Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 In a message dated 4/9/2006 2:10:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, gdtige writes: > >...krishnamurti writes: The idea of becoming arises > only when there is a > >sense of > >> insecurity..., the inward void. If you are aware > of that > >> process of thought and feeling, you will see that > there is a > >> constant battle going on, an effort to change, to > modify, to > >> alter what is. This is the effort to become, and > becoming is a > >> direct avoidance of what is. Through > self-knowledge, through > >> constant awareness, you will find that strife, > battle, the > >> conflict of becoming, leads to pain, to sorrow > and ignorance. > >> It is only if you are aware of inward > insufficiency and live > >> with it without escape, accepting it wholly, that > you will > >> discover an extraordinary tranquillity, a > tranquillity which is > >> not put together, made up, but a tranquillity > which comes with > >> understanding of what is. Only in that state of > tranquillity is > >> there creative being..... > > L.E: There are many kinds of " becoming. " There is > becoming a doctor, > becoming an architect, there is becoming a better > person, there is becoming more > honest, there is becoming for fit, there is opposite > becoming, like becoming > fatter, less attentive, less able to memorize > something. Of course you will say, > that is not what he is talking about, but what he is > talking about is not the > concern of most people. He is talking about an > abstract fantasy as he often > does, an invented becoming, a becoming of soul, of > spirit, of inner self, > imaginary structures that concern only a few who are > caught up in imaginary > persuits. There is no " constant battle " going on, > this is invented fantasy. Most > people do not try to avoid what is, they don't even > think about what is and just > take it for granted. > Whatever does he mean when he says: " It is only if you > are aware of inward > insufficiency and live with it without escape, > accepting it wholly,... What > does he mean to be awaare of " inward insufficiency? " > And if it is insuffiecient > that mean it isn't there so how can one live with it > and accept it. How can > you accept " inward insufficiency? " Its an abstraction, > a non-real concept, a > non-existenct. That's what I mean about K. he sets up > false situations, presents > them are real and provides solutions to nothing. The > guru who isn't a guru, > the teacher who isn't a teacher the leader who isn't a > leader. He got caught > up in his own game and refused to become ordinary. > > Larry Epston > > Then how come he truly helped SO many poeple to > recognize how they create their bondage, and gave a > very simple way to see it, stop it and open the window > to something that he entirely left you explore...on > your own. > How come ? > Teaching of Niz help you but not those of K? > They seem to me so interelated, Niz going a step > further, K. being working a lot more on a > psychological level, clearing the underbrush. > trying to understand. > Like if I am sharing a potatoe with Bob, and he finds > his undercooked and rotten tasting and I find my > potatoe divine, I would try to understand. > Patricia > > L.E: It's easy to write " how come. " Let me point out a few things. Jesus if he lived at all, was a man, and died a man but people built a religion around him. How come? He most likely isn't living in heaven watching over people but believers say he is. How come? People pray and dance for Hare Krishna, the blue god who probably doesn't exist. How come? People can benetit from placebos, fake medicine. How come? Not many people have read K, and some benefit as they, and we do from many other gods and ideas that are not true. How come? The human mind is mostly hidden and many things occurr inside people that cannot be seen or known. That's just the way it is. The fact that some benefit from something does not prove its authenticity or universality. If you find K's teachings useful and beneficial then use them, if you don't find another teacher. It's all so obvious if you think about it. I can tell you why I don't find K interesting, beneficial or appealing, and you can take it or leave it. No problem. All teachers attract some and repel others. Big deal. For myself, I'd rather have nothing in my mind except everyday concerns, yet I participate in Niz. How come? My mind seems mostly empty yet when questions arise, answers appear. Why, how? I can't answer that, but it's interesting, so I persist. Larry Epston p.s. It's very unlikely that a potatoe I find rotten you'd find divine. Unless you were a buzzard or a hyena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 2:10:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, gdtige > writes: > > > >...krishnamurti writes: The idea of becoming arises > > only when there is a > > >sense of > > >> insecurity..., the inward void. If you are aware > > of that > > >> process of thought and feeling, you will see that > > there is a > > >> constant battle going on, an effort to change, to > > modify, to > > >> alter what is. This is the effort to become, and > > becoming is a > > >> direct avoidance of what is. Through > > self-knowledge, through > > >> constant awareness, you will find that strife, > > battle, the > > >> conflict of becoming, leads to pain, to sorrow > > and ignorance. > > >> It is only if you are aware of inward > > insufficiency and live > > >> with it without escape, accepting it wholly, that > > you will > > >> discover an extraordinary tranquillity, a > > tranquillity which is > > >> not put together, made up, but a tranquillity > > which comes with > > >> understanding of what is. Only in that state of > > tranquillity is > > >> there creative being..... > > > > L.E: There are many kinds of " becoming. " There is > > becoming a doctor, > > becoming an architect, there is becoming a better > > person, there is becoming more > > honest, there is becoming for fit, there is opposite > > becoming, like becoming > > fatter, less attentive, less able to memorize > > something. Of course you will say, > > that is not what he is talking about, but what he is > > talking about is not the > > concern of most people. He is talking about an > > abstract fantasy as he often > > does, an invented becoming, a becoming of soul, of > > spirit, of inner self, > > imaginary structures that concern only a few who are > > caught up in imaginary > > persuits. There is no " constant battle " going on, > > this is invented fantasy. Most > > people do not try to avoid what is, they don't even > > think about what is and just > > take it for granted. > > Whatever does he mean when he says: " It is only if you > > are aware of inward > > insufficiency and live with it without escape, > > accepting it wholly,... What > > does he mean to be awaare of " inward insufficiency? " > > And if it is insuffiecient > > that mean it isn't there so how can one live with it > > and accept it. How can > > you accept " inward insufficiency? " Its an abstraction, > > a non-real concept, a > > non-existenct. That's what I mean about K. he sets up > > false situations, presents > > them are real and provides solutions to nothing. The > > guru who isn't a guru, > > the teacher who isn't a teacher the leader who isn't a > > leader. He got caught > > up in his own game and refused to become ordinary. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > Then how come he truly helped SO many poeple to > > recognize how they create their bondage, and gave a > > very simple way to see it, stop it and open the window > > to something that he entirely left you explore...on > > your own. > > How come ? > > Teaching of Niz help you but not those of K? > > They seem to me so interelated, Niz going a step > > further, K. being working a lot more on a > > psychological level, clearing the underbrush. > > trying to understand. > > Like if I am sharing a potatoe with Bob, and he finds > > his undercooked and rotten tasting and I find my > > potatoe divine, I would try to understand. > > Patricia > > > > > L.E: It's easy to write " how come. " Let me point out a few things. Jesus if > he lived at all, was a man, and died a man but people built a religion around > him. How come? He most likely isn't living in heaven watching over people > but believers say he is. How come? People pray and dance for Hare Krishna, > the blue god who probably doesn't exist. How come? > People can benetit from placebos, fake medicine. How come? > Not many people have read K, and some benefit as they, and we do from many > other gods and ideas that are not true. How come? The human mind is mostly > hidden and many things occurr inside people that cannot be seen or known. That's > just the way it is. The fact that some benefit from something does not prove > its authenticity or universality. If you find K's teachings useful and > beneficial then use them, if you don't find another teacher. > It's all so obvious if you think about it. I can tell you why I don't find K > interesting, beneficial or appealing, and you can take it or leave it. No > problem. All teachers attract some and repel others. Big deal. For myself, I'd > rather have nothing in my mind except everyday concerns, yet I participate in > Niz. How come? My mind seems mostly empty yet when questions arise, answers > appear. Why, how? I can't answer that, but it's interesting, so I persist. > > Larry Epston > > p.s. It's very unlikely that a potatoe I find rotten you'd find divine. > Unless you were a buzzard or a hyena. > > Knowing that you're empty headed explains a lot.Persist please. buzzard bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 In a message dated 4/9/2006 9:35:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 23:10:01 +0200 (CEST) OConnor Patricia <gdtige Re: lBecoming-Krishnamurti --- epston a écrit : > ...krishnamurti writes: The idea of becoming arises only when there is a > sense of > > insecurity..., the inward void. If you are aware of that > > process of thought and feeling, you will see that there is a > > constant battle going on, an effort to change, to modify, to > > alter what is. This is the effort to become, and becoming is a > > direct avoidance of what is. Through self-knowledge, through > > constant awareness, you will find that strife, battle, the > > conflict of becoming, leads to pain, to sorrow and ignorance. > > It is only if you are aware of inward insufficiency and live > > with it without escape, accepting it wholly, that you will > > discover an extraordinary tranquillity, a tranquillity which is > > not put together, made up, but a tranquillity which comes with > > understanding of what is. Only in that state of tranquillity is > > there creative being..... L.E: There are many kinds of " becoming. " There is becoming a doctor, becoming an architect, there is becoming a better person, there is becoming more honest, there is becoming for fit, there is opposite becoming, like becoming fatter, less attentive, less able to memorize something. Of course you will say, that is not what he is talking about, but what he is talking about is not the concern of most people. He is talking about an abstract fantasy as he often does, an invented becoming, a becoming of soul, of spirit, of inner self, imaginary structures that concern only a few who are caught up in imaginary persuits. There is no " constant battle " going on, this is invented fantasy. Most people do not try to avoid what is, they don't even think about what is and just take it for granted. Whatever does he mean when he says: " It is only if you are aware of inward insufficiency and live with it without escape, accepting it wholly,... What does he mean to be awaare of " inward insufficiency? " And if it is insuffiecient that mean it isn't there so how can one live with it and accept it. How can you accept " inward insufficiency? " Its an abstraction, a non-real concept, a non-existenct. That's what I mean about K. he sets up false situations, presents them are real and provides solutions to nothing. The guru who isn't a guru, the teacher who isn't a teacher the leader who isn't a leader. He got caught up in his own game and refused to become ordinary. Larry Epston Then how come he truly helped SO many poeple to recognize how they create their bondage, and gave a very simple way to see it, stop it and open the window to something that he entirely left you explore...on your own. How come ? Teaching of Niz help you but not those of K? They seem to me so interelated, Niz going a step further, K. being working a lot more on a psychological level, clearing the underbrush. trying to understand. Like if I am sharing a potatoe with Bob, and he finds his undercooked and rotten tasting and I find my potatoe divine, I would try to understand. Patricia A psychological level? Ahh, I think I see the reason for Larry's resistance to K. 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.