Excellent postings Paul.(#17&19)

Paul Davidson wrote: Also, I do hope you understand, it was not gender specific.

I do indeed Paul.

K said: I distrust everyone's experience - especially my own.

Raj Kumar wrote: Wow,wow!!! I doubt this, that K said. Please Quote!

K: "To be a light to oneself denies all experience. The one who is experiencing as the experiencer needs experience to exist and, however deep or superficial, the need for it becomes greater. Experience is knowledge, tradition; the experiencer divides himself to discern between the enjoyable and the painful, the comforting and the disturbing. The believer experiences according to his belief, according to his conditioning. These experiences are from the known, for recognition is essential, without it there's no experience. Every experience leaves a mark unless there's an ending to it as it arises. Every response to a challenge is an experience but when the response is from the known, challenge loses its newness and vitality; then there's conflict, disturbance and neurotic activity. The very nature of challenge is to question, to disturb, to awaken, to understand. But when that challenge is translated into the past, then the present is avoided The conviction of experience is the negation of enquiry. Intelligence is the freedom to enquire, to investigate the <code>me'' and the</code>not me'', the outer and the inner. Belief, ideologies and authority prevent insight which comes only with freedom. The desire for experience of any kind must be superficial or sensory, comforting or pleasurable, for desire, however intense, is the forerunner of thought and thought is the outer. Thought may put together the inner but it is still the outer. Thought will never find the new for it is old, it is never free. Freedom lies beyond thought. All the activity of thought is not love."

And:

"Questioner: Can we learn from experience?

Krishnamurti: Certainly not. Learning implies freedom, curiosity, inquiry. When a child learns something, he is curious about it, he wants to know, it is a free momentum, not a momentum of having acquired and of moving from that acquisition. We have innumerable experiences; we have had five thousand years of wars. We have not learnt a thing from them except to invent more deadly machinery with which to kill each other. We have had many experiences with our friends, with our wives, with our husbands, with our nation—we have not learnt. Learning, in fact, can only take place when there is freedom from experience."

The Impossible Question, p 78

And:

"Experiencing is conditioned by experience, the past. Freedom is the emptying of the mind of experience. When the brain ceases to nourish itself through experience, memory and thought, when it dies to experiencing, then its activity is not selfcentred. It then has its nourishment from elsewhere. It is this nourishment that makes the mind religious."

Krishnamurti Notebook Part 3

And: "Experience is a bundle of memories responding to a challenge and it can respond only according to its background, and the cleverer you are at interpreting the experience the more it responds. So you have to question not only the experience of another but your own experience."

Freedom from the Known - Ch 15 - Experience-Satisfaction-Duality-Meditation.

Raj Kumar wrote: Since, there is no disagreement to the above quote form K, I have to make this observations.

Not observations Raj - opinions. There is a big difference.

Out of all the teachers or gurus, the K is the one who doubts his own thinking and experience. BY doubting his own experience, he tries to cast a doubt in what others have to say. But that is not valid, because not only he is doubtful of himself, he is doubtful of himself much more than the other's experience (i.e "...especially my own.").

What K is saying - quite simply - is that all conclusions that thought has reached, from its limitation, are to be doubted.

It means, when he heard others, he would have felt, that they are talking with more convictions and also he would have felt that others experience is more acceptable than his own experience of himself.

You cannot speculate upon what K 'would have felt'. What a non-sensical and illogical conclusion you reach here.

If I were to look at this quote from another angle, it shows a 'retarded' mentality of a person.

Ah - another opinion! One illogic piled upon another illogic.

From a little psychology I know, that some people are of 'retarded' mentality, who are not sure of themselves. They cannot learn. They cannot focus their mind. They are emotionally cannot develop themselves. So, they have a very good chance of looking a 'Sage', as they may not get angry, laugh, have sorrow, etc.

Well forget psychology. Mind you - that will be easier if it is not 'a little psychology I know' but rather a thorough understanding of the whole of it - only then can it be dismissed completely.

Form yet another angle if I were to look at this quote, He, K defeats himself. And all his talks, books and everything becomes invalid.

Well, happily for you, it sounds as though your illogic has led you to the conclusion you desire. You have disappeared right up your own rhetoric.

The teaching of K is not for you my friend. You are far better off following along behind that poser, whatever his name is, posting on here at the moment. He can lead you up the garden path - exactly where you want to be. Go away and good luck.

Up the garden path! The questions of the happy little lackey to the great guru. Psychological thought entertaining itself.

My oh my - doesn't thought (the ego) love all this analyzing and path-finding.

No wonder psychological thought is so threatened by the teaching of K that it must constantly denigrate the man himself.

K so neatly dismissed all this endless mumbo-jumbo. In discussions he tied the Buddhist scholars in little knots - and quite rightly. So get over it.

Raj Kumar wrote: Show me something.

Why? Do you listen to the fact?

K pointed to the truth about humanity. There is no need to be 'a disciple' to see that truth. The man who pointed is not important - the truth seen and understood is the only importance.

But it is the psychological self, being so threatened by the unpalatable truth about humanity that K pointed out, who makes K himself important - and only so as to denigrate him in the hope that he will fade into obscurity.

Well - K is dead and gone. The truth he pointed towards, however, remains. And no amount of mumbo-jumbo-same-old-same-old will obscure that fact.

The human brain has actually seen its own disorder. Uncomfortable no? So what does the ego do then? I know! - let's all hide behind so-called 'steps of transformation' rather than face the fact. And that will be about as effective as it has ever been!

So follow along behind your 'yogi anurada' with all his boring old endless 'theories of enlightenment' and find out where that leads you. Are you a disciple?

Couldn't agree more Dhanan.

The teaching of K is about ending all this ritualistic nonsense, not perpetuating it. About standing alone and finding out first-hand, not following along some path that a so-called 'yogi' sets up for you. Steps? Give us a break!

He's everywhere with his 'steps'!

Taking over the forum are you? Or just feeding your own self-importance with all this hype?

Perhaps you should fund your Authority's very own website for him, since you are such a good little follower. :)

How repetitive you are!

And such a proud promotive follower.......

Raj Kumar wrote: If K has achived the Samadi he would explain it first, and the show the uselessness of it later. He did not speak about Samadi, because he could not do it.

What a stupid judgement! Just more useless old same-old-same-old opinion.

Understanding the capacity of the human psyche to fool itself into imitating anything and believing this is the real thing, a truly wise man explains NOTHING!

Dhanan Rao wrote: But the question is how to make the stupid understand that he is stupid??? :)

The only concern is one's own stupidity. There is no helping another psychologically.

That does not mean not to question vigorously what is written on here - it is just not wise to have the expectation that anyone will listen. :)

Raj Kumar wrote: And I,

ROFL

You must be getting very grimy down there!

It really does not matter one way or the other - ignore or not ignore. There is no rule. If the feeling is to challenge something - challenge it.

Anyone on a roll such as Yogi and his follower will not listen anyhow. But they may leave in a big huff if challenged. :)

Was this the straw that broke the camel's back I wonder? Did some reality finally sink in? Well done Paul. :)

I had no idea Buddhism was so full of mumbo-jumbo dogma. No wonder K tied them in knots with the directness of his teaching.

Perhaps K - were he still with us - would be rolling around on the floor laughing at all your futile attempts at analysis of him Anurada. I know I am! :D

lol - a bit of light reading for our friend the yogi.

dhirendra singh wrote: Was K pointing same things?

No.

Angela Moody wrote: There was "no hope" and all he had been trained to be (the World Teacher) was unneeded, once everyone was to be a light for themselves. Was K depressed? I know he took regular daily walks which may have helped with depression. But he also seemed to be easily angered and impatient with people he'd talk to. Was that also part of his depression?

Assumption piled upon assumption Angela: - "depressed" - "daily walks may have helped" - "easily angered and impatient".

You appear to have an agenda to push on here. But then, one does not want to make an assumption about that, does one?

I mean - one could assume that the teaching of K does not match up to your desires. Well fine - find yourself more of a 'feel-good' guru to follow - there are plenty of them.

There is only one K though! But the teaching of K is not for everyone.

Hi Dan - Yes, the yogi a, and there is always BobM also. He's banned here I suspect.

How is life on the beautiful Emerald Isle?

max greene wrote: Isn't it?

K himself said the teaching was not for everyone. And the fact of this is evident with people picking and choosing the bits of the teaching they like and disregarding the rest. And then blaming the man himself for the parts of the teaching that shake up the security of the 'self' - which is the whole point of it surely!

So clearly - the teaching is NOT for everyone. If it were, humanity would be vastly different - and it is not. Humanity is even more disordered now than when K was alive - the human brain even more senile. And this also K predicted.

K dismissed 'hope' - and quite correctly. 'Hope' is the enemy of attention, and of finding out, and of standing alone. We can all 'hope together' can't we? Do you imagine that will work?

'Hope' is an excuse to sit securely and complacently on one's butt, and wait (hopefully) for it all to 'get better'.

Angela Moody wrote: Question: where is love in these forums' writings?

What is your definition of 'love'?

Muad dheeb wrote: I heard that there is a crisis ,not many jobs and poor bankers are asking for tips...

LOL - yes I seem to have heard something to that effect also.......