I wonder what K would think of us... people spending considerable time exchanging their ideas about his teachings on the web. Would he be pleased to know that after so many years people have not forgotten him but still try to understand his teachings or would he be despaired to see that we have failed to grasp the most elementary notions of his philosophy, considering that the web is by far the most illusion generating device ever...it helps us escape our loneliness, provides us with the illusion that we are important and that we are connected with thousands and thousands of people that have become virtual beings completely enstranged from reality and hence far from self-knowledge. He said once that since the present is the futre, he was not optimistic about the future of humanity and I wonder if we are not proof that he was right. The more we try to free ourselves and evolve spiritually, the more we seem to get trapped, unable to even see that we, individually are the artisans of the chains we seek to break.

pollixenie dritsas wrote:
I wonder what K would think of us... people spending considerable time exchanging their ideas about his teachings on the web. Would he be pleased to know that after so many years people have not forgotten him but still try to understand his teachings or would he be despaired to see that we have failed to grasp the most elementary notions of his philosophy, considering that the web is by far the most illusion generating device ever...it helps us escape our loneliness, provides us with the illusion that we are important and that we are connected with thousands and thousands of people that have become virtual beings completely enstranged from reality and hence far from self-knowledge. He said once that since the present is the future, he was not optimistic about the future of humanity and I wonder if we are not proof that he was right. The more we try to free ourselves and evolve spiritually, the more we seem to get trapped, unable to even see that we, individually are the artisans of the chains we seek to break.

K knew very well way back in 1927 what would happen to his teachings when he died. Which is the same thing that has happened to all the religions. As soon as the founder dies the fallen human element rushes in, and in short order mischief fully takes over and has a field day trampling once bright and shining things deeply into the mud of nonunderstanding.

"When Krishnamurti dies, which is inevitable, you will make a religion, you will set about forming rules in your minds, because the individual, Krishnamurti, has represented to you the Truth. So you will build a temple, you will then begin to have ceremonies, to invent phrases, dogmas, systems of beliefs, creeds, and to create philosophies. If you build great foundations upon me, the individual, you will be caught in that house, in that temple, and so you will have to have another Teacher come and extricate you from that temple, pull you out of that narrowness in order to liberate you. But the human mind is such that you will build another temple around Him, and so it will go on and on. But those who understand, who do not depend on authority, who hold all peoples in their hearts, will not build temples - they will really understand. It is because a few have truly desired to help other people, that they have found it simple. Others who have not understood, although they talk a great deal about it, and of how they will interpret the teaching, will have difficulties." [J. K. - 'Who Brings the Truth' - 1927)

Bob M.

"Very soon a man shall appear who will finally dispell the universal darkness from our world." (Bob M.)

This post was last updated by Robert Michael (account deleted) Sat, 05 Sep 2009.

pollixenie dritsas wrote:
unable to even see

A new religious movement is born. Krishnamurti-ism. The foundatuons and information networks, and all those who create beliefs and opinions, are all culpable. The only solution is to disband the organizations and quit pretending we are doing anything except creating gods in our own image.
Sorry to be such a big jerk! ;o)

Oops, he he, I wish I would have read Bob's post first, he points out the fact quite clearly.

I don't think the situation is worst than twenty-three years ago or more.
I can still read Krishnamurti and do not care about the noise around.

I don't share your vision of the web. It's just another tool. One of the best. You will easily share more illusions in your workplace, with your friends, in your family.

You can spend ton of interesting hours on the Internet and keep your integrity. Try to do that in your workplace, with your friends, in your family.

I think the Web2 or 3 or more will do a lot to empower people, and maybe the right tool to help them to connect the dots. K is great. The web is great.

Be your own light. Don't look to somebody else.

Robert Michael wrote:
It is because a few have truly desired to help other people, that they have found it simple. - JK -

it is simple really, do not express yourself sincerely, express yourself as you know yourself to be... What would enlightenment be without a foundation of goodness?

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.

Therese Okamoto wrote:
What would enlightenment be without a foundation of goodness?

These words touch my heart Therese, such is the immensity of truth in them. Yet even upon experiencing genuine enlightenment we must always remember to be constantly and vigilantly developing that foundation of goodness or we can so easily slip back into the darkness again. And even though it's perhaps a more intellectually enlightened darkness, it's still darkness. Or a place that is certainly lacking in the joy or the moment to moment freshness, aliveness, and all-brand-newness of living.

Bob M.

"Very soon a man shall appear who will finally dispell the universal darkness from our world." (Bob M.)

Robert Michael wrote:
we must always remember to be constantly and vigilantly developing that foundation of goodness

the use of the word "vigilance" worries me, not because goodness isnt worth developing but because i dont know how it can be done, "effortless" is the word i would choose and it doesnt need to be remembered

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.

This post was last updated by Trees Palin (account deleted) Mon, 07 Sep 2009.

Psychologically, if you're involved in effort, if you are "trying," in other words, you're never going to get there.

max

max greene wrote:
Psychologically, if you're involved in effort, if you are "trying," in other words, you're never going to get there.

Being "self-critically aware" (as per K) and then changing (as per K) old conditioned (as per K) behavior patterns DOES in fact require conscious effort, Max. Character development (as per K) doesn't happen by osmosis.

Although it's not an effort of the old conditioned self (which is rightly but a thing of vanity), but rather the effort of an awakened, enlivened, or radically transformed or renewed self. And herein lies the vast difference.

Are you "there", Max?

Bob M.

"Very soon a man shall appear who will finally dispell the universal darkness from our world." (Bob M.)

This post was last updated by Robert Michael (account deleted) Tue, 08 Sep 2009.

Therese Okamoto wrote:
the use of the word "vigilance" worries me, not because goodness isnt worth developing but because i dont know how it can be done, "effortless" is the word i would choose and it doesnt need to be remembered

Please see my reply to Max above, Therese.

Bob M.

"Very soon a man shall appear who will finally dispell the universal darkness from our world." (Bob M.)

This post was last updated by Robert Michael (account deleted) Tue, 08 Sep 2009.

Therese Okamoto wrote:
, not because goodness isnt worth developing

Where, in a Krishnamurti discussion, do we come up with the idea, of the developing nature of goodness?

Randal Shacklett wrote:
the developing nature of goodness

goodness does not need development, although some machiavellians will say that goodness is stupid, nonetheless goodness remains good... JK everywhere implies what the dalai lama says: the essence of meditation is a commitmen to goodness

JK specifically says that meditation cannot be developed, it is like the actualization of the power of goodness itself

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.

Therese Okamoto wrote:
goodness does not need development

And so why do you say that it does in the quote I highlighted?

Randal Shacklett wrote:
And so why do you say that it does in the quote I highlighted?

here is the full context: the use of the word "vigilance" worries me, not because goodness isnt worth developing but because i dont know how it can be done, "effortless" is the word i would choose and it doesnt need to be remembered

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.