuff like this all the time myself. It's ultimately a largely pointless endeavor, a form of irrationality in itself, but hey, we were born to do this dance so let's do it.
BTW who is Diana Lane? Is she someone I should begin lusting after?
Who is Diane Lane? WHO IS DIANE LANE???? Death to all non-believing blasphemers! No, of course you shouldn't lust after her, she's all mine, keep your grubby little hands off of her!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Lane
Pattern-chaserNovember 24, 2018 at 18:26#2308170 likes
I don't deny that more radical transformations do, rarely, take place, but I don't believe they can reliably be achieved by any deliberate form of disciplined search.
[My highlighting.]
I wonder if it simply depends on the nature of your search, i.e. how you search. :chin:
it's not a dismissive attitude because I am open to hearing good reasons to support belief in what you say I am merely dismissing... — Janus
What I meant to say was in reaction to this:
How incredibly, outrageously presumptuous of you! — Janus
which in turn was a response to this post here. When I said that it seems it had not 'borne fruit', what I meant was that you seem to be saying you had practiced meditation for 18 years, yet you think all spiritual teachers - and teachings? - are 'phony'. Perhaps I was misinterpreting?
I don't deny that meditation can yield results; I know it from experience. What I am skeptical about is the notion that it can be deliberately practiced and reliably lead to "enlightenment". I am extremely doubtful about the veracity or even coherence of the common notion of enlightenment as some kind of esoteric, higher, objective knowledge.
I think enlightenment is really just being yourself, being relaxed and living in the present. It consists in feelings of openness, release and joy rather than closedness, tension and anguish or anxiety. the former is a life of "light' and the latter a life of "darkness". Perhaps a more radical definition would be that enlightenment consists in living your life wholly for others, without concern for you own welfare.
I think this way of being is manifested only by very few spiritual geniuses, and as @Jake said, the fact that they have somehow arrived at such a state of being does not entail that they know how to teach others to achieve it. I really doubt that anyone who seeks it without the absolute selfless obsession characteristic of genius attains it.
I am extremely doubtful about the veracity or even coherence of the common notion of enlightenment as some kind of esoteric, higher, objective knowledge.
I agree, it's a challenge. On one hand it might sound like a triviality: of course I am myself, who else could I be? I think it means being fully accepting of what and who you are, though; 'being comfortable in your own skin'. so to speak; and that may take a lot of work.
Yes, they do generally seem to be rather restricted in their behavior and their moral attitudes to human behavior; particularly in regards to homosexuality, the pleasures of the flesh, forms of entertainment, intoxicants, partying hard and so on. Of course, I have no doubt there are exceptions!
Yes, they do generally seem to be rather restricted in their behavior and their moral attitudes to the human behavior; particularly in regards to homosexuality, the pleasures of the flesh, forms of entertainment, intoxicants, partying hard and so on. Of course, I have no doubt there are exceptions!
Yeah, nothing more or less than pure compassion and harmony of the spirit. I adopted the Buddhist attitude towards such matters of turning off the TV, and "disconnecting" from the world. In fact, all I do nowadays is just wallow or post here. That's the height of my feelings of bliss and equanimity.
Is meditation self-actualization? The K or Buddist seemed to have ignored the need for esteem and instead jumped all the way to the very top of the pyramid.
I wonder whether, given the immense diversity of human nature, one person's harmony of the spirit is not another person's disharmony.
That's a difficult question to ascertain. I think, that the Buddhist is very sensitive towards the affect of others, given their esteemed 'compassion'. Hence, the need to isolate from the problems of the world? I don't know how the Dali Lama get's up every morning and dismisses the negativity of the world. Should I meditate more?
Yes, but it often seems to be somewhat patronizing, to come from a sense of superiority as though "We know better".
Well, that's certainly not the intent of compassion. I often conflate compassion with empathy; but, it seems to me that there is a sincere desire to share with others in their toil and suffering. Hence, I view anyone as saying "I am enlightened" to be full of himself or herself.
Well, that's certainly not the intent of compassion. I often conflate compassion with empathy; but, it seems to me that there is a sincere desire to share with others in their toil and suffering. Hence, I view anyone as saying "I am enlightened" to be full of himself or herself.
I would extend that also to anyone acting as though they are enlightened, even if they don't come right out and say they are. I guess I just don't like the morally restrictive, in the kind of puritanical sense, side of Buddhism or any other religion. I don't think it's possible to generalize and say things like 'homosexuality is no good' or 'it's not right to eat meat' or 'it's not right to take drugs'. I mean , I never liked the whole 'Right Livelihood' and 'Right Thinking' aspects of Buddhism: as though there are certain livelihoods or ways of thinking that are just not right for anyone. Now I am only referring here to livelihoods and thinkings that do no intentional harm to others; obviously ethics is more subtle and nuances than the moral precepts of Buddhism would allow.
Hence, the need to isolate from the problems of the world? I don't know how the Dali Lama get's up every morning and dismisses the negativity of the world. Should I meditate more?
As Ashleigh Brilliant says (paraphrased): My biggest problem is what to do about all the things I cannot do anything about
I am extremely doubtful about the veracity or even coherence of the common notion of enlightenment as some kind of esoteric, higher, objective knowledge.
That doesn't amount to saying anything beyond what you believe, but as you make that point clear every time such an idea comes up, there's plainly no further use in discussing it, so I will refrain in future.
Well, what do you expect me to think if, as is apparently the case, no coherent account of higher esoteric objective knowledge can be found?
I have searched extensively and never been able to find any such account. If you genuinely wished to discuss it you could present an account (even if it were merely tentative) and it could be examined In order to see if it is self-consistent and consistent with general experience. Otherwise we will just be whistling in the wind or pouring from the empty into the void.
I mean nothing anybody says really amounts to saying anything beyond what they believe; but if they want others to be convinced it is incumbent upon them to give good rationally or evidentially justified reasons. Once they have presented what they believe to be such reasons for their position, as I believe I have done (or at least attempted to do), then those purportedly good reasons can be critiqued. I don't see that you have even attempted to provide rational justification for your position, and you don't attempt to directly engage and critique what I present either; instead you claim that is I who am being dismissive, when ironically it is really you.
I think it means being fully accepting of what and who you are, though; 'being comfortable in your own skin'. so to speak; and that may take a lot of work.
Or maybe not?
What is the mechanism of "not accepting"? What is "not accepting" literally made of? Thought. To the degree we turn down the volume of thought the "not accepting" goes away.
Yes, a temporary solution. But then all of life is a temporary solution. Eating, sleeping, digesting, sex, breathing, all temporary solutions requiring ongoing management. So why do we demand anything more from another mechanical operation of the body, thinking?
Maybe there's a bit more than a temporary solution? As example, if one has reliable access to food, one still has to eat, but one is not worried about it too much. If one has a reliable temporary solution to over thinking and not accepting etc, then these things still happen, but one doesn't worry it about so much, doesn't get all wrapped up in the drama to the same degree.
What typically happens in conversations on these topics is the focus is often on "enlightenment" some form of permanent solution, because that's what's glamorous and exciting etc. Ok, maybe that's possible, I wouldn't know. But why not nail down a realistic doable temporary solution strategy first, before concerning oneself with what may not even be possible?
I am extremely doubtful about the veracity or even coherence of the common notion of enlightenment as some kind of esoteric, higher, objective knowledge.
I would agree that "enlightenment" is certainly not common, and that there is often considerable self delusion involved in those who explore such things, but that doesn't automatically equal such "esoteric, higher, objective knowledge" being non-existent.
My guess is that there are considerable translation obstacles involved, like trying to explain color to a blind man. What seems to typically happen is that an end of the bell curve person has some rare experience or insight, and when they try to share it with others the message is quickly turned in to a word circus, which is then memorized and repeated, losing fidelity with every re-telling. You know, like when you copy music from one cassette tape to another 34 times. By the end of that process the primary thing remaining is static.
I know this has probably been posted but I want couldn't find it and I wanted to repost it as I respond to it.
"I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices." (https://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-dissolution-speech)
I've bolded what I thought was key here from the expanded quote. I think we can see here that there is hyperbole here. As he clearly shows us the "path" to Truth; ascendance through the valley (unafraid) perseverance through the fear.
What is the mechanism of "not accepting"? What is "not accepting" literally made of? Thought. To the degree we turn down the volume of thought the "not accepting" goes away.
I agree that 'not accepting' is driven by thoughts, but it consists in a feeling; which can be shown by the fact that the same thoughts about the self might occur without the feelings of non-acceptance.
I also agree that there are initially only only temporary solutions and that the relinquishing of attachment to the kinds of thoughts that cause tension and preoccupation must be sustained by constant attention at first, but may subsequently be established by habit. but then no "permament' solution would seem to be possible since my situation is constantly changing, even if only in subtle ways. We can get better at it just as can with say playing music; but there will always be room for improvement.
The kind of radical shift away from any preoccupation with self at all may be possible in rare cases; but as i have argued this is really a shift in affect, and is not comprised by any "higher esoteric objective knowledge" that has been attained.
but that doesn't automatically equal such "esoteric, higher, objective knowledge" being non-existent.
My guess is that there are considerable translation obstacles involved, like trying to explain color to a blind man.
I haven't been arguing that there are no so-called 'higher states' (although I would prefer to call them 'altered states' since 'higher' carries the connotation that they are given from some transcendent realm rather than that they are inherent possibilities of the organism itself). I have merely been contending that that they are affective states, not states of determinate knowledge. In other words being in such a state, no matter how exalted, tells us nothing definite about what is true metaphysically speaking.
Such states cannot guarantee that there is an afterlife, whether resurrection or reincarnation, or that karma is true, or that a loving God exists, for example. I have no argument with people being convinced about such things by their own experiences, though, since that is a matter for them. But it is unjustifiable that people should interpret their own experiences in such a way that they believe they provide good reasons that others should believe anything in particular about afterlife, God or karma and so on.
My frustration stems from the fact that I have tried to explain that this is what I am saying to @Wayfarer so many times and he always misinterprets what I am saying, takes it as a personal attack, and dismisses what I am saying without engaging it in discussion, by (ironically) claiming that it is I who am being dismissive.
All I am asking for is a good reason to believe that the altered states of one could provide any reasons, beyond subjective feelings about it, to influence another's beliefs. I have never found any such reason, and that is why I reject the Guru phenomenon (although I don't want to deny anyone's right to follow a guru if they want to want to; I just think that intellectual honesty should lead them to admit that their decision is affectively, not rationally, driven).
ChangelingNovember 26, 2018 at 00:49#2311420 likes
I don’t have the discipline to not do this. I’m kicking myself in the buttocks already.
First off I never read anything by this guy, but I’ve heard of one of em’ poetic sayin’s that I find more aesthetically pleasing. Here paraphrased from imperfect memory: Reality is a mountain whose material is composed of multiple paths of truth amid our deceptions and self-deceptions, and holds as its zenith Truth, a state of being where all these paths of truth converge into the same thing. So I disagree with this pathlessness interpretation and approach people have been speaking about here … this at an emotive level.
I agree that 'not accepting' is driven by thoughts, but it consists in a feeling; which can be shown by the fact that the same thoughts about the self might occur without the feelings of non-acceptance.
Not by "thoughts", but by thought. Not the contents of the medium, the medium itself.
Option 1: If we diagnose the source of the non-acceptance as thoughts, that suggests a psychological process where we examine all the thoughts, try to keep the good ones, dump the bad ones etc. You know, some people spends literally decades in therapy trying to dig through the endless pile of thoughts.
Option 2: If on the other hand we diagnose the source of non-acceptance as thought itself, that suggests a far more direct and efficient remedy, lower the volume of thought through simple mechanical methods.
I also agree that there are initially only only temporary solutions and that the relinquishing of attachment to the kinds of thoughts that cause tension and preoccupation must be sustained by constant attention at first, but may subsequently be established by habit. but then no "permament' solution would seem to be possible since my situation is constantly changing, even if only in subtle ways. We can get better at it just as can with say playing music; but there will always be room for improvement.
Right, no permanent solution is possible, except perhaps for uniquely talented people too rare to be relevant. I would ask, why do we expect a permanent solution to be available, why do we go looking for such a thing? What other process of the body can be permanently put in order? Why do we calmly accept that every other process of the body requires ongoing maintenance, but then expect to find some permanent perfect solution to the negative by-products of the thinking apparatus?
In the rest of your post you seem to be arguing that enhanced experiences can not deliver reliable data, that all explanations of such experiences are suspect.
That's fine with me, but why worry about it? Why not embrace the experiences for themselves, and simply discard any explanations of them, whether our own or somebody else's? If thought is the primary barrier to such experiences, isn't ANY explanation basically a step backward?
Not by "thoughts", but by thought. Not the contents of the medium, the medium itself.
Obviously, though some thoughts are more joyous than others. If you are thinking 'I am no good', 'I am unworthy' 'I am useless' and so on then attachment to such thoughts will lead to non-acceptance of self. If on the other hand you think 'I can do this', 'I have the ability to be creative', 'My ideas are valuable' and so on, these thoughts embody acceptance of self. If you become excessively attached to them, though, you may become a megalomaniac or a narcissist. So it is all a subtle balancing act.
Option 1: If we diagnose the source of the non-acceptance as thoughts, that suggests a psychological process where we examine all the thoughts, try to keep the good ones, dump the bad ones etc. You know, some people spends literally decades in therapy trying to dig through the endless pile of thoughts.
As I said I think non-acceptance is a feeling and it may be driven by thoughts. It's possible to learn to recognize the thoughts that cause feelings of non-acceptance and let them go. i would say generally that thoughts or thought is not the problem, but rather attachment to thoughts, or indeed attachment to thinking, is the problem.
I don't see that "lowering the volume of thought" is the answer. It may be an answer, but it will not be for everyone, since everyone is different. certainly lowering the degree of attachment to thought, whatever the volume, would seem to be a good strategy, though.
In the rest of your post you seem to be arguing that enhanced experiences can not deliver reliable data, that all explanations of such experiences are suspect.
That's fine with me, but why worry about it? Why not embrace the experiences for themselves, and simply discard any explanations of them, whether our own or somebody else's? If thought is the primary barrier to such experiences, isn't ANY explanation basically a step backward?
Yes, I do think that 'enhanced experiences can not deliver reliable data, but I do think they can deliver enhanced feelings, and that is their value. So, I am not at all worrying about their inability to deliver reliable data, and I have been arguing precisely for "discarding (or at least disregarding in the sense of not taking too seriously) any explanations of them". And again, I don't believe thought is "the primary barrier to such experiences" although it may be if one is too attached to the thoughts. I think explanations can themselves be interesting, inspiring and even practically useful, provided one is not too attached to them, and entertains them only a provisional basis.
Pattern-chaserNovember 27, 2018 at 16:43#2316940 likes
I am extremely doubtful about the veracity or even coherence of the common notion of enlightenment as some kind of esoteric, higher, objective knowledge.
There are surely many obstacles on the path to enlightenment. But, whatever enlightenment actually is, I am confident that it isn't "objective". :chin:
Pattern-chaserNovember 27, 2018 at 16:46#2316960 likes
No more wearing masks can be a challenge in this parade called "life".
:up: :smile: Yes, ask an autist, for whom 'masking' has a special meaning. :wink: For us, no masking means being outcast, but let's not get sidetracked by the challenges autists face. :wink:
:up: :smile: Yes, ask an autist, for whom 'masking' has a special meaning. :wink: For us, no masking means being outcast, but let's not get sidetracked by the challenges autists face. :wink:
My best friend is an autist. I don't have many friends because I value honesty and the quality of 'not putting on masks' above all else.
Pattern-chaserNovember 27, 2018 at 17:23#2317360 likes
Reply to Wallows A mask is like a coat you put on. The coat of a professional contains all those little mannerisms and speech patterns that go with being a professional.
Reply to Wallows I had that once while I was awake, except I wasn't naked. I had just had a really harrowing night. I walked around feeling like a ghost. Somebody looked at me and it shocked me that they could see me. I carry that experience with me. It does feel good.
I had that once while I was awake, except I wasn't naked. I had just had a really harrowing night. I walked around feeling like a ghost. Somebody looked at me and it shocked me that they could see me. I carry that experience with me. It does feel good.
Sorry that you felt like a ghost. Only in dreams, I suppose.
The question is really whether so-called higher states of consciousness can yield genuine metaphysical knowledge; objective truths (as opposed to subjective feelings and beliefs) about the nature of reality and the 'meaning' of human life.
There is a sense in which I think such experiences are not merely subjective because of their reliable commonality, but that is true of subjective experiences and states in general (being in love for example).
Thanks, Posty. I'm a bit time poor at the moment to start a thread. Of course you could start one on the topic if you like, and I would try to contribute as much as limited time allows.
I don't think I have 'resolved the issue'; to be honest I can't imagine what a resolution would look like beyond giving a negative answer to the question I posed in the first paragraph of my previous post, given that there does not seem to be any rationally or evidentially supportable positive answer to be found. :smile:
Ah, time. Gotta love it when you have it. I think I've reached my quota on starting new topics. But, I will hope to see you offer your advice on resolving the issue of communicating abstract concepts like ones awakening into intelligibility.
The question is really whether so-called higher states of consciousness can yield genuine metaphysical knowledge; objective truths (as opposed to subjective feelings and beliefs) about the nature of reality and the 'meaning' of human life.
How far from natural and normal can we go and still come to credible conclusions? Are the posts I write all wrong because I'm usually typing them while high on caffeine?
Oh wow. My first post and this is where I find myself. Now that is a question.
If I were to answer that statement, and not be in a state of mania...
I’d tell you that I am truth and you can search with all the means of man but you shall not find me, not unless it is shall be your destiny. If it is your destiny then you shall not merely find me, but join me. And together we shall share in all that is beauty. I shall learn from you, you from me, us from the others and then at the end of our sermons we shall all laugh at our own foolishness.
And If I was in a state of mania I’d probably believe that.
How far from natural and normal can we go and still come to credible conclusions? Are the posts I write all wrong because I'm usually typing them while high on caffeine?
Whatever insights caffeine may yield are not "far from natural and normal" since its use is so widespread. However it might be induced, an altered state is an altered state; i.e. an extra-ordinary or abnormal state. Now, the question as to whether such states yield any reliable metaphysical knowledge may equally be asked about so-called 'normal' states; that is lower (as opposed to higher) or unaltered states. The thing is that question is rarely asked because no one thinks that normal states tell us anything about the metaphysical or transcendent, in addition to what they might tell us about the empirical.
I don't think any rigorous distinction between what is natural and what is not is justifiable.
Some researchers believe that DMT (which is produced endogenously) is active in the brain during the dream phase of sleep. If this is so, then it should be no surprise that dreams are psychedelic.
Some researchers believe that DMT (which is produced endogenously) is active in the brain during the dream phase of sleep. If this is so, then it should be no surprise that dreams are psychedelic.
That's about as psychedelic as I'm willing to go. Heh.
Yeah, well when it comes to dreaming that requires no decision on your part; in fact you have little choice in the matter. Your only option would be to take some other drug to suppress your dreams, or at least your awareness and/or memory of them. :grin:
Yeah, well that requires no decision on your part; in fact you have little choice in the matter. Your only option would be to take some other drug to suppress your dreams, or at least your awareness and/or memory of them. :grin:
Haha, THC is one drug that suppresses dreams. Just pointing that out.
I too was enamored with drugs for a good portion of my life. But, then I realized that they aren't conducive to being happy. What keeps you interested in their supposed utility? I'm sure something can be said about ones attachment to them and detriment to attaining lasting happiness.
I wouldn't say I am "attached to" (read 'addicted to') drugs. I would probably take psychedelics about once or twice a year. It's about creative exploration for me.
I rarely drink alcohol (I just have a couple drinks on some social occasions). I don't smoke tobacco or weed. I do eat some (not tobacco) though (helps me sleep).
The utility is not "supposed" but experientially demonstrated.
Reply to Janus One or Two doses a year is more than enough for me. I then have to endure a few months of dysfunction before normality resumes. The growth is worth the instability. I’ve found chakra exploration entirely fascinating but again once or twice a year is enough.
That's surprising; I don't recall experiencing any dysfunction; except maybe with MDMA (and then only for one or two days). Immediately after Psilocybin, on the other hand, I usually feel cleansed and more relaxed than usual, even though (and maybe because) the trip itself is obviously much more challenging than MDMA.
I'm not sure what you mean to refer to by "chakra exploration".
I’m bi-polar, SP and all other kinds of modern explanations of altered states of experience and existence. I’m super sensitive to anything that stimulates. I mean MJ or Meditation not DMT or real Mind altering stuff, explored when I was a teenager but couldn’t now. I live in a crazy world of beauty where everything is music and truth. That’s why I digged the op. Pathless land etc.
The question is really whether so-called higher states of consciousness can yield genuine metaphysical knowledge; objective truths (as opposed to subjective feelings and beliefs) about the nature of reality and the 'meaning' of human life.
Nothing can deliver objective knowledge to humans, nothing at all. The question really is what sorts of knowledge do you place value upon? Not all knowledge is scientific fact....
Truth is like a big messy poo. Something you have to do alone, you have to clean up your own mess when you're done, no one is going to want to look at it... but if you hold it in, then you'll become increasingly full of shit.
Reply to Janus Me too. In my humble and meaningless opinion; Even on the worst days, it’s better to be on vacation in hell than be stuck in purgatory without a passport.
Nothing can deliver objective knowledge to humans, nothing at all. The question really is what sorts of knowledge do you place value upon? Not all knowledge is scientific fact....
Yes, there is 'knowing that' (not all of which is scientific knowledge in the narrow sense). Then there is 'knowing how', the skills involved in using and working with things. Incorporating both there is the more primal knowing of familiarity, knowing in the Biblical sense, the poetic sense, the knowing of others and ourselves and the natural and human-made worlds and so on.
Highlight the text you want to quote and you'll notice a quote bar pop up next to it. Click on that and the portion highlighted will be quoted in the response box.
Highlight the text you want to quote and you'll notice a quote bar pop up next to it. Click on that and the portion highlighted will be quoted in the response box.
Thanks :smile:
Pattern-chaserNovember 30, 2018 at 12:23#2324470 likes
That statement could only be credible if you were to comprehensively deny the possibility of the unknown and predicate the statement upon those terms.
???
I assert "the possibility of the unknown", as humans cannot knowingly possess objective knowledge (except that Objective Reality exists; we can know no more of it than this).
My claim would be that if an omnipotent being, call it god, were to deliver objective truth to man, then something, not nothing, could deliver the objective truth to man. Once the truth was delivered then I don’t see what that has to do with the omnipotent being and it’s delivery. The rest is up to man, and while I find it very unlikely that man could know he had possession of the objective truth, I don’t know if that’s correct, and I don’t know if an objective reality exists, more probable than man knowing it. But I agree that we could Know no more than this. I think that the Omnipotent being, if it were something, then could not be nothing, and if it possessed and decided too, share it’s truths with man, then it could do so.
Now I’m fresh to this and open to insult. So, am I complete loop?
Comments (153)
[quote=Krishnamurti]Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. [/quote]
Solo climb, no ropes, definitely no sherpas. Good luck with that!
Probably a swamp. Hot, humid, treacherous, snaky, leechy, malarial, pathless.
Do you know the story of Krishnamurti?
He was a reluctant guru. Fate cast him in the role of ‘world spiritual teacher’. That speech was given when he formally dissolved the organisation which had been built around him, the ‘Order of the Eastern Star’, in (I think it was) 1929. He might then have returned to anonymity in India but as it was he continued to talk, always on the same themes, up until his death in 1986.
He’s definitely worth reading in my opinion even if only one or two books. First and Last Freedom, foreword by Aldous Huxley, is a modern spiritual classic.
They said reality cannot reach truth and the twain can only meet in a one-sided movement where truth visits reality from the 'ground of being'. Or something like that...
That does sound like the voice of Evil.
Well played.
I think you make a good point. A complete absence of structure would be unintelligible. Some kind of minimal journey somewhere vaguely good is presupposed. Blake might mention the crooked roads without improvement.
Why are there no sherpas? Many of us need a sherpa or two to get through the day. Somebody to carry the groceries home; somebody to help us off the bus; somebody to clean the eave troughs out in the fall.
Yea, a Krishnamurti thread, thanks for that. It's cool to see how many of us are already interested in his work.
I think I should leave JK to explain what he meant by this. I can only report my own interpretation.
I understand "truth" to be a living thing, reality in the present moment. Religions, philosophies and ideologies typically try to capture truth in some collection of ideas, but by doing so they kill it, because truth is not an object one can possess, just as one can not capture a breeze blowing by.
At this point in my life I probably disagree with JK that there is no path. Simple mechanical exercises can train our minds to shift focus on to the present moment. Such exercises are likely more useful than doing what I did in my youth, reading every JK book 19 times in an attempt to "figure it out".
JK can be very appealing to people like us because he gives us a million things to think about. However, it's possible that thinking is not the cure, but rather the "disease". That is, thinking shifts our focus away from the present moment where truth resides. It doesn't really matter what we're thinking, thinking is thinking.
I find it quite interesting that all of JK's books put together are actually not as useful as these three simple words....
Be here now.
To me, that's what philosophy is largely about. A process of digging through vast mountains of unnecessary complexity to find the often quite simple wisdom hiding at the bottom.
There's a snippet of conversation where someone asks Krishnamurti about another of his sayings, "You are the world." , asking, "When you say it, it seems true, but would it still be true if I said it?" And K's answer is something like, "It would still be true, but there would be no truth in it." I take this to mean that there is a world of difference between understanding the theory that all is one, and experiencing the fact. Krishnamurti speaks the truth as he experiences it, not as he understands it theoretically, and as Jake intimates, there can be no path to here and now, one is present, or else one is absent.
Yes, I think what JK is referring to is not something one understands, but something one experiences.
If true, this premise is somewhat undermined by the process of writing many books (or forum posts) on the subject. Such an prolific process suggests that what is being discussed is some complex, sophisticated, mysterious thing one has to analyze, dissect, take apart piece by piece etc. And so JK books can be quite inviting to philosopher peeps like us, as we tend to be looking for complex, sophisticated, mysterious things to analyze.
I now tend to see JK books (and similar writings) as a kind of circus act which draws us over thinkers in to the tent. The bait in the trap, so to speak. Once within the tent we may come to realize that overthinking isn't the solution, but rather the obstacle to overcome.
I credit JK with teaching me that "thought is inherently divisive" which imho is the key to understanding much about the human condition. I still find this insight philosophically interesting (see my many mentions of this in many threads) but the understanding on it's own is of limited value. What one does with that understanding seems rather more important.
More to the point, the understanding is actually unnecessary. Simple meditation techniques, walking, fishing, a thousand ordinary actions can get the job done without any understanding being involved. As example, food provides nutrition to our bodies even if we know nothing at all about the processes of digestion. It doesn't matter what we understand, it matters only whether we pick up the food and eat it. Like that.
You forgot to do this.
Terms are a pathless land.
I don't think there's much of a philosophical connection but there are similarities in appearance and especially their voices.
Quoting Wayfarer
Why would pathlessness entail lone climbing?
Quoting Wayfarer
But, surely K would agree that his teaching, indeed no teaching (and that is his main point) could bring about the radical transformation.
Because there are no paths, and everyone is lost.
If all lost together then not alone, no? If we all find or make our own paths, we need not do so in isolation, do we? Indeed it would be impossible to find your own path in isolation, but that does not necessitate that you follow a teaching. you might take what you need from all teachings and from the others you meet. Alone or follow a teaching: seems to be a false dichotomy.
No.
Well then you obviously need to broaden your horizons.
Since you seem to think thought is the enemy you might prefer U G Krishnamurti.
In a broad land the horizons are vaster; if the land is broad enough the horizons are broadened to infinity. No path is needed, no?
My reaction
Is that you in the video? If so you need help, and if not, then it was not your reaction, no?
I mentioned it, because everyone remembers his saying 'truth is a pathless land', but rarely mention the following sentences:
[quote=Krishnamurti] Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. [/quote]
But if he agree that 'no teaching could bring about a radical transformation' then why spend the next forty years speaking? There is an obvious paradox, which once again is well understood in Zen.
Quoting Janus
I met U G in Sydney long ago, and thought him an utter phoney (which is what he said about K, whilst all the time riding along on his coat-tails by virtue of sharing the same name.)
Even if no teaching could bring about a radical transformation, it doesn't seem to follow that people could not be helped to transform by what K, or anyone else for that matter, had to say. Insofar as K did play the guru, then I would say he was a phony just as UG claimed, and just as all gurus are including the anti-guru guru UG. But even if you are a phony it wouldn't seem to follow that nothing you have to say could be transformative, even radically transformative. Life, after all, is itself a radical transformation, and we all transform in different ways.
Perhaps, but how would you know whether K, or anyone else, is awakened? How many awakened people have you met in your life? I have never met anyone I considered to be awakened and not a phony, not playing at it, including the Dalai Lama. All human beings are phonies, we all play at our social roles; and gurus are no different.
Also there is the problem that seeking awakening is seeking something that cannot be anything more than an idea for you. When it comes to living with presence such seeking can only take you away from it. I say this as someone who meditated daily (or at least very nearly every day) for a total of about 18 years.
As for whether ‘they’re all phonies’ - I don’t believe so. ‘There would no fools’ gold if there were no gold’, said Rumi
How incredibly, outrageously presumptuous of you!
Meditation bore a great deal of 'fruit" for me in terms of learning to relax, still the mind, and to be in the present. humble gains, I know; but the rest is wank IMV.
You didn't answer my questions: how many awakened individuals have you met? How would you know they are awakened? More to the point, how would you know if you were awakened?
I do not know of any; but, I do know that those claiming that they are awakened are most likely not.
One of the things Krishnamurti would often say, is that in that state there is no concept of 'me'. Maybe that's a bit hyperbolic, because I sure have plenty of awareness of myself. But what I have learned through studying writings like his, and also through meditation, is a sense of indwelling or upwelling love. And also frequent flashes of bliss. One of the things your trained not to do, is either seek those states or cling to them - actually being 'addicted to meditative bliss' is one of the 'subtle hindrances' - but they definitely occur.
The Diamond Sutra is a key text in this regard. It is the text which speaks of 'when the Buddha awakens, he realises there is absolutely no being, person or self to be awakened'. That's the paradoxical element of the Buddhist path, again. It is why the Diamond Sutra is one of the fundamental Zen texts.
Well maybe I have benefited more than I thought from svriptural studies and meditation, since I am no stranger to feelings of bliss and love. Actually playing music, painting and writing also often evoke such feelings, so I don't believe for a moment that svriptural study and/or meditation is the only way.
In fact everyone is different and that is precisely why there is no beaten path to the truth, just as there is no beaten path to becoming a poet.
Wank it may well be, but it is what Krishnamurti is claiming. Meditation, like any other path, produces fruit and humble gains. But though one polish the mirror assiduously and thereby can see more clearly, it remains a mere reflection that one sees.
[quote=Jimi Hendrix]I used to live in a room full of mirrors
All I could see was me
Then I took my spirit and I smashed my mirrors
And now the whole world is here for me to see.[/quote]
Yes. In fact, those of us who explore such topics are likely to be, on average, a bit nuttier than the norm because those seeking solutions of any kind are typically those in need of a solution. That's how I got here at least.
No amount of books and practices etc are likely to sweep the nuttiness away, but they can help to manage it. It's like if your whole family is fat and you were born fat too. There's unlikely to be any diet which will turn you in to Twiggy. But you can manage your weight to avoid serious problems. Those declaring themselves "awakened" or "enlightened" are typically expressing a desire, not a reality, as best I can tell. As example, if you subject their claim to any serious inspection they often fall apart, run away, and can become hysterical etc.
Regrettably, there's a great deal of hero worship in this field. As example, I once chatted with a guy online who was the lead teacher at the Krishnamurti school in Ojai California. He told me JK was just short of a God. In my mind I pictured JK coming up behind him to whack him upside the head with a rolled up newspaper. :smile:
Anyway, lots of people come to these topics because they don't like the story they have about themselves, their self image. And then they see somebody up on a stage who everyone is applauding, and they want to be that guy with that story so they start playing the role. The role is appealing, because it looks like a way to be rich and famous and adored etc, without actually having to do much of anything.
That said, life is short and sometimes tough, and if some fantasy story helps someone get from one end to the other with less pain than they would have experienced otherwise, that's not such a bad outcome. Better to be a fantasy guru than commit suicide, eh?
I know all this stuff because I am His Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo, the founder of Bozoism, the next great world religion. Now where did I put my turban??
Imho, this is fundamentally a mechanical issue. Thought operates by division, so while focused on thought we feel divided. To the degree we turn down the volume of thought the experience of division is replaced by the reality of unity. It's really no more complicated than turning down the volume of your TV so you can hear what your friend is saying. The problem of course is that the shows on our mental TV can be pretty compelling, and we typically part with them reluctantly.
Looking at this as a mechanical issue tends to be unpopular with philosophers and new agers etc, but it's actually good news for the person who is serious. It's like getting a flatter stomach by doing situps. All that's required is sticking patiently with the situps over time. Serious people will stick with it, those who aren't serious won't. And not being serious may not be a bad thing, maybe it just means one doesn't really have a problem, and thus doesn't need a solution. If one is content with how one's stomach looks, why bother with situps?
Quoting Wayfarer
More realistically, we can seek these states and cling to them a bit too just as we do any positive experience. But, try not to get all carried away. Hold on lightly, be grateful for what comes, and let it go when that time arrives. All things in moderation etc.
Easier said than done. I spend a LOT of time in a nearby state park where I explore the quiet quite earnestly. It's great, except, um... Now my normal suburban neighborhood seems so noisy I'm about to give up on hanging out in the yard. Barking dogs send me running back inside etc.
A sense of humor comes in quite handy in such inquiries.... :smile:
I don't deny that more radical transformations do, rarely, take place, but I don't believe they can reliably be achieved by any deliberate form of disciplined search. I think it's always a matter of natural talent and that such transformations when they do occur, are more to do with feeling than with seeing.
We say the world is seen anew, but it is only because we feel totally differently about our relation to others and the world, not because we gain some radical new discursive esoteric knowledge. I think the belief I can achieve the latter is an ego-driven fantasy.
How many such radically transformed individuals do you know, or even know of?
Of course there must still be a concept of "me', it's only my feeling towards me that changes. In the most radical case I may no longer fear death, or illness and suffering, and so I can relax, and focus on whatever my creative nature leads me to.
If I cling to a path or traditional faith it shows that I am excessively concerned about my own salvation and such concern is always a manifestation of the fear of death. No strategic discipline or incantation can save me from that fear, but can only serve to distract me from it.
Quoting Janus
So, yes, I do believe in the 'reality of awakening'. I think many beings embody that quality. After all, the word 'bodhi' ( ????) which is also translated as 'wisdom', was what was translated as 'enlightenment' by the Pali Text society, which is the origin of the use of the word 'enlightenment' in this context. But 'Bodhi' could just as well be translated as 'awakening'. The term for a spiritual aspirant in Mahayana Buddhism is bodhisattva, 'wisdom-being'. So whether I myself am 'awakened' or have met anyone I would consider as such, I certainly accept what this term signifies, I don't think it is a mere empty gesture.
My response was a gesture towards what Krishnamurti said about the self:
[quote=Krishnamurti]You know what I mean by the self? By that, I mean the idea, the memory, the conclusion, the experience, the various forms of namable and unnamable intentions, the conscious endeavor to be or not to be, the accumulated memory of the unconscious, the racial, the group, the individual, the clan, and the whole of it all, whether it is projected outwardly in action, or projected spiritually as virtue; the striving after all this is the self. 1 [/quote]
Krishnamurti used to say, can you see without any sense of 'the me' standing back from experience and judging it? He used to speak of 'dying to the known'.
Compare to this Buddhist sutta:
I think the resemblances are clear.
In the context of Western philosophy, there are similarities in Neoplatonism:
When you talk about 'traditional faith', what I think you're influenced by is the rejection of whatever you see as being religious.
I don't think I'm in any position to make the judgement; it seems like a rather combative question. One hears tell, but personally, I am not that interested in another's enlightenment. But even if no one has conquered this mountain, still perhaps someone may...
You haven't answered my question. How many awakened individuals have you met? How do you know they are awakened (assuming you have met some or at least one)?
I can't see why it should seem a combative question. Its perfectly reasonable to ask people to justify any claim they care to make. On the other hand i am not in the business of questioning anyone's personal faith if they don't put it out there in the form of some claim or set of claims. Once someone does that they invite critique.
The constant repetition makes it seem combative, and that without any explanation of its significance. I'm here to discuss Krishnamurti's teaching, not my own faith.
That is nothing more than your conveniently dismissive assumption about my psychological motivation. But you don't know me, and thus have no idea what you are talking about.
What I reject are groundless claims, and most of the claims associated with traditional faiths are rationally and empirically unsupportable. Why should I not reject a claim if there is no reason to believe it?
On the other hand if you tell me what you love and reverence I have no argument with it. You always seem to want to pretend you know that it is more than that though without being able to say why. Even if you merely said 'I feel it is more than that' I would have no argument with that either and would just say ' fair enough'. Feelings require no argument.
As I understand it Krishnamurti's 'teaching' is a 'no-teaching"; in other words he rejects tradtional systems and faiths, beliefs in the guru and so on. In other words I think he agrees with what I have been saying.
So we listen to Krishnamurti not because we think he has achieved and embodies some magical higher esoteric knowledge but because he makes good rational sense.
If me saying what I think and giving reasons for it and asking for your reasons for what you think seems combative to you I can only conclude that you have something you feel defensive about.
What...close but no cigar?
I think anyone enlightened would never claim to be enlightened. Hence being unenlightened.
There is a flaw in your logic.
All enlightened people do not claim enlightenment.
Unenlightened does not claim enlightenment.
Hence... no, nothing follows.
You may not be enlightened; but, you are very close to it!
You're customarily anti-religious, or 'aggressively secular' in your approach to philosophy. This is not my ascribing motivations to you, you make it abundantly clear.
Quoting Janus
But then it is mere subjective feeling. My general view is that philosophy really is philo~sophia, love~wisdom. It is embodied in the figure of the sage and requires spiritual discipline. The answer I provided was not 'pretence', it was a structured philosophical argument, with references and footnotes. But I get that you don’t like that kind of thing.
Quoting Janus
I used to go along and see various speakers. Also when I did comparative religion I went to seminars and conferences. Stand-outs include Lama Yeshe, Ama Samy, Venerable Bede Griffith, although there were many more that I have probably forgotten. Although I never did ask if they were enlightened, and I don't know if they would claim to be. Difficult thing to ascertain.
Quoting Janus
Krishnamurti is no rationalist. If you read his biographies, his whole life he underwent an intense process - he used to call it 'the process' - which entailed a great deal of physical pressure or distress, lapsing into unconsciousness at times, and revelations of what he would simply call 'the presence' or 'the beneficence'. He wrote of encounters with spiritual beings, not all of whom were benevolent. These were vividly depicted in Krishnamurti's Notebook, which is another modern spiritual classic.
Krishnamurti was anti-religious in the sense that he rejected spiritual organisations, gurus, churches, and anything associated with it. But his entire teaching mission, if you like, was dedicated to imparting 'the only revolution' (the title of one of his books.) So of course he embodies ‘magical higher esoteric knowledge’. He just doesn't describe it in the tropes and symbols associated with religion.
This is simply untrue. I consider religion to be a very significant aspect of human life. But philosophy seeks to establish truth, and religious claims to truth, like any other claims to truth, are rightly subjected in philosophical discussion, to critique and rational questioning.
If I question your religious beliefs it is only because you put them out there in the context of philosophical discussion. When I do ask for reasons for your beliefs you usually respond defensively claiming that I am being rude, or dismissive, you respond dismissively and condescendingly yourself with adhominous comments such as "It seems not to have born any fruit for you" or you simply fail to respond at all. Can you not see what you are doing, and understand why I might find it frustrating?
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, but you forget what I have told you a few times now: that I had studied religions (mostly Zen Buddhism and Sufism and Christian Mysticism intensively from the age of about 15 until I was about 50, and intermittently since then (only a couple of years ago I read many of the works of Rudolph Steiner and Tomberg and others along a similar vein and I also took three units in Buddhism at Sydney uni just a few years ago). So, I have thought plenty about these issues.
I still believe all these ideas, faiths and teachings have great value, but the value lies in religious feeling, and social effects, not in any determinate esoteric knowledge. This common religious feeling is not merely subjective either, because it is a potential common to all human beings. But I am not elitist about it, claiming that its possibility is confined only to the guru context or to certain practices or disciplines, or particular religions or that it is esoteric and not attainable for the common man (or woman). For example, I believe that sensible use of psychedelics is also a valid way to access such 'altered states" of feeling and seeing, and may be lastingly and positively transformative, but this idea is scorned by most traditional religions.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, so what could it even mean? I have no doubt you would have been impressed by their intelligence and seeming compassion. This would have been an intuitive feeling on your part concerning the feelings that you believed must underly their manifest behavior, or something like that. What else could it be? So, of course it is subjective. You could be totally wrong about those people.
On one of my landscape projects I once sub-contracted to a brushwood fencing contractor who was a disciple of Da Free John. He invited me to come along to a meeting. It all seemed phony to me, but he was a nice and sincere person who genuinely believed that Da Free John was the current 'world teacher' and that he was on the path to awakening.
Quoting Wayfarer
All that may be be so, but we don't listen to him on account of that because we have no way of knowing if any of it is true or is merely K's own delusions. We listen to him (if we are sensible ourselves) if what he says makes sense to us, not for any other reason And 'making sense' when it comes to spiritual matters is always going to be an individual matter of what "feels right" or "rings true" for me, hence it is always going to be subjective. You have never provided any cogent argument as to why we should think it is something more than this, something esoterically objective, so to speak. I don't believe it is possible to provide such an argument; so it is not a matter for philosophy at all.
Quoting Wayfarer
But how do you know K does "embody magical higher esoteric knowledge", as opposed, for example to figures like Osho or Da Free John, in other words how could you know that any of them do? I say you can't know, and that you can only trust your own feelings in the matter; which is fine: I don't have any argument with someone following their feelings. but the feelings of one can never be a good argument for determining what others are to believe. Religion is, and always will be, an individual, subjective matter.
In every field of endeavor there are people with rare talent way out at the end of the bell curve. Mozart could write many books on music which might help us play better music, but such books are not likely to turn any of us in to a Mozart. Point being, if radical psychological change even exists it's likely so rare as to be irrelevant to the vast majority of us, and there's not much evidence that the rarely talented have the ability to share their gift with us. Mozart was born to be a great musician, and you can't pass that roll of the genetic dice on to someone else.
As example, as I understand the story, Krishnamurti had an affair with his best friend's wife and then blamed his friend's distress on his friend's lack of enlightenment etc. Is that radical change? Sounds more like being really stupid and very human to me.
As I see it Krishnamurti was quite insightful and very articulate. While these talents can be appreciated, they probably don't qualify as radical change.
Is radical change a poor goal? How about we start by better managing our normal nuttiness first, before we get carried away with the radical change dream? It seems to me that the radical change dream is just another fantasy becoming trip, like wanting to be rich and famous etc.
But then, on the other hand, if we remove the radical change dream, then few of these guru guys could make a living selling books etc. Maybe the radical change dream is necessary to keep such writers in the marketplace of ideas?
I said that because of your dismissive attitude.
So, then I must conclude from the above, that these men are con artists. Luring people into an idea that they realize that nobody can ever achieve through following in their footsteps. So, Krishnamurti was right in dismissing the very organization that was dedicated to following in his footsteps towards enlightenment. Is that correct?
This seems a reasonable question to me, but perhaps not one that will be effective. People chase the awakening dream for emotional reasons that are not likely to be significantly impacted by logic calculations. As example, I lust after Diane Lane. Go ahead and try and talk me out of this fantasy folly. Good luck! :smile:
But it's not a dismissive attitude because I am open to hearing good reasons to support belief in what you say I am merely dismissing. If I then dismiss it will only be because you seem to be unable to present any such good reasons.
Some of them clearly are, but the bigger picture seems more complicated, as is typical of all human affairs. JK and many other such teachers may be entirely sincere in feeling they have achieved some transformation and that they can communicate that to others. And they may be right to some limited degree. We don't know how many people were substantially changed by reading these books and didn't bother to start a writing career of their own, so we never know about them.
I agree; I do think people chase the awakening "dream" or myth for emotional reasons. I have done it myself! And there's nothing wrong with chasing things for emotional reasons, if you want to; but in this context (of philosophical discussion) if you want to say there is more to it than merely chasing it for emotional reasons then the onus is on you to provide an account of that purported "more".
I don't expect or even want to convince anyone to give up their beliefs because they can';t provide rationally supportable reasons for them, and I don't even expect (although I do want) them to admit that it is really only an emotional matter, so I will keep asking the hard questions of anyone who wants to claim anything like "objective esoteric knowledge".
BTW who is Diana Lane? Is she someone I should begin lusting after? :joke:
Sounds awfully like the placebo effect to my ears.
I encountered those books and even went to a meeting, but I was suspicious about him and never took it further. Some of his books and the Laughing Man magazine were phenomenal at the time but it all blew up in late 80's. He was an extremely complicated character, brilliant in some ways, charlatan in others.
Quoting Jake
That was the subject of the book, Lives in the Shadow with Krishnamurti, by Rosalind Rajagopal Sloss. Found that a sobering read. You can't gild the lily, but on the other hand, if you read what Krishnamurti has to say about sexual relationships, he was never sanctimonious. But that book provided insights into Krishnamurti as a man, as distinct from Krishnamurti the teacher.
Quoting Janus
What I meant to say was in reaction to this:
Quoting Janus
which in turn was a response to this post here. When I said that it seems it had not 'borne fruit', what I meant was that you seem to be saying you had practiced meditation for 18 years, yet you think all spiritual teachers - and teachings? - are 'phony'. Perhaps I was misinterpreting?
I never got past that lesson. If I had, maybe I would view his words in another way. But as it is, I am still working on the first assignment.
It’s the sad truth that the majority will come down to individuality from ones own illusion of strength through an ignorant, yet, some with admirable loyalty and how great their emotional attachments are towards their devoted beliefs that appears easier to let define themselves by giving them a purpose to live, a lighter burden or a possible second chance to dream, which in hindsight isn’t even their decision to make. But without truth, leaves faith blind, and with our natural human instincts to survive it’s inevitable to avoid the subjects of death, purpose, happiness, life, etc.
This is why I believe JK’s statement to be bold and extremely risky because regardless of how influential he was at the time and the impact he’s had and still has on our evolved technological society today not everyone is supposed to crawl down the rabbit hole asking dangerous questions whist potentially spending the rest of their lives in the dark completely unaware of a way out. This is why many people need to cling on to what they believe is the truth because it’s the easiest and most likely the safest way for many individuals to get through life, and now with technology evolving so quick I’ve been blessed to witness someone so devoted to Jesus Christ that nothing else would matter. I’m sure there’s many more, and I wouldn’t want anything more for them if they’re happy.
JK’s statement also relates to Leo Tolstoy’s quote “All we can know is that we know nothing”, but that in itself tells us we can still know ‘nothing’, which leaves us with something. Some foundation if you will, that can help us seek & create a more balanced understanding of truth to stand on.
I’ve been on a journey for years now and I’ve thought about taking the easy way out a few times when there doesn’t seem to be any point making the effort to pursue the light I couldn’t see at the end of the tunnel, but with meditation and other forms of practices I’ve been lucky enough to reach a real one time awakening for now.
It was near the brink of believing there was no hope where I was able to detach myself from everything that wasn’t serving me. I wouldn’t say I detached these toxic burdens in a gentle and subtle way as I would’ve liked, but I could finally see light at the end of the tunnel as 70% of my burdens just vanished. I was able to be a lot more mindful during my journey eliminating bad habits along the way and one day after many years, but only weeks this time practicing consistent meditation my mind became so clear that I broke down in happiness. I couldn’t stop crying. It felt as if my life energy was completely connected to the source and every obstacle or heavy thought that flowed through me I had an answer for. I believe in that moment of time I was one with truth itself. I am very grateful that I overcame this darkness because it was understanding the yin and yang, (dark and light) that helped set me free.
This kind of enlightenment only happens by luck, but being present with the help of meditation, detaching myself from anchored emotions, looking and sensing what really is/was beyond what my ego limited my understanding of life by judging and labelling, I woke up.
There’s a good chance you guys have read this book already but I remember reading “The way of the peaceful warrior” by Dan Millman years ago.
Regardless of his breakthrough after a tragic misfortune his extensive research in many subjects to do with the mind/enlightenment and practice in breathing techniques/mindfulness meditation he continued on for years before and later after he had regained his faith in self. He claimed to have isolated himself from society like all the gurus do, but he still had no answers. And then he heard this story that shifted his being forever.
“Milarepa had searched everywhere for enlightenment, but could find no answer--until one day, he saw an old man walking slowly down a mountain path, carrying a heavy sack. Immediately, Milarepa sensed that this old man knew the secret he had been desperately seeking for many years.
" 'Old man, please tell me what you know. What is enlightenment?' "The old man smiled at him for a moment, and swung the heavy burden off his shoulders, and stood straight.
" 'Yes, I see!' cried Milarepa. 'My everlasting gratitude. But please, one question more. What is after enlightenment?' "Smiling again, the old man picked up the sack once again, slung it over his shoulders, steadied his burden, and continued on his way."
Idk. I still haven’t hit 30 years young, but I know my life experience isn’t regrettable because It wasn’t without the exp of living in despair for years that showed me the truth that if you don’t give up you are on the right path. Obviously after the day I reached enlightenment for a short period I was able to connect some dots, but at least I’m for certain that there was a shift. One where it’s given me a massive leap towards reaching a state of ‘nothingness’.
Yes, if we just look at these guys (and they're almost always guys, which might be enough to make one at least a bit suspicious) as philosophers, speakers and writers instead of saints, then there is no conflict or scandal, and normal human business is to be expected and accepted.
Krishnamurti can be a bit tricky, because while he repeatedly and sincerely rebelled against any process of authority, as a person he carried himself in an authoritative kind of manner, probably because he was a dignified fellow by nature and people had been looking up to him since he was a child. It might have been a bit better if JK had slipped a lame fart joke in to his talks now and again to pop the authority bubble. :smile:
I still believe that JK was a very articulate insightful person who many will find worth investigating. I'm still intrigued by his insight that "thought is inherently divisive" to this day, 40+ years after first encountering that idea in his writing. To me, that one concept explains quite a bit of the human condition.
Yes, I can vote for that. This is a philosophy forum so your challenge is appropriate.
Quoting Janus
I do stuff like this all the time myself. It's ultimately a largely pointless endeavor, a form of irrationality in itself, but hey, we were born to do this dance so let's do it.
Quoting Janus
Who is Diane Lane? WHO IS DIANE LANE???? Death to all non-believing blasphemers! No, of course you shouldn't lust after her, she's all mine, keep your grubby little hands off of her!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Lane
I wonder if it simply depends on the nature of your search, i.e. how you search. :chin:
Quoting Wayfarer
I don't deny that meditation can yield results; I know it from experience. What I am skeptical about is the notion that it can be deliberately practiced and reliably lead to "enlightenment". I am extremely doubtful about the veracity or even coherence of the common notion of enlightenment as some kind of esoteric, higher, objective knowledge.
I think enlightenment is really just being yourself, being relaxed and living in the present. It consists in feelings of openness, release and joy rather than closedness, tension and anguish or anxiety. the former is a life of "light' and the latter a life of "darkness". Perhaps a more radical definition would be that enlightenment consists in living your life wholly for others, without concern for you own welfare.
I think this way of being is manifested only by very few spiritual geniuses, and as @Jake said, the fact that they have somehow arrived at such a state of being does not entail that they know how to teach others to achieve it. I really doubt that anyone who seeks it without the absolute selfless obsession characteristic of genius attains it.
Then, what is it?
Didya read the following paragraph, Posty? :grin:
Hmm, being "yourself" seems pretty hard to do nowadays. Heh.
I agree, it's a challenge. On one hand it might sound like a triviality: of course I am myself, who else could I be? I think it means being fully accepting of what and who you are, though; 'being comfortable in your own skin'. so to speak; and that may take a lot of work.
Mhm. No more wearing masks can be a challenge in this parade called "life".
I don't see why being yourself may not include "wearing masks".
Just figurative speech. I always held Buddhists to be linear in their affect and personality. No hype, jazz, or drama.
Yes, they do generally seem to be rather restricted in their behavior and their moral attitudes to human behavior; particularly in regards to homosexuality, the pleasures of the flesh, forms of entertainment, intoxicants, partying hard and so on. Of course, I have no doubt there are exceptions!
Yeah, nothing more or less than pure compassion and harmony of the spirit. I adopted the Buddhist attitude towards such matters of turning off the TV, and "disconnecting" from the world. In fact, all I do nowadays is just wallow or post here. That's the height of my feelings of bliss and equanimity.
I wonder whether, given the immense diversity of human nature, one person's harmony of the spirit is not another person's disharmony.
That's a difficult question to ascertain. I think, that the Buddhist is very sensitive towards the affect of others, given their esteemed 'compassion'. Hence, the need to isolate from the problems of the world? I don't know how the Dali Lama get's up every morning and dismisses the negativity of the world. Should I meditate more?
I don't think Budhhists, or adherents of other religions generally look with much favour on secular forms of creative expression.
Yes, but it often seems to be somewhat patronizing, to come from a sense of superiority as though "We know better".
Well, that's certainly not the intent of compassion. I often conflate compassion with empathy; but, it seems to me that there is a sincere desire to share with others in their toil and suffering. Hence, I view anyone as saying "I am enlightened" to be full of himself or herself.
I would extend that also to anyone acting as though they are enlightened, even if they don't come right out and say they are. I guess I just don't like the morally restrictive, in the kind of puritanical sense, side of Buddhism or any other religion. I don't think it's possible to generalize and say things like 'homosexuality is no good' or 'it's not right to eat meat' or 'it's not right to take drugs'. I mean , I never liked the whole 'Right Livelihood' and 'Right Thinking' aspects of Buddhism: as though there are certain livelihoods or ways of thinking that are just not right for anyone. Now I am only referring here to livelihoods and thinkings that do no intentional harm to others; obviously ethics is more subtle and nuances than the moral precepts of Buddhism would allow.
As Ashleigh Brilliant says (paraphrased): My biggest problem is what to do about all the things I cannot do anything about
Hence, Stoicism? I've always preferred Stoicism over Buddhism due to its modern appeal. The Enchiridion is a fantastic book, that I often think about.
http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html
Thanks Posty! :smile:
That doesn't amount to saying anything beyond what you believe, but as you make that point clear every time such an idea comes up, there's plainly no further use in discussing it, so I will refrain in future.
Well, what do you expect me to think if, as is apparently the case, no coherent account of higher esoteric objective knowledge can be found?
I have searched extensively and never been able to find any such account. If you genuinely wished to discuss it you could present an account (even if it were merely tentative) and it could be examined In order to see if it is self-consistent and consistent with general experience. Otherwise we will just be whistling in the wind or pouring from the empty into the void.
I mean nothing anybody says really amounts to saying anything beyond what they believe; but if they want others to be convinced it is incumbent upon them to give good rationally or evidentially justified reasons. Once they have presented what they believe to be such reasons for their position, as I believe I have done (or at least attempted to do), then those purportedly good reasons can be critiqued. I don't see that you have even attempted to provide rational justification for your position, and you don't attempt to directly engage and critique what I present either; instead you claim that is I who am being dismissive, when ironically it is really you.
Or maybe not?
What is the mechanism of "not accepting"? What is "not accepting" literally made of? Thought. To the degree we turn down the volume of thought the "not accepting" goes away.
Yes, a temporary solution. But then all of life is a temporary solution. Eating, sleeping, digesting, sex, breathing, all temporary solutions requiring ongoing management. So why do we demand anything more from another mechanical operation of the body, thinking?
Maybe there's a bit more than a temporary solution? As example, if one has reliable access to food, one still has to eat, but one is not worried about it too much. If one has a reliable temporary solution to over thinking and not accepting etc, then these things still happen, but one doesn't worry it about so much, doesn't get all wrapped up in the drama to the same degree.
What typically happens in conversations on these topics is the focus is often on "enlightenment" some form of permanent solution, because that's what's glamorous and exciting etc. Ok, maybe that's possible, I wouldn't know. But why not nail down a realistic doable temporary solution strategy first, before concerning oneself with what may not even be possible?
I would agree that "enlightenment" is certainly not common, and that there is often considerable self delusion involved in those who explore such things, but that doesn't automatically equal such "esoteric, higher, objective knowledge" being non-existent.
My guess is that there are considerable translation obstacles involved, like trying to explain color to a blind man. What seems to typically happen is that an end of the bell curve person has some rare experience or insight, and when they try to share it with others the message is quickly turned in to a word circus, which is then memorized and repeated, losing fidelity with every re-telling. You know, like when you copy music from one cassette tape to another 34 times. By the end of that process the primary thing remaining is static.
"I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices." (https://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-dissolution-speech)
I've bolded what I thought was key here from the expanded quote. I think we can see here that there is hyperbole here. As he clearly shows us the "path" to Truth; ascendance through the valley (unafraid) perseverance through the fear.
There is a land with no paths.
So the truth is land itself. Truth isn't moving anywhere in is just there. In the land.
I agree that 'not accepting' is driven by thoughts, but it consists in a feeling; which can be shown by the fact that the same thoughts about the self might occur without the feelings of non-acceptance.
I also agree that there are initially only only temporary solutions and that the relinquishing of attachment to the kinds of thoughts that cause tension and preoccupation must be sustained by constant attention at first, but may subsequently be established by habit. but then no "permament' solution would seem to be possible since my situation is constantly changing, even if only in subtle ways. We can get better at it just as can with say playing music; but there will always be room for improvement.
The kind of radical shift away from any preoccupation with self at all may be possible in rare cases; but as i have argued this is really a shift in affect, and is not comprised by any "higher esoteric objective knowledge" that has been attained.
Quoting Jake
I haven't been arguing that there are no so-called 'higher states' (although I would prefer to call them 'altered states' since 'higher' carries the connotation that they are given from some transcendent realm rather than that they are inherent possibilities of the organism itself). I have merely been contending that that they are affective states, not states of determinate knowledge. In other words being in such a state, no matter how exalted, tells us nothing definite about what is true metaphysically speaking.
Such states cannot guarantee that there is an afterlife, whether resurrection or reincarnation, or that karma is true, or that a loving God exists, for example. I have no argument with people being convinced about such things by their own experiences, though, since that is a matter for them. But it is unjustifiable that people should interpret their own experiences in such a way that they believe they provide good reasons that others should believe anything in particular about afterlife, God or karma and so on.
My frustration stems from the fact that I have tried to explain that this is what I am saying to @Wayfarer so many times and he always misinterprets what I am saying, takes it as a personal attack, and dismisses what I am saying without engaging it in discussion, by (ironically) claiming that it is I who am being dismissive.
All I am asking for is a good reason to believe that the altered states of one could provide any reasons, beyond subjective feelings about it, to influence another's beliefs. I have never found any such reason, and that is why I reject the Guru phenomenon (although I don't want to deny anyone's right to follow a guru if they want to want to; I just think that intellectual honesty should lead them to admit that their decision is affectively, not rationally, driven).
Truth is in landfill?
First off I never read anything by this guy, but I’ve heard of one of em’ poetic sayin’s that I find more aesthetically pleasing. Here paraphrased from imperfect memory: Reality is a mountain whose material is composed of multiple paths of truth amid our deceptions and self-deceptions, and holds as its zenith Truth, a state of being where all these paths of truth converge into the same thing. So I disagree with this pathlessness interpretation and approach people have been speaking about here … this at an emotive level.
Also:
Quoting Posty McPostface
What about those who claim to be sleeping? If a person tells us that they’re asleep, should we trust that they are in fact sleepwalking? I think not.
(For the record, I agree with you, Posty. Just thinking that what I just said is funny. :joke: )
You are right.
Most people have phyilosophy for wierds like you and me.
Not by "thoughts", but by thought. Not the contents of the medium, the medium itself.
Option 1: If we diagnose the source of the non-acceptance as thoughts, that suggests a psychological process where we examine all the thoughts, try to keep the good ones, dump the bad ones etc. You know, some people spends literally decades in therapy trying to dig through the endless pile of thoughts.
Option 2: If on the other hand we diagnose the source of non-acceptance as thought itself, that suggests a far more direct and efficient remedy, lower the volume of thought through simple mechanical methods.
Quoting Janus
Right, no permanent solution is possible, except perhaps for uniquely talented people too rare to be relevant. I would ask, why do we expect a permanent solution to be available, why do we go looking for such a thing? What other process of the body can be permanently put in order? Why do we calmly accept that every other process of the body requires ongoing maintenance, but then expect to find some permanent perfect solution to the negative by-products of the thinking apparatus?
In the rest of your post you seem to be arguing that enhanced experiences can not deliver reliable data, that all explanations of such experiences are suspect.
That's fine with me, but why worry about it? Why not embrace the experiences for themselves, and simply discard any explanations of them, whether our own or somebody else's? If thought is the primary barrier to such experiences, isn't ANY explanation basically a step backward?
Obviously, though some thoughts are more joyous than others. If you are thinking 'I am no good', 'I am unworthy' 'I am useless' and so on then attachment to such thoughts will lead to non-acceptance of self. If on the other hand you think 'I can do this', 'I have the ability to be creative', 'My ideas are valuable' and so on, these thoughts embody acceptance of self. If you become excessively attached to them, though, you may become a megalomaniac or a narcissist. So it is all a subtle balancing act.
Quoting Jake
As I said I think non-acceptance is a feeling and it may be driven by thoughts. It's possible to learn to recognize the thoughts that cause feelings of non-acceptance and let them go. i would say generally that thoughts or thought is not the problem, but rather attachment to thoughts, or indeed attachment to thinking, is the problem.
I don't see that "lowering the volume of thought" is the answer. It may be an answer, but it will not be for everyone, since everyone is different. certainly lowering the degree of attachment to thought, whatever the volume, would seem to be a good strategy, though.
Quoting Jake
Yes, I do think that 'enhanced experiences can not deliver reliable data, but I do think they can deliver enhanced feelings, and that is their value. So, I am not at all worrying about their inability to deliver reliable data, and I have been arguing precisely for "discarding (or at least disregarding in the sense of not taking too seriously) any explanations of them". And again, I don't believe thought is "the primary barrier to such experiences" although it may be if one is too attached to the thoughts. I think explanations can themselves be interesting, inspiring and even practically useful, provided one is not too attached to them, and entertains them only a provisional basis.
There are surely many obstacles on the path to enlightenment. But, whatever enlightenment actually is, I am confident that it isn't "objective". :chin:
:up: :smile: Yes, ask an autist, for whom 'masking' has a special meaning. :wink: For us, no masking means being outcast, but let's not get sidetracked by the challenges autists face. :wink:
My best friend is an autist. I don't have many friends because I value honesty and the quality of 'not putting on masks' above all else.
The maskless is no one and everyone, I think.
I had a dream that I was walking naked and nobody was paying attention to me. Felt pretty good.
Sorry that you felt like a ghost. Only in dreams, I suppose.
The question is really whether so-called higher states of consciousness can yield genuine metaphysical knowledge; objective truths (as opposed to subjective feelings and beliefs) about the nature of reality and the 'meaning' of human life.
There is a sense in which I think such experiences are not merely subjective because of their reliable commonality, but that is true of subjective experiences and states in general (being in love for example).
Very interesting point worthy of starting a topic. How have you been able to resolve the issue?
Thanks, Posty. I'm a bit time poor at the moment to start a thread. Of course you could start one on the topic if you like, and I would try to contribute as much as limited time allows.
I don't think I have 'resolved the issue'; to be honest I can't imagine what a resolution would look like beyond giving a negative answer to the question I posed in the first paragraph of my previous post, given that there does not seem to be any rationally or evidentially supportable positive answer to be found. :smile:
Ah, time. Gotta love it when you have it. I think I've reached my quota on starting new topics. But, I will hope to see you offer your advice on resolving the issue of communicating abstract concepts like ones awakening into intelligibility.
How far from natural and normal can we go and still come to credible conclusions? Are the posts I write all wrong because I'm usually typing them while high on caffeine?
If I were to answer that statement, and not be in a state of mania...
I’d tell you that I am truth and you can search with all the means of man but you shall not find me, not unless it is shall be your destiny. If it is your destiny then you shall not merely find me, but join me. And together we shall share in all that is beauty. I shall learn from you, you from me, us from the others and then at the end of our sermons we shall all laugh at our own foolishness.
And If I was in a state of mania I’d probably believe that.
Good question. Do I really want to be enlightened? Maybe I just settle with being just "me", whatever that is.
Whatever insights caffeine may yield are not "far from natural and normal" since its use is so widespread. However it might be induced, an altered state is an altered state; i.e. an extra-ordinary or abnormal state. Now, the question as to whether such states yield any reliable metaphysical knowledge may equally be asked about so-called 'normal' states; that is lower (as opposed to higher) or unaltered states. The thing is that question is rarely asked because no one thinks that normal states tell us anything about the metaphysical or transcendent, in addition to what they might tell us about the empirical.
But, those aren't natural. In my experience dreams are incredibly psychedelic if you compare them with induced altered states from various drugs.
I don't think any rigorous distinction between what is natural and what is not is justifiable.
Some researchers believe that DMT (which is produced endogenously) is active in the brain during the dream phase of sleep. If this is so, then it should be no surprise that dreams are psychedelic.
That's about as psychedelic as I'm willing to go. Heh.
Yeah, well when it comes to dreaming that requires no decision on your part; in fact you have little choice in the matter. Your only option would be to take some other drug to suppress your dreams, or at least your awareness and/or memory of them. :grin:
Haha, THC is one drug that suppresses dreams. Just pointing that out.
Not entirely for me, and even then only the memory of them I think.
You seem to be the kind of person that wants the experience the highest of highs and lowest of lows in life. Is my caricature of you accurate?
Not so interested in the "lowest of lows" but then sometimes highs and lows are a package deal.
I too was enamored with drugs for a good portion of my life. But, then I realized that they aren't conducive to being happy. What keeps you interested in their supposed utility? I'm sure something can be said about ones attachment to them and detriment to attaining lasting happiness.
I wouldn't say I am "attached to" (read 'addicted to') drugs. I would probably take psychedelics about once or twice a year. It's about creative exploration for me.
I rarely drink alcohol (I just have a couple drinks on some social occasions). I don't smoke tobacco or weed. I do eat some (not tobacco) though (helps me sleep).
The utility is not "supposed" but experientially demonstrated.
That's surprising; I don't recall experiencing any dysfunction; except maybe with MDMA (and then only for one or two days). Immediately after Psilocybin, on the other hand, I usually feel cleansed and more relaxed than usual, even though (and maybe because) the trip itself is obviously much more challenging than MDMA.
I'm not sure what you mean to refer to by "chakra exploration".
I think it's great to be sensitive! Welcome!
Nothing can deliver objective knowledge to humans, nothing at all. The question really is what sorts of knowledge do you place value upon? Not all knowledge is scientific fact....
Yes, there is 'knowing that' (not all of which is scientific knowledge in the narrow sense). Then there is 'knowing how', the skills involved in using and working with things. Incorporating both there is the more primal knowing of familiarity, knowing in the Biblical sense, the poetic sense, the knowing of others and ourselves and the natural and human-made worlds and so on.
Sounds about right! :grin:
I’m new to the forum so apologies if I have screwed up reposting the relevant quote.
To answer “nothing can...objective knowledge.”
That statement could only be credible if you were to comprehensively deny the possibility of the unknown and predicate the statement upon those terms.
Maybe I’ve misinterpreted your message or the parameter of the discussion. Apologies if so.
How to reply with quote?
Highlight the text you want to quote and you'll notice a quote bar pop up next to it. Click on that and the portion highlighted will be quoted in the response box.
Thanks :smile:
Quoting Dan84
???
I assert "the possibility of the unknown", as humans cannot knowingly possess objective knowledge (except that Objective Reality exists; we can know no more of it than this).
Does “delivery” depend upon method of reception?
Me that’s muddled. Sorry.
My claim would be that if an omnipotent being, call it god, were to deliver objective truth to man, then something, not nothing, could deliver the objective truth to man. Once the truth was delivered then I don’t see what that has to do with the omnipotent being and it’s delivery. The rest is up to man, and while I find it very unlikely that man could know he had possession of the objective truth, I don’t know if that’s correct, and I don’t know if an objective reality exists, more probable than man knowing it. But I agree that we could Know no more than this. I think that the Omnipotent being, if it were something, then could not be nothing, and if it possessed and decided too, share it’s truths with man, then it could do so.
Now I’m fresh to this and open to insult. So, am I complete loop?