Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Only the "me" wants a "method" or a "practice" or a "system" to follow in order to (hopefully) keep a sense of separate and independent existence going. And that is one of the reasons why J. Krishnamurti didn't offer a method, practice, etc. Another reason is that the finite (i.e., methods, thought, effort, etc) can never lead to the infinite. And yet another is that there is no "independent me" in the first place. Systems, practices, methods, and all strategic end-gaining maneuverings are simply forms of "spiritual masturbation", trying to engineer, possess, and gain control over certain types of "experiences." It isn't about seeking or avoiding experiences at all. It's about understanding. In short, the "me" is impotent to do anything for a variety of reasons. The direct realization of this "impotency" may facilitate an "opening" conducive to recognizing one's true nature. Or it may not. Either way, the "me" is powerless try as it may to be otherwise. Ahhhh, the play of life! Michael A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 , "Michael Adamson" <adamson@s...> wrote: > > > Only the "me" wants a "method" or a "practice" or a "system" to follow in order > to (hopefully) keep a sense of separate and independent existence going. =============== but the method will consume him like the stick that stirs the fire. ======================== >And > that is one of the reasons why J. Krishnamurti didn't offer a method, practice, > etc. ====================== method without true intentions is rote ritual, that is all he was trying to avoid. Earnestness is everything. ====================== Another reason is that the finite (i.e., methods, thought, effort, etc) can > never lead to the infinite. =================== of course it can, for the finite is but *what* in reality? ======================= And yet another is that there is no "independent me" > in the first place. Systems, practices, methods, and all strategic end-gaining > maneuverings are simply forms of "spiritual masturbation", trying to engineer, > possess, and gain control over certain types of "experiences." =================== This is to be *realized*. Since there is no "independant me"..... who is doing this so-called spirirual masturbation? ===================== It isn't about > seeking or avoiding experiences at all. It's about understanding. In short, the > "me" is impotent to do anything for a variety of reasons. The direct realization > of this "impotency" may facilitate an "opening" conducive to recognizing one's > true nature. Or it may not. Either way, the "me" is powerless try as it may to > be otherwise. Ahhhh, the play of life! > > Michael A. ===================== AHHHH But michael........ who is it that understands? Sadahna is the effort needed to bring oneself to this point of allowing the understanding. It is a simple act of attention. Where you give your attention, there is your devotion. If you try to give up, it is still method. If you try to understand, it is method. Your head is in the tiger's mouth. ~Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Dear Michael Adamson and everyone, --- Michael Adamson <adamson wrote: > > > Only the "me" wants a "method" or a "practice" or a > "system" to follow in order > to (hopefully) keep a sense of separate and > independent existence going. And > that is one of the reasons why J. Krishnamurti > didn't offer a method, practice, > etc. K was one of those rare individuals who naturally developed, or perhaps was born, into a realized state. And, like most persons, he only knew what he had experienced. He was personally unacquainted with the experience of the eight limbed path. Under the direction of C.W. Leadbetter, Krishnamurti did practice some spiritual disciplines; but he was not a real sadhaka. He did not have to struggle. He developed naturally. And so, he does not preach conscious development. In fact it is alien to him. But that doesn't mean that it is bad. It just means that K was a man like any man, and he espoused what he knew. And what he knew was a natural state and not one that was consciously developed. Persons who need it should never discount the practice of yoga. michael > Another reason is that the finite (i.e., > methods, thought, effort, etc) can > never lead to the infinite. And yet another is that > there is no "independent me" > in the first place. Systems, practices, methods, and > all strategic end-gaining > maneuverings are simply forms of "spiritual > masturbation", trying to engineer, > possess, and gain control over certain types of > "experiences." It isn't about > seeking or avoiding experiences at all. It's about > understanding. In short, the > "me" is impotent to do anything for a variety of > reasons. The direct realization > of this "impotency" may facilitate an "opening" > conducive to recognizing one's > true nature. Or it may not. Either way, the "me" is > powerless try as it may to > be otherwise. Ahhhh, the play of life! > > Michael A. > > > > > /join > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > Sri Ramana > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > Links > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.