Krishnamurti, spirituality, egocentricity, and freedom from self

[Karl]

You merely substitute a phrase like "it's axiomatic" for "I feel it's true" and a vaguely applied claim of authoritative "reason" for the religious fundamentalist's authority of "God" but you are in denial of parallel. You have told us that "true knowledge" is when you become completely convinced of your own beliefs yet you maintain that this belief system you embrace is strictly based on facts, logic and reason. I don't argue that A isn't A because that's a non sequitur you repeatedly use to deliberately evade challenges to your belief system. Painted into a corner, you abandon logic, contradict yourself, become nasty and then eventually cut off discussion with the claim that the other person has clearly abandoned reality. That's faith, and an ugly form of it at that.

 

I don't bust your chops because you have faith in your chosen belief system, or because I see flaws in your belief system -- all models are wrong. I bust your chops because you charge into thread after thread to assert the unassailable veracity of your belief system while you harangue other forum members about the delusion and irrationality of their belief system. It seems that your faith is imperiled by presence of anyone who fails to recognize the completeness and correctness of your belief system. You are entitled to believe whatever you wish but that becomes a problem when you derail thread after thread with your bullying and dissembling tactics. State any firmly held beliefs you wish and I am unlikely to interject. Use axiom and scripture to label someone else as denying reality and rejecting reason, however, and I am likely to pick up the flag.

You are skewing belief, faith, feelings, emotions and knowledge.

 

Faith is an abdication of the mind. Is this not clear to you ? There is no place for knowledge in faith. Faith is not belief. You cannot 'believe strongly enough' and call it faith in the accepted sense of the term. Why do you think so many people here talk about quieting the mind ? They believe that it is the mind which interferes with their intrinsic knowledge/inner knowing/revelation etc.

 

I do not harangue anyone who has faith, I will argue with anyone that intellectualises faith because they are arguing faith is intellectual knowledge. How can I argue with the faithful ? There is no way to argue with them, if they have faith it is they that set the tone, there can be no argument. They have faith, why do they argue ?

 

You and I may believe different things about the universe. We can test these beliefs against our direct sense perception of the universe and that is all we can do, that is the extent of our faculties, this is why they are axiomatic. If these beliefs accurately match those direct perceptions then we have proof, we can say we know reality.

 

Faith, is antithetical to science. That's what all the big bust ups with Galileo were about. Faith is antithetical to reason. It is antithetical to thinking. 'Be still and know'.

 

Do you understand that there are only two things here ? There is faith or reason. There is no 'being reasonable' about faith (although Aquinas had a good bash at it).

 

If you have faith, then don't argue, only those without faith argue.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Karl,

 

Someone once said, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."

 

My honest opinion is that it requires more faith NOT to believe in God (or at least in some kind of ultimate or supreme intelligence or Self), than it does TO believe.

 

Of course, it depends on the person, right?

It's easier to believe in a God, I would say it's impossible to have faith in God, but then the faithful won't need to reject that assertion.

 

It isn't sufficient to 'believe strongly' in God. One needs only to have faith. If one does not have faith then one must strive to have it according to the faithful-the mind cannot be involved. That is why a Guru will say to the student that they must keep on practising until they lose their minds completely.

 

Atheism is a funny word. It's an anti-anti concept. A belief in God is an error of reason, it is ignorance, or evasion. Therefore atheism is a redundant word, it's like saying someone 'believes' in anti-magic.

 

Faith/belief are uniquely different, they are not interchangeable in respect of how we currently use them. One day, in time, the word faith will vanish along with the dark age mysticism that gave it to us.

[Karl]

I shall leave this topic for the present moment. I've shown that faith and belief are not the same things. Unless we can agree then we aren't going anywhere.

[Karl]

Anthony Demello offers a wonderful discussion of charity and selfishness in his CD series Wake Up to Life.

It's an amazing series, highly recommended.

 

He likes to boil charity down to 3 types -

1. I give myself the pleasure of pleasing myself

2. I give myself the pleasure of pleasing others

3. I avoid negative feelings by pleasing others

 

Then, of course, there are selfless acts such as the person who jumps on the grenade to save his buddies.

These are spontaneous acts that seem to be done through us without our interference.

Pleasure is a specific sensation. Happiness is a specific emotion.

 

A selfless act is a meaningless act. To say someone jumped on a grenade to save his buddies gives selfish meaning to the act. Anyone who thinks it is a selfish act is denying humanity and demeaning the love that the soldier showed his buddies. It saddens me to hear you calling it a selfless act, it trashes spirit and reason.

[Brian]

You are skewing belief, faith, feelings, emotions and knowledge.

 

Faith is an abdication of the mind. Is this not clear to you ? There is no place for knowledge in faith. Faith is not belief. You cannot 'believe strongly enough' and call it faith in the accepted sense of the term. Why do you think so many people here talk about quieting the mind ? They believe that it is the mind which interferes with their intrinsic knowledge/inner knowing/revelation etc.

 

I do not harangue anyone who has faith, I will argue with anyone that intellectualises faith because they are arguing faith is intellectual knowledge. How can I argue with the faithful ? There is no way to argue with them, if they have faith it is they that set the tone, there can be no argument. They have faith, why do they argue ?

 

You and I may believe different things about the universe. We can test these beliefs against our direct sense perception of the universe and that is all we can do, that is the extent of our faculties, this is why they are axiomatic. If these beliefs accurately match those direct perceptions then we have proof, we can say we know reality.

 

Faith, is antithetical to science. That's what all the big bust ups with Galileo were about. Faith is antithetical to reason. It is antithetical to thinking. 'Be still and know'.

 

Do you understand that there are only two things here ? There is faith or reason. There is no 'being reasonable' about faith (although Aquinas had a good bash at it).

 

If you have faith, then don't argue, only those without faith argue.

Predictably (and sadly so), you revert once again to the disingenuous tactic of stating as given an understanding of language which is really your argument in disguise, and insisting that any rational person necessarily agrees with your statement and, therefore, anyone who disagrees is inescapably irrational and hence disqualified from the discussion. That you can take such a position (over and over) and still imagine that you are founding your belief system on logic and reason is truly remarkable. One shouldn't be surprised, of course -- this behavior is a hallmark of those with firm faith in their convictions but lacking demonstrable justification for that faith. This same linguistic lack of integrity manifests in zealots of all stripes, be they flat-earthers or strict biblical creationists or capital-S Scientists or modern-day Progressives (to name a few). Heck! Progressivism is self-named such precisely because it encapsulates in its name the belief that anyone not embracing the tenets of this belief system is inarguably anti-progress. Accept the term but reject the principles and one clearly is irrationally opposed to progress for the good of the <fill-in-the-blank>. I doubt you will find the comparison to Objectivism valid but I suspect many of the other readers of this thread are currently laughing.

 

Most amusing of all, mind you, is that in this one post (as you have done so often before) you not only abandon the Aristotelian logic you once held forth as the ultimate and only necessary tool for discovering "truth" in order to avoid examining the illogic of your current belief system but you go a step farther and contradict the very premise you attempt to use to "prove" your belief, all in one brief post! Seems that either you don't really believe your own BS or you simply haven't thought this one through very well yet but maintain full faith in your beliefs nonetheless. Quite extraordinary, actually, that you can tie yourself in such a knot without even noticing but I guess that is one of the characteristics of blind faith.

 

You claim to test your "beliefs against our direct sense perception of the universe" yet you consistently reject as obviously faulty any demonstrated perceptions which challenge your firmly held beliefs rather than adjust your belief system in light of this new evidence. You have done this more times than I can count since joining the forum but rather than search the forum for examples, or expect the reader to do so, I'll provide a fresh example right here:

 

The 2012 Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to two researchers, one in France and one in the US, who demonstrated that an atom quite literally can be in two places at once -- quantum mechanics on the macro scale. Here's a PDF of Wineland's journal article on the topic as a starting point: http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2677.pdf What do you think?

Edited November 17, 2016 by Brian

[Karl]

Point out and explain the fallacy please.

 

To try and get back to the understanding of faith vs reason we have a perfect example by Thomas Aquinas who said "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

 

Here is the crux of my argument and I challenge you to dispute it. It's as clear as can be. The faithful aren't believers. This doesn't mean I believe it, but the faithful must, they cannot explain it because it defies reason, it defies the mind. This pertains to the OP.

 

Let's get that one buttoned down before we go off an an expedition into specific science branches and subjectivism.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Karl

[Brian]

Point out and explain the fallacy please.

 

To try and get back to the understanding of faith vs reason we have a perfect example by Thomas Aquinas who said "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

 

Here is the crux of my argument and I challenge you to dispute it. It's as clear as can be. The faithful aren't believers. This doesn't mean I believe it, but the faithful must, they cannot explain it because it defies reason, it defies the mind. This pertains to the OP.

 

Let's get that one buttoned down before we go off an an expedition into specific science branches and subjectivism.

Nope. The faithful are necessarily believers.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith

[Karl]

Nope. The faithful are necessarily believers.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith

You aren't a dumb idiot are you Brian ? I mean you can actually change perspective surely ?

 

I have said that 'everything is belief' but that is not what the faithful believe, regardless of what I say. This is the same as the argument regarding duality. It ain't my argument, go ask the faithful I don't fucking know as I'm not one of them.

 

Here's the original OP as a reminder what we are discussing:

 

Part of Krishnamurti's point, imo part of the essence of his teaching, was that "spirituality" just makes people MORE egocentric, MORE self-centered and self-absorbed.

 

When I look at my own path, at myself, I see this.

 

It's like MY path, MY life, MY experience, MY enlightenment, have been of supreme importance to me.

 

Is that good?? Maybe it is, the truth is I really don't know.

 

We have to care for and tend to our lives and paths, we should CARE about succeeding.

 

But what about "freedom from self" and "dying to self"?

 

Is the kind of self-concern people have good?

 

Please share your thoughts if you have any.

[Karl]

Here is an interesting article by one of the faithful-which is no doubt why it's in the Huffington apost.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rea-nolan-martin/faith-and-belief_b_4166117.html

 

 

Sent from my iPad

[Brian]

You aren't a dumb idiot are you Brian ? I mean you can actually change perspective surely ?

 

I have said that 'everything is belief' but that is not what the faithful believe, regardless of what I say. This is the same as the argument regarding duality. It ain't my argument, go ask the faithful I don't fucking know as I'm not one of them.

 

Here's the original OP as a reminder what we are discussing:

 

Part of Krishnamurti's point, imo part of the essence of his teaching, was that "spirituality" just makes people MORE egocentric, MORE self-centered and self-absorbed.

 

When I look at my own path, at myself, I see this.

 

It's like MY path, MY life, MY experience, MY enlightenment, have been of supreme importance to me.

 

Is that good?? Maybe it is, the truth is I really don't know.

 

We have to care for and tend to our lives and paths, we should CARE about succeeding.

 

But what about "freedom from self" and "dying to self"?

 

Is the kind of self-concern people have good?

 

Please share your thoughts if you have any.

 

If I disagree with your grammar, I must be a dumb idiot.

 

Thank you, Karl. As is generally the case, you reveal far more than you realize.

 

EDIT: Removed the phrase "devoid of thoughts" from the end of the first sentence as I realized that referenced the OP rather than Karl's own words. Interestingly, the meaning doesn't change.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Brian

[Karl]

 

If I disagree with your grammar, I must be a dumb idiot.

 

Thank you, Karl. As is generally the case, you reveal far more than you realize.

 

EDIT: Removed the phrase "devoid of thoughts" from the end of the first sentence as I realized that referenced the OP rather than Karl's own words. Interestingly, the meaning doesn't change.

The problem is that you are agreeing with my grammar whilst simultaneously disagreeing with a position that I don't hold. When the fuck did I get the coat of many colours ? I'm not the one saying "I feel it to be true". It's the same type of argument on the non-existent duality in which I'm asked to explain my reason for supporting it !

 

It's awfully frustrating when you appear to be only interested in points scoring.

 

So, if you think everything is belief, then your in my lane. If you think everything is faith then you are in a lane I can't see.

[Brian]

The problem is that you are agreeing with my grammar whilst simultaneously disagreeing with a position that I don't hold. When the fuck did I get the coat of many colours ? I'm not the one saying "I feel it to be true". It's the same type of argument on the non-existent duality in which I'm asked to explain my reason for supporting it !

 

It's awfully frustrating when you appear to be only interested in points scoring.

 

So, if you think everything is belief, then your in my lane. If you think everything is faith then you are in a lane I can't see.

I think you create false dichotomies, Karl. That's the issue.

 

I am NOT agreeing with your grammar. I am bluntly stating that your grammar is disingenuous.

 

You said this (I added the bolding to call attention to the meat of your post):

Point out and explain the fallacy please.

 

To try and get back to the understanding of faith vs reason we have a perfect example by Thomas Aquinas who said "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

 

Here is the crux of my argument and I challenge you to dispute it. It's as clear as can be. The faithful aren't believers. This doesn't mean I believe it, but the faithful must, they cannot explain it because it defies reason, it defies the mind. This pertains to the OP.

 

Let's get that one buttoned down before we go off an an expedition into specific science branches and subjectivism.

I took your challenge and plainly stated a counterpoint (including a link to a dictionary definition of the language in question:

Nope. The faithful are necessarily believers.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith

Had you asked me to expound, I would have said something along the lines of:

 

"Faith is a subcategory of belief. Faith is a firmly held belief which isn't necessarily predicated on empirical evidence. Faith is often, but not necessarily, a recognized belief; i.e., a case in which one is intellectually aware that the belief is not fully substantiated but one's conviction is undiminished nonetheless. The faithful, therefore, are those believers whose beliefs are not necessarily fact-based and who may hold those beliefs resolutely despite knowing this."

 

I would probably then ask you to explain how the belief that "true knowledge" is when you firmly convince yourself that what you believe is true differs from faith. If the answer is along the lines of "well, each individual has to establish what is reality for them" then we have relativism and awareness generating reality. If the response is along the lines of "well, that belief is self-evident" then we have axiomatic circularism, if you follow me. In either case (and in any variation I've considered so far), the belief is NOT fact-based and is therefore an example of faith.

 

We have a family joke about one of my grandmother's sisters who, in a moment of frustration, haughtily proclaimed, "It is so because I know it!" No one remembers what the issue at hand was but the expression was priceless.

 

 

EDIT: Added the word "resolutely" for emphasis. While I'm at it, though, I'll also add this -- you specifically didn't ask for clarification AND you pointedly refused to answer my question about how you react to becoming aware of factual evidence contrary to your belief system. Instead, you insinuated that I am a "dumb idiot" incapable of changing my perspective, and then you pivoted yet again.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Brian

[Brian]

Part of Krishnamurti's point, imo part of the essence of his teaching, was that "spirituality" just makes people MORE egocentric, MORE self-centered and self-absorbed.

 

When I look at my own path, at myself, I see this.

 

It's like MY path, MY life, MY experience, MY enlightenment, have been of supreme importance to me.

 

Is that good?? Maybe it is, the truth is I really don't know.

 

We have to care for and tend to our lives and paths, we should CARE about succeeding.

 

But what about "freedom from self" and "dying to self"?

 

Is the kind of self-concern people have good?

 

Please share your thoughts if you have any.

Now to roger's original post...

 

You don't specify whether you mean U.G. or Jiddu but I am a student of neither so I'll merely share my thoughts.

 

The seeming dissonance regarding "selfish" versus "selfless" is one of perspective. As one's awareness develops, the concept of "self" changes -- it expands and becomes increasingly comprehensive. Selfish and selfless become the same thing seen through a narrow lens and believed to be distinct. Those who approach the question from the perspective of "selfish" cannot understand the perspective of those who approach the question from the perspective of "selfless" and vice versa. Those who one day recognize the paradox is illusory understand both perspectives but cannot convey that understanding to the others, regardless of which path they took, simply because the others are not in a place where they can understand. This is not a matter of intellect or knowledge or empathy -- these are merely rocks the two "camps" throw at each other in frustration -- but is instead a matter of awareness and perspective. The question "Is the kind of self-concern people have good?" becomes nonsensical in the same way that asking "is water good" is. A more meaningful question might be something along the lines of, "What unstated assumptions are contained in my current understanding of 'self'?" At some point, that question might begin to resonate.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Brian

[Karl]

I think you create false dichotomies, Karl. That's the issue.

 

I am NOT agreeing with your grammar. I am bluntly stating that your grammar is disingenuous.

 

You said this (I added the bolding to call attention to the meat of your post):

 

I took your challenge and plainly stated a counterpoint (including a link to a dictionary definition of the language in question:

 

Had you asked me to expound, I would have said something along the lines of:

 

"Faith is a subcategory of belief. Faith is a firmly held belief which isn't necessarily predicated on empirical evidence. Faith is often, but not necessarily, a recognized belief; i.e., a case in which one is intellectually aware that the belief is not fully substantiated but one's conviction is undiminished nonetheless. The faithful, therefore, are those believers whose beliefs are not necessarily fact-based and who may hold those beliefs resolutely despite knowing this."

 

I would probably then ask you to explain how the belief that "true knowledge" is when you firmly convince yourself that what you believe is true differs from faith. If the answer is along the lines of "well, each individual has to establish what is reality for them" then we have relativism and awareness generating reality. If the response is along the lines of "well, that belief is self-evident" then we have axiomatic circularism, if you follow me. In either case (and in any variation I've considered so far), the belief is NOT fact-based and is therefore an example of faith.

 

We have a family joke about one of my grandmother's sisters who, in a moment of frustration, haughtily proclaimed, "It is so because I know it!" No one remembers what the issue at hand was but the expression was priceless.

 

 

EDIT: Added the word "resolutely" for emphasis. While I'm at it, though, I'll also add this -- you specifically didn't ask for clarification AND you pointedly refused to answer my question about how you react to becoming aware of factual evidence contrary to your belief system. Instead, you insinuated that I am a "dumb idiot" incapable of changing my perspective, and then you pivoted yet again.

Now you are going down the path of A is also not A, I could see this coming a mile away, that's why we can't argue with each other.

 

Where has faith gone in your vocabulary ? it's been subsumed by 'belief' which is now used interchangeably. Therefore everything is faith and nothing is faith. Everything is belief and nothing is belief.

 

An atom is here and the exact same atom is over there. The cat is both dead and alive.

 

You might be able to live with that kind of reality, but I'm afraid it's not for me.

[Brian]

Now you are going down the path of A is also not A, I could see this coming a mile away, that's why we can't argue with each other.

 

Where has faith gone in your vocabulary ? it's been subsumed by 'belief' which is now used interchangeably. Therefore everything is faith and nothing is faith. Everything is belief and nothing is belief.

 

An atom is here and the exact same atom is over there. The cat is both dead and alive.

 

You might be able to live with that kind of reality, but I'm afraid it's not for me.

^^^Precisely! Now if only you understood what you said in that last sentence.

 

FWIW, there's no "A is also not A" in my post, nor any lack of clarity or precision in my choice of words. That you imagine otherwise is a reflection on you rather than me but you probably won't recognize that.

[Nungali]

Of course faith is a type of belief ... and karl is getting worse .... instead of what HE requires from people in argument or discussion, he now seems to think it is okay to respond to this statement that 

 

'faith is a type of belief '      with ; 

 

" You aren't a dumb idiot are you Brian ? "   

 

Thats offensive .   If anyone here does not deserve that comment it is Brian !  

 

You are slipping Karl  , and starting to use desperate tactics  ( that are pretty transparent ) .

[Nungali]

^^^Precisely! Now if only you understood what you said in that last sentence.

 

FWIW, there's no "A is also not A" in my post, nor any lack of clarity or precision in my choice of words. That you imagine otherwise is a reflection on you rather than me but you probably won't recognize that.

 

 ... and the "I can see it coming a mile away" .... another classic karlism .     

 

I have seen it many times, he just 'knows' how a conversation is going to turn out and 'preempts' it  .

 

problem is, he gets that wrong too, and when the conversation does not come to the conclusion he imagined , then he argues against it doing that !    As it is doing what (he thought ) it wasnt supposed to . 

 

And it is  all 'logical, correct, unarguable, as he must be right '  ....       

[Karl]

^^^Precisely! Now if only you understood what you said in that last sentence.

 

FWIW, there's no "A is also not A" in my post, nor any lack of clarity or precision in my choice of words. That you imagine otherwise is a reflection on you rather than me but you probably won't recognize that.

You have done the same thing in your reply above. Selfish means selfless now does it ?

 

I totally understood what I wrote in my last sentence. My advice to myself is to turn around and hurry away.

[Brian]

You have done the same thing in your reply above. Selfish means selfless now does it ?

 

I totally understood what I wrote in my last sentence. My advice to myself is to turn around and hurry away.

No, "selfless" doesn't mean "selfish" but both terms begin to dissolve when the illusion of dichotomy starts to disappear, much the same as the way distinctions between species become increasingly muddled as one digs into the details. As you said, though, that kind of reality isn't for you; you prefer the binary sort but don't understand that is duality all over again.

[Karl]

No, "selfless" doesn't mean "selfish" but both terms begin to dissolve when the illusion of dichotomy starts to disappear, much the same as the way distinctions between species become increasingly muddled as one digs into the details. As you said, though, that kind of reality isn't for you; you prefer the binary sort but don't understand that is duality all over again.

 

Which boils down to:-

No it doesn't, but yes it does. :shakes head:

[Brian]

Which boils down to:-

No it doesn't, but yes it does. :shakes head:

Familiar with the term "tunnel vision", Karl?

[Jetsun]

In my experience spirituality can work in a kind of bait and switch way, so there is a lot of things attractive to the ego in it all, for me it was the image of becoming some kind of open hearted all loving kind of Saintly guy who brings healing and peace to all those around me, along with a few Siddhi's and wisdom thrown in. That and some other stuff baited me in and made me interested in all this stuff and I learned to meditate and read loads of books and went to spiritual events and met teachers. But then when reality struck one moment the realisation clearly emerged that the person who imagined achieving all that doesn't survive the journey, I will never be enlightened, only enlightenment gets enlightened, which was ultimately a blow and a disappointment to my ego and also brought up a lot of fear, but I was in too deep and turning around wasn't really possible. Bait and switch, its all a setup.

 

Without some kind of bait for the ego I doubt anyone except those living in extreme suffering would bother with spirituality

[Karl]

Familiar with the term "tunnel vision", Karl?

That could mean anything in your world view. Maybe you said doughnuts:shrug:

[C T]

The conceptual mind, constrained by conditioned frames of conventional or common reference, 

can only ever see a self-selected version of reality. 

[Karl]

The conceptual mind, constrained by conditioned frames of conventional or common reference,

can only ever see a self-selected version of reality.

Which means we believe what we believe. However our view of reality maybe in error, so how do we know if it is in error ?

 

Where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ?

 

How do we obtain the reference ? From what source ? Where do we find proof that what we believe is reality is in actual fact correct ?

Edited November 18, 2016 by Karl