U.G. Krishnamurti, gangster guru
U.G. Krishnamurti, gangster guru
“You cannot experience the death of anybody.”
-- U.G. Krishnamurti
-- U.G. Krishnamurti
Re: U.G. Krishnamurti, gangster guru
“People call me an 'enlightened man' -- I detest that term -- they can't find any other word to describe the way I am functioning. At the same time, I point out that there is no such thing as enlightenment at all. I say that because all my life I've searched and wanted to be an enlightened man, and I discovered that there is no such thing as enlightenment at all, and so the question whether a particular person is enlightened or not doesn't arise. I don't give a hoot for a sixth-century-BC Buddha, let alone all the other claimants we have in our midst. They are a bunch of exploiters, thriving on the gullibility of the people. There is no power outside of man. Man has created God out of fear. So the problem is fear and not God.”
U.G. Krishnamurti
The Mystique of Enlightenment
https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/up ... enment.pdf
U.G. Krishnamurti
The Mystique of Enlightenment
https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/up ... enment.pdf
Re: U.G. Krishnamurti, gangster guru
UG asserted that enlightenment, such as it is, is purely a physical phenomenon.
Re: U.G. Krishnamurti, gangster guru
Sitting here discussing these things is meaningless, useless. That is why I am always saying to my listeners, "Get lost, please!" What you want you can get elsewhere, but not here. Go to the temple, do puja, repeat mantras, put on ashes. Eventually some joker comes along and says, "Give me a week's wages and I will give you a better mantra to repeat." Then another fellow comes along and tells you not to do any of that, that it is useless, and that what he is saying is much more revolutionary. He prescribes "choiceless awareness," takes your money and builds schools, organizations, and tantric centers.
U.G. Krishnamurti
Mind is a Myth
https://holybooks-lichtenbergpress.netd ... a-myth.pdf
U.G. Krishnamurti
Mind is a Myth
https://holybooks-lichtenbergpress.netd ... a-myth.pdf
Re: U.G. Krishnamurti, gangster guru
Which begs the question...fear of what has created god? Fear has to be contextually defined. Is it fear of the elements, of nature, of death? If so, do we, and why would we, still have that kind of fear causing the idea of god to exist?Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 4:39 pm “People call me an 'enlightened man' -- I detest that term -- they can't find any other word to describe the way I am functioning. At the same time, I point out that there is no such thing as enlightenment at all. I say that because all my life I've searched and wanted to be an enlightened man, and I discovered that there is no such thing as enlightenment at all, and so the question whether a particular person is enlightened or not doesn't arise. I don't give a hoot for a sixth-century-BC Buddha, let alone all the other claimants we have in our midst. They are a bunch of exploiters, thriving on the gullibility of the people. There is no power outside of man. Man has created God out of fear. So the problem is fear and not God.”
U.G. Krishnamurti
The Mystique of Enlightenment
https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/up ... enment.pdf
God is/was as much an instance or centre of social cohesion as anything relating to fear. What remained to be feared were TPTB who insisted on the adherence to a strict scriptural identity of god as if state-created and punished accordingly if infringed. The whole sacred edifice became politically secular in that respect.
Re: U.G. Krishnamurti, gangster guru
Maybe fear of one's own capability/potential for 'good and bad'?
So... then... mentally projecting that onto separate imaginary entities, and...
> pretending to be aligned with the good one, and tormented by the bad one?
> claiming to be in the middle of their epic power struggle?
> avoiding awareness/responsibility for one's own creations?
> hiding away from broader reality and greater potential?
> reframing one's lack of courage as holy obedience?
> imagining having a special position and reward for doing all of this?
> denying being the one operating 'behind the curtain'?
> never facing how powerful oneself really is?
Maybe someday we won't be so afraid... and THEN what might we create?
Re: U.G. Krishnamurti, gangster guru
''There is no power outside of man. Man has created God out of fear. So the problem is fear and not God.” UG
_________
UG's right of course, it's More like fear of the unknown.
Notice, the human mind does not like not-knowing, and so will concoct just about anything it can imagine in the attempt to assuage the unpleasantries of never knowing.
I think it was UG himself who was quoted as saying... '' If you say you know...you don't!
And that's when all the trouble started, when your parents gave you a name.
_________
UG's right of course, it's More like fear of the unknown.
Notice, the human mind does not like not-knowing, and so will concoct just about anything it can imagine in the attempt to assuage the unpleasantries of never knowing.
I think it was UG himself who was quoted as saying... '' If you say you know...you don't!
And that's when all the trouble started, when your parents gave you a name.
Re: U.G. Krishnamurti, gangster guru
Ol' UG was rather uncompromising.
Surprising ... that women would be interested in that quality, in a man.
(Of course, rationality indicates there must be exceptions ... )
Perhaps the only exceptions are those who don't 'fess up.
Perhaps women are attracted to that quality because it's the natural state of man.
As Krishnamurti learned, the physicality of what happened to him is a matter of subtraction rather than addition, and the subtraction of what's not necessary can happen all at once, which is a shock to the organism particularly after the ego has aged a bit. Once subtracted, what remains is a clear view which of course is uncompromising (because that's the nature of truth) and yet gets expressed according to the personality, which in UG's case was rather dramatic, and quite funny at times because of that.
Surprising ... that women would be interested in that quality, in a man.
(Of course, rationality indicates there must be exceptions ... )
Perhaps the only exceptions are those who don't 'fess up.
Perhaps women are attracted to that quality because it's the natural state of man.
As Krishnamurti learned, the physicality of what happened to him is a matter of subtraction rather than addition, and the subtraction of what's not necessary can happen all at once, which is a shock to the organism particularly after the ego has aged a bit. Once subtracted, what remains is a clear view which of course is uncompromising (because that's the nature of truth) and yet gets expressed according to the personality, which in UG's case was rather dramatic, and quite funny at times because of that.
Re: U.G. Krishnamurti, gangster guru
I doubt just a name is the problem. It’s also the way people are treated, as distinct entities having personal willpower and self control. To have self control means to have a self who is controlling.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:38 am ''There is no power outside of man. Man has created God out of fear. So the problem is fear and not God.” UG
_________
UG's right of course, it's More like fear of the unknown.
Notice, the human mind does not like not-knowing, and so will concoct just about anything it can imagine in the attempt to assuage the unpleasantries of never knowing.
I think it was UG himself who was quoted as saying... '' If you say you know...you don't!
And that's when all the trouble started, when your parents gave you a name.
So this external demand of the world and society of self control essentially makes that artificial division necessary, such that an apparent controller can stand apart from its own desires, impulses, and the world, etc.
The name itself is simply a way of distinguishing between individuals, of calling attention to a particular individual. I don’t disagree in a way that maybe the name solidifies the sense of individuality to itself, it kind of seals the deal, but the division runs far deeper than just the name.
Re: U.G. Krishnamurti, gangster guru
I'm just saying, that it was the beginning of all woes and problems for humanity, when they became identified with a name, which is another word for self.Dimebag wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:27 am I doubt just a name is the problem. It’s also the way people are treated, as distinct entities having personal willpower and self control. To have self control means to have a self who is controlling.
So this external demand of the world and society of self control essentially makes that artificial division necessary, such that an apparent controller can stand apart from its own desires, impulses, and the world, etc.
The name itself is simply a way of distinguishing between individuals, of calling attention to a particular individual. I don’t disagree in a way that maybe the name solidifies the sense of individuality to itself, it kind of seals the deal, but the division runs far deeper than just the name.
Everything after that sense of self just snowballed into a runaway train. There's no stopping the madness now, not until we all develop the intelligence to say this is such a stupid game going nowhere and stop breeding. Hopefully our selfish actions will force the hand of nature, where humans will extinct very soon, lets hope so.
Re: U.G. Krishnamurti, gangster guru
I’m afraid I don’t quite share the same feelings as you regarding the inherent worth of conscious life. But I understand where you are coming from, and your reasons for thinking that way. The sheer amount of suffering can’t be offset by any small moments of purity, of oneness, happiness, peace, etc, so, better none of this self aware or conscious life never existed. Antinatalism.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:48 amI'm just saying, that it was the beginning of all woes and problems for humanity, when they became identified with a name, which is another word for self.Dimebag wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:27 am I doubt just a name is the problem. It’s also the way people are treated, as distinct entities having personal willpower and self control. To have self control means to have a self who is controlling.
So this external demand of the world and society of self control essentially makes that artificial division necessary, such that an apparent controller can stand apart from its own desires, impulses, and the world, etc.
The name itself is simply a way of distinguishing between individuals, of calling attention to a particular individual. I don’t disagree in a way that maybe the name solidifies the sense of individuality to itself, it kind of seals the deal, but the division runs far deeper than just the name.
Everything after that sense of self just snowballed into a runaway train. There's no stopping the madness now, not until we all develop the intelligence to say this is such a stupid game going nowhere and stop breeding. Hopefully our selfish actions will force the hand of nature, where humans will extinct very soon, lets hope so.
To me, such an idea would mean there would be no reason for anything in the universe to exist, no universe at all. Consciousness is the one thing which gives the universe any meaning. So what you are essentially arguing for is the absolute non existence of all existence.
Is such an idea even able to be understood? Absolute non existence? The term itself is paradoxical or contradictory. Existence just is. Nothing cannot be. Something must be.
So what you call for is an impossibility. Maybe.
Maybe the universe might have been “tuned” in such a way that no matter could have formed, no life could have formed. But such a universe could never be inhabited, and therefore the ability to entertain such ideas would be impossible. So to me the idea is pointless.
To whom would a lifeless universe be for? The absolute?
I don’t know.
The fact is, we are here, seemingly, and so, I have to think that there is some reason why that must be. Or maybe if there is no reason, the fact that we are here at all simply should be a reason to be thankful. Thankful for existence.
I know not everyone is thankful for existence, and there is so much suffering in this world. For me to constantly think about that, is no way to live. It’s not a burden I was ever meant to shoulder.
Our level of care should expand to what we are capable of holding. If you are only able to care for yourself, then that is who you should care for. If you have room to care for a whole family then that’s who you should care for.
Care as much as your heart will allow. But don’t let guilt lead to self hate. That’s what I sense in you. A hatred of existence? A hatred of mankind? It may be justified in some manner. But what if everyone felt the same way, what would be the outcome? Let’s apply some categorical imperative of Kant.
I suppose your opinion is needed, to call attention to the many flaws of human and natural existence. But there needs to be a positive vision. Without that, there is no hope, and thus, no motivation to positively change and therefore no end to suffering. Just an eventual bullet to the head of all life. Put them out of their misery. Life struggles to exist. That’s what it’s nature is, to exist, despite suffering.
Re: U.G. Krishnamurti, gangster guru
It's wise to fear and admit to fear and create a response to fear. If we did not fear we would not live to tell the tale. Fear is a normal response, common to all to sentient creatures , to danger .
"The problem is fear and not God" refers to a means of controlling and benefitting from the visceral fear response. God is love, is an idea that adequately addresses instinctive reactions to fear.
Having claimed that I must say that many religions present a travesty of God as love.
"The problem is fear and not God" refers to a means of controlling and benefitting from the visceral fear response. God is love, is an idea that adequately addresses instinctive reactions to fear.
Having claimed that I must say that many religions present a travesty of God as love.