JK`s teachings are new, can be identified in some parts as advaita and it is all strange and at the sametime unique in the sense it pokes the so-called-"individual"/"I".

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:

JK`s teachings are new, can be identified in some parts as advaita and it is all strange and at the sametime unique in the sense it pokes the so-called-"individual"/"I".

Be warned: If you want something, you have to pay for it.

Jk said many things.Comparison is "measurement" and it leads to competition and striving to "become" Advaita is an age-old-tradition, in non-dual -state,so is Buddhism with its nothingness. Jk has some resemblances to these traditions and that may come across as an old wine in a new flask. Traditions and methods are not keys to open ones own mind and its complexities in relation to the GIGANTIC OUTER MIND,

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Basically, there are two components that make a teacher, or for that matter any human being. They are i) level of freedom and ii) expressions. The level of freedom could be put crudely in percentage. Expressions are combination of freedom and knowledge in memory.

As per levels of freedom, K could be compared with that of Buddha and Shankara. However, in expressions, K excelled all teachers of the world. His declarations to liberate everyone, displayed the upper limit of freedom of consciousness in mankind.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Prasanna P wrote:

Basically, there are two components that make a teacher, or for that matter any human being. They are i) level of freedom and ii) expressions. The level of freedom could be put crudely in percentage. Expressions are combination of freedom and knowledge in memory.

As per levels of freedom, K could be compared with that of Buddha and Shankara. However, in expressions, K excelled all teachers of the world. His declarations to liberate everyone, displayed the upper limit of freedom of consciousness in mankind.

Be warned: If you want something, you have to pay for it.

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:

Jk said many things.Comparison is "measurement" and it leads to competition and striving to "become" Advaita is an age-old-tradition, in non-dual -state,so is Buddhism with its nothingness. Jk has some resemblances to these traditions and that may come across as an old wine in a new flask. Traditions and methods are not keys to open ones own mind and its complexities in relation to the GIGANTIC OUTER MIND,

Be warned: If you want something, you have to pay for it.

Venu Gopal wrote:
JK's teaching is similar to Advaita teaching in the sense that both do not define what is but defines what is not. Advaita only says the ultimate is not dual

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

In practical life, it is difficult for individuals to identify with Advaita, so in India ,many have taken the course of VISISTADVITA & MADVAS teachings.JK becomes a puzzle to many to follow in practice.Though many go a long way in going together with him in exploring the SELF, MIND,LOVE,FREEDOM, TRUTH and other subjects, one is easily lost in a
total perspective. So even a simpleton can follow the BHAKTHI cults abounding in India without much mental /intellectual effort. The result is entrenched RELIGIONS!

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

In his book "Tradition and Revolution" K wanted to be challenged by the Indian mind, so to spreak- traditional approaches. I think also, his denial of the Atman was non- traditional, as well as any other supposition ('thou art that') that might take away from the 'what is'. At the same time, towards the end of his life, he seemed to embrace the Vedanta, in such that people were gathering his teachings as knowledge, and not breaking through. Vedanta made that jump, I think, from kowledge to freedom, putting all his teachings aside.

mike christani wrote:

In his book "Tradition and Revolution" K wanted to be challenged by the Indian mind, so to spreak- traditional approaches. I think also, his denial of the Atman was non- traditional, as well as any other supposition ('thou art that') that might take away from the 'what is'. At the same time, towards the end of his life, he seemed to embrace the Vedanta, in such that people were gathering his teachings as knowledge, and not breaking through. Vedanta made that jump, I think, from kowledge to freedom, putting all his teachings aside.

Be warned: If you want something, you have to pay for it.

<>

"Maybe this is the mystical element of K's speeches and writings"- Perhaps, rather, it is the mystical nature of life itself, that he tried so hard to put into words? Ie, take meditation, or freedom. States which are beyond consciousness- how would you describe them to consciousness? Is that what you mean?

This post was last updated by mike christani Fri, 19 Jun 2009.

mike christani wrote:

<>

"Maybe this is the mystical element of K's speeches and writings"- Perhaps, rather, it is the mystical nature of life itself, that he tried so hard to put into words? Ie, take meditation, or freedom. States which are beyond consciousness- how would you describe them to consciousness? Is that what you mean?

Be warned: If you want something, you have to pay for it.

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:

In practical life, it is difficult for individuals to identify with Advaita, so in India ,many have taken the course of VISISTADVITA & MADVAS teachings.JK becomes a puzzle to many to follow in practice.Though many go a long way in going together with him in exploring the SELF, MIND,LOVE,FREEDOM, TRUTH and other subjects, one is easily lost in a
total perspective. So even a simpleton can follow the BHAKTHI cults abounding in India without much mental /intellectual effort. The result is entrenched RELIGIONS!

Be warned: If you want something, you have to pay for it.

Venu- never heard of Tony Parsons, but personally I have a deep doubt of persons taking over where K left off! Very deep doubt...

This post was last updated by mike christani Fri, 19 Jun 2009.

mike christani wrote:

Venu- never heard of Tony Parsons, but personally I have a deep doubt of persons taking over where K left off! Very deep doubt...

Be warned: If you want something, you have to pay for it.

What is advaita? I have heard the term, but...?

mike christani wrote:

What is advaita? I have heard the term, but...?

Be warned: If you want something, you have to pay for it.

No, relatively, I don't see what's wrong with comparing. Practically, though, I have found K's teachings much more "powerful"- potent, simple and effective, than reading the small amount i have of the Upanisads, the Gita, despite their similarities. The other point, though, is that he came like summer rain, wiping away the dust of centuries, millennia even. Sorry to try and be poetic-. I just mean all the translation, commentary, catagorizing, stale meanings, repititions and sayings, all that. I guess that's the major question, whether that comparison hurts, or aids, and it's probably a subjective thing. Personally, reading those old Hindu texts, or Buddhism, I think it's thrilling to come across something that still rings true after 2500, 3000 years. But I rarely anymore read those older texts, when the fresh ones are right here..

mike christani wrote:

No, relatively, I don't see what's wrong with comparing. Practically, though, I have found K's teachings much more "powerful"- potent, simple and effective, than reading the small amount i have of the Upanisads, the Gita, despite their similarities. The other point, though, is that he came like summer rain, wiping away the dust of centuries, millennia even. Sorry to try and be poetic-. I just mean all the translation, commentary, catagorizing, stale meanings, repititions and sayings, all that. I guess that's the major question, whether that comparison hurts, or aids, and it's probably a subjective thing. Personally, reading those old Hindu texts, or Buddhism, I think it's thrilling to come across something that still rings true after 2500, 3000 years. But I rarely anymore read those older texts, when the fresh ones are right here..

Be warned: If you want something, you have to pay for it.

<<<mike: Personally, reading those old Hindu texts, or Buddhism, I think it's thrilling to come across something that still rings true after 2500, 3000 years. But I rarely anymore read those older texts, when the fresh ones are right here..>>>

<<<venu: Texts in valid contexts, shall I say, speaking the same eternal truths. Finally, the truth of the pudding is in eating it. Have we been transformed, are we living the truth? Only we can be the true judges of our progress.>>>

Truth or the natural state of consciousness has been the same for mankind before and after advent of civilization or particularly mass communication.

Fragmentation has caused 1) sorrow, which in turn caused 2) motivation for discovering and overcoming sorrow, which in turn caused 3) accumulations of the discovered facts and their applications, some of which are incomplete and inaccurate.

Many discovered facts about mind or consciousness are true. However, the facts of principles of functioning and operation of consciousness are undoubtedly incomplete and ineffective. Had they been accurate and adequate, man would have been liberated long ago.

In this regard, hats off to K for clearly demonstrating his conflict free natural state of mind. It is left for all of us to proceed to discover further about the state of human mind, by studying his teachings rather than getting stuck in both awe, entertainment and dependence on mere expressions coming out from that state of mind.

Undoubtedly, that state of mind has been discovered long long ago. Only level or quality of expressions or applications from that state of mind have been improving from Vedas onwards to Buddha to K. K pioneered and gave a paradigm shift in the search of man to first discover state of meditation, which will take care of all other things in life.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

This post was last updated by Prasanna P Sat, 24 Oct 2009.

Vedantic / Advaitic are just words, the description and the description is not the described. Word is not the thing.

When I read/listen to the teachings partially from a ''center'' with comparison, accepting, non accepting etc... the teaching is no different. Just empty words. In this way it is just like any historical scripture.

And, when.. there is listening/seeing.. of what is, that listening has its own wisdom.. to see the truth of what is. Seeing the false as false negates ''what is''. What is beyond ''what is'' is alive and Ks teaching points to that when you listen without comparison, past knowing etc.

I Am Not This!

Manoj SachDeva wrote:
What is beyond ''what is'' is alive and Ks teaching points to that when you listen without comparison, past knowing etc.

I think, K wanted to set mankind free, not to sit there merely appreciating him! ;-)

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

I am not sure I am getting you right Prasanna. Will you rephrase please..

I Am Not This!

Prasanna P wrote:I think, K wanted to set mankind free, not to sit there merely appreciating him! ;-)

Be warned: If you want something, you have to pay for it.

Venu is right. Further, if we can expand the meaning of his words, K also said : "To understand me is to understand yourself. To follow me is to be like me."
Which other Guru, sorry, he didn't like this word, so which other human being was so much independent? and hence his declaration to set mankind absolutely and unconditionally free, is unprecedented.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Prasanna P wrote:
his declaration to set mankind absolutely and unconditionally free, is unprecedented.

nothing to disagree about this.

But I don't want to second guess Venu about "K's teaching which in turn would help us understand ourselves better. But often we relegate ourselves to being just academicians seeking to understand K for its own sake. Then probably we miss K's whole point."

Venu, what you think is K's whole point....?

I Am Not This!

Isn't it meditation state?

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

K's whole point, if I may be presumptuous enough to say so, is to be able to see without prejudice.

Be warned: If you want something, you have to pay for it.

Will it be Ok to say that awareness of prejudice (being unaware) is the the critical step? - and it helps us to live ''differently''.

I Am Not This!

Undoubtedly, there are instances, when we become aware of our prejudices. But that is not enough. Only when the awareness is complete in itself, there can't arise any prejudice at all. That is the state of consciousness, you can call it as meditatable state. Then we would definitely live differently.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now