I don't know what "spiritual" means.
How reliable is the meditation experience?
- Thread starter Alexander1304
- Start date
Alexander1304
Registered Senior Member
I don't know either.Maybe "immaterial"?Or,if I understand correctly what he means,the place where 'I' resides
They talk of sacred hearts, universal minds, over-souls, you know, all the abstract, mystical terms used to seduce gullible people. Life has to be described in pure and simple physical and physiological terms. It must be demystified and depsychologized. Don't talk of "higher centers" and chakras. It is not these but glands that control the human body. It is the glands that give the instructions for the functioning of this organism. In your case you have introduced an interloper -- thought. In your natural state thought ceases to control anything; it comes into temporary function when a challenge is put before it, immediately falling into the background when it is no longer needed.
Q: So then no matter what we do, we are functioning in an unnatural way, is that it?
U.G.: That is why I am pointing these things out. Forget about the ideal society and the ideal human being. Just look at the way you are functioning. That is the important thing. What has prevented the organism from fully flowering into its own uniqueness is culture. It has placed the wrong thing--the ideal person--before man. The whole thing is born out of the divisive consciousness of mankind. It has brought us nothing but violence. That is why no two gurus or saviors ever agree. Each is intent upon preaching his own nonsense.
Q: What is it that draws us to hear you? Why are we interested in what you have to say?
U.G.: You come for the same reason you go to anyone for answers: you want to know. you believe that in knowing my story you will be able to duplicate what happened to me. You, having been brainwashed all your life, can only think in terms of imitation. You think that somehow you can repeat what happened to me, that is all. That is your motive for coming. It is not a new approach to that religious stuff. It is completely different. It has absolutely nothing to do with all that romantic, spiritual, religious stuff, nothing. If you translate what I am saying into religious terms, you are missing the point entirely. "Religion", "God", "Soul", "Beatitudes", "moksha", are all just words, ideas used to keep your psychological continuity intact. When these thoughts are not there, what is left is the simple, harmonious physical functioning of the organism. I am able to describe the way this organism is functioning because your question has created the challenge here. Your questions create the conditions necessary for this response to happen. So, it is describing itself, but that is not the way it is functioning. It functions in a state of not knowing. I never ask myself how I am functioning. I never question my actions, before, during, or after they occur. Does a computer ask how it is functioning?
-from an interview with U. G. Krishnamurti
Q: So then no matter what we do, we are functioning in an unnatural way, is that it?
U.G.: That is why I am pointing these things out. Forget about the ideal society and the ideal human being. Just look at the way you are functioning. That is the important thing. What has prevented the organism from fully flowering into its own uniqueness is culture. It has placed the wrong thing--the ideal person--before man. The whole thing is born out of the divisive consciousness of mankind. It has brought us nothing but violence. That is why no two gurus or saviors ever agree. Each is intent upon preaching his own nonsense.
Q: What is it that draws us to hear you? Why are we interested in what you have to say?
U.G.: You come for the same reason you go to anyone for answers: you want to know. you believe that in knowing my story you will be able to duplicate what happened to me. You, having been brainwashed all your life, can only think in terms of imitation. You think that somehow you can repeat what happened to me, that is all. That is your motive for coming. It is not a new approach to that religious stuff. It is completely different. It has absolutely nothing to do with all that romantic, spiritual, religious stuff, nothing. If you translate what I am saying into religious terms, you are missing the point entirely. "Religion", "God", "Soul", "Beatitudes", "moksha", are all just words, ideas used to keep your psychological continuity intact. When these thoughts are not there, what is left is the simple, harmonious physical functioning of the organism. I am able to describe the way this organism is functioning because your question has created the challenge here. Your questions create the conditions necessary for this response to happen. So, it is describing itself, but that is not the way it is functioning. It functions in a state of not knowing. I never ask myself how I am functioning. I never question my actions, before, during, or after they occur. Does a computer ask how it is functioning?
-from an interview with U. G. Krishnamurti
You don't explore the bottom of the sea, while sitting on the surface, speculating. You need to dive down to the bottom. Science is trying to explore the depth of the mind by sitting on the surface. How irrational is that?
The various mystics go deep into the mind to collect unconscious data. This is like the diver going to the bottom of the sea to explore with direct observations. Once he returns to the top with the data, the experts sitting on the surface, deny he saw anything they can't see sitting on the surface.
The scientific method breaks down when you explore the mind. You cannot create a reproducible experiment. I cannot make you dream the same dream. Therefore that dream has no proof. You have the blind leading those who see.
If you dive down to the bottom to collect real data, what you will learn is that unconscious uses a different language than the conscious mind. The unconscious mind works in symbols. The conscious mind uses a slow language based in signs which have a more specific meaning. The symbolic language is faster and denser and therefore have expanded meaning.
For example, the concept of liberty has many meanings. The statue of liberty is a specific object that symbolizes the concept with many meanings. To someone who does not understand symbols the statue of liberty (right heart) is a just a copper statue, period. They may not understand why a whole book is devoted to the concept of liberty. It is not a picture book, but a discussion of a 3-D concept.
The limbic system is where chemical output is generated that is needed to tweak the right heart. But the output is very diversified yet still have a common theme based on particular limbic brain potentials. You need to dive down to see this, since sitting on the surface is too far away to see anything.
On the contrary, one can know how computers work without knowing exactly what they are doing at any particular time. A dream is merely the surface symptom, the exact details of a dream may not reveal anything about how those thoughts are produced.
Though U.G. usually rages and roars against saints, teachers and messiahs, there are moments when he appreciates the "real McCoys" as he calls them. One day he said, "Nartaki (one of Chandrasekhar's acquaintances) said something very interesting the other day. It seems that somebody went to Ramana Maharshi and said, "Bhagavan, I don't want anything. I only want moksha." It seems Ramana did not say anything but continued to do whatever he was doing. At twelve o'clock everyone got up to go except for that man. Ramana got up too and was about to go. He said to the man, "If you don't want anything that is moksha," and went away. Remarkable statement that was. That Ramana was a real McCoy." U.G. continued, "Wanting moksha is also part of wanting.
How dreams are produced is not as important as why they are produced if the goal is learning about the nature of consciousness. If someone starts to cry, it is not that important to trace the cells which produce the tears. If the goal is consciousness we are more concerned with other things a little less material.
The external approach may be able to trace the source of tears, but an internal approach is what allows one to empathize. If I had a similar internal experience of sadness (felt terrible) due to similar circumstances, this internal data allows me visualize the inner workings at some level. I can coach fro that. The external approach has never settled a good definition of consciousness.
Life is aware of itself, if we can put it that way. It is conscious of itself. When I talk of feeling I do not mean the same thing that you do. Actually, feeling is a physical response, a thud in the thymus. The thymus, one of the endocrine glands, is located under the breast bone. When you come into your natural state, sensations are felt there. You don't translate them as good or bad. They are just a thud. If there is a movement outside of you in your field of vision, that movement is also felt in the thymus. The whole of your being is that movement, or vibrates with that sound. There is no separation. This does not mean that you identify yourself with it. There is no you there, nor is there any object. What causes that sensation you don't know. You do not even know that it is a sensation.
UG
Last edited:
Why are you a fan of U.G. Krishnamurti? Maybe a better question is what insight/wisdom/information did you get from him that you have applied in your life. I am curious.
Last edited:
Self awareness implies two centers consciousness. If I sneeze, it is not be due to my will power. It happens to me. I can watch it happen, count the times and wait for it to be over so I can wipe my nose. It is very annoying this other makes me wait and can appear at odd times.
If I have a dream, I can become conscious in my dream and see the dream scape. But I am not the one who is generating this scenery, nor can I totally control or change the flows of events. It is that fascinating others speaking in symbolic language as it reduces a potential in the brain.
If someone jumps from behind the door and scares me, it not me jumping and looking stupid. I notice myself a split second later and feel mad for looking foolish when I screen like a little girl. This is all self awareness.
That other self is also interacting with the natural and social environment. Krishnamurti is conscious of this and understands the other is neutral and natural. The ego or conscious mind, is the one who is polarized and may feel the need to pass a judgement. He reminds us this other is not us/ego but the inner self.
If I have a dream, I can become conscious in my dream and see the dream scape. But I am not the one who is generating this scenery, nor can I totally control or change the flows of events. It is that fascinating others speaking in symbolic language as it reduces a potential in the brain.
If someone jumps from behind the door and scares me, it not me jumping and looking stupid. I notice myself a split second later and feel mad for looking foolish when I screen like a little girl. This is all self awareness.
That other self is also interacting with the natural and social environment. Krishnamurti is conscious of this and understands the other is neutral and natural. The ego or conscious mind, is the one who is polarized and may feel the need to pass a judgement. He reminds us this other is not us/ego but the inner self.
He speaks plainly and cuts through the bullshit. There is nothing you can get from him, that's the whole point.