Comment

Comment by Martin Euser on July 19, 2009 at 5:09am

Yes, ornamentalmind, I think so. There is always more to these things than it seems at first sight. Layer upon layer of truth/insight.

Comment by ornamentalmind on July 18, 2009 at 6:31pm

So Martin, this is like the Sufi story...we are both right? :-)

Comment by Martin Euser on July 17, 2009 at 7:31pm

"While your question here is most likely rhetorical, some, Plato included, would posit that we merely recollect that which we already know." OM

Yes, but Plato is talking about the soul. Does this include the personality?
I hold the view that the interaction of a person with the world can, but not necessarily will, lead to a resonance between the mind and the soul. In the latter case recollection will occur. The person itself (usually) has no memory of past lives, so cannot recollect anything unless by resonance with the soul.
The person will not necessarily learn from his or her experiences. After a number of repeated failures or bad experiences there may follow some introspection as to why things happen as they do.
This may involve some recollection of knowledge or insight.
Otherwise, the experiences of the current life may lead to fresh insights which do not stem from former lifes. How else could one grow in understanding?

Comment by ornamentalmind on July 17, 2009 at 4:15pm

“As the time changes theories too will change. I think if a person explained a truth 100 years back, may be it is true for him at that time. After 100 years it may change, the truth differs. For example if we take Buddha, he did not accepted reincarnation at 2000 yrs back. But as the time changes the theory also changed. Maybe for this he may told personal experience has no valur forfinding the truth.” – DM

Yes, memes do change over time. As for Gautama, many today who embrace reincarnation also embrace newer tenets of Buddhism too with numerous explanations for doing so including hidden texts and direct apprehension. Of course, many don’t embrace reincarnation and all gradations in between.

Regardless, theories do not change. People do apply different meanings and beliefs to theories though. In this way all such thought is subjective in nature. So, when searching for the truth (capital ‘T’), such relative musings must be left behind…except, as I’ve already stated, in the sense that ultimately both the relative and the absolute are consubstantial.

Comment by ornamentalmind on July 17, 2009 at 4:08pm

“…It seems more than likely that his anti-guru stanza derives from his bad experiences with theosophists….” – ME

While possible and maybe even probable, I find it difficult to identify other people’s motivations. Clearly he had a lot of ‘history’ with theosophists. Yet, many come to an anti-guru stance on numerous other grounds. I have with almost no contact at all with theosophy as well as with almost no contact with gurus.

“..Otherwise, how else can one acquire wisdom than through life's experiences?...” – ME

While your question here is most likely rhetorical, some, Plato included, would posit that we merely recollect that which we already know. Meno’s paradox is the shallow point of inquiry here. The deeper is that which is eternal and innate.

Comment by Martin Euser on July 16, 2009 at 7:49am

Krishnamurti was traumatized by his past with Leadbeater c.s. It seems more than likely that his anti-guru stanza derives from his bad experiences with theosophists.
Otherwise, how else can one acquire wisdom than through life's experiences?

Comment by Master's Yoga on July 16, 2009 at 5:03am

As the time changes theories too will change. I think if a person explained a truth 100 years back, may be it is true for him at that time. After 100 years it may change, the truth differs. For example if we take Buddha, he did not accepted reincarnation at 2000 yrs back. But as the time changes the theory also changed. Maybe for this he may told personal experience has no valur forfinding the truth.

Comment by ornamentalmind on July 16, 2009 at 4:47am

“…ARE we overvaluing experience?” – KH

I don’t know. The question above in itself is self defining. ‘We’ do not have the same experiences. ‘We’ do not share the exact same attributes to the term ‘overvaluing’. So, I will continue w/o being so literal.

We all have experiences. When we enter this life, we have no wisdom associated with what we experience. Over time, we acquire a large bag of karma (experience). Then, as with the Tarot, over time, our path is to return to the beginning of our journey, but having clarified the entire route/path.

A few axioms here:
We all have experiences.
We use these experiences to clarify our consciousness.
Without these experiences, there would be no wisdom.

So, no matter how much one ‘values’ their past, it is in a true sense our treasure, the place to find that which must be tempered and turned to gold.

However, we cannot ignore gnosis itself either.

K. is pointing to that which is at the very base of our ‘mind’. It is that which has no components. So, in this sense, it is not ‘personal’ at all. “It” is the absolute/objective itself. So, K is accurate if one looks at his presentation ignoring that which every human being has…a past (karma). And, w/o that very past, wisdom cannot be acquired.

Consubstantially, we apprehend that which is ‘personal’ in the sense of being composed of our experiences along with that which is pure unity, that which has no components at all.

IF (when) one becomes attached to appearances (‘personal’ projections), then the ‘work’ is to clarify the appearances and find things as they actually are.

Does this address ‘personal’ enough for the nonce?

Like most topics in metaphysics, it is not a yes/no, black/white issue.

Comment by Katinka Hesselink on July 15, 2009 at 5:55am

Hi Ornamental Mind,

I sort of agree - K's method is definitely a bit self serving in that he seems to ask questions, but does not really wait for an answer. In a sense he's constantly talking to himself. Still, I think he has a point - which you don't address at all here - ARE we overvaluing experience?

Comment by ornamentalmind on July 14, 2009 at 9:52pm

Upon more reflection a few thoughts arise. But first, I asked your question in a different way to a handful of friends Katinka. I asked if K’s view fits into Arica integralism.

One response included: “Beats me! Old K. there struck me as a silly old guy, and struck me as either abysmally ignorant about mysticism which I cannot believe, given his reputation or as deliberately taking a position to provoke the Rinpoche dude. I listened to the whole clip interested to hear the other guy's reply but K. wouldn't shut up! I even listened to part two but K. kept droning on there too!…it appears that what K. says does not at all fit into Arica integralism, or into any spiritual or religious system because he's radically repudiating all spiritual religious systems….” – RM [edited in length]

To which I responded “…So [RM], it does appear to me that K is entirely anti dogma and perhaps even anti praxis…”

Yet another response to my query (with permission to post it here) said:

“…Thanks for sending this.

I tried watching three different clips of K and was too bored to get thru more than half way ,except in one case, that talk with Trungpa.

Krishnamurti's audience seemed to be elementary from the way he spoke and therefore not too interesting to dialogue with. He has no real method that works outside of concept building in the Mental Realm as far I can see, yet he persists in a bumpy monologue that doesn't really invite the interaction /participation he claims to value (in other words his humble no praxis-praxis no function [edited for typo]).

For example: "Who am I ...are you?" clip, If he really wanted to use this non-method method of Self Inquiry, I would have encouraged him to sit at the feet of some of those giants of Vedanta, Self inquiry...jnanis like Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramesh Balsekar or Papaji [POONJAJI]. They really take me "There", with their questions and words.

Most good meditation (methods if you will) imho and experience, do create a salubrious environment for one's awakening...kinda like preparing the soil for gardening. The "Awakening moment comes as a maturing progresses. Then almost magically, a mystical something happens.... Aha! that is it - I Am It , Gee, this is really beautiful etc., which after awhile gets clouded over and without the TOOLS to return to the State leaves one solito and abandonado. Then I am stuck looking for some out-of-my-hands i.e. in someone else's tool box/ praxis or guru to get me " back" to the Here and Now Divine Truth , of the now missing State of Liberation that has become a memory. .

Remember our early LSD days!. "Gotta get back, gotta get back....Guru in town? What is the latest way to God? And does it work?"

To go on with the garden analogy: these cultivated conditions, and faith, based on our tested and proven experience, and hopefully continuous motivating ( in schools such as Arica) to re-discover and Be the Good Truth, One and Beautiful ,Presence of the Divine Light within..... help us to persevere in the Way.

I have always loved the specificity of Arica its Clarity and intellectual understanding and the way this is integrated with indications and exercises. I also love and value the devotional music, chanting, in- the- heart spontaneous ecstatic Divine Arising side of the Path. Sufism and Muktananda were two among several, important to my process, in this regard.

Papaji [POONJAJI ] , and others. remind us that at the "End of the Journey" both ways integrate and are One. I think O sees it this way too, but doesn't emphasize it.

Being a therapist , teacher and student of the body, my attention was drawn to K's constantly overlapped left and right ankles. Trungpa, on the other hand sat like O or Buddha, feet apart and planted until the very last minute, , when although difficult to hear on the video, K. said something that attracted Trungpa's agreement and he too shifted, relaxed and crossed his ankles with a slight

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page