|
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
 
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | kulkarnn - 2007-09-20 10:50 AM
Thanks for the response Phil. And where did the following concept come from? Yourself or a philosophy? I am not going to Kill Buddha. I am going to make him my friend. Actually, he already is.
Phil - 2007-09-20 9:26 AM
The whole art of meditation is to de-condition the mind of concepts. All concepts of "mind" no mater how holy
"If you meet the Buddha on the road kill him"
I've been very concerned about this all day while out shopping....I could never kill Buddha, I don't care what you say Phil,  |
|
| |
|
| In Buddhism, this concept was taken from the Vedic Philosophy, where the concept is called:
negation: This is a very very old tradition in Vedas where: the truth is described by telling what it is NOT.
Even in modern times, if you look at Nirvaanashatakam of Adi Shankara, it says: not this, not this, not this, etc. At the end it says: I am only of the form of consciousness and bliss.
The other method is to praise the lord that you are all this.
Both these approaches exactly give the same truth, regardless of the difference in the approach.
The not this not this approach is called 'na iti' 'na iti' OR 'neti neti' (NOTHING to do with Neti Pot!)
The other approach is one focusses on one one instead of many. Thus, many becomes less than many, then one, and the formless reality dawns. By assuming the formless reality in ONE that you devote to, does not create any problem in realizing that reality finally.
All these ideas exist in the past literature. During the emergence of Buddhism or formation of texts, these ideas were renamed. And, therefore, Buddhism looks like Hinduism in many respects with outer differences.
jonnie - 2007-09-20 1:43 PM
Yes, exactly.
In Zen, there are apparently different levels of realisation before a practitioner achieves full realisation.
In this the same in the Hindu/Yogic approach?
|
|
| |
|
| Thanks Neel.
|
|
| |
|
| Hi Cyndi,
Your not killing the Buddha.
Your killing you preconceived ideas, mind, of the Buddha.
So then your heart is more clear to love him.  |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Phil - 2007-09-21 7:35 AM
Hi Cyndi,
Your not killing the Buddha.
Your killing you preconceived ideas, mind, of the Buddha.
So then your heart is more clear to love him.
yes I know Phil, I was funning with you,  |
|
| |
|
| Cool! Sorry I was being a bit slow |
|
| |
|
| kulkarnn - 2007-09-20 10:47 PM
In Buddhism, this concept was taken from the Vedic Philosophy, where the concept is called:
negation: This is a very very old tradition in Vedas where: the truth is described by telling what it is NOT.
Even in modern times, if you look at Nirvaanashatakam of Adi Shankara, it says: not this, not this, not this, etc. At the end it says: I am only of the form of consciousness and bliss.
The other method is to praise the lord that you are all this.
Both these approaches exactly give the same truth, regardless of the difference in the approach.
The not this not this approach is called 'na iti' 'na iti' OR 'neti neti' (NOTHING to do with Neti Pot!)
A small correction. Neti means 'na iti', where na=not, iti=thus. Neti, therefore, means "not thus", meaning no object is ever negated (as the word 'this' may imply), but the process, method, is rejected, which is why the word 'thus' becomes relevant. So to translate neti to 'not this' is wrong. It should be 'not thus', meaning every method is negated. J Krishnamurti was following this approach without really knowing about it!
Suresh |
|
| |
|
| As to people who say 'self-realization' is NOT a goal, then it must be something we've already attained, in which case we wouldn't even be talking about (#1). But since we're breaking our heads over it, we haven't yet attained it, which makes 'self-realization' a goal (#2). If one still reasons that self-realization is not a goal to be attained, then does it exist at all? If it exists, then it exists as what, if not as a goal to be attained? If it exists but NOT as a goal to be attained, then have we attained it already? If so, go to #1. Else, go to #2.
Suresh
Edited by seeker 2007-10-14 7:31 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Dear Suresh: I like your If Then Else logic.
Actually: J Krishnamurthi is WRONG and his philosophy is only logical and not experiential. Therefore it appeals to certain section of people. And, therefore, it has not been incorporated in a generalized stream of philosophy. I do agree that he was a great thinker. But, he has not completely resolved all the missing elements, because he does NOT have experiential knowledge. Of course, with apology, I am not going to debate on him more.
I agree with your translation as Neti = na + iti = NOT + Thus. But, actually, Thus here denotes exactly what I wrote. Thus = as it is described. For example: God / Truth/ Brahman / allah/ Father is like 'thus' as described, in this particular context in Vedas. And, Na Iti or NOT THUS means that all this this description (this word I used due to this!) or all description given thus is NOT completely describing the GOD. GOD is beyond description, anirvachaniiya.
But, if I hurt your feelings as you are a student of J Krishnamurthi, I apologize. |
|
| |
|
| kulkarnn - 2007-10-14 6:34 AM
Actually: J Krishnamurthi is WRONG and his philosophy is only logical and not experiential. Therefore it appeals to certain section of people. And, therefore, it has not been incorporated in a generalized stream of philosophy. I do agree that he was a great thinker. But, he has not completely resolved all the missing elements, because he does NOT have experiential knowledge.
Neel,
How do you know whether J. Krishnamurti or anyone other than Neel has experiental knowledge?
Jim |
|
| |
|
| Dear Jimg:
If I understand you correctly (Please correct me if I did not understand you correctly)
a) you are giving me the freedom to assume myself to be experienced and to know that I am experienced and
b) what you are asking is: "How does Neel know whether anyone other than Neel has experiential knowledge?". It is like when a person bears a child, she becomes mother, and then when she raises a few children, she gets the experience of motherhood. Then, if another lady starts talking about motherhood, such as a young beautiful girl who is sleeping with men but has not produced and raised kids, but works in a world famous magazine, such as let us say, "Time", "X", "Y", etc., writes fantastic articles on "motherhood", an experienced mother shall automatically know that the girl does not have that experience, eventhough she may acknowledge the intellect in her articles. I feel the same of . J Krishnamurthy and the other inexperienced persons.
Peace
jimg - 2007-10-14 7:52 PM
kulkarnn - 2007-10-14 6:34 AM
Neel,
How do you know whether J. Krishnamurti or anyone other than Neel has experiental knowledge?
Jim Edited by kulkarnn 2007-10-14 9:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Dear Neel,
You know your own experience. You have an opinion (which could be true or not) about everyone else's experience.
Namaste,
Jim |
|
| |
|
| I see. Dear Jimg. No problems. If you feel more comfortable with my adding the following to my previous response, I am happy to do that:
In my opinion.......
Peace
jimg - 2007-10-15 12:57 PM
Dear Neel,
You know your own experience. You have an opinion (which could be true or not) about everyone else's experience.
Namaste,
Jim |
|
| |
|
| I am finally happy!! Thanks. |
|
| |
|
| Whatever we seek, call it self, happiness, two things are always involved.
#1 The object we're seeking must be known, or no search would be possible
#2 The object, though known, must be missing in our lives at the moment, which is why we're seeking. If it's not missing, why seek?
So both reasons are relevant. We seek happiness, because we know happiness, we've felt it as children, and so on. But that's not the only reason for search, happiness is missing as of now, which is why there's a desperate search. Or, search would be redundant.
J Krishnamurti has missed #2 completely, while maintaining a weird and illogical idea about #1. This is why his followers are very confused as to why they're searching, what they're searching for, even as they maintain that there's nothing to search for, that search itself is a problem, and so on and so forth.
Suresh |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Suresh very much for this valuable statement. JK has missed other points as well. But, your statement is extremely valuable. Also, to make one more statement the popularity of JK is more due to revolutionary nature of stating against the tradition. And, this wrongly assumes that Tradition is based on foolishness. Actually, Tradition is based on a very wise expeirence (such as already known happiness which is lost). And, it is clear that the followers of JK has not reached the World Peace he talked about.
I mean "In My Opinion" . Sorry for missing this.. but I am working on it.
seeker - 2007-10-16 7:45 AM
J Krishnamurti has missed #2 completely, while maintaining a weird and illogical idea about #1. This is why his followers are very confused as to why they're searching, what they're searching for, even as they maintain that there's nothing to search for, that search itself is a problem, and so on and so forth.
Suresh
Edited by kulkarnn 2007-10-16 8:33 AM
|
|
| |
|
| To me, "followers" of JK don't understand what he was talking about. He encouraged people to think for themselves and to find out for themselves. Following him in any way is the opposite of thinking for yourself or any kind of self-inquiry. If you get rid of tradition and authority but make the person who suggested doing so a tradition or authority, you are simply playing a game with yourself, replacing one authority with another and pretending that it is something else. |
|
| |
|
| jimg - 2007-10-16 1:20 PM
To me, "followers" of JK don't understand what he was talking about. He encouraged people to think for themselves and to find out for themselves. Following him in any way is the opposite of thinking for yourself or any kind of self-inquiry. If you get rid of tradition and authority but make the person who suggested doing so a tradition or authority, you are simply playing a game with yourself, replacing one authority with another and pretending that it is something else.
ahhhhh, but that's what 'followers' do in every culture, in every tradition, in every religion
as soon as the bureaucracy of of theology or philosophy takes off, the practical application for the teaching in our lives is hijacked
Better to Know than Believe |
|
| |
|
| While encouraging to think, there is no need to trash the tradition. Actually, many traditions themselves have encouragement to think built in. And, only thinking without practical application (mentioned by brother SCT) creates a Thinker who really can not guide the society in a substantial way. |
|
| |
|
| I think that the important thing is not to "follow" a tradition or individual, but rather to use traditions, individuals, experience etc as tools for learning and self-knowledge, not as ends in themselves. |
|
| |
|
| I sort of agree with jimg's statement above. But, it is inevitable that some traditions are going to be held high even for being chosen for taking them as guidline or taking certain aspects of them. Tradition does not necessarily mean one has to follow it hundred percent. And, that is what some on this board has called in the past as Tolerant traditions.
I personally feel that a) let those who want to follow whatever tradition they want to follow, follow it. b) any tradition should not condemn other tradition, except with a particular point which needs to be discussed. |
|
| |
|
| There is a good true story about tradition:
There was a very famous opera singer (tenor) who in the middle of a particular aria would always go to the back of the stage and look out the window (of the set) before continuing. Since he was so good at this role, everyone copied his action for many years. When he was an old man, he was giving a master class and a young student asked him why he looked out the window since he wasn't waiting for anyone or looking for anything and this action really didn't make any sense. The old tenor replied that the reason the he stuck his head out the window was that he always got a lot of phlem in his throat at that point and stuck his head out to spit so that his throat was clear for the high note at the end of the aria!
Questioning leads to understanding!
I think that tradition is good as long as we question and seek understanding and don't just blindly follow.
Edited by jimg 2007-10-17 1:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
| If we define tradition in terms of time, as did Krishnamurti, that would be ridiculous, because everything, every act, every word, every teaching, even the denial of tradition, is within the field of time, and hence that also is part of tradition. In short, there's nothing other than tradition, including its negation. This is what Krishnamurti missed, perhaps on purpose.
Suresh
Edited by seeker 2007-10-17 3:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
| all I'm saying is belief is not knowledge
and belief with no practice is not knowledge or realization
better to know than believe
better to do than to watch---of course, better to ask after watching and then do--it gets mixed up here because somewhere it's good to learn |
|
| |
|
| This may not be relevant but nonetheless I thought it was interesting. I work w/ an MD psychiatrist who is Hindu royalty who sits w/ a picture of her realized being on her desk. She is one life away from being @ the end of her path (self realization). However, if she has an impure thought or perhaps someone of a lower caste spits on her she will have to do it again. How frustrating. That is real tradition and rather binding! |
|
| |
Self realization?
