"The core of Krishnamurti's teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: 'Truth is a pathless land'. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. Man has built in himself images as a fence of security - religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man's thinking, his relationships and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual. Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not a choice. It is man's pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity. Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge which are inseparable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever-limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution. When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep radical mutation in the mind. Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence." what say you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You forget that Krishnamurti walked the pathe of pathlessness, it's still a path, this is still a creed, still a method, and realy a pretty conventional one, I think that he got the basics right, but never went deep enough to bring back any knowlegde I hadn't thought of myself, although he did write it in more detail than I had thought it at the time, this is just how I feel though, doesn't mean much, still good reading tho
Knowledge through science....young man....science...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not a choice. It is man's pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. What do you think he means by “mans pretence?” When he talks about the end of evolution in man, do you think he is refering to “the theory of evolution?” In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity. Sounds like buddhist philosophy. I personally do not agree fully with his concept of freedom. Could you possibly give an explanation of what you think he means? Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge which are inseparable from time and the past. I think I have some understanding of this. Does he mean, because our thoughts are only of our limited experiences, and our experiences come about through the process of time, we are always relaying different times or experieances, or in other words experience=time (so to speak)? Time is the psychological enemy of man. I can see his point, but only if the man has insufficient knowledge of “self.” I do believe if a man has come to the point of self realisation, then he will not be affected by the thunderous marching boots of time, whatever time may have in store for him. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. That is very deep. I believe if we could truly grasp that concept, it would be possible to predict future events with great accuracy. That is probably how it is done. But the predictor would have to have a great understanding of human nature. When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep radical mutation in the mind. I think this is when we can begin to understand God. Or probably in Krishnamurtis case, “oness.” Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence." Either Buddhist or Mayavada philosophy. I agree on principle, but I believe there are higher levels. what say you? It is very interesting, do you follow this philosophy? This is the kind of topic we should be debating or enquiring about, imo. Love Jan Ardena.
while spookz replies to the rest of your comments, I could not help but would like to put my 2 cents for those who want to debate in the same line of thought. The predictor does not have to have a understanding of the human nature to predict the future from a greater vantage point. All you need is a quantum computer with earth conditions to simulate and run the time series...then events will unfold as it should and voila - you got your prediction. Recently, I was debating about the cause and effect of WWII. Suppose there would not have been a Hitler. What direction do you think the planet would have gone. The British controlled much of the world at the time. So, that empire would have controlled the world. Now what if in that time line, someone in Germany or America from the future justed tweeked a little to change the outcome? As I was thinking, how can you predict without knowing if future can influence the past....do we have all the facts? Is reality limited to what we observe knowing our limited capacity of understanding? Is time circular, linear, exponential, discrete, branched linear, branched circular.... Just something to chew on...
kmguru feel free to contribute please jan krishnamurti had a big impact on me at one time in a sense i am trying to recapture the allure felt previously for this man's philosophy and figure out the reasons why i did so hopefully i can present something resembling a coherent response soon
The predictor does not have to have a understanding of the human nature to predict the future from a greater vantage point. All you need is a quantum computer with earth conditions to simulate and run the time series...then events will unfold as it should and voila - you got your prediction.[/I] The only way that could happen successfully is if humans could be controlled to act rigidly in any given situation. In the movie, the matrix, we saw humans just reduced to neural activity, imagine what it must have taken to get to that stage, but saying that, I do think it is possible. Also, computers do not grow on trees, they are created, and I think to create such a powerful machine, one would have to have a great deal of knowledge in order to create the software need to calculate earth conditions and the like. Recently, I was debating about the cause and effect of WWII. Suppose there would not have been a Hitler. What direction do you think the planet would have gone. Again, Hitler became powerful, by forcing the people to give up their power, so in effect he was created by the people. He knew how to manipulate their minds. Now what if in that time line, someone in Germany or America from the future justed tweeked a little to change the outcome? The very fact that someone would be interested in such power, would, in my opinion, be of questionable character. But I don’t personally think that is how it works. As I was thinking, how can you predict without knowing if future can influence the past.... I think it can be possible to predict how the laws of nature work, as they are quite systematic. do we have all the facts? I don’t think so, but we have enough facts to create peace or chaos and mayhem. Is reality limited to what we observe knowing our limited capacity of understanding? I don’t think so, reality must encompass everything. I don’t think it is our business to know everything. Is time circular, linear, exponential, discrete, branched linear, branched circular.... I think it is everything, that is why we cannot understand it fully. Just something to chew on... Good points. What do you think about the mark of the beast as prophesied in the Bible? Do you think it is coming to pass, and if so what do you think of the Bible?? Love Jan Ardena.
I am not a Bible Scholar, so my views may substantially differ from common thinking. For starters: The first five books was translated from Hebrew to Greek to later in English etc. The Original Hebrew word for God was/is "Elohim" and it is a plural form meaning Gods...( Genesis 3:22 ...Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...) Moses wrote or directed the first five books that mostly contains the legal code to live by more so than philosophy of life. The question is, did God explain the origin of the universe to Moses? If he/they did, then the Genesis view of the origin of the Universe could be correct but should be translated to our present day understanding of science - since Moses would not at the time. The legal codes are reasonable to live by but perhaps was missing the human heart which Jesus later added. Overall, whether Bible has anything to do with a God that no one has seen, does not lessen its powerful directives. At the same time, since there were too may people translating and documenting the teachings of the two key players (Moses and Jesus), not everything in English can be taken literally. Prophecies are like astrology forecasts, - it all depends on how one interpretes them. If the prophecies came directly from God, he/she better show up now to clarify any translation problems... The very fact that this planet has not seen God since Moses, I doubt very much, we will see an equally powerful Satan. I think Satan is a human construct to shift the personal responsibility to a powerful unknowable party when one does evil.
Is it fair to say that God is also a human construct to coerce expanding masses of humans into behaviours which makes them more "manageable" by those who "know better"?
The corollary may not be true. That is God could exist independent of man simply because the universe exists that even an idiot can observe. Idiot being a person without thinking in abstracts. A God could be a sentient intelligence who resulted this creation of matter and physical laws. There may not be any real connection by God and man except in the first cause of conduct. It is like if you plant a seed and the seed grows to become a thinking plant, to the plant you could be the God. But Satan or any interactive (with man) super natural activity is more like a human construct. It may be similar to when people thought the Sun and Moon was Gods and sacrificed stuff to be in their good graces. Now we know, they exist irrespective and inspite of man. However, there is a catch to the whole argument. We assume there is nothing between God and man - ie no other intelligent creatures that are running around in the Milkyway galaxy. Since we think and therefore we exist - it is possible there are beings that may exist out there that are much older as a sentient species that have different agendas. If such is the case, then we are getting into an area of a lot of questions but few answers. Since there has been no scientific proof that aliens were present in human form or otherwise in the Earth history and since we have not made any contacts with them at present day - there is no reason to drag them for the very reason we are dragging Satan as a human construct. I still think while God can exist in non-interactive form, Satan is the dark side of human psyche. Since most older human documents did talk about Gods and Angels etc...we really dont know if it is possible to have energy bodies. There is one scenario, I have been thinking lately that is more fiction than fact. What if 50,000 years hence, (assuming our scientific progress continues to develop artificial life with geometric increase in capabilities), we develop a gadget that assembles atoms to make a human (like a Star Trek transporter) but with a twist. Say, you want to visit moon. you create a being that can exist on the moon surface but with a brain that is linked to yours on earth. You can touch, see, feel etc there and at the end of the activity, you can disperse the atoms. All you need is your information in a personal way. That is what I call Angel interface. So...who knows...if there are good and bad creatures out there - may be, but more likely they are not on earth at this time.
