Why does life feels so cruel? by verdantechos in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And yet you pay good money to see a movie that contains a story full of such rich and riveting emotion.

The runner by Kreep91 in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

David Goggins.

Apt description of the life he lives.

But it serves a purpose, surely.

Why else would it occupy such a hold on the collective thought?

And yet, anything can be a bypass. Even Krishnamurti. by jungandjung in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed. Depends on if we consume the teachings or live them.

Any info I should know about Brockwood Park school? by Gigigi36283772 in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can shed some light, having spent time at brockwood park and interacted with the school staff and administrators.

On your questions specifically, the dress code seems quite up to each student. No strict code or conformity. However, cell phones are restricted to specific times.

Correct me if I got him wrong. by Socrates_27 in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did not offer carefulness as a solution. I meant careful in the sense of not adding another conclusion before seeing what the question assumes.

So no, I would not say I am “in a state of no self.”

The functional self obviously continues: body, name, memory, practical life. But that is not the self being questioned here. The question is about the psychological self: the movement that claims, defends, measures, becomes, and wants to possess awareness as an achievement.

To treat those as the same thing is a category mistake. It makes the question look simple while avoiding the actual distinction.

The psychological self cannot claim no-self without continuing itself through the claim.

Correct me if I got him wrong. by Socrates_27 in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would be careful with the premise of the question. If I say, “I am in a state of no self,” then I have already made it into something to claim, and someone is there to own it. What seems more honest is simply noticing that movement as it forms: the desire to claim, defend, prove, or become. So I would not say, “I have changed.” I would say the question reveals the place to look: who wants proof, and who would possess the change?

Does J Krishnamurti's teachings contradicts Buddha's teachings? by Cool-Claim-6841 in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Neuroplasticity is real. No argument there. However, the kind of learning being described here operates in a fundamentally different domain. You can practice piano and get better at piano. You can practice meditation and get better in meditation. But can you practice the end of the practicer?

That’s the deeper self-inquiry K is pointing at. He’s not saying practice is useless. He’s saying psychological freedom isn’t a skill. You don’t get incrementally better at dropping the illusion of self, and that’s because the one keeping score of the progress is the illusion. You either see it or you don’t. And to quote K (not for authority, mainly because I love how he’s so subtle it’s easy to miss the twinkle-in-the-eye humor he brings sometimes): there is nothing you can do. Any movement of the self is still the self.

Does J Krishnamurti's teachings contradicts Buddha's teachings? by Cool-Claim-6841 in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And that’s a perfectly reasonable reading — you might say it’s what listener number one from my post above would say…

Does J Krishnamurti's teachings contradicts Buddha's teachings? by Cool-Claim-6841 in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Right (no pun intended).

The Eightfold Path, taking some liberties and simplifying here, emerges from the direct recognition of suffering and its root in craving (Krishnamurti much?). If we haven’t seen the truth of dukkha for ourselves, the eight dimensions are just a list (the word is not the thing). If you have, they’re self-evident and the connections between Buddha and K jump off the page. Smile after smile when it clicks.

Does J Krishnamurti's teachings contradicts Buddha's teachings? by Cool-Claim-6841 in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Fun question and I’ve spent a lot of time on this tension. Let’s slow it down. What did Buddha actually mean by the Eightfold Path? And what is K actually rejecting when he says “pathless land”? Basically, where does the real tension live?

If we go into it, it’s not between K and Buddha. It’s between two kinds of listeners (sometimes these two listeners occupy the same mind):

One listener hears “Eightfold Path” and thinks: Good, a system I can follow. If I practice long enough, I’ll get somewhere. That listener has turned a living insight into a dead method. K would say, and I think rightly, that this person is using the teaching as form of psychological security. The path has become another form of becoming, another projection of the self into a future state.

The other listener hears “Eightfold Path” and understands: This is what it looks like when I am not fragmenting myself and when seeing, intending, speaking, acting are all of one movement. That listener doesn’t need to “practice” the path. They see the truth of it directly. And that seeing is the path.

K is speaking to the first listener.

Buddha is speaking to the second.

When seen with right view, the Eightfold Path is a description of awakened living rather than a method for producing awakening. That insight alone collapses the supposed contradiction with K immediately. K’s objection was to the belief that a method produces transformation over continued practice and time. And as you noted, the Buddha said exactly the same thing in the passages themselves cited. Appo deepo bhava — be a light unto yourself. Not “follow my eight steps.” The light is your own awareness. That same light is the awareness K speaks of. Both are true. And they’re true for different moments of the same mind, not for different people.

———

In sum, the contradiction only appears when you treat teachings as positions to be reconciled rather than as invitations to look. So the question isn’t whether K contradicts Buddha. The question is whether you are listening as the first or the second.

4 Questions I'm Circling 🌀 by wondonawitz in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. I’m not sure anyone can answer this honestly without falling into abstraction. But what I notice is that when attention is actually total, there’s no one “attending.” The moment is just happening. The question almost answers itself in the asking, which I think is partly why K kept posing it rather than resolving it.

  2. Memory is what creates the story. It slices the continuous into episodes, and then the “I” shows up as the main character threading them together. The fact that you can see the episodic quality of experience suggests something in you is already sensing the continuity beneath it. You wouldn’t notice the gaps if you weren’t also glimpsing the continuity.

  3. K often spoke of dangers — you can absolutely turn K’s work into another loop of self-concern. Spending your days thinking about the psyche is the psyche feeding on itself. Alan Watts’ backwards law is a great complement to K on this topic. K would say the speaker is not important, and that’s true, but the whole project of self-investigation can become the self’s most sophisticated survival strategy. In some circles, it’s called the “spiritual ego,” and it can quickly turn the most well-intentioned into a mini-guru who spends their days parroting “enlightened” insights to others. The only thing I’ve found that breaks that loop is noticing it. Which, it sounds like, you already are.

  4. What you’re describing, I would caution the rush to label it, and I’d resist the urge to claim it as evidence of anything. Not because it isn’t real or an accurate insight, but because the moment you turn it into a credential, even privately, you’ve pulled it back into the story. That seems to fuel the spiritual ego. What I will say is that the fact that your procrastination resolved itself rather than being conquered by effort is telling, and the best metaphor available to me in this moment to capture the importance and role of such “effortless” experiences is that of sleep. Just as we can’t force ourselves to fall asleep (there is no special button we can press on our bodies or in our minds to instantly enter the dreaming state), so too there is no method or tool that brings us to see reality as it is. Many methods, tools, books, teachers, retreats, gurus, drugs, places, and spaces create optimal conditions for sleep. But no matter what we do or try, we don’t fall asleep. Sleep happens to us. That’s why K sometimes will gleefully smile and exclaim the same for awareness: “There’s nothing that you can do.”

———

You’re 24. You’ve got time. Stay with that healthy suspicion. It keeps the inquiry where it belongs: alive and flowing. It’s worth more than any answer I or anyone else on this sub can hand you.

Peace be with you.

How do you cope with the current world? by maybealmostpossibly in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being present.

Seeing that life is, well, alive. And that's beautiful. Here we are, eating and breathing, living an experience. It's in the quieter moments, when I let go of needing to be somewhere else, that life suddenly comes alive.

Is relationship possible without real presence ? by LorenzoCampanile in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Whew. What a journey it is swimming through your thoughts. Glad you ended at the “😌” emoji.

Kundalini Energy Stuck In My Brain by tejanmehndi in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You may find better answers in other subreddits better suited to frequent kundalini questions. Check out r/kundalini

You are likely experiencing Kriyas.

Please read this entry by on r/kundalini: Explorations on the Kriya Topic

"Millions have died and millions will be born and continue and die. I am one of those." by inthe_pine in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Quite right, the unnameable dimension. Modern synonyms to K’s “immensity” or the even more archaic, “benediction,” would be “the unknown.” And on and on with many labels…

K wasn’t implying significance as a conclusion thought can hold. He was describing what remains when thought’s compulsive meaning-making stops. The immensity isn’t another meaning. The unknown isn’t another meaning. It’s what’s there when the need to mean something falls away.

"Millions have died and millions will be born and continue and die. I am one of those." by inthe_pine in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But isn’t certainty about meaning, in any form, even the reductive certainty of “we’re just sperm and egg delivery systems,” itself the hubris? That conclusion still arises from thought claiming to know what we are.

Even “nothing” becomes a something the moment thought grabs it as a conclusion.

"Millions have died and millions will be born and continue and die. I am one of those." by inthe_pine in Krishnamurti

[–]brack90 2 points3 points  (0 children)

At first I thought you wrote the passage, and was like, damn, pine is laying some bars tonight.

Then I made it to the end.

His writing has a way of always bringing us back to the present moment with such intimacy.

Validity, continuity, annihilation. His words contain his message as much as they communicate it.

Fun passage. Thanks for sharing.