Guest guest Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 In a message dated 4/17/2006 12:48:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > > > 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. > > L.E: Your explanation is reasonable and thoughtful and I respect that. Perhaps K could have explained it better than he did, but he still reads to me as negative and critical. Some, like and need that. I don't. He is really putting down everyone who says they love as " intellectual " which reads as false and insincere. No need to make K the major issue, there are many teachers, some that appeal and some that don't or that make sense in part, but not as a whole. I still think there's a better way to explain self-love although your effort is admirable. I like the idea of changing self-love to being loving. That gets rid of the verbal dichotomy. Concerning Narcissism, what it is and how it works is a large issure, as well as who embodies it, and to what extent. For instance, Bob Nixon seems really screwed up. Is it narcissism or some other kind of abberation? As I said, his assault is unkind, mean-spirited and obsessive. That is a characteristic of narcissism. To become really angry over small slights or any impingement on his ego which he takes as a life or death threat. Perhaps he defines himself by those he hates, his enemies, and uses his anger to give himself a sense of false reality. 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 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/17/2006 12:48:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > ADHHUB writes: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > L.E: Your explanation is reasonable and thoughtful and I respect that. > Perhaps K could have explained it better than he did, but he still reads to me as > negative and critical. Some, like and need that. I don't. He is really > putting down everyone who says they love as " intellectual " which reads as false and > insincere. No need to make K the major issue, there are many teachers, some > that appeal and some that don't or that make sense in part, but not as a > whole. > I still think there's a better way to explain self-love although your effort > is admirable. I like the idea of changing self-love to being loving. That > gets rid of the verbal dichotomy. > Concerning Narcissism, what it is and how it works is a large issure, as > well as who embodies it, and to what extent. For instance, Bob Nixon seems > really screwed up. Is it narcissism or some other kind of abberation? As I said, > his assault is unkind, mean-spirited and obsessive. > That is a characteristic of narcissism. To become really angry over small > slights or any impingement on his ego which he takes as a life or death threat. > Perhaps he defines himself by those he hates, his enemies, and uses his anger > to give himself a sense of false reality. > > Larry Epston > > Oh bullshit you dumbass...Hey I do find this fun! .......bob > 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.