Guest guest Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 Love is something which the mind can not possibly >conceive. Love is something which cannot be formulated. And without >love, you become related; without love, you marry. Then, in that >marriage, you " adjust yourselves " to each other. Lovely phrase! You >adjust yourselves to each other, which is again an intellectual >process, is it not? .'' Krishnamurti. L.E: I'm sure this makes sense to some of you, but not to me. After all, nazism and racial hatred made sense to millions as well as the inquisition. Of course that's a very different issue, but no matter how ignorant and hateful, many people will accept and advocate it. He leaves no room for ordinary experience. Why does he say, " without love, you marry. " How many newlyweds would accept an idea like that? Most people who marry, love each other and don't just " adjust. " And then there is getting along with an intimate partner who has their own personality and needs, so of course there is adjustment. Adjustment to leaving single life and living with another. Why does he find fault with that? He says, 'lovely phrase, " but its his phrase unless he read it somewhere and finds fault with naturally adjusting to living with another. And he says it is an intellectural process, and uses the negative for, 'is it not. " Well, no it's not. Living with another is an emotional process, an accepting process, a loving process. To say it's an " intellectual " process shows me, he knows nothing about living with someone you love, but he's down on it, disapproves and is critical as usual. I object to his advice and find it faulty and insensitive. If you like it fine, there's something for everyone, but this teaching is not for me. " Even if the whole world did agree, there's nothing to hold onto in this reality: (a line from one of my songs) I remember at his lectures, there were many people, and many people bought his books, but then how many read and approved of Mein Kamph. I could go on and on about the problems with his teachings but if you like them you won't care what I say, or what I like or dislike. On the other hand, perhaps some will see it my way and agree with me. And that's how it goes in life. Some agree and some don't, and so the world goes on. Larry Epston > > Larry Epston .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 In a message dated 4/16/2006 7:09:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:08:31 EDT epston Krishnamruti -Bad Teaching Love is something which the mind can not possibly >conceive. Love is something which cannot be formulated. And without >love, you become related; without love, you marry. Then, in that >marriage, you " adjust yourselves " to each other. Lovely phrase! You >adjust yourselves to each other, which is again an intellectual >process, is it not? .'' Krishnamurti. L.E: I'm sure this makes sense to some of you, but not to me. After all, nazism and racial hatred made sense to millions as well as the inquisition. Of course that's a very different issue, but no matter how ignorant and hateful, many people will accept and advocate it. He leaves no room for ordinary experience. Why does he say, " without love, you marry. " How many newlyweds would accept an idea like that? Most people who marry, love each other and don't just " adjust. " And then there is getting along with an intimate partner who has their own personality and needs, so of course there is adjustment. Adjustment to leaving single life and living with another. Why does he find fault with that? He says, 'lovely phrase, " but its his phrase unless he read it somewhere and finds fault with naturally adjusting to living with another. And he says it is an intellectural process, and uses the negative for, 'is it not. " Well, no it's not. Living with another is an emotional process, an accepting process, a loving process. To say it's an " intellectual " process shows me, he knows nothing about living with someone you love, but he's down on it, disapproves and is critical as usual. I object to his advice and find it faulty and insensitive. If you like it fine, there's something for everyone, but this teaching is not for me. " Even if the whole world did agree, there's nothing to hold onto in this reality: (a line from one of my songs) I remember at his lectures, there were many people, and many people bought his books, but then how many read and approved of Mein Kamph. I could go on and on about the problems with his teachings but if you like them you won't care what I say, or what I like or dislike. On the other hand, perhaps some will see it my way and agree with me. And that's how it goes in life. Some agree and some don't, and so the world goes on. Larry Epston For the overwhelming majority of folks (what you call " ordinary experience " ) love is experienced as need, and this is what's being said, which is why K won't be found in the self help section next to " How to improve your love life " . As we mature spiritually, we learn to release self judgment and achieve self acceptance, which is self love. It's recognized that the self is the source of love rather than the 'other', at which point one's intimate relations shift and we draw people into our lives who also understand the source of love within. The other then becomes a mirror for our own expression of love rather than an object of need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 In a message dated 4/16/2006 9:03:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:08:31 EDT > epston > Krishnamruti -Bad Teaching > > Love is something which the mind can not possibly > >conceive. Love is something which cannot be formulated. And without > >love, you become related; without love, you marry. Then, in that > >marriage, you " adjust yourselves " to each other. Lovely phrase! You > >adjust yourselves to each other, which is again an intellectual > >process, is it not? .'' Krishnamurti. > > L.E: I'm sure this makes sense to some of you, but not to me. After all, > > nazism and racial hatred made sense to millions as well as the inquisition. > > Of > course that's a very different issue, but no matter how ignorant and > hateful, > many people will accept and advocate it. He leaves no room for ordinary > experience. Why does he say, " without love, you marry. " How many > newlyweds > would > accept an idea like that? Most people who marry, love each other and don't > > just " adjust. " And then there is getting along with an intimate partner > who > > has their own personality and needs, so of course there is adjustment. > Adjustment to leaving single life and living with another. Why does he > find > fault > with that? > He says, 'lovely phrase, " but its his phrase unless he read it somewhere > and > finds fault with naturally adjusting to living with another. And he says > it > is an intellectural process, and uses the negative for, 'is it not. " Well, > > no > it's not. Living with another is an emotional process, an accepting > process, > a loving process. To say it's an " intellectual " process shows me, he knows > > nothing about living with someone you love, but he's down on it, > disapproves > and > is critical as usual. > I object to his advice and find it faulty and insensitive. If you like it > fine, there's something for everyone, but this teaching is not for me. > " Even if > the whole world did agree, there's nothing to hold onto in this reality: (a > > line from one of my songs) > I remember at his lectures, there were many people, and many people bought > his books, but then how many read and approved of Mein Kamph. > I could go on and on about the problems with his teachings but if you like > them you won't care what I say, or what I like or dislike. On the other > hand, > perhaps some will see it my way and agree with me. And that's how it goes > in > life. Some agree and some don't, and so the world goes on. > > > Larry Epston > > > > > For the overwhelming majority of folks (what you call " ordinary > experience " ) > love is experienced as need, and this is what's being said, which is why K > won't be found in the self help section next to " How to improve your love > life " . > > As we mature spiritually, we learn to release self judgment and achieve > self > acceptance, which is self love. It's recognized that the self is the source > > of love rather than the 'other', at which point one's intimate relations > shift > and we draw people into our lives who also understand the source of love > within. The other then becomes a mirror for our own expression of love > rather > than an object of need. > L.E: Well, I understand what you write and it makes more sense than what K wrote. And I don't think what you write is very related to what he wrote. You seem concerned with end-points that are in the future rather than what is present as to " as we mature spiritually, " someday in the future is we do. But in the present people love each other as best they can and accomodate each other to a degree. I don't think that is an intellectual process and therefore not emotional and not loving as does K. Do you have a problem giving me direct responses to the issues I raise, or do you think you are doing that because I don't. For a person who wasn't a guru and claimed not to be a leader, he talked way too much and basked in the adoration of his un-followers. Perhaps profound denial is what how he managed to do that for so many years. Larry Epston p.s. " self love " implies a split between ego and self which I don't think exists. So the concept of self-love is faulty and impossible. Or it is an expression of narcissism a personality disorder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > Love is something which the mind can not possibly > >conceive. Love is something which cannot be formulated. And without > >love, you become related; without love, you marry. Then, in that > >marriage, you " adjust yourselves " to each other. Lovely phrase! You > >adjust yourselves to each other, which is again an intellectual > >process, is it not? .'' Krishnamurti. > > L.E: I'm sure this makes sense to some of you, but not to me. After all, > nazism and racial hatred made sense to millions as well as the inquisition. Of > course that's a very different issue, but no matter how ignorant and hateful, > many people will accept and advocate it. He leaves no room for ordinary > experience. Why does he say, " without love, you marry. " How many newlyweds would > accept an idea like that? Most people who marry, love each other and don't > just " adjust. " And then there is getting along with an intimate partner who > has their own personality and needs, so of course there is adjustment. > Adjustment to leaving single life and living with another. Why does he find fault > with that? > He says, 'lovely phrase, " but its his phrase unless he read it somewhere and > finds fault with naturally adjusting to living with another. And he says it > is an intellectural process, and uses the negative for, 'is it not. " Well, no > it's not. Living with another is an emotional process, an accepting process, > a loving process. To say it's an " intellectual " process shows me, he knows > nothing about living with someone you love, but he's down on it, disapproves and > is critical as usual. > I object to his advice and find it faulty and insensitive. If you like it > fine, there's something for everyone, but this teaching is not for me. " Even if > the whole world did agree, there's nothing to hold onto in this reality: (a > line from one of my songs) > I remember at his lectures, there were many people, and many people bought > his books, but then how many read and approved of Mein Kamph. > I could go on and on about the problems with his teachings but if you like > them you won't care what I say, or what I like or dislike. On the other hand, > perhaps some will see it my way and agree with me. And that's how it goes in > life. Some agree and some don't, and so the world goes on. > > > Larry Epston > > > > > Larry Epston > > . > Oh Bullshit, you dumbass. bob > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/16/2006 9:03:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB > writes: > > > Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:08:31 EDT > > epston > > Krishnamruti -Bad Teaching > > > > Love is something which the mind can not possibly > > >conceive. Love is something which cannot be formulated. And without > > >love, you become related; without love, you marry. Then, in that > > >marriage, you " adjust yourselves " to each other. Lovely phrase! You > > >adjust yourselves to each other, which is again an intellectual > > >process, is it not? .'' Krishnamurti. > > > > L.E: I'm sure this makes sense to some of you, but not to me. After all, > > > > nazism and racial hatred made sense to millions as well as the inquisition. > > > > Of > > course that's a very different issue, but no matter how ignorant and > > hateful, > > many people will accept and advocate it. He leaves no room for ordinary > > experience. Why does he say, " without love, you marry. " How many > > newlyweds > > would > > accept an idea like that? Most people who marry, love each other and don't > > > > just " adjust. " And then there is getting along with an intimate partner > > who > > > > has their own personality and needs, so of course there is adjustment. > > Adjustment to leaving single life and living with another. Why does he > > find > > fault > > with that? > > He says, 'lovely phrase, " but its his phrase unless he read it somewhere > > and > > finds fault with naturally adjusting to living with another. And he says > > it > > is an intellectural process, and uses the negative for, 'is it not. " Well, > > > > no > > it's not. Living with another is an emotional process, an accepting > > process, > > a loving process. To say it's an " intellectual " process shows me, he knows > > > > nothing about living with someone you love, but he's down on it, > > disapproves > > and > > is critical as usual. > > I object to his advice and find it faulty and insensitive. If you like it > > fine, there's something for everyone, but this teaching is not for me. > > " Even if > > the whole world did agree, there's nothing to hold onto in this reality: (a > > > > line from one of my songs) > > I remember at his lectures, there were many people, and many people bought > > his books, but then how many read and approved of Mein Kamph. > > I could go on and on about the problems with his teachings but if you like > > them you won't care what I say, or what I like or dislike. On the other > > hand, > > perhaps some will see it my way and agree with me. And that's how it goes > > in > > life. Some agree and some don't, and so the world goes on. > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > For the overwhelming majority of folks (what you call " ordinary > > experience " ) > > love is experienced as need, and this is what's being said, which is why K > > won't be found in the self help section next to " How to improve your love > > life " . > > > > As we mature spiritually, we learn to release self judgment and achieve > > self > > acceptance, which is self love. It's recognized that the self is the source > > > > of love rather than the 'other', at which point one's intimate relations > > shift > > and we draw people into our lives who also understand the source of love > > within. The other then becomes a mirror for our own expression of love > > rather > > than an object of need. > > > L.E: Well, I understand what you write and it makes more sense than what K > wrote. And I don't think what you write is very related to what he wrote. You > seem concerned with end-points that are in the future rather than what is > present as to " as we mature spiritually, " someday in the future is we do. But in > the present people love each other as best they can and accomodate each other > to a degree. I don't think that is an intellectual process and therefore not > emotional and not loving as does K. Do you have a problem giving me direct > responses to the issues I raise, or do you think you are doing that because I > don't. For a person who wasn't a guru and claimed not to be a leader, he talked > way too much and basked in the adoration of his un-followers. Perhaps > profound denial is what how he managed to do that for so many years. > > Larry Epston > > p.s. " self love " implies a split between ego and self which I don't think > exists. So the concept of self-love is faulty and impossible. Or it is an > expression of narcissism a personality disorder. > > Oh bullshit you dumbass. bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 In a message dated 4/17/2006 3:37:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:50:19 EDT epston Re: Krishnamruti -Bad Teaching In a message dated 4/16/2006 9:03:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:08:31 EDT > epston > Krishnamruti -Bad Teaching > > Love is something which the mind can not possibly > >conceive. Love is something which cannot be formulated. And without > >love, you become related; without love, you marry. Then, in that > >marriage, you " adjust yourselves " to each other. Lovely phrase! You > >adjust yourselves to each other, which is again an intellectual > >process, is it not? .'' Krishnamurti. > > L.E: I'm sure this makes sense to some of you, but not to me. After all, > > nazism and racial hatred made sense to millions as well as the inquisition. > > Of > course that's a very different issue, but no matter how ignorant and > hateful, > many people will accept and advocate it. He leaves no room for ordinary > experience. Why does he say, " without love, you marry. " How many > newlyweds > would > accept an idea like that? Most people who marry, love each other and don't > > just " adjust. " And then there is getting along with an intimate partner > who > > has their own personality and needs, so of course there is adjustment. > Adjustment to leaving single life and living with another. Why does he > find > fault > with that? > He says, 'lovely phrase, " but its his phrase unless he read it somewhere > and > finds fault with naturally adjusting to living with another. And he says > it > is an intellectural process, and uses the negative for, 'is it not. " Well, > > no > it's not. Living with another is an emotional process, an accepting > process, > a loving process. To say it's an " intellectual " process shows me, he knows > > nothing about living with someone you love, but he's down on it, > disapproves > and > is critical as usual. > I object to his advice and find it faulty and insensitive. If you like it > fine, there's something for everyone, but this teaching is not for me. > " Even if > the whole world did agree, there's nothing to hold onto in this reality: (a > > line from one of my songs) > I remember at his lectures, there were many people, and many people bought > his books, but then how many read and approved of Mein Kamph. > I could go on and on about the problems with his teachings but if you like > them you won't care what I say, or what I like or dislike. On the other > hand, > perhaps some will see it my way and agree with me. And that's how it goes > in > life. Some agree and some don't, and so the world goes on. > > > Larry Epston > > > > > For the overwhelming majority of folks (what you call " ordinary > experience " ) > love is experienced as need, and this is what's being said, which is why K > won't be found in the self help section next to " How to improve your love > life " . > > As we mature spiritually, we learn to release self judgment and achieve > self > acceptance, which is self love. It's recognized that the self is the source > > of love rather than the 'other', at which point one's intimate relations > shift > and we draw people into our lives who also understand the source of love > within. The other then becomes a mirror for our own expression of love > rather > than an object of need. > L.E: Well, I understand what you write and it makes more sense than what K wrote. And I don't think what you write is very related to what he wrote. You seem concerned with end-points that are in the future rather than what is present as to " as we mature spiritually, " someday in the future is we do. But in the present people love each other as best they can and accomodate each other to a degree. I don't think that is an intellectual process and therefore not emotional and not loving as does K. Do you have a problem giving me direct responses to the issues I raise, or do you think you are doing that because I don't. For a person who wasn't a guru and claimed not to be a leader, he talked way too much and basked in the adoration of his un-followers. Perhaps profound denial is what how he managed to do that for so many years. Larry Epston p.s. " self love " implies a split between ego and self which I don't think exists. So the concept of self-love is faulty and impossible. Or it is an expression of narcissism a personality disorder. Well, that was what I got out of what K wrote. Maybe someone else has a different interpretation. If one is paying attention to what is occurring in the present, the spiritual maturity occurs on it's own. I didn't suggest that people don't love each other as best they can, I only implied that change is a good thing. I no longer have the original text we're discussing, but my recollection is that K was saying love is not a thought; not an idea, but a state of being. The thought for most folks, whether verbalized or not, is 'How can I be loved?' With maturity, the thought becomes, 'How can be loving?' Later, the question becomes, 'How can I be love?' I don't understand your comment about not giving you direct responses. I think I've been very direct with you. Maybe an example would help. Self love is self acceptance. It implies the healing of a split rather than the cause of it. It's also the opposite of narcissism since it ends the intense need to focus on the self in self defense and self deception. Narcissism arises from too much inner conflict which results from denial. Denial is the unwillingness to look at one's own self created ego processes. 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.