Author Topic: Krishnamurti and Ramana  (Read 1523 times)

silence

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Krishnamurti and Ramana
« on: May 30, 2013, 12:50:39 PM »
Friends,

K says the self is made of opinions, judgments, etc. It is the whole bundle. In fact, whenever we observe something controversial or exciting (and if we also observe the self side by side), we see it is filled with preferences, prejudices toward or against the object of observation, endless opinions about the object, etc.

But in Ramana's system, this self is ever pure. So is K's self what we call ego? Is he using the terms synonymously?

Thanks,
Silence

Jewell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6087
  • Love,always love and only love
    • View Profile
Re: Krishnamurti and Ramana
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2013, 03:23:12 PM »
Dear Silence,

If You think on Jiddu Krishnamurti,all those words He is using to describe the ego self,not our true,pure Self. He is talking about mind only,and contradictions and confict which come with it. He usually explanes in which way mind is functioning,that all it doas it is from memory only,therefore already dead and limited. But i think there is the reason He explanes everything the way He doas,He is trying to reconcile apparent contradiction in ourselves. He have His own way of teaching.

And Bhagavan,using the term Self,is talking about ultimate Reality,our True nature.

With love and prayers,

ksksat27

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
    • View Profile
Re: Krishnamurti and Ramana
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2013, 11:12:49 PM »
Friends,

K says the self is made of opinions, judgments, etc. It is the whole bundle. In fact, whenever we observe something controversial or exciting (and if we also observe the self side by side), we see it is filled with preferences, prejudices toward or against the object of observation, endless opinions about the object, etc.

But in Ramana's system, this self is ever pure. So is K's self what we call ego? Is he using the terms synonymously?

Thanks,
Silence

dear silence

in my humble opinion, JK philosophy is very confusing...............we cannot compare it to our Maharishee's forceful,  graceful and powerful teachings

dont mistake me,  JK's writings will lead a reader nowhere...........it over complicates things....

JK may have got it but he is not a Guru who can transmit it to others

I will leave it at that ,  JK fans please forgive me

so is UG's.......one will go totally mad....

but compared to UG ,  JK is better in terms of non abusing of other teachers


sanjaya_ganesh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 859
    • View Profile
Re: Krishnamurti and Ramana
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2013, 06:53:08 AM »
Dear Silence

Whether someone's words are the supreme truth or not - can be easily self convinced by how Upanishads describe it. There is no confusion about who is the real teacher if you use the Upanishadic yardstick. Upanishads say - "yatra nAnyat pashyati nAnyat shRNoti nAnyad-vijAnAti sa bhUmA" - which translates to "Where nothing else needs to be seen, nothing else needs to be heard, nothing else needs to be cognised - that is the Supreme truth". I got that feeling only when I heard bhagawan the first time 12 years back. I spent years vehemently supporting and reading JK and UK (every book available at that time) before coming to Bhagawan's words. But they all only left me with second part of the above Upanishadic verse which says "atha yatra anyat pashyati anyad-shRNoti anyad-vijAnAti tad-alpaM" - "Where one needs to see another, hears another, cognises another, that is finite."

So if you are still on second verse of above Upanishadic teaching after hearing a guru it can mean two things - (1) We did not understand the teaching (2) The teaching is not about Supreme. (1) is not correct because there is NOTHING to "understand" in supreme truth - if it were so, cow lakshmi would not have got it. If it were to be understood by intellectual superiority, Einstein would have got it and not Bhagawan (who is a school dropout). So it must be second as sanatkumara tells Narada.

There is absolutely NOTHING to believe in Bhagawan's teachings - it is an experience which you feel yourself, feel so strong you just cannot negate it. One never has to believe that one has a hand and do meditation to convince oneself that he has a hand - it is an experience that cannot be negated however hard you try - simply because it is an experience. Sorry for some tangential ramblings - but JK left me always in the second verse of Upanishads yardstick above.

Sanjay.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 09:45:41 AM by sanjaya_ganesh »
Salutations to Bhagawan

ksksat27

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
    • View Profile
Re: Krishnamurti and Ramana
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2013, 10:15:12 PM »
Dear Silence

Whether someone's words are the supreme truth or not - can be easily self convinced by how Upanishads describe it. There is no confusion about who is the real teacher if you use the Upanishadic yardstick. Upanishads say - "yatra nAnyat pashyati nAnyat shRNoti nAnyad-vijAnAti sa bhUmA" - which translates to "Where nothing else needs to be seen, nothing else needs to be heard, nothing else needs to be cognised - that is the Supreme truth". I got that feeling only when I heard bhagawan the first time 12 years back. I spent years vehemently supporting and reading JK and UK (every book available at that time) before coming to Bhagawan's words. But they all only left me with second part of the above Upanishadic verse which says "atha yatra anyat pashyati anyad-shRNoti anyad-vijAnAti tad-alpaM" - "Where one needs to see another, hears another, cognises another, that is finite."

So if you are still on second verse of above Upanishadic teaching after hearing a guru it can mean two things - (1) We did not understand the teaching (2) The teaching is not about Supreme. (1) is not correct because there is NOTHING to "understand" in supreme truth - if it were so, cow lakshmi would not have got it. If it were to be understood by intellectual superiority, Einstein would have got it and not Bhagawan (who is a school dropout). So it must be second as sanatkumara tells Narada.

There is absolutely NOTHING to believe in Bhagawan's teachings - it is an experience which you feel yourself, feel so strong you just cannot negate it. One never has to believe that one has a hand and do meditation to convince oneself that he has a hand - it is an experience that cannot be negated however hard you try - simply because it is an experience. Sorry for some tangential ramblings - but JK left me always in the second verse of Upanishads yardstick above.

Sanjay.

you had beautifully summarized Bhagavan's teachings. 

JK is really super confusing.  They have now brought a website and freely uploaded his teachings.

one comes for sadhana mainly for shanthi.  if one does not get it,  what use it is?

also very truly said,  Truth is as it is,  like the great sage Ribhu has exposed in his song.

There is no acquring or losing. 

the nirguna brahman state is described thus by Nisarghadatta:  It is that principle by which you that you exist.   

Elsewhere again,  Maharaj:  "Absolute exists not even having this idea of "I" exist,  it is that state which was there 8 days prior to conception and 100 years prior to your conception on Mother's womb."