We know from all the evidence that the self is an illusion that has enabled our species to become the craftiest, most violent creature on the planet. We're crafty enough to have created this illusion and violent enough to sustain it, but there have always been those for whom the suffering involved in being a self does not justify the means, and without thought or deliberation, have abandoned the illusion.

These extraordinary individuals tend to be held up as examples for the rest of us as if we could follow their lead, but all they can honestly say is that it happens or it doesn't. They don't take credit for the transformation they've undergone and they don't prescribe any course of action. All they can do is urge that one question constantly just who one thinks one is.

Is this suppose to be some kind of a new revelation or breakthrough?

Amber Cinquini wrote:
Is this suppose to be some kind of a new revelation or breakthrough?

No, it is sage, without the onion.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
No, it is sage, without the onion.

Or onion without sage...

Cute, both of you.

The purpose of this thread is to elucidate why people get hung up on Krishnamurti, and to make evident what kind of people they are.

nick carter wrote:
The purpose of this thread is to elucidate why people get hung up on Krishnamurti, and to make evident what kind of people they are.

You see I think there may be a basic problem with this type of phrasing. Obviously you do not wish to group people together and label them . . .

What are you waiting for?

Amber Cinquini wrote:
Or onion without sage...

Some sort of stuffing . . .

What are you waiting for?

nick carter wrote:
The purpose of this thread is to elucidate why people get hung up on Krishnamurti, and to make evident what kind of people they are.

You know that I know that you know that what you said is absolutely truth....I have a theory that deep down we do know what is true....

These individuals moved us to believe in them as God instead of challenging us to question what we really are....If they are truly extra ordinary, then we are all doomed, I think they are ordinary humans who have taken an extra ordinary step.....

nick carter wrote:
what kind of people they are

They might be the kind of people who are open to consider ideas like: 'in actuality, your consciousness is not yours. It is the rest of mankind's, because we all go through the same mill, the same endless conflict.' [J. Krishnamurti Washington D.C. Talks 1985 1st Public Talk 20th April 1985]

Or this one: 'You are the world, the world is not different from you. You have created this world and you are responsible for it, completely, totally' [from the talk given the morning after]

(Please note that this includes considering that 'my' consciousness and Adolf Hitler's, Mother Theresa's, Bin Laden's and the Dalai Lama's are one and the same thing.)

Amber Cinquini wrote:
deep down we do know what is true

How deep down would you know that the previously stated is true? Or is it false?

Paul Davidson wrote:
you do not wish to group people together and label them

'My' consciousness does that for me, it seems.

This post was last updated by Juan Illan Gomez Sun, 20 Feb 2011.

nick carter wrote:
but there have always been those for whom the suffering involved in being a self does not justify the means, and without thought or deliberation, have abandoned the illusion.

The journey and destination are connected. The abandonment would not have come without deliberation.

nick carter wrote:
They don't take credit for the transformation they've undergone and they don't prescribe any course of action.

Again, this kind of statements are made at a later date (after transformation).

nick carter wrote:
All they can do is urge that one question constantly just who one thinks one is.

Isn't this a kind of lead in itself? Also, it is only a 'believing' mind that can become the 'questioning' mind.

What they can not give us is the understanding of the 'being' state of mind that is questioning. A questioning mind one day will/may become aware of the background (awareness) and this transformatin will have no connection with the questions asked or books read or participation in discussion forums during the journey. Such a transformed person, like other extraordinary minds, will not take any credit for transformation.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Juan Illan Gomez wrote:
(Please note that this includes considering that 'my' consciousness and Adolf Hitler's, Mother Theresa's, Bin Laden's and the Dalai Lama's are one and the same thing.)

Dear Juan,

this would apply to the basic nature (appratus) of consciousness and not its specific contents. The basic similarity is not exactness like we all have similar body design but are not looking exactly alike.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
What they can not give us is the understanding of the 'being' state of mind that is questioning. A questioning mind one day will/may become aware of the background (awareness) and this transformatin will have no connection with the questions asked or books read or participation in discussion forums during the journey. Such a transformed person, like other extraordinary minds, will not take any credit for transformation

Very well put Sudhir.

What are you waiting for?

Amber Cinquini wrote:
These individuals moved us to believe in them as God instead of challenging us to question what we really are

Or, out of our stubborn ignorance we moved ourselves to believe that.

What are you waiting for?

Juan Illan Gomez wrote:
How deep down would you know that the previously stated is true? Or is it false?

Io would say that truth or intelligence is part of our make up and we do recognize it....not everyone and all the time, but I do think that we recognize the real...

Paul Davidson wrote:
Or, out of our stubborn ignorance we moved ourselves to believe that.

I would say that something about these people does generate following and then it is all lost.....

Amber Cinquini wrote:
I would say that something about these people does generate following and then it is all lost.....

Well, many people get followed. Is there to be stated there a commonality between Mahatma Ghandi, Adolph Hitler and Ronald Macdonald? Hell, sometimes I even think I am being followed!

What are you waiting for?

the self belongs to the human, all selves are our human family, one selve is saying you are naming yourself so to speak. the truth does not begin as a question in this present precadiment of people lives, it can mean that people expediate and show you their true thoughts without truth. the human could tell you everything, having seen the higher humans of a another time, and i have seen many, so the question of life still means does a human live in the same, way, his survival sense, his common sense, his nature to know other humans , actually to life. there was once your natural pairing of the opposite sex, and or that question, the tradition in the west has confounded man and women pride, so humans still should be the question of life itself.

the messiah

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
this would apply to the basic nature (appratus) of consciousness and not its specific contents

And J.Krishnamurti said [J. Krishnamurti Washington D.C. Talks 1985]:

'Your consciousness is made up of its content. Without the content there is no consciousness.'

How would I be conscious that Hitler was so evil or Mother Theresa so loving?

Are those characters anything else than a part of that common consciousness some prefer to disown/condemn and another part some prefer to cherish?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Well, many people get followed. Is there to be stated there a commonality between Mahatma Ghandi, Adolph Hitler and Ronald Macdonald? Hell, sometimes I even think I am being followed!

Hard to argue with that statement, maybe we need to look at why people identify or follow? and why is it a form of violence?

Amber Cinquini wrote:
why is it a form of violence?

Because of the denial of Truth contained in the game 'now you lead and I follow and after a while I'll lead and you'll follow, but we shall never walk together, hand in hand.'

The obstacles to our awareness of Love, Truth, Reality (whatever you call It) are removed by all of us together or not at all. Playing the leader/follower game keeps those obstacles in place which is at the root of every form of violence.

Juan Illan Gomez wrote:
Are those characters anything else than a part of that common consciousness some prefer to disown/condemn and another part some prefer to cherish?

Juan Illan Gomez wrote:
Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: this would apply to the basic nature (appratus) of consciousness and not its specific contents

I think what Dr.Sudhir said is that nationality or racism that made Hitler what he was is common to mankind in come degree or other.Also any other attribute making another.

there is no one in the world to speak the truth, so ask your self and hurry up

the messiah

Juan Illan Gomez wrote:
The obstacles to our awareness of Love, Truth, Reality (whatever you call It) are removed by all of us together or not at all. Playing the leader/follower game keeps those obstacles in place which is at the root of every form of violence.

All-of-us-together is the thinking of the follower wanting to be led by the masses. Are you waiting for all the sick to get healthy so that you can be healthy? Why not by your own leader without followers?

A free man does not expect the masses to transform.

Amber Cinquini wrote:
maybe we need to look at why people identify or follow? and why is it a form of violence?

Yes it is violence. It violates our ability to think and to understand for ourselves. Giving one's power to another is self-violence. K said the guru-disciple relationship puts both in a prison. Look at Sri Aurobindo or Osho, for example! Or read Sat Prem's account of what the ashram leaders did with The Mother (in Mind of the Cells - SatPrem)

K never wanted disciples but he did tell certain small groups of people close to his teaching that they should teach their understanding.

The second crucifixion of Jesus Christ was the founding of the church, by Paul who never knew him.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
K never wanted disciples but he did tell certain small groups of people close to his teaching that they should teach their understanding.

paul, kindly pass on this information.Who were amongst this small group of people?...and is it recorded anywhere...i am interested to know.

Elan J. wrote:
the follower wanting to be led by the masses

Would you say Krishnamurti was a follower wanting to be led by the masses?

The following link http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teach...# will show you that in 68 out of 73 documents kept in www.jkrisnamurti.org the words "I am the world" appear (more than once sometimes) which means all together or not at all, whether we like it or not. I must admit my self does not like it very much.

Krishnamurti might be wrong, of course.

This post was last updated by Juan Illan Gomez Sun, 27 Feb 2011.

Juan Illan Gomez wrote:
"I am the world" appear (more than once sometimes) which means all together or not at all,

I am the world means I am a representative of humanity,isn't it? What do you mean here all together or not at all? Do you mean a human being cannot inquire & come upon love unless done collectively?

Inquiring together to me means its inquiring into the nature of ourselves & it doesn't involve receiving information or instructing which is authority.The observation K pointed out is observing without the past which then means without your own knowledge, your own authority,so it cuts off everything we have heard including what K says.So there is no leader or follower or you are your own teacher & pupil.

The individual steps out of the stream, alone.

Elan J. wrote:
The individual steps out of the stream, alone.

Well, certainly K was alone out of the stream!

Kapila,

Your post #27, "I am the world means I am a representative of humanity,isn't it? What do you mean here all together or not at all? Do you mean a human being cannot inquire & come upon love unless done collectively?"

Is it enough to be merely a 'representative' of humanity? This implies a separation - - the one who represents and those whom he is representing. Maybe this isn't the way you meant it.

I would say that when Krishnamurti said "you are the world" he meant it literally.

Likewise, when love is individual, it is of the Self, and so it is desire. On the other hand, 'collective' love sounds real ugly - - and I'm not talking about just sex.

max