Why would pathlessness entail lone climbing? — Janus

I mentioned it, because everyone remembers his saying 'truth is a pathless land', but rarely mention the following sentences:

Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. — Krishnamurti

But if he agree that 'no teaching could bring about a radical transformation' then why spend the next forty years speaking? There is an obvious paradox, which once again is well understood in Zen.

Since you seem to think thought is the enemy you might prefer U G Krishnamurti. — Janus

I met U G in Sydney long ago, and thought him an utter phoney (which is what he said about K, whilst all the time riding along on his coat-tails by virtue of sharing the same name.)

But if he agree that 'no teaching could bring about a radical transformation' then why spend the next forty years speaking? There is an obvious paradox, which once again is well understood in Zen. — Wayfarer

Even if no teaching could bring about a radical transformation, it doesn't seem to follow that people could not be helped to transform by what K, or anyone else for that matter, had to say. Insofar as K did play the guru, then I would say he was a phony just as UG claimed, and just as all gurus are including the anti-guru guru UG. But even if you are a phony it wouldn't seem to follow that nothing you have to say could be transformative, even radically transformative. Life, after all, is itself a radical transformation, and we all transform in different ways.

The key is the idea of 'sadhana' which means 'disciplined and dedicated practice or learning'. It's true that some individuals have a spontaneous awakening, like Krishnamurti himself, but the vast majority of people will require the adoption of a conscious discipline.

Perhaps, but how would you know whether K, or anyone else, is awakened? How many awakened people have you met in your life? I have never met anyone I considered to be awakened and not a phony, not playing at it, including the Dalai Lama. All human beings are phonies, we all play at our social roles; and gurus are no different.

Also there is the problem that seeking awakening is seeking something that cannot be anything more than an idea for you. When it comes to living with presence such seeking can only take you away from it. I say this as someone who meditated daily (or at least very nearly every day) for a total of about 18 years.

It seems not to have born any fruit for you. That hasn’t been my experience.

As for whether ‘they’re all phonies’ - I don’t believe so. ‘There would no fools’ gold if there were no gold’, said Rumi

It seems not to have born any fruit for you. — Wayfarer

How incredibly, outrageously presumptuous of you!

Meditation bore a great deal of 'fruit" for me in terms of learning to relax, still the mind, and to be in the present. humble gains, I know; but the rest is wank IMV.

You didn't answer my questions: how many awakened individuals have you met? How would you know they are awakened? More to the point, how would you know if you were awakened?

You didn't answer my questions: how many awakened individuals have you met? How would you know they are awakened? More to the point, how would you know if you were awakened? — Janus

I do not know of any; but, I do know that those claiming that they are awakened are most likely not.

I read K, in my teenage years. It taught me some important lessons about the value of knowing what I don't know. Don't know how to phrase it differently.

how would you know if you were awakened? — Janus

One of the things Krishnamurti would often say, is that in that state there is no concept of 'me'. Maybe that's a bit hyperbolic, because I sure have plenty of awareness of myself. But what I have learned through studying writings like his, and also through meditation, is a sense of indwelling or upwelling love. And also frequent flashes of bliss. One of the things your trained not to do, is either seek those states or cling to them - actually being 'addicted to meditative bliss' is one of the 'subtle hindrances' - but they definitely occur.

The Diamond Sutra is a key text in this regard. It is the text which speaks of 'when the Buddha awakens, he realises there is absolutely no being, person or self to be awakened'. That's the paradoxical element of the Buddhist path, again. It is why the Diamond Sutra is one of the fundamental Zen texts.

. But what I have learned through studying writings like his, and also through meditation, is a sense of indwelling or upwelling love. — Wayfarer

Well maybe I have benefited more than I thought from svriptural studies and meditation, since I am no stranger to feelings of bliss and love. Actually playing music, painting and writing also often evoke such feelings, so I don't believe for a moment that svriptural study and/or meditation is the only way.

In fact everyone is different and that is precisely why there is no beaten path to the truth, just as there is no beaten path to becoming a poet.

Meditation bore a great deal of 'fruit" for me in terms of learning to relax, still the mind, and to be in the present. humble gains, I know; but the rest is wank IMV. — Janus

Wank it may well be, but it is what Krishnamurti is claiming. Meditation, like any other path, produces fruit and humble gains. But though one polish the mirror assiduously and thereby can see more clearly, it remains a mere reflection that one sees.

I used to live in a room full of mirrors
All I could see was me
Then I took my spirit and I smashed my mirrors
And now the whole world is here for me to see. — Jimi Hendrix

I do not know of any; but, I do know that those claiming that they are awakened are most likely not. — Posty McPostface

Yes. In fact, those of us who explore such topics are likely to be, on average, a bit nuttier than the norm because those seeking solutions of any kind are typically those in need of a solution. That's how I got here at least.

No amount of books and practices etc are likely to sweep the nuttiness away, but they can help to manage it. It's like if your whole family is fat and you were born fat too. There's unlikely to be any diet which will turn you in to Twiggy. But you can manage your weight to avoid serious problems. Those declaring themselves "awakened" or "enlightened" are typically expressing a desire, not a reality, as best I can tell. As example, if you subject their claim to any serious inspection they often fall apart, run away, and can become hysterical etc.

Regrettably, there's a great deal of hero worship in this field. As example, I once chatted with a guy online who was the lead teacher at the Krishnamurti school in Ojai California. He told me JK was just short of a God. In my mind I pictured JK coming up behind him to whack him upside the head with a rolled up newspaper. :smile:

Anyway, lots of people come to these topics because they don't like the story they have about themselves, their self image. And then they see somebody up on a stage who everyone is applauding, and they want to be that guy with that story so they start playing the role. The role is appealing, because it looks like a way to be rich and famous and adored etc, without actually having to do much of anything.

That said, life is short and sometimes tough, and if some fantasy story helps someone get from one end to the other with less pain than they would have experienced otherwise, that's not such a bad outcome. Better to be a fantasy guru than commit suicide, eh?

I know all this stuff because I am His Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo, the founder of Bozoism, the next great world religion. Now where did I put my turban??

But what I have learned through studying writings like his, and also through meditation, is a sense of indwelling or upwelling love. And also frequent flashes of bliss. — Wayfarer

Imho, this is fundamentally a mechanical issue. Thought operates by division, so while focused on thought we feel divided. To the degree we turn down the volume of thought the experience of division is replaced by the reality of unity. It's really no more complicated than turning down the volume of your TV so you can hear what your friend is saying. The problem of course is that the shows on our mental TV can be pretty compelling, and we typically part with them reluctantly.

Looking at this as a mechanical issue tends to be unpopular with philosophers and new agers etc, but it's actually good news for the person who is serious. It's like getting a flatter stomach by doing situps. All that's required is sticking patiently with the situps over time. Serious people will stick with it, those who aren't serious won't. And not being serious may not be a bad thing, maybe it just means one doesn't really have a problem, and thus doesn't need a solution. If one is content with how one's stomach looks, why bother with situps?

One of the things your trained not to do, is either seek those states or cling to them — Wayfarer

More realistically, we can seek these states and cling to them a bit too just as we do any positive experience. But, try not to get all carried away. Hold on lightly, be grateful for what comes, and let it go when that time arrives. All things in moderation etc.

Easier said than done. I spend a LOT of time in a nearby state park where I explore the quiet quite earnestly. It's great, except, um... Now my normal suburban neighborhood seems so noisy I'm about to give up on hanging out in the yard. Barking dogs send me running back inside etc.

A sense of humor comes in quite handy in such inquiries.... :smile:

But though one polish the mirror assiduously and thereby can see more clearly, it remains a mere reflection that one sees. — unenlightened

I don't deny that more radical transformations do, rarely, take place, but I don't believe they can reliably be achieved by any deliberate form of disciplined search. I think it's always a matter of natural talent and that such transformations when they do occur, are more to do with feeling than with seeing.

We say the world is seen anew, but it is only because we feel totally differently about our relation to others and the world, not because we gain some radical new discursive esoteric knowledge. I think the belief I can achieve the latter is an ego-driven fantasy.

How many such radically transformed individuals do you know, or even know of?

One of the things Krishnamurti would often say, is that in that state there is no concept of 'me'. — Wayfarer

Of course there must still be a concept of "me', it's only my feeling towards me that changes. In the most radical case I may no longer fear death, or illness and suffering, and so I can relax, and focus on whatever my creative nature leads me to.

If I cling to a path or traditional faith it shows that I am excessively concerned about my own salvation and such concern is always a manifestation of the fear of death. No strategic discipline or incantation can save me from that fear, but can only serve to distract me from it.

What you asked was:

....how would you know whether K, or anyone else, is awakened? How many awakened people have you met in your life? I have never met anyone I considered to be awakened and not a phony, not playing at it — Janus

So, yes, I do believe in the 'reality of awakening'. I think many beings embody that quality. After all, the word 'bodhi' ( बोधि) which is also translated as 'wisdom', was what was translated as 'enlightenment' by the Pali Text society, which is the origin of the use of the word 'enlightenment' in this context. But 'Bodhi' could just as well be translated as 'awakening'. The term for a spiritual aspirant in Mahayana Buddhism is bodhisattva, 'wisdom-being'. So whether I myself am 'awakened' or have met anyone I would consider as such, I certainly accept what this term signifies, I don't think it is a mere empty gesture.

My response was a gesture towards what Krishnamurti said about the self:

You know what I mean by the self? By that, I mean the idea, the memory, the conclusion, the experience, the various forms of namable and unnamable intentions, the conscious endeavor to be or not to be, the accumulated memory of the unconscious, the racial, the group, the individual, the clan, and the whole of it all, whether it is projected outwardly in action, or projected spiritually as virtue; the striving after all this is the self. 1 — Krishnamurti

Krishnamurti used to say, can you see without any sense of 'the me' standing back from experience and judging it? He used to speak of 'dying to the known'.

Compare to this Buddhist sutta:

At Savatthi. "Monks, I will teach you the burden, the carrier of the burden, the taking up of the burden, and the casting off of the burden. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "And which is the burden? 'The five clinging-aggregates,' it should be said. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. This, monks, is called the burden.

"And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden.

"And which is the taking up of the burden? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. This is called the taking up of the burden.

"And which is the casting off of the burden? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving. This is called the casting-off of the burden. 2

I think the resemblances are clear.

In the context of Western philosophy, there are similarities in Neoplatonism:

Plotinus wishes to speak of a thinking that is not discursive but intuitive, i.e. that it is knowing and what it is knowing are immediately evident to it. There is no gap then between thinking and what is thought--they come together in the same moment, which is no longer a moment among other consecutive moments, one following upon the other. Rather, the moment in which such a thinking takes place is immediately present and without difference from any other moment, i.e. its thought is no longer chronological but eternal. To even use names, words, to think about such a thinking is already to implicate oneself in a time of separated and consecutive moments (i.e. chronological) and to have already forgotten what it is one wishes to think, namely thinking and what is thought intuitively together. 3

When you talk about 'traditional faith', what I think you're influenced by is the rejection of whatever you see as being religious.

How many such radically transformed individuals do you know, or even know of? — Janus

I don't think I'm in any position to make the judgement; it seems like a rather combative question. One hears tell, but personally, I am not that interested in another's enlightenment. But even if no one has conquered this mountain, still perhaps someone may...

You haven't answered my question. How many awakened individuals have you met? How do you know they are awakened (assuming you have met some or at least one)?

I can't see why it should seem a combative question. Its perfectly reasonable to ask people to justify any claim they care to make. On the other hand i am not in the business of questioning anyone's personal faith if they don't put it out there in the form of some claim or set of claims. Once someone does that they invite critique.

I consider @unenlightened to be pretty close to being enlightened.

I can't see why it should seem a combative question. Its perfectly reasonable to ask people to justify any claim they care to make. — Janus

The constant repetition makes it seem combative, and that without any explanation of its significance. I'm here to discuss Krishnamurti's teaching, not my own faith.

When you talk about 'traditional faith', what I think you're influenced by is the rejection of whatever you see as being religious. — Wayfarer

That is nothing more than your conveniently dismissive assumption about my psychological motivation. But you don't know me, and thus have no idea what you are talking about.

What I reject are groundless claims, and most of the claims associated with traditional faiths are rationally and empirically unsupportable. Why should I not reject a claim if there is no reason to believe it?

On the other hand if you tell me what you love and reverence I have no argument with it. You always seem to want to pretend you know that it is more than that though without being able to say why. Even if you merely said 'I feel it is more than that' I would have no argument with that either and would just say ' fair enough'. Feelings require no argument.

As I understand it Krishnamurti's 'teaching' is a 'no-teaching"; in other words he rejects tradtional systems and faiths, beliefs in the guru and so on. In other words I think he agrees with what I have been saying.

So we listen to Krishnamurti not because we think he has achieved and embodies some magical higher esoteric knowledge but because he makes good rational sense.

If me saying what I think and giving reasons for it and asking for your reasons for what you think seems combative to you I can only conclude that you have something you feel defensive about.

What...close but no cigar?

I think anyone enlightened would never claim to be enlightened. Hence being unenlightened.

I think anyone enlightened would never claim to be enlightened. Hence being unenlightened. — Posty McPostface

There is a flaw in your logic.

All enlightened people do not claim enlightenment.
Unenlightened does not claim enlightenment.
Hence... no, nothing follows.

You may not be enlightened; but, you are very close to it!

What I reject are groundless claims, and most of the claims associated with traditional faiths are rationally and empirically unsupportable. — Janus

You're customarily anti-religious, or 'aggressively secular' in your approach to philosophy. This is not my ascribing motivations to you, you make it abundantly clear.

You always seem to want to pretend you know that it is more than that though without being able to say why. Even if you merely said 'I feel it is more than that' I would have no argument with that either and would just say ' fair enough'. Feelings require no argument. — Janus

But then it is mere subjective feeling. My general view is that philosophy really is philo~sophia, love~wisdom. It is embodied in the figure of the sage and requires spiritual discipline. The answer I provided was not 'pretence', it was a structured philosophical argument, with references and footnotes. But I get that you don’t like that kind of thing.

You haven't answered my question. How many awakened individuals have you met? How do you know they are awakened (assuming you have met some or at least one)? — Janus

I used to go along and see various speakers. Also when I did comparative religion I went to seminars and conferences. Stand-outs include Lama Yeshe, Ama Samy, Venerable Bede Griffith, although there were many more that I have probably forgotten. Although I never did ask if they were enlightened, and I don't know if they would claim to be. Difficult thing to ascertain.

we listen to Krishnamurti not because we think he has achieved and embodies some magical higher esoteric knowledge but because he makes good rational sense. — Janus

Krishnamurti is no rationalist. If you read his biographies, his whole life he underwent an intense process - he used to call it 'the process' - which entailed a great deal of physical pressure or distress, lapsing into unconsciousness at times, and revelations of what he would simply call 'the presence' or 'the beneficence'. He wrote of encounters with spiritual beings, not all of whom were benevolent. These were vividly depicted in Krishnamurti's Notebook, which is another modern spiritual classic.

Krishnamurti was anti-religious in the sense that he rejected spiritual organisations, gurus, churches, and anything associated with it. But his entire teaching mission, if you like, was dedicated to imparting 'the only revolution' (the title of one of his books.) So of course he embodies ‘magical higher esoteric knowledge’. He just doesn't describe it in the tropes and symbols associated with religion.

You're customarily anti-religious, or 'aggressively secular' in your approach to philosophy. This is not my ascribing motivations to you, you make it abundantly clear. — Wayfarer

This is simply untrue. I consider religion to be a very significant aspect of human life. But philosophy seeks to establish truth, and religious claims to truth, like any other claims to truth, are rightly subjected in philosophical discussion, to critique and rational questioning.

If I question your religious beliefs it is only because you put them out there in the context of philosophical discussion. When I do ask for reasons for your beliefs you usually respond defensively claiming that I am being rude, or dismissive, you respond dismissively and condescendingly yourself with adhominous comments such as "It seems not to have born any fruit for you" or you simply fail to respond at all. Can you not see what you are doing, and understand why I might find it frustrating?

But I get that you don’t like that kind of thing. — Wayfarer

Yes, but you forget what I have told you a few times now: that I had studied religions (mostly Zen Buddhism and Sufism and Christian Mysticism intensively from the age of about 15 until I was about 50, and intermittently since then (only a couple of years ago I read many of the works of Rudolph Steiner and Tomberg and others along a similar vein and I also took three units in Buddhism at Sydney uni just a few years ago). So, I have thought plenty about these issues.

I still believe all these ideas, faiths and teachings have great value, but the value lies in religious feeling, and social effects, not in any determinate esoteric knowledge. This common religious feeling is not merely subjective either, because it is a potential common to all human beings. But I am not elitist about it, claiming that its possibility is confined only to the guru context or to certain practices or disciplines, or particular religions or that it is esoteric and not attainable for the common man (or woman). For example, I believe that sensible use of psychedelics is also a valid way to access such 'altered states" of feeling and seeing, and may be lastingly and positively transformative, but this idea is scorned by most traditional religions.

Although I never did ask if they were enlightened, and I don't know if they would claim to be. Difficult thing to ascertain. — Wayfarer

Yes, so what could it even mean? I have no doubt you would have been impressed by their intelligence and seeming compassion. This would have been an intuitive feeling on your part concerning the feelings that you believed must underly their manifest behavior, or something like that. What else could it be? So, of course it is subjective. You could be totally wrong about those people.

On one of my landscape projects I once sub-contracted to a brushwood fencing contractor who was a disciple of Da Free John. He invited me to come along to a meeting. It all seemed phony to me, but he was a nice and sincere person who genuinely believed that Da Free John was the current 'world teacher' and that he was on the path to awakening.

If you read his biographies, his whole life he underwent an intense process - he used to call it 'the process' - which entailed a great deal of physical pressure or distress, lapsing into unconsciousness at times, and revelations of what he would simply call 'the presence' or 'the beneficence'. He wrote of encounters with spiritual beings, not all of whom were benevolent. These were vividly depicted in Krishnamurti's Notebook, which is another modern spiritual classic. — Wayfarer

All that may be be so, but we don't listen to him on account of that because we have no way of knowing if any of it is true or is merely K's own delusions. We listen to him (if we are sensible ourselves) if what he says makes sense to us, not for any other reason And 'making sense' when it comes to spiritual matters is always going to be an individual matter of what "feels right" or "rings true" for me, hence it is always going to be subjective. You have never provided any cogent argument as to why we should think it is something more than this, something esoterically objective, so to speak. I don't believe it is possible to provide such an argument; so it is not a matter for philosophy at all.

So of course he embodies ‘magical higher esoteric knowledge’. He just doesn't describe it in the tropes and symbols associated with religion. — Wayfarer

But how do you know K does "embody magical higher esoteric knowledge", as opposed, for example to figures like Osho or Da Free John, in other words how could you know that any of them do? I say you can't know, and that you can only trust your own feelings in the matter; which is fine: I don't have any argument with someone following their feelings. but the feelings of one can never be a good argument for determining what others are to believe. Religion is, and always will be, an individual, subjective matter.

I definitely learned some important things from reading Krishnamurti’s books, which became part of me, but I question the ability of his teaching to bring about the radical change that he demands. — Wayfarer

In every field of endeavor there are people with rare talent way out at the end of the bell curve. Mozart could write many books on music which might help us play better music, but such books are not likely to turn any of us in to a Mozart. Point being, if radical psychological change even exists it's likely so rare as to be irrelevant to the vast majority of us, and there's not much evidence that the rarely talented have the ability to share their gift with us. Mozart was born to be a great musician, and you can't pass that roll of the genetic dice on to someone else.

As example, as I understand the story, Krishnamurti had an affair with his best friend's wife and then blamed his friend's distress on his friend's lack of enlightenment etc. Is that radical change? Sounds more like being really stupid and very human to me.

As I see it Krishnamurti was quite insightful and very articulate. While these talents can be appreciated, they probably don't qualify as radical change.

Is radical change a poor goal? How about we start by better managing our normal nuttiness first, before we get carried away with the radical change dream? It seems to me that the radical change dream is just another fantasy becoming trip, like wanting to be rich and famous etc.

But then, on the other hand, if we remove the radical change dream, then few of these guru guys could make a living selling books etc. Maybe the radical change dream is necessary to keep such writers in the marketplace of ideas?