- Have any questions?
- +61 383 766 284
- [email protected]
U. G. Krishnamurti gives up the illusion
The Advaita Show #35 – Bob's Joint 16 Jan 07
March 19, 2007The Advaita Show #36 – I WANNA MINGLE!!
April 16, 2007Thanks to Goofy for bringing this to our attention.
Thinker, philosopher UG Krishnamurti dead.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
BANGALORE: Thinker and philosopher UG Krishnamurti has died at Vallecrossia in Italy aged 89.
Krishnamurti, lovingly called UG by his friends and admirers, had slipped and injured himself seven weeks ago and was bedridden, his friends said.
UG’s longtime friends filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt, Larry and Susan Morris and a few other friends were by his side when he died two days ago.
Krishnamurti, who had moved to Italy in January, suffered from “cardio spasm” for many years which became quite severe in the last days of his life.
As per his advice, no rituals or funeral rites were conducted, and he did not leave instructions on how to dispose of his body, his friend and admirer AP Frank Noronha said.
The cremation was carried out by Mahesh Bhatt on Friday.
UG is survived by two daughters and a son.
You can read more about UG on Wikipedia. I love these stories:
From 1947 to 1953, U.G. regularly attended talks given by Jiddu Krishnamurti in Madras, finally beginning a direct dialogue with J. Krishnamurti in 1953. U.G. describes one of their meetings as follows:
“We really didn’t get along well. Whenever we met we locked horns over some issue or other. For instance, I never shared his concern for the world, or his belief that his teaching would profoundly affect the thoughts and actions of mankind for the next five hundred years–a fantasy of the Theosophist occultists. In one of our meetings I told Krishnamurti, ‘I am not called upon to save the world.’ He asked, ‘The house is on fire–what will you do?’ ‘Pour more gasoline on it and maybe something will rise from the ashes,’ I remarked. Krishnamurti said, ‘You are absolutely impossible.’ Then I said, ‘You are still a Theosophist. You have never freed yourself from the World Teacher role. There is a story in the Avadhuta Gita which talks of the avadhut who stopped at a wayside inn and was asked by the innkeeper, “What is your teaching?” He replied, “There is no teacher, no teaching and no one taught.” And then he walked away. You too repeat these phrases and yet you are so concerned with preserving your teaching for posterity in its pristine purity.'”
— (Krishnamurti, U.G.; Arms, Rodney, Ed. [Third Edition, 2001]. Mystique of Enlightenment. Part One. from [2])
Their dialogues continued, but finally came to a halt. U.G. describes the final discussion as follows:
“Again I asked him if there was anything behind the abstractions he was throwing at me, ‘Come clean for once.’ Then he said with great force, ‘You have no way of knowing it!’ Then I said, ‘If I have no way of knowing it and you have no way of communicating it, what the hell have we been doing! I have wasted seven years listening to you. You can give your precious time to somebody else. I am leaving for New York tomorrow.'”
— (Krishnamurti, U.G.; Arms, Rodney, Ed. [Third Edition, 2001]. Mystique of Enlightenment. Part One. from [3])
After the break with J .Krishnamurti, U.G. went to the United States seeking medical treatment for his son, and stayed there for 5 years.
Which reminds me… Bob doesn’t have a profile on Wikipedia. How about we submit one?
98 Comments
Cam
I assume that we you’re talking about is you……
Well go on do it then :))
Karl
PS Now is good…. got something better to do?
But that’s beautiful! Look for Bob on Wikipedia, and what do you get? Nothing!
UG was a legend. Premier League!
UG
TELLING IT LIKE IT IS:
A messiah is the one who leaves a mess behind him in this world.
Religions have promised roses but you end up with only thorns.
Going to the pub or the temple is exactly the same; it is quick fix.
The body has no independent existence. You are a squatter there.
God and sex go together. If God goes sex goes, too.
All experiences however extraordinary they may be are in the area of sensuality.
Man cannot be anything other than what he is. Whatever he is, he will create a society that mirrors him.
Love and hate are not opposite ends of the same spectrum; they are one and the same thing. They are much closer than kissing cousins.
Gurus play a social role, so do prostitutes.
By using the models of Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna we have destroyed the possibility of nature throwing up unique individuals.
It would be more interesting to learn from children, than try to teach them how to behave, how to live and how to function.
Wow. Cranky. Both of them. Just shows it’s impossible to have no agenda. UG and JS both had interesting things to say. As far as having an influence, JS really has done so. I don’t think anyone who speaks out can escape either the motive or the fact of exerting influence in whatever this world is.
Are we sure he is dead? Maybe he is just turning into a moth?
Interesting guy though.
Dear Carol.
Who said they didn’t have an influence or were not supposed to etc?
Sorry i don’t understand your reason for saying this? Thank you
I never liked him and now that he is dead I still don’t like him.
Dear Rob
I’m sure this little development will have UG turning in his grave.
For Gary: U G berated JS for wanting to influence history for 500 years hence, JS said something about putting out the fire, and UG said “Pour gasoline on it and something will arise from the ashes.” The way of Shiva-destroyer vs the way of Vishnu-sustainer. or something. My point was that speaking on these subjects is always from a desire to help in some way or other, and that both UG and JS manifested such urges, simply by speaking out. Yet both seemed also to say that they had no desire to influence others. Hey, if we’re all one, then we’re not influencing anybody really.
Ok. Now i’m on the same page.
RE “The desire to help” I’m not sure if that’s the case. What if you have an insight into truth or reality or whatever we want to call it and then i come along and i sense this in you. And then i ask you a question and you answer me. Are you desiring then to answer me or to help me or are you merely batting the ball back.
It’s like i’ve been having some silly arguments with some of the guys on this site and to be honest all they get the needle with me and to be fair all they needed ever do was stop batting the ball back. Although i can’t say for me i’ve no desire to irritate them. (that’d be a lie) ;-).
and … thanks Carol …
chat later
Here’s something from 1995:
‘Later in B.’s room I read aloud a line from J. Krishnamurti’s
Commentaries on Living which states how this greedy thing called the “I” wants to somehow persist and perpetuate itself by presiding over its own dissolution. U.G. storms into the room, and, pulling the book out of my hands, says, “Whatever this guy said did not operate in his life. A guy without this thing called the ‘I’ cannot fuck his best friend’s wife, like this crook did.” ‘
Richard, that’s a bizarre thing for UG to say. Is he suggesting that JK did, then, have an “I”? Wow, I wonder where he kept it….
I found another part of that same article, a U.G. quote:
“Now just imagine losing everything that you have. That’s what dying means. Are you ready to die?”
It’s like ‘you’ must always be ready to die, give up everything you have, etc. I’ve heard this from many teachers.
It’s not true, isn’t it?
What’s with this prerequisite of ‘wanting to give everything up’?
The only thing I ever lost was the idea that the “I” had any reality beyond an idea.
John Wheeler recently updated his ‘pointers’ page.
http://thenaturalstate.org/pointers.html
And they simply do not get any clear than THAT.
that will be “clearer” but you knew that I knew that you knew that
“Dear Rob
I’m sure this little development will have UG turning in his grave. ”
Let’s hope that he isn’t or he might just get up from his grave and start lecturing again. That would be a tragedy.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=puppetji69
Take a look at this. Funny shit.
Hello dear friends..I just bumped in to this site and found something interesting going..so I thought I would share my views. First of all I believe UG is the highest flowering of human consciousness and is more relevant in this age when there are a number of gurus promising many things. I do believe that the goal of life is to lead human beings from hope to hopelessness because only when the ‘I” is an a state of utter hopelessness can anything radical happen. So when UG critizes JK or any other guru for that matter, it is only to stop the “I” from hoping..
‘Being’ is an illusion, isn’t it? Like sometimes the word ‘functioning’ is used (‘the functioning’) which is actually the same as ‘being’; all these ‘are not’. Nothing happens. Nothing functions. The mind seemingly animates things, which is then used as substance for a story.
I mean… ‘being’ is an illusion. What happens is an appearance and is labeled. Nothing happens!
But I think this asks for an explanation of the unexplainable. I ask this because the term ‘beingness’ is often used as such a central concept. Trying to get some things clearer.
Koen, I disagree. Can you deny that you exist? Not “you” as an individual entity, but that this, whatever-the-frak-you-are, exists? What is aware of the illusion?
Writing “The mind seemingly animates things…” implies the existence of mind as a thing that animates. Mind is just another illusory thing (no-thing) that appears and is labeled.
Maybe things are like light or heat from a fire. They aren’t really things, but they are apparent…that is, they appear to exist due to what is happening: lighting and warming. Even the fire is only apparent, it’s the burning that is real.
The other Krishnamurti, Jiddu, said that it is the relationship between “things” that is real. (Okay, he didn’t say it, his incessant questioning implied it). Bob talks about this also. In a scenario where a person is seeing a chair, the existence of neither the person nor the chair can be validated, but certainly the seeing is what’s happening and what’s real.
Man, I hate to bring this place down to my level again, but, I just had the strangest dream. I know you guys are all very very serious people and stuff. But, it’s the first dream I had that involved Bob.
I was in Melbourne. And somehow, I stumbled across Bob, who lived in an apartment.
Instead of living with Barb, he was living with a young 25 year old girl. Like an old rock star dating a beautiful young chick.
They invited me in, and we proceeded to chat about non-duality. Bob kept on saying that I had forgotton a lot of what I had learned. Which didn’t make sense, since this knowledge doesn’t sit in the brain as such. How could I forget my true nature?
Then it went all silly. Bob pulled out a joint, which the three of us smoked. He then asked me if I had anything else. I proceeded to pull out an E (ecstacy), which he then split up into thirds. He popped it like a pro.
He then asked If I had anymore. I went to my car, but couldn’t find my car, and when I went back, I couldn’t find Bobs place again, and got lost in a wilderness of medium sized brown bricked buildings.
Other than smoking the odd bit of weed now and then and the occasional DMT experience sometime last year, I haven’t done anything else in a few years. Certainly no E or anything like that. Not that I’m trying to figure it out, since it was good to see Bob again, albeit, a pot smoking, pill popping, skirt chasing Bob. But Bob nonetheless.
Strange that this week i’m off to check out a dude called Isaac Shapiro in Byron (another talker).
How about a Cam and Steve show? Maybe you guys could pull apart my dream?
Marcelo:
So, what dream needs pulling apart? ehhh?
Koen asked about losing everything and Cameron replied he only lost the idea that the “I” was more than an idea.
Isn’t it that if the “I” idea is seen as an idea then the idea that it owns anything is lost also.
Isn’t that the same as giving everything up?
PS. Love the shows hope you do more soon.
Steve & Cam,
Are you guys gonna serve up another deliciously funny Advaita Show or what?!
Love,
Mark
Cameron asked “What is aware of the illusion?” The question is a pointer much like the famous “Who is asking the question?”
Having said that to answer it intellectually can be fun. At first glance the question seems dualistic with reference to an awareness and the illusion. But we are told there is only awareness so the illusion must be awareness. This is NOT the same as saying awareness is an illusion but that there is no illusion only awareness. So the question becomes “What is aware of awareness?” and the question answers itself “Awareness is aware of awareness.” 🙂
Is that confusing enough?
yeah we’ve been talking about doing another one. Anybody want to join us?
“Like an old rock star dating a beautiful young chick.”
Marcelo, it’s obvious that Cameron was just bald in your dream.
I’ve been contemplating this a bit,
and there’s one pointer that I somehow understand and that I keep coming back to, but it still doesn’t put an end to the seeker. It’s this one:
the story of ‘me’ and needing to come to understanding, the ‘I’ that feels lacking / unhappy, etc. is a non permanent thing. In other words, it comes up, then
thinks it has a separate existence (that always existed before & will exist after the current thoughts). This includes ‘this’ typing / reading ‘I’. Other thoughts latch onto this ‘I’ idea and tell stories about tomorrow, responsibilities, etc. This I is taken as having real existence and creates a sufferer!
But I just don’t know how to connect this to the important question ‘can you deny that you exist?’ I think John Wheeler also regards this one as a most basic pointer.
I still must be missing some pieces of the puzzle….
Koen:
Spot on kitten.
Put your own two-piece puzzle together and you might just light up like that 2-year-old does when she put her first puzzle together.
You get that that thing — thought — you call you is transient. I cannot resist here adding a Niz line: “Proof of the unreal is transiency.”
That’s piece one; got it, you do, yes.
Now connecting it to piece two — ‘can you deny that you exist?’
Connecting something you are sure does not exisit because it is clearly transient to THAT which “you” are certain of because it is ALWAYS — the big eternal — present?
Hmmmm…did you not just see through the false you and look right into the real you, which is no-thing? Understand with the mind that the so-called mind cannot ever give you and image or convince you — a thought — that you are no-thing. How could it?
It can only know things.
Still, what KNOWS it’s present and does not care whether it is accounted for, before anything can say I AM? What’s there before you think, speak …”do” anything?
You KNOW it. God do you know it. Hear Douglas Harding’s loving growl through the Universe: “ONLY GOD CAN SAY I AM.” Relax in that, God.
That KNOWING, that rock-solid certainty. It’s ALWAYS been there and everywhere; all the rest is chatter.
Cool. A two-piece puzzle, and it looks hot on you.
Now, all puzzles put away….. forever.
love
When I bring up the subject of choice and freewill to my friends they say that it depends on what level you look at it from. They say at the level of the ‘character’ they have no choice or freewill but at the level of ‘Oneness’ they do have choice and freewill inluding the choice of which level to be on. They seem to think that if they are ‘Oneness’ then that gives them the ability to choose and have freewill. I don’t see any choice or freewill at all but the levels idea confuses me.
Is there a ‘character’ level and a ‘Oneness’ level?
Also I know you’ve mentioned in the show about how things look different depending on where you look at them from but I struggle to see what these different levels have to do with non-duality.
I mean what does it matter what things look like at different levels?
Hi, I am very interested in U.G and everything related to mysticism and I’m trying to see what’s going on with U.G which is different than others mystics (even though I know he would strongly denied having anything to do with mysticism); I’m thinking about Eckhart Tolle for example, who I hope some of you know, who seems to have underwent some kind of transformation (as in the case of Ramana Maharshi for instance) but yet really different from what has been speculated about U.G “transformation” and the way U.G. sees things…Would be nice to have the feedback of someone on that
Stig – the question isn’t “what does it matter” but “to WHOM does it matter”? 🙂
Hi Stig,
I agree. No free will on any level. Like Nisargadatta said: To the Jnani, God does everything. From God’s perspective though, everything just happens by its own nature.
Also the German mystic Karl Renz: He says God is totally powerless. God is energy but has no energy! Clearly, no free will on any level. I mean, you have the “choice”: Do you want to be the illusory person ruled by genes and environment, maybe chance also, or do you want to be the silent watcher, ruled by nothing and ruling nothing? There’s no agency anywhere, thank God.
Hi Etienne,
what I don’t like about Eckhart Tolle is that he seems to compromise alot. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. I think he probably “got it”, but he thinks it’s best to spread the good news in a careful manner. Since I for one have not “got it”, I avoid Tolle. His only good book is “Stillness Speaks”, where he is rather direct. I have no time to lose with compromising teachers, when I’m sometimes in doubt whether the whole mysticism business isn’t just garbage.
Offcourse Gary, no dream needs pulling apart. It’s all just movie dialogue.
Although, when you begin to ask “what the hells going on” you end up realising that there is no need to pull it apart. So, the initial effort leads to a realisation, which makes you drop the initial effort. You read the intial effort, now you read me dropping it.
Steve, I thought Cameron was bald.
I view UG as a hero of humankind. What he has said is best understood as a critique of the sad state of affairs the human race has fallen into rather than an addition to the spiritual literature. That having been said, he clearly was a great Sage, which is the highest expression of human potential. He remains by far the finest example of a human being that I have ever meet or heard of in our era.
In all the forty years I knew him, I never saw the slightest fault in his integrity. His loyalty to his friends was off the charts. He could have had a large organization, and chose instead to leave nothing behind. He never made a dime from the books people published based upon what he said. I have no doubt that he transcended J.Krishnamurti in every way. I believe that JK was the harbinger for UG’s appearance and there is much to be learned by the study of their joint story.
For those of you who are new to the subject, I suggest you go to the original material on the Web. UG can be very hard to take. This is because we are in the Matrix. Remember, Neo had a very hard time at first when Morpheus told him where he was at. UG’s devotion was, and is to the “Neo†in all of us.
Hi Goofy, thanks a lot for answering me, I appreciate. I think I know what you mean, after reading a lot of things about U.G. it seems that there isn’t any teaching to be done…but still…Eckhart(Ulrich) Tolle seems to me so authentic, so peaceful, so “one” with consciousness that I think he is really doing what he is doing because “life” brought him there without precisely, as discussed above, any free will.
Ha hah, I guess I asked for that “To whom does it matter?”, it seems my understanding comes and goes. Even remembering that the coming and going are just what’s happening it seems the going can resurrect the identification with the story of “I”. Doh!
Thanks for the quotes Goofy, I like the one about nature. To me it seems logical to include man in nature, I suppose it’s a religious thing to make man special and apart or above nature in an attempt to make man closer to God than the animals. I don’t buy it, to me nature is another name for God.
I don’t know. U.G. never impressed me much. So much negativity. To much. What do all people want? The end of suffering. I’m convinced of it. What else could it be? Why speak ill of this desire? Why speak ill of the teachers who teach the end of suffering? What has U.G. contributed to the end of suffering? If you say “Only the I wants the end of sufferingâ€, does that make it less felt? When you are lost in a world of suffering, what do you do? Do you think “There is nothing to do†or do you seek the way out? If you know the way to peace, will you refuse to travel it just because you can only enter as a person? Will you just stay where you are and suffer?
Eckhart Tolle offers practical advice to end suffering, isn’t that worth more than all the beautiful idea’s in the world? Why do you not praise him, why do you praise the one who offers nothing? It’s not about any method of teaching, it’s about a helping hand, I praise everyone who offers that hand and curse everyone who tries to take it away.
How do you plan to end your suffering?
I totally agree with Goofy on the subject of Eckhart Tolle. I believe that he is authentic but compromises by mixing personal growth with non-dualism, and in the final analysis, they don’t mix (it eventually leads to confusion)!
(The original) Rob
Exactly, Rob. Anyway, if one likes a teacher, it’s probably not a bad idea to stick with him. So I guess that’s perhaps what you should do, Etienne. Another quote comes to my mind, but I don’t know who said it. Upon being asked how to choose the right teacher, he answered: Choose that teacher which brings you peace. By the way, I really like your politeness, Etienne. Unmatched on this blog. I wonder if it’s because you have French blood running through your veins, as the name seems to indicate.
When I think of the Matrix as an analogy for non-duality I always come to the conclusion that there is only the Matrix. All the characters (including agents and other “programs”) are played by the Matrix and the “real world” is just another apperance of the Matrix, a nessecity for the functioning of the Matrix just like Neo. Again no freewill for any of them they just act according to thier nature, and nature is fundamentally the Matrix.
Does that make sense?
Thank you everyone for sharing your views, it’s really awesome. First, Douglas, if you say that U.G. transcends Jiddu completely, I’m willing to believe you, for that, from what I read, he seems to be completely detached from his ego whereas Jiddu seems (seemed) to believe he can change something in the world. But, again, as you said, I do think that what Jiddu brought by his “lectures” and conversations is of extreme value but maybe just not in the sense he intended it in the first place. Now, something that particularly stunned me is U.G.’s encounter with Maharshi; because I used to consider Maharshi as one of the greatest Sage, for he was precisely doing what I later found U.G. was: he was not offering any teaching. But yet, U.G. found him arrogant, which let me confused. Maybe you can help me understand what was going on (and by the way I count myself lucky for being able to discuss with someone who was close to U.G.:awesome). I think the difference with U.G. is that he underwent not only a psychological liberation but a body liberation as well (if that makes any sense), for I’m sure the transformation (of his 5 senses) he describes is unheard of. As if he went through a new evolution, even though I know that he refused to talk about “transformation” and that it seems that there might not be any such thing as evolution. The main thing that interest me in U.G. is his complete sense of rationality and that there doesn’t seem to be the slightest trace of hypocrisy in him. He gets mad while discussing with people but without really getting mad, for he sometimes pulls a joke right after or just smile: his “anger” never lasts. Anyhow, I’m looking forward to talk about it again.
Hi Rob and Goofy, I think you see U.G. as being negative because it is in fact really hard to take and that, without wanting to offend you or anything, you are maybe not willing to let go everything but life; I think your negative view of his saying arises of some kind of fear whereas U.G. is only stating the crude reality: as he says, take it or leave it. You might say that other “spiritual teachers” are more helpful like Echkart Tolle, but I do question the help of these person as they can only make you realize that there is a “liberation” possible, I think the rest of it is like a placebo effect, even though I had a spiritual awakening (take it or leave it) not long after listening to one of his conference along with reading his two books and reading J. Krishnamurti as well, but I strongly question any link of causality (Actually I experience a state of oneness and non-dualism for about one week). Now, I see any spiritual awakening (or whatever you wanna call it) as something random like U.G. says: “even though you meditate all your life and do yoga and so on, no liberation might occur”. By the way, I’m not looking for any teaching of Tolle but rather am interested about his transformation.
Hi Stig, I think I understand what you mean about the Matrix: it seems that the Wachowski brothers did not go all the way. You might be interested in watching Existenz if you haven’t seen it, for I think Cronenberg goes to the very end with it.
Did you guys know that Charlie Hayes has a youtube page?
http://www.youtube.com/nonduality
Although why does Charlie refer to himself as a Christian. I do understand why he’s saying that though, I mean, Christians do need a better take on thier teachings.
But it’s kind of like using the Mein Kampf non dualistically in order to help Nazis see clearer.
If anyone knows Charlie or Charlie reads this, “Mr Hayes can you get them to stop hating everyone that doesn’t subscribe to their retarded views?”
This has nothing to do with UG, but I saw this doco on Australian ABC, It showed how the Christian right (and probably, secretaly all other Christians) believes that Sep 11 happened because of abortion and gays.
I’m what people call gay. And If i’m responsible for sept 11, i.e., by getting a bunch of homo hating arabs to take down a few buildings on my behalf (or U.S. Government homo hating black ops), then we do definately live in a wacky world.
You guys are worried about killing your “I” – well let me kill it for you. There is no “I”.
Their, it’s killed, full stop.
Now that thats dead, how about some help with the appearance by killing everybody elses. Particularly all the “I”s that want an apparent me dead.
Christianity is spreading like a disease in Australia, so Charlie, I think you should focus soley on killing Christian “I”s
Do your good work Charlie.
“Hi Rob and Goofy, I think you see U.G. as being negative because it is in fact really hard to take and that, without wanting to offend you or anything, you are maybe not willing to let go everything but life; I think your negative view of his saying arises of some kind of fear whereas U.G. is only stating the crude reality: as he says, take it or leave it.â€
That is very funny. I’m not offended by the way. It can be debated that U.G. stated the crude reality, but I won’t.
“You might say that other “spiritual teachers†are more helpful like Echkart Tolle, but I do question the help of these person as they can only make you realize that there is a “liberation†possible, I think the rest of it is like a placebo effect, even though I had a spiritual awakening (take it or leave it) not long after listening to one of his conference along with reading his two books and reading J. Krishnamurti as well, but I strongly question any link of causality (Actually I experience a state of oneness and non-dualism for about one week). Now, I see any spiritual awakening (or whatever you wanna call it) as something random like U.G. says: “even though you meditate all your life and do yoga and so on, no liberation might occurâ€. By the way, I’m not looking for any teaching of Tolle but rather am interested about his transformation.
I don’t care about what you call liberation. Everyone has a story about liberation and a story about non-duality. What I am interested in is the way to peace and there definitely is a way to peace. The choice is to let go or hold on to form. You can make this choice, not by effort, but as a natural intelligent decision. The result of letting go is peace, the result of holding on is suffering, so make the choice and leave the crude reality for what it is. It’s all a matter of what you think is really important.
“I totally agree with Goofy on the subject of Eckhart Tolle. I believe that he is authentic but compromises by mixing personal growth with non-dualism, and in the final analysis, they don’t mix (it eventually leads to confusion)!
(The original) Rob”
I’m wondering; who it is that makes this analysis and what makes it final?
I’m also wondering why you think that Eckhart Tolle teaches personal growth? How do you define personal growth, and how do you define non-duality?
Okay, full attention – all of it, all in:
“What kind of person was he? He was the most enigmatic person you could ever meet – at once kind and cruel, most loving yet stern, constantly talking about money, seeming to ‘extract’ it from friends, yet most generous in giving; seemingly abusive and punishing, yet showering affection on the same person the next moment; utterly carefree, yet worrying about what might happen to the person in front of him; directing people to act in specific ways, yet instantly accepting of any outcome; demonstrating the most incisive logic, yet making utterly contradictory statements. For a man who complained that we are constantly preoccupied with something other than what is happening at the moment, he endlessly talked about himself and his past.”
Whom was that said about?
Pause.
Pause.
Okay, here’s the last bit of it. Now, full attention – all of it, all in:
“One could never fathom UG’s true intentions behind his statements or actions. ”
That quote comes from U.G.’s Obit at:
http://www.well.com/user/jct/index.html
When it is seen that any and ALL thoughts about any and all things — esp. gurus as U.G. himself proved to live — are meaningless, then it cannot helped but be seen.
What’s IT — what they all flocked to see U.G. to get and what “we” all “exist” to see: that which IS when thoughts are seen as nothing more or less than the images they try to describe.
no-thing, a dry and arid way of seeing — and saying — love.
Ok, I misunderstood you, Etienne. I thought you were a Tolle-fan.
Concerning UG’s negativity: I guess it’s inadequate to call it “negative”, and if he taught the truth, that’s very well. There’s an atheistic argument I endorse, namely that even supposing that atheism (or any other worldview, for that matter) should be a “bleak” outlook, that doesn’t keep it from being true.
Whether it’s bleak or not, it’s surely a matter of hopelessness: “Enlightenment”, what we all want, is acausal, and spiritual seeking tends to lead one further astray. That’s what I mean by hopelessness. Perhaps it’s a “good” kind of hopelessness, pointing to the ultimate truth.
My opinion on Charlie Hayes: Perhaps he should call himself a Christian Mystic, because that’s a very different thing from the Christian fundamentalists you rightly oppose, Marcelo. I also guess many Christian liberals really do not endorse those views. Look at it this way: You’re an Advaitin, which is a school of Hinduism. Do you secretely worship Shiva every night in your basement?
Hi Cameron,
Its been a long time – can you put some more Bob up?
thanks,
Helen in LA
There is this guy, Ludwig Wittgenstein, an Austrian philosopher who integrated mysticism into his philosophy to say that there are things we just cannot express (whence he says the only true ethic comes)…and therefore, as he says: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”. We just seem to think we are too intelligent and that we can understand the universe and life through our limited language and thoughts, but I think one must ultimately face reality and embrace silence and the present as the only thing we cannot deny as reality.
Thanks Steven, Cameron, & others, for clarifying my questions!
Marcelo, I know one guy who has a way to handle these kinds of ‘fundamentalists’ you talk about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48YsBMDyHXE
😉
Marcelo,
The problem is that the Christians you’re referring to aren’t really Christians spritually, they’re Christians in the mass-marketed, non-thinking, organized religion sense.
Look at the quote from Jesus Bob often refers to: I and the father are one. Jesus (assuming he was a real person) taught non-duality. But non-duality is hard to sell, while salvation is easy. That’s what the Christian leaders these days are doing: selling salvation and controlling the ignorant.
That said, listen again to the comments made in response to the lady in this episode of the show who was overly concerned with violence in the world. They apply to this as well. What’s wrong with right now…?
Helen I don’t actually have any more Bob recordings to put up. I’ll email his minders, see what I can beg, borrow or steal.
Thanks guys.
I’m not an advaitian, neither is anyone in here, or you. The realisation is non conceptual, immediate, no process, no path, no way, full stop. I come here cause it’s the closest that I get to that non conceptual understanding and at the same time, o’ so very far away (excuse the old school).
I had a “penny drop” because something happened, I then had another penny drop because I took psychedelic drugs, then another penny dropped when I read The Niz, then another while reading Watts, and another while looking at a tree, and so on, and so on. The final penny dropped because of Bob.
Then, theres this dream going on, of which this seeming person is apart of. If he raises he’s fist, he raise his fist. An action occurs, and something changes. In reality, we know that nothing has occurred. That this commment being written is part of the dream too. I understand that this understanding is not outside of the dream. What we are each pointing to, there is no understanding needed.
So in the dream, the dream man, in order to affect change, must raise his fist.
In the dream a man raises his fist
Both of my comments just got slashed in two!. The last few lines were cut off.
Only half of it made it through? Is that me Cam or the website?
The rest, fuck, I can’t remember, went something like “There is only nonduality” yada yada yada
Recent UG obit
http://www.well.com/~jct/Final_Remembering.htm
I should have read through prior posts, I see there was already a link to that obit.
With those pennies dropping it sounds as if you arrived at the understanding gradually, Marcelo. Also, your description doesn’t sound acausal: The pennies dropped BECAUSE something happened, BECAUSE you read the Niz and Watts, BECAUSE you talked to Bob. You even call the penny that dropped because of Bob the FINAL penny, thereby indicating those pennies are somehow linked. On the other hand, of course, if this causal chain is understood as part of the dream, it’s only a dream-causal chain…
Something else: You say you understand that the understanding is part of the dream. Now what about THAT understanding — that the understanding is part of the dream? Is that part of the dream too? And so on. In other words, do you know anything outside the dream — outside consciousness? Do you know anything about the dreamER? If not (because the eye can’t see itself after all, can it), we’re in the same boat. “I” know only consciousness; in that sense, Balsekar is right to say “All there is, is consciousness. “
Thanks Cameron. I’ve ordered Elliott’s latest CD from Bob’s website as well – basically I find every word of Bob’s clarifies to one degree or another, my understanding.
All the best,
Helen in LA
Goofy, could I sell this supposed pattern to anyone?
Life happens, something happens, a penny drops… life happens, something happens, a penny drops… let me also include, I had breakfast, i had a wank, I watched tv, a penny dropped, I ate dinner, I went to sleep…
Is there a specific pattern there, that can be reproduced for anyone else’s benefit?
Are you actually saying that advaita is another religion, of which you say you are a part of?
I know of several people who keep saying that there is a process to the Full Stop, as if they are trying to give relevance to other processes. So what gives Goofy, what are you actually trying to say here? I mean your the one that suggested that we are advaitians.
And fuck Balsekar, he is an average teacher, I wanna know what you know.
This supposed path, it only appears gradual to you, as it should because your looking out there, but all I see is the immediate, no process, full stop.
I said that all understanding is part of the dream. Consciousness is just a concept. Part of the dream. What you are is non conceptual, immediate, no ‘where’ to be found, it’s not anything it’s not no thing, it’s non conceptual. People like Balsekar create things for people like you to point to, like consciousness, or God, or even intelligence energy.
drop it, and get on with the play
Hi Rob van Es,
On the back cover of The Power of Now it says: Personal Growth/Spirituality.
Rob
My last post, which I tried to send twice, seems not to have arrived. Should I keep my fingers crossed that they will turn up or should I try a third time?
OK, I’m giving it another go. Apologies if you’ve seen this twice already, it’ll be slightly different this time as I can’t remember exactly what I wrote.
When I think of all these disagreements in terms of no free will with all the statements and counter statements just going on it seems life is a fantastic happening.
But then I remember what Guy Smith says about these just being ‘little black squiggles’ it seems that lifes fantastic happening is just imagination, and that sounds even more fantastic.
Is the difference between ‘seekers’ and ‘teachers’ that ‘seekers’ concentrate on the imagination story while ‘teachers’ are always aware of the ‘little black squiggles’?
Or is that just more imagination?
What am I trying to say: Forget about the idea that we’re Advaitins, I mentioned it mainly in connection with Charlie Hayes’ notion that he’s a Christian. Formally speaking, Advaita is part of Hinduism, but I don’t really consider myself a Hindu or an adherent of any religion. I could say I’m an Advaitin in a way, because I like Advaita, that’s all.
The gradual thing was just: Your description sounded like a path to me, while it’s supposedly not a path. It may well be because I’m looking “out there”, like you said.
As for Balsekar, I’m not merely quoting him, I tried to explain how I understand him with reference to my own experience. When I said I know only consciousness, I meant it. It’s not that Balsekar told me I know only consciousness — I “myself” know only consciousness. That’s the only thing I’m absolutely sure of, the momentary conscious experience like sound, vision, touch, taste, memory. It’s what I call the phenomenal world, as opposed to the numinon, the background, the abolute. The latter I know nothing about.
Ahh crap, I just seem to be asking pointless questions but it’s all pointless, right?
And if I have no free will then it’s just what’s happening, so with that it mind here is another question….
If there is no time and therefore no cause and effect how then does recognising all as One bring about ease, effortless living, lack of fear, etc.?
Do I know the answers to these questions already but am some how tricking myself that I don’t?
Sorry for all the crap I hope I’m not stinking up the place too much.
Whoever said that “recognising all as One” would bring about “ease, effortless living, lack of fear, etc”, was over doing it a bit! What it might expose is the pointlessness of seeking, and with that a certain amount of ease or relief may be experienced in the organism. But the usual stuff will go on: pain, fear, hunger, the need to use the toilet etc. – i.e. the natural functioning that is required to protect and sustain the organism.
As for the implications of cause and effect in your question. This is a variation of paradox of the ‘gateless gate’. The ‘recognition’ is prior to (or outside of) thought, so the seeming problem of time and cause and effect simply does not arise (without going back into concepts).
To follow on Goofy’s comments, I think you can never know consciousness in itself because it is the only inaccessible “thing”, the only thing that is not expressible, it is the void in some sense (I don’t wanna get into all variations of nothingness and vacuity and etc). Obviously, though, it depends what you mean by “the only thing I know is consciousness”; if you mean it in the sense of a spiritual, mystical, intuitive, inexpressible knowledge, it does make sense to me. But what you said: “the conscious experience of sound, touching, etc is not(in my opinion) consciousness in itself, it is the manifestation of consciousness. As Spinoza put it, everything is the manifestation of the substance. Obviously you find that concept in many other philosophy/philosopher. I don’t like the term “spiritual growth” because it implies you really gotta do something concrete to reach a state in some future prospect, whereas it’s only a matter of finding your state of more or less pure consciousness (which is fear free), which you cannot conceptualizes or know in the common sense because a higher intelligence comes into action, the intelligence of life, because consciousness is life.
By the way, if some of you know what Centerpointe Research Institute, It’d be nice if you could give me your input on it.
So obviously I don’t think there is any “I”, unless you wanna use it to refer to consciousness, because I think consciousness is the only thing that exists, the only “real” thing in a metaphysical sense.
Etienne,
To state that consciousness is “fear free” would be a mistake wouldn’t it? As that implies another condition and thus duality. Additionally, if consciousness is synonymous with life, what’s the antonym? More duality…life vs. non-living, fear free vs. fearful.
Consciousness, if you want to call it that, is all there is but it cannot be identified with, as that which seeks to identify is simply another aspect of it. Nor can it be classified as pure or not. Consciousness/awareness/I-AM-ness only…no life, no non-living, no fearlessness, no fearfulness, neti neti.
Rob Says:
Whoever said that “recognising all as One†would bring about “ease, effortless living, lack of fear, etcâ€, was over doing it a bit! What it might expose is the pointlessness of seeking, and with that a certain amount of ease or relief may be experienced in the organism. But the usual stuff will go on: pain, fear, hunger, the need to use the toilet etc. – i.e. the natural functioning that is required to protect and sustain the organism.
Rob – are you talking from your personal experience of life after “recognizing”? Or is this theory?
Hi Cam.
I think that it can be seen theoretically that the seeing through of separation will not extinguish biological needs of the organism which will continue until death – separation or no separation.
The stories of blissful awakenings coupled with a freedom from suffering are often associated with individuals who have suffered greatly for quite a number of years – so the sense of freedom experienced in contrast to the suffering must be quite overwhelming and life changing.
As for my own ‘understanding’: There is only this present appearance. Seeking is absolutely meaningless since experience happens of it’s own accord – whatever is happening is simply ‘being done’.
Okay. Not sure you answered the question, but whatever. I’m sure you know what you mean.
I like the analogy of actors on stage. The actors know the play isn’t real. They know the character isn’t real – outside of the play. They know the character’s emotions aren’t real – outside of the play.
But while the actors are on stage, they perform like it’s all real. The characters are acted as if they are real. The plot is real. So the characters in the play can experience emotion, fear, hunger… and the actors convey those things with the usual intensity. But the actors aren’t really bothered by what happens to the characters in the play because they know – not just through some sort of intellectual understanding they got from a guru or a book – they KNOW without doubt from first-hand experience – that the play, the characters, the emotions – none of it matters outside of the stage.
“All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”
William Shakespeare – from As You Like It 2/7
“The Tao that can be described
is not the real Tao.
The name that can be spoken
is not the real name.
The nameless defines heaven and earth
The named is the source of creation.
Freed from desire, you can see the mystery
Desiring, there is only manifestation.
Mystery and reality emerge from the same source
This source is named darkness.
Darkness withinn darkness.
The gate to all understanding”.
I’ll say goodbye to the blog for now, at least in terms of writing comments. Somehow I always seem to be one step behind those who (seem to/claim to) understand Oneness “deeply”. If consciousness in itself can’t be known, and I would agree with that (I think Etienne’s ‘consciousnous in itself’ is what I called the ‘background’), then I don’t know what intuitive mystical understanding is being talked about.
At least I know I have no free will and there are experiences. By the way, I like the play-analogy too, simply because it implies predetermination. Perhaps I’m a fatalist at heart, and a skeptic, but not a mystic. Gary was right. No clarity — no intuitive understanding, no Knowing or anything. At least I have gotten clear about THAT by chatting here and elsewhere. Maybe it’s just my bad (or good) luck that my brain doesn’t generate such experiences. I guess I could have them with the aid of drugs, but that wouldn’t prove anything to me.
I’m out of here, cheers.
Goofy
Hi Mike, I’m happy we can exchange ideas together, you say : “As that implies another condition and thus duality”, I’m not sure what you mean by that but whatever, I basically agree with you, and to elaborate on what I meant: when I say consciousness is life, I mean that you are in the first place in that state of non-duality, no self awareness and thus life express itself through you, and like Eckhart Tolle puts it(I’m sure by the way he is not the first to say that, I’m just quoting him because I know his teaching well), life has no opposite, but obviously it always depends in which sense you take it. And I truly think that to be one with consciousness brings you in a state of fear free because of the loss of body and ego notion and the feeling of being outside the phenomenal world, as if you were not really there anymore (as Bill Harris puts hit: “you’re in the world but not of it). This feeling translate itself into a fear free state as in acceptance of everything, with nevertheless taking actions when necessary, but I do agree with the fact that it is a state of emptiness where you cannot therefore say that there is anything such as fearlessness if that what you meant, and that obviously the state of fear will come back once you loose connection with consciousness and you come back into duality, that is, the egoic state, where if that make any sense, the consciousness is reflected by the egoic structure instead of being unreflected and flowing freely.
Come back Goofy, it’s just a play.
Where are you gonna go anyway.
It’s being talked about because there is no free will. It’s like saying ‘why is that child handicapped’ We are not in charge of that expression. That true understanding, expresses itself through a body. It is a unique expression, like seeing a field of flowers, all different, yet still expressing THAT. Is it clarity, or is it that that flower expresses itself as such? It’s better to appreciate the field, then stop for a close up of one, if you need detail. Just remember to step back and look at what it’s a part of.
I’m not always ‘clear’, but I can’t change that. That definately won’t stop me from talking my unique speach. This includes the mention of testicals, masturbation, and why I’d like ten minutes in a boxing round with Tha Dalai Lama. I could easily kick his arse.
Whats wrong with carefull psychedelic drug use? Is a drug experience any different from any other? All experiences, are all just experiences. It’s not the experience, it’s what the experience points to that matters.
Etienne, thanks for recognizing my post as an attempt to collaborate here and not an attempt to start an argument.
I follow what you’re saying, but it seems as if there’s still this perception of an individual who does something or to whom something happens. For example, you write “…to be one with consciousness brings you to a state of…” but nothing occurs or exists outside of what we’re calling consciousness, so how can someone NOT be one with consciousness? How can someone lose that connection with consciousness? There is no someone to be in one state or another (fear-free/fearful). There is no someone to feel a sense of unity or disconnection.
I like what you write about coming back into duality. The semantics aren’t quite right, though…someone cannot come back into duality, because the perception of someone IS duality. However, I infer what you’re saying is something like the ego reappears within consciousness, and that seems true. Hasn’t Cameron mentioned in podcasts before, he finds himself getting caught up in whatever’s going on at the time and will suddenly stop and remember or re-cognize the nature of reality as non-dual?
Hey Goofy your input makes a lot of sense – and what’s more, it is worded without sarcasm or posturing (a rare thing on blogs and forums these days). Keep it coming.
Right, great, there’s nobody there if that’s what you mean, because the ego is illusion in terms of absolute truth, but I think the ego has still a relative truth, so that’s why I use it to say that there is someone experiencing, this and because it’s not everyone who are ready to go to the very end of it and say that there is not a person, an identity in itself to experience the very nature of life (but there you might tell me that there isn’t even any experience because experience requires the “I”, but let’s keep that word anyway to pinpoint to your interaction with the world when in harmony with it). Therefore, life lives through “you”, that’s the best I can do to remove any notion of personality for now. That implies a liberation with again and always no free will (but I guess it’s better than not being detached from the ego (and suffer) and still not having any!)
By the way, Goofy, I don’t know what you’re talking about, stay on the blog!
I’m in the Bay Area of California this week and was considering taking a trip down to San Jose tomorrow to see John Wheeler. I hoped over to his site and the blurb on his home page says what I was trying to say in a much more succinct way: http://thenaturalstate.org/
DharmaMike – does Laurence Olivier ever get caught up in playing King Richard III? If he’s a good actor – probably. That’s method acting! But I’m pretty sure he never really thought he actually WAS the good king. You never forget your true self. But what’s the point of acting a part if you don’t throw yourself into it 100%?
Cameron, I agree totally. The realization that one is an actor on the stage allows one to participate with total commitment.
Without that realization, but believing that other individuals have realized it poses a problem for the seeker. Carrying the metaphor a bit further, the seeker who believes he can attain realization might say he feels he’s played the part so long and it has grown tiresome or boring or emotionally draining. Or maybe, believing he’s just an actor in a lousy role, actually causes him psychological distress playing ANY role and he longs to step off stage and be just an actor and cease playing a part at all.
It is a common theme that you’ve commented on before: people want to be free from the pain and misery of their every day experience and the hope is that by achieving enlightenment or attaining realization (like someone else has) it brings about that blissful state.
Is there a continuation of the realization, though? The realization that one is an actor on a stage is followed by the realization that there aren’t really any other actors nor is there an audience. And the actor is the stage and the drama itself and all the roles at once.
Where’s Marcelo? I need some more ‘shrooms.
No ‘shrooms Dharma, although let me know if your ever on the Gold Coast, and i’ll take you up to the Hinterland and give you a strong dmt hit.
Sober, life is a play. On dmt, life is a roller coaster with no safety harness.
There’s no height limit either. Basically thier is just some dude, possibly Bill Hicks, who checks to see if you have balls. No balls, and your sent back to TV land.
Personally I just go for the ball fondling nowadays.
I first heard of DMT from an Alex Grey painting. It’s actually on the cover of a book about DMT http://fusionanomaly.net/dmtthespiritmolecule.html
And speaking of Bill Hicks, I’d say the comedian carrying the torch after him has got to be Doug Stanhope. I’ve seen him in concert and I highly recommend seeing him. He too has experimented with DMT along with his buddy Joe Rogan.
yes wikapedia cameron onto there, if it wasnt for you (him/it/that) i would still exist so now no thing does and thats everything – thanks it occured is due to you cameron, where do i send the graft
Again, I know it is maybe somewhat out of topic for this blog, but if anyone knows about Centerpointe Research Institute and the Holosync technology using binaural beats technology to induce deeper states of consciousness, I’d appreciate your opinion on it.
The hard reality is that as now UG is dead, so are his ‘words’ – dead and out of context! To some extent it’s ok to play and pull a bit with UG’s words and saying. Beyond it, it’s simply dead and gone. If we cling to someone’s words of wisdom and wits, like a baby monkey do to its mother monkey, that’s ok up to a certain level and phase. the baby monkey has to find his/her own way. Every moment is unique: no UG can fit into it. That’s the way of life. It’s your life, live it fully, from moment to moment. Shitting wont help, only spontaneous creativity is the way of existence and life.
Etienne, if you’re still there, I am a Holosync user, what do you want to know?
Etienne, if you’re still there, I am a Holosync user, what do you want to know?
Jiddu Krishnamurti;
“There are three monks, who had been sitting in deep meditation for many years amidst the Himalayan snow peaks, never speaking a word, in utter silence. One morning, one of the three suddenly speaks up and says, ‘What a lovely morning this is.’ And he falls silent again. Five years of silence pass, when all at once the second monk speaks up and says, ‘But we could do with some rain.’ There is silence among them for another five years, when suddenly the third monk says, ‘Why can’t you two stop chattering?â€
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/jokes.html
http://seaunaluzparaustedmismo.blogspot.com/
Hello Alexis. Does using holosync made stg happen in your life (whatever the change, good or bad).
U.G.Krishnamurti is a most authentic human being rather than a spiritual guru. But serious seekers will be thrown out of their wits if they go to him expecting some kind words.