gurus dark sides.....

kullukid

Here's a link I think's relevant to this thread; KK
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses...age_swartz.htm

kalbarri

i like krishnamurti. he was antiguru. he said that the guru and the devotee just use each other.
anyway if you reckon others are enlightened beings or highly wise you must be too, to be the judge of that.

Frog

I like Krishnamurti as well, I still can't find a fault in his actual teaching to this day and have yet to meet anyone who can

But then, according to that article, he was so obviously false in everything he did as he is said to have had sex with a woman!!! My God what is the world coming to! That must prove then that everything he said is false, er, isn't it...

I think a lot of this should be taken in context as back in the day of early 20th century a true 'teacher' in India was celebate and although J.K. never said he was, he definitely tried to avoid controversy. At least we have one thing to thank Osho for later on Osho had many faults, but at least he broke some barriers as did some people before him (Aleister Crowley etc.)

My own opinion of J.K. is that I think he wasn't completely enlightened all the time as from my reading he seemed to have profound, extremely deep spiritual 'states' lasting for long moments of time, hours if not days. He appeared to reach these states during his talks. Then there were other times when he would seem completely human, nervous, shy, even getting annoyed at others.

Perhaps the Theosophists were correct all along, "The vehicle for the world teacher" - which is different to being completely enlightened as is said of the Buddha. But then this doesn't really matter, what matters is the teaching and whether it is true or false (as he repeated throughout his life, it's a shame few listen and instead attack the man instead of the teaching). These days it doesn't matter if someone is enlightened or not, there always will be others out for the witch hunt desiring to bring them down regardless!

Frog

Hi Grikoo,
Hope you don't mind if I question you here. How can you be so convinced that none of us know anything, isn't that an assumption/judgement? Judgements whether positive or negative get in the way of perception, the mind ceases to be open if you hold such a view.

Sure, I wouldn't trust anyone who said they were enlightened, I am anything but hehehe, however there perhaps maybe 'states' that some people experience in this lifetime that many others do not. Not that it makes one 'better' than and another, but it does change some people...

Like someone I once met who physically died in hospital for a long time and saw the white light, aum vibrations etc which changed his life forever when he came back. This had a far reaching positive influence on his actions... Or others who experience Buddhist 'bardo' states when taking psychedelic drugs, following the blue 'path' the maze like way until it branches off to the white light and Aum vibration. Such experiences although are useless in one aspect (e.g. as knowledge) can still bring about an understanding that does have a profound effect on people.

Understanding and knowledge are different things and we all have different levels of understanding (even though we are all not enlightened.) You only need to look at the world to see the extremes of human behaviour - the extreme positive acts to the worst actions possible - to see that we are at different levels. Sure it probably is my ego talking, but I do consider myself for example to be at a higher understanding than that of a nationalist or religious war supporter. As I have had the understanding that nationalism, to fight for ones country is crazy! Some people haven't seen this. Different levels surely?

kalbarri

a buddhist saying, i heard at the japanese temple in bodh gaya is..."before enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water... after enlightenment,chopping wood and carrying water".

grikoo

This is actually one of the many reasons WHY we can't 'know' anything. Any statement of 'knowledge' is a statement of equality, in other words saying 'x = y', 'something IS such and such'. Because all propositions of this sort require conceptualizing discreet entities and qualities of those entities, and since all such determinations are inherently arbitrary and meaningful only in a very conventional sense, it just doesn't hold up that we're capable of making such statements in any other than a very conventional way. We're likely not capable of arriving at 'truth' or 'proof' of anything, and even if we happened upon it there would be no way to 'know' that we had.

Yes, as I've indicated in other threads, I'm not entriely sure that 'states' are really meaningful, again other than in a totally subjective sense. The inability for consciousness and awareness to exist outside of perception pretty much leaves us stuck in the subjective 'state'. People who preach an escape from this are talking nonsense in my opinion. The 'chop wood' quote says it all. There's another one that goes something like 'first I was there, then I was not, then I was there'. Enlightenment does not seem to indicate a change of state at all, but rather a recognition of what the normal state actually is.

Agree absolutely with your differentiation of understanding and knowledge. A very important point to understand.

Disagree though with the level thing, in anything other than a very conventional sense. There's no better or worse, higher or lower, or any other dualistic difference, at least not in any way that isn't based on our own conceptualizations. In fact, I disagree with the fundamental idea that 'things' are different at all, because I don't accept the philosophical validity of 'things'. As far as I can tell, there's no legitimate way to exemplify separateness.

grikoo

I'm fairly sure I disagree with that assessment. I might follow Frog's lead and simply say that I have an 'understanding' of things, but not that I 'know' anything. Saying that I 'know' something would require me to be able to produce objective proof of it, and since I consider 'objectivity' a fairly severe type of abstraction, I just can't go there.

I'm not sure there's any 'reason' in trying to figure it out, unless that's your inclination. I certainly think looking down on the 'unenlightened' masses is total BS, one of the most absurd forms of arrogance.

I think this is a common misperception.

First, the assumption that anything 'independent' can be the basis of something else, is philosophically incoherent.

Second, while the source of experience is indeed pure awareness, and everything 'exists' within that experience, it is a completely different thing to say that awareness is the basis of reality. Awareness requires both sensation, and an object of sensation. Sensation requires a body of some sort, with sense organs. When there's no sensation, there's no awareness. In fact, I think it's highly likely that the 'pure awareness' spoken of is actually nothing more than normal sense perception minus the conceptualization of the mind. If you doubt this, just try to consider what exactly you could be aware OF without sensation.

I think this tendency to misinterpret the experience of pure awareness is one of the most philosophically problematic tendencies in both vedantic AND buddhist thought. To decide that awareness forms the basis of reality is to either fall into radical solipsism, where you decide that indeed YOU are the center of everything, or it requires attributing awareness to objects that are incapable of awareness due to their lack of sense perception. A rock cannot have perception, and thus is incapable of awareness.

My own opinion on the subject is simply that awareness occurs in relation to the degree of complexity inherent in an organisms sense perception. That awareness then forms the basis of our experience of reality, but is not Reality itself, just another manifestation of it.

Sama

"If he is a real guru, he will tell you to understand yourself."
~Jiddu Krishnamurti~

__________________
My India, 2005-2008
BE THE REVOLUTION

Frog

Hi Grikoo,

Hope you don't mind, have some more questions...

Does knowledge play a part in understanding?

In regards to us being at different levels, there being no 'better' or 'worse', is a serial killer the same as a normal person? Is Hitler the same as a non violent person? Surely there is a difference? We are all slightly mad in some way, but some are clearly far more down that road than others! Even people like J.K. admitted that there were some people who were far too lost in their ways to ever listen to him. There are some who are more open to truth (less materialistic, not as strongly attached etc) than others.

I like the ideal of us being all the same and the ideal of non-judgement, but isn't it just an ideal? Don't you judge in some way or other? Isn't it better to judge and know that one judges than to talk of non judgement and yet judge anyway? I'm sorry, I don't mean to argue, I haven't had the chance to read much of your posts and I maybe wrong (sorry if I am) but it's just that I've met enough people who read books such as J.K. or non-duality Buddhism etc. and they all seem so SURE of themselves and end up repeating a lot of words back without actually living them. If you can't actually live them, then repeating a bunch of words is meaningless.

As for the 'states', the memory of such states have to be left behind, sure, but such states can be a big change of direction for some people. I've seen people change in a positive way, eg give up alcohol, give up drugs, turn vegeterian, become intensely interested in spirituality, ok, not enlightened, but change course. This wouldn't have happened if the state had not arisen. I don't know if you are doing this, perhaps I am wrong, but to dismiss such a state without experiencing it once yourself is to sound like you 'know' - another trap.

Even people like J.K. (although quite correctly against all drugs) and many advanced Buddhists (the 16th Karmapa being one) acknowledged that far deeper states of consciousness can be reached through psychedelics and near death experiences. J.K. was very good friends with one Aldous Huxley after all!!! It seemed to certainly have a major effect on his life. I'm not promoting it, as it is very, very dangerous plenty people have gone insane, but to say a 'white light' temporary state is meaningless and yet without experiencing it yourself does sound too much like you do 'know'. Sorry

Perhaps the first knowledge you should doubt is your own knowledge that everyone doesn't know, as that is knowledge too.

grikoo

Knowledge is like saying, 'things ARE this way'. Understanding is like saying, 'things APPEAR this way- right here and right now'. Knowledge is incapable of change, because it's theoretically based on 'fact'. Understanding is more malleable, and open for re-interpretation. They are fundamentally different procedures. Because experience necessitates a focal point for awareness, the objectivity necessary for 'knowledge' is just pure fantasy. Recognizing the absolute lack of objective reference in the human condition is one of the great tools to attaining true humility.

We are all equally mad. In the context of this conversation, the primary difference between these people is your varying conceptualizations of them. Hitler, serial killers, J.K.- all of them were silly humans that had some experiences, drew some conclusions and proceeded to act in various ways based on that. Your moral conclusions about them are totally arbitrary, as were the conclusions of Hitler's and J.K's followers. Like I've tried to point out, 'realization' does not imply a change of state or substance, but a recognition of the true nature of the normal state. All of these people partake of creation in precisely the same way that you or I do. Whether they 'realize' it is totally irrelevant to their actual identity.


So what if they listen? Like I said, it doesn't change what they are. The only people that need to understand are those that are inclined towards understanding. Those that are not are welcome in my book to live out their lives in whatever way they see fit.

I need to understand exactly how you're using the word 'judge' in order to speak to this.

While I've certainly read quite a few books in my time, I think it should be fairly clear that I actually do have a decent grasp of what I'm saying here, and am certainly not parroting anything (I actually am unaware of anyone that takes the exact approach that I do). As to surity, whether or not I understand what I'm saying, I am deeply aware of the fact that neither you nor I actually know whether it's true. It's just one conceptual string among many.

As to living the words- whatever I say or do does not change what I am. Nothing I feel or think or write will make a difference there.

I think it's a mistake to look at 'enlightenment' as a state. Chasing altered states can indeed lead to a great deal of learning, but ultimately won't lead to much in my experience. Better to intimately understand that part of you which these experiences are states OF. And then be smart enough to make some sense of that experience.

You're assuming alot in thinking that I haven't experienced such states. I have, and many others. But ultimately these are just states.....but states of WHAT? That's where the meat is.

It's not a bad approach to seek out extreme states and look for the part that DOESN'T partake in these changes of state. But one can do this with ordinary states just as easily. Washing dishes, spreading gravel, tripping on LSD- these all involve changes of state. Simply trying to be aware of what doesn't change during any of these experiences is far more 'enlightening' than trying to see what does.

As I've said, I don't consider it 'knowledge', as I'm incapable of objectively verifying it (and also because it's based on a deductive process). But what appears to be the case is that humans are incapable of knowledge, at least in the sense that we normally use this word.

If you DO wish to argue the point, you will need to explain how exactly awareness can be objective. This will require you to exemplify how it's possible to have awareness without sensation (because sensation represents the focal point of subjective awareness). Or conversely to show that it's possible to have simultaneous sensation of every existing 'thing'- past, present and future. And all of that without resorting to metaphysical BS.

Munivar

On Gurus...

Even if you don't understand Tamil...this would be a great comedy..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ntErRKY_Dcs

watch from around 4 min onwards...

__________________
Yaadhum Oore Yaavarum Kaelir !!!

Frog

Hi Grikoo,

I don't have time to write a proper reply, but I will say this. You just seem so sure sure of yourself, it is bordering on arrogance This is what happens when people doubt all others before doubting their own understanding. First one must doubt oneself and that includes all what you have said as it may not be correct.

The fact that you are so convinced means you are caught in the same trap as anyone else, in fact I feel a 'worse' one... the 'spiritual ego'. A lot of what you have said is yet more conlusions and with those conclusions there is the arrogance of 'knowing' Some people are just far too convinced in their own conclusions to ever start examining their own 'self' of which these conclusions are part.

grikoo

Frog-

Until you choose to respond to the actual issues we're discussing, rather than just throwing around your opinions of me personally, I can't really take such comments seriously.

In other words- Please feel free to challenge the actual logic behind my statements. If you can't do that, you're other statements are just meaningless. You say that I should doubt these conclusions.....but can you show me why?

My confidence in this issue is not arrogance at all, as I've repeatedly pointed out that I could be wrong. In fact the entire argument centers around my perception that even if I was 'right' (whatever that means), that there is simply no way for either of us to determine that this is the case. That's humility, not arrogance.

My confidence comes from the fact that in over a decade of following this logic, that I have yet to meet someone that can answer the question in a coherent manner. And I haven't been able to answer it either.

I think perhaps what's really bothering you is the underlying implication that neither you, nor any of the people you admire or respect, might have any possibility of 'knowing' what they're talking about either.

I admit......it's brutally hard to digest.

Frog

Hi Grikoo,

Firstly, where did you get the opinion that I accept anybody's words as truth That is bizarre! Nothing can be further from the truth. But the difference between me and you is I just accept the fact that with many of these 'gurus' I don't know whether they had insight or not. I just don't know.

To dismiss them as false, when you yourself never met them is arrogant. Even the Dalai Lama gives various teachings to different people. He tailors his teaching to the audience. The teaching that he gives to westerners is different to what he may give to experienced, serious monks. To judge him on the little I know that he gives to westerners is a bit judgemental. I'm not a Buddhist, but I'm not foolish to dismiss the whole religion as false. There is stuff that I can't prove one way or another, so I just don't know.

Basically, all I'm saying is that there is state that some people have temporarily touched on - whether through psychedelic drugs, near death experiences, or naturally - where all conclusions, all opinions, all words, all beliefs, ALL DOUBTS of believing or not believing (as not believing and judging others as 'wrong' when you cannot possible KNOW whether they are speaking from insight or not - only the individual can!!!) There is a state where all of this goes. However, before it can go there must be logic behind the dismissal. There is understanding, truth...

Besides, you know even a drunk 'drop out' tramp is capable of an occasional insight To write all people off as 'false' instantly, does, to me, seem a little arrogant. You already seem to have switched off and made up your mind before you even listen. With this attitude it is no wonder people obviously don't want to challenge your ideas as you already have clearly made up your mind that noone else speaks from insight.

It is like the saying, 'If you see the Buddha on your way, kill him'. That is true. But emptying the mind of people like the Buddha does not make what the Buddha said false! Before the mind can be empty there first needs to be understanding and an openness of mind.

How are you ever to know whether another is 'right' or 'wrong', whether another is enlightened or not or whether they speak from a genuine insight? Perhaps it's the fact that you can't ever know that bothers you so you find it easier to conclude and dismiss them as false.

grikoo

I don't think I've dismissed anyone so far.

Rather, the above theory lands everyone on equal footing.

Is this why you're upset? You perceive me as dismissing various people?

You should keep in mind that people are not the sum total of their ideas. While I may at times dismiss ideas that don't hold up to logical analysis, that has nothing to do with the person, and certainly a poorly constructed idea isn't a reflection of whether someone is a 'good' or 'bad' person.

Indeed, I truly respect ANYONE that takes the time to think about such subjects, and has the boldness to speak their mind, even if I find their conclusions absurd. And without reserve, I have a deep respect for ANYONE that devotes their life to bettering the lives of others, even if I find their methodology ridiculous.

And how am I able to hold such a stance? ........because I recognize that neither of us really has any idea what's going on. We each just do our best.