U.G. Krishnamurti: the anti-guru

[Q-Source]

Hello,

I wonder what you think about this non-ordinary man who does not propose any religion or philosophy to follow, does not write books or give lectures, and says that he does not want to teach anybody. However, his philosophy has touched a lot of people, especially those who have spent many years looking for enlightenment and a meaning in life. U.G. Krishnamurti -who followed the same search- has concluded that ultimately there is nothing to look for, life is meaningless.

U. G. Krishnamurti (http://www.well.com/user/jct/)

People call me an 'enlightened man' -- I detest that term -- they can't find any other word to describe the way I am functioning. At the same time, I point out that there is no such thing as enlightenment at all. I say that because all my life I've searched and wanted to be an enlightened man, and I discovered that there is no such thing as enlightenment at all, and so the question whether a particular person is enlightened or not doesn't arise.
I don't give a hoot for a sixth-century-BC Buddha, let alone all the other claimants we have in our midst. They are a bunch of exploiters, thriving on the gullibility of the people. There is no power outside of man. Man has created God out of fear. So the problem is fear and not God.

The so-called messiahs have left nothing but misery in this world. If a modern messiah came before you, he would be unable to help you at all. And if he can't help, no one can.

There is no self, there is no "I", there is no spirit, there is no soul, and there is no mind.

This is the only reality I have, the world as it is today. The ultimate reality that man has invented has absolutely no relationship whatsoever with the reality of this world.




Basically, he says that human thinking, looking for solutions to our problems and raising unanswerable questions have caused the opposite effect, taking us away from our natural state.

So, what is your opinion of his assertions?

Q-S

[Upchurch]

Ironically, the world view he's asserting is a Buddhist one.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ironically, the world view he's asserting is a Buddhist one.

Upchurch,

Why do you say that?. As far as I know, UGK is completely against the suffering of the body. In fact, his whole philosophy goes around how important is the human body and he mocks at the punishment that buddhists have used to reach some sort of mental states.

Q

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Why do you say that?. As far as I know, UGK is completely against the suffering of the body. In fact, his whole philosophy goes around how important is the human body and he mocks at the punishment that buddhists have used to reach some sort of mental states. There are many flavors of Buddhism, Q, just as there are many flavors of Christianity. To my memory, all forms of Buddhism teach the path to True Reality (they call it "enlightenment" which UGK obviously rejects as a term, but nonethless agress with in meaning) lies in the extinction of the self (or ego) and that the only thing that exists is what exists in the here and now without the preconceptions of human perception.

That's why I said it was ironic. a 6th century BC Budda would agree that we shouldn't give a hoot about a 6th centry BC Budda because that is not the way of the Budda. By denouncing the Budda, UGK is following the way of the Budda.

Trippy, huh?

[Pahansiri]

Upchurch is in essence mainly correct.

U.G. Krishnamurti has modeled himself after in many ways J.Krishnamurti who is far more well known ( not related) and a great mind and being.

If you get a chance get some of his many books.

J.Krishnamurti said he considered the Buddha the “greatest being to live’ but said he was not Buddhist even though everything he wrote of and spoke of was Buddhism.


Here is a short page which explains. http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk21b.htm

May all beings be well and happy

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Upchurch
There are many flavors of Buddhism, Q, just as there are many flavors of Christianity. To my memory, all forms of Buddhism teach the path to True Reality (they call it "enlightenment" which UGK obviously rejects as a term, but nonethless agress with in meaning) lies in the extinction of the self (or ego) and that the only thing that exists is what exists in the here and now without the preconceptions of human perception.

I still see a significant difference between buddhism and his position, but let's assume that both are the same, does it mean that he is just another nuts?

Q

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Upchurch is in essence mainly correct.

U.G. Krishnamurti has modeled himself after in many ways J.Krishnamurti who is far more well known ( not related) and a great mind and being.

Not really, UGK saw in JK another kind of spiritual leader that was following a worthless search. This made UGK break any relationship with JK.


If you get a chance get some of his many books.

J.Krishnamurti said he considered the Buddha the “greatest being to live’ but said he was not Buddhist even though everything he wrote of and spoke of was Buddhism.


Here is a short page which explains. http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk21b.htm

May all beings be well and happy

Thanks but I am not interested in J. Krishnamurti's writings. I want to hear opinions about what U.G. Krishnamurti says and why he broke with the traditional path that buddhism and all other religions follow and impose to their followers.


Q

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Q-Source
I still see a significant difference between buddhism and his position, but let's assume that both are the same, does it mean that he is just another nuts? Not because of this, at any rate, but I don't see Buddhism as all that irrational.

I'm curious, except for terminology (i.e. rejection of the word "enlightenment"), what do you see as the significant difference(s)?

[Pahansiri]

his whole philosophy goes around how important is the human body and he mocks at the punishment that buddhists have used to reach some sort of mental states.

Buddhist do not or shall I say should not ( I do not know all Buddhist) place themselves under punishment that is completely against Buddhist teachings.

The Buddha in his what we see as act of love seeking an end or way to end the suffering of beings in the cycle of rebirth and death (a statement of belief) for the first 6 years after he left his palace and life of comfort lived with the ascetics.

He did for these 6 years live through self inflicted hell as it was the thought of the ascetics that, that is how one could purify the mind and attain full awakening/enlightenment.

The Buddha almost starved to death when he decided this was not the way, he ate, drank water and regained his health and knew that the way was what Buddhism is called, the middle way.

To avoid extremes, either to the right or left is found suffering in the middle way is found an ease of suffering, wisdom and logic.

As to the body we see it for what it is, a impermanent vessel that is changing every second and is never the same so never “self” it is also shared with many other life forms so can not be “self”. Also it is comprised totally of non-body elements and again can not then be seen as self.

Buddhism places great import on taking care of the body and health, the Buddha bathed 2 times everyday and spoke of always caring for the body but that the body was just that, a body and in no way a “self”.

[Upchurch]

If I were going to say anything indicates that this guy is nuts, it might be this (http://www.well.com/user/jct/ugbio/ugbio1.htm):A parapsychologist intervened. 'Do you have any comment to make on clairvoyance, clairaudience, extrasensory perception and psychic phenomena?' U.G. nodded and explained:

Man is one of the species on this planet to inherit these things in common with all the other species. Man in his anxiety to maintain his non-existing and illusory identity has been using thought to translate sensory perception. Now the yogis are promising these things back to us and making a business out of it.

Let me give you an example of how effectively it operates in the animals. In Switzerland where we live up in the Alps, hunting of deer is permitted from 16 September every year. Would you believe it, on 15 September every year, hordes and hordes of deer come down from all over into the safety of the animal sanctuary next door to us. How do you explain this phenomenon?I explain the phenomenon as conditioning, personally.

[Pahansiri]

Buddhism does not impose anything on followers, the followers may do that but not Buddhism.

It is against what Buddhism is.

Not really, UGK saw in JK another kind of spiritual leader that was following a worthless search. This made UGK break any relationship with JK.

Well I respect his beliefs as I do all that choose to believe as they will, that is what Buddhism teaches, Buddhism does not seek to convert. No one can make anyone do, think or believe anything.

'Only here is there purity' -- that's what they say -- 'No other doctrines are pure' -- so they say. Insisting that what they depend on is good, they are deeply entrenched in their personal truths. Seeking debate, they plunge into an assembly, regarding one another as fools. Dependent on the authority of others, they speak
in dispute. Desiring praise, they claim to be wise. Engaged in disputes in the midst
of the assembly, -- anxious, desiring praise -- the one defeated is staggered. Shaken with criticism, he
seeks for an opening. He whose doctrine is [judged as] demolished, defeated, by those judging the issue: He laments, he grieves -- the inferior exponent. 'He beat me,' he mourns. These disputes have arisen among contemplatives. In them are victory & defeat.
Seeing this, one should abstain from disputes, for they have no other goal than the gaining of praise. He who is praised there for expounding his doctrine in the midst of the assembly, laughs on that account & grows haughty, attaining his heart's desire. That haughtiness will be his grounds for vexation, for he'll speak in over-estimation & pride. Seeing this, one would abstain from disputes. No purity is attained by
them, say the wise.... Pasura Sutta

, Like a strong man nourished on royal food, one goes about, roaring,
searching out an opponent. Wherever the opponent is, go there, strong
man. As before, there's no battle here. Those who dispute, taking hold
of a view, saying, 'This, and this only, is true,'
those you can talk to. Here there is nothing -- no confrontation at the
birth of disputes.
Among those who live above confrontation not pitting view against view,
whom would you gain as an opponent among those who are grasping no more?
So here you come, conjecturing, your mind conjuring viewpoints. You're
paired off with a pure one, and so cannot proceed.........


Be capable, upright, & straightforward, easy to instruct, gentle, & not
conceited, content & easy to support, with few duties, living lightly,
with peaceful faculties, masterful, modest, & no greed for supporters.
Do not do the slightest thing that the wise would later censure. Think:
Happy, at rest, may all beings be happy at heart. Whatever beings there
may be, weak or strong, without exception, long, large, middling, short,
subtle, blatant, seen & unseen, near & far, born & seeking birth: May
all beings be happy at heart. Let no one deceive another or despise
anyone anywhere, or through anger or irritation wish for another to
suffer. As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only
child, even so should one cultivate a limitless heart with regard to all
beings. With good will for the entire cosmos, cultivate a limitless
heart: Above, below, & all around, unobstructed, without hostility or
hate. Whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down, as long as one
is alert, one should be resolved on this mindfulness. This is called a
sublime abiding here & now.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Upchurch

I'm curious, except for terminology (i.e. rejection of the word "enlightenment"), what do you see as the significant difference(s)?

The difference is that he doesn't promote any technique, any meditation, any religion, any belief, any thoughts, nothing.
He questioned the "search" for enlightenment, because he realised that there was nothing such as enlightenment.

Q

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


He did for these 6 years live through self inflicted hell as it was the thought of the ascetics that, that is how one could purify the mind and attain full awakening/enlightenment.

The Buddha almost starved to death when he decided this was not the way, he ate, drank water and regained his health and knew that the way was what Buddhism is called, the middle way.

To avoid extremes, either to the right or left is found suffering in the middle way is found an ease of suffering, wisdom and logic.

The Buddha is the great example of how men are capable of self inflicting pain and restricting themselves from human pleasures as a way to reach enlightenment. UGK is against all this because the body is the only means that we have to reach a natural state. Free from pain and suffering.

A quote from UGK:
Love and hate are exactly the same. They have together resulted in massacre, murder, assassination, and wars. This is a matter of history, not my opinion. Buddhism has resulted in horrors in Japan. It is the same thing everywhere. All our political systems have come out of that religious thinking, whether of the East or of the West.



What do you think of UGK's teachings?
Q-S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Q-Source

The difference is that he doesn't promote any technique, any meditation, any religion, any belief, any thoughts, nothing.
He questioned the "search" for enlightenment, because he realised that there was nothing such as enlightenment. That's a subtle difference. Buddhism teaches that trying to find enlightenment is ultimately futile and only enlightenment is only obtained by being enlightened.

I still think Buddhism is just a formalized way for coming to the conclusion that UGK came to naturally (or rather, came to by a near-fatal accident, if I read his bio correctly).

The biggest difference that I can see from what brief readings that I've read is that UGK is a nihilist, which Buddists aren't, at least, not generally.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Q-Source


The Buddha is the great example of how men are capable of self inflicting pain and restricting themselves from human pleasures as a way to reach enlightenment. UGK is against all this because the body is the only means that we have to reach a natural state. Free from pain and suffering.

What do you think of UGK's teachings?
Q-S

My friend I think you misread my post The Buddha showed these extreems did not work that was my point.

Meditation is not at all punishment it can be a great joy and greatly peaceful. Does it take “work” yes as all things do to learn and master if you will.

The point is that Buddhism teaches grasping to human pleasures craving them causes suffering, this is very self evident. These human pleasures must be seen for what they are, impermanent the belief that they are lasting is the cause of suffering. The desires for them causes suffering when they end or do not come out as we plan.

Buddhism does not in any way seek to avoid human pleasures just not to grasp to them or desire them, cravings lead to suffering. To live each moment not regretting the past or pine and worry about the future.

I believe as I explained UGK is wrong about the body. We believe the mind is the only thing that is real, the true nature of mind the body is an illusion.


You say UGK is against all this because the body is the only means that we have to reach a natural state. Free from pain and suffering.

Do you really think UGK is free from pain and suffering? You believe he feels no pain? He does not get ill, he will not die? Experience old age? Cramps? A headache?

Do you believe he does not get sad? Will he not feel lose of loved ones?

We as Buddhist or Buddhism teaches that we are already enlightened, we are all Buddha’s we just do not realize it due to cravings, hate, fear, ego.

Enlightenment is the natural state and the word means to be awake.

[Pahansiri]

"I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment." Gotama Buddha

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Upchurch

The biggest difference that I can see from what brief readings that I've read is that UGK is a nihilist, which Buddists aren't, at least, not generally.

Maybe it is just a matter of perspectives. To me the implications of UGK's teachings are the most important point, it means that being a nihilist makes you free from any religious doctrine or philosophy.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Maybe it is just a matter of perspectives. To me the implications of UGK's teachings are the most important point, it means that being a nihilist makes you free from any religious doctrine or philosophy.

Or is it just another religious doctrine or philosophy?

[Q-Source]

This is not a discussion about Buddhism.

The difference between UGK and buddhism has already been highlighted and while Upchurch and Pahansiri think that it is a subtle difference, to me it is a quite significant difference. Basically, this is the reason why I consider that UGK's thoughts have great implications for how humans should live their lives.

Q-S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Maybe it is just a matter of perspectives. To me the implications of UGK's teachings are the most important point, it means that being a nihilist makes you free from any religious doctrine or philosophy. There are other ways (I would say, more positive and constructive ways) to be free from religious doctrine or philosophy without being a nihilist.
Basically, this is the reason why I consider that UGK's thoughts have great implications for how humans should live their lives. But what are the implications and are they implications we want to embrace?

[Pahansiri]

This is not a discussion about Buddhism.

Actually it is,
1-You quote U.G. Krishnamurt’s statements about Buddhism
2- you pm,ed me asking if Upchurch was right concerning Buddhism.


The difference between UGK and buddhism has already been highlighted and while Upchurch and Pahansiri think that it is a subtle difference, to me it is a quite significant difference.

OK, I respect that but please explain how and why and how U.G. Krishnamurt is right and how Buddhism is wrong.


Basically, this is the reason why I consider that UGK's thoughts have great implications for how humans should live their lives.

Ok again I respect that but how?

I asked you simple questions concerning U.G. Krishnamurt’s beliefs and you did not respond.

You say
UGK is against all this because the body is the only means that we have to reach a natural state. Free from pain and suffering.

I asked
Do you really think UGK is free from pain and suffering? You believe he feels no pain? He does not get ill, he will not die? Experience old age? Cramps? A headache?

Do you believe he does not get sad? Feel disappointment? Will he not feel lose of loved ones?

If the answer to all are yes and he is truly free from all these human conditions I will say he is right but I have pointed out as to the human condition of old age and death for example he is wrong.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Q-Source
So, what is your opinion of his assertions?
Why doesn't he just eat a bullet and leave the rest of us alone?

Or, alternatively, he could get a scientific education, and then he could offer some constructive advice on how to make our lives better. If his point is that metaphysics is a waste of time, well, the scientists already knew that, and they spent their school years learning something useful.

I agree that he is a nilhist, that nilhism is useless, and that there is something at the core of Buddhism that is awfuly close to nilhism, which is why I am not a Buddhist.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Why doesn't he just eat a bullet and leave the rest of us alone?

Or, alternatively, he could get a scientific education, and then he could offer some constructive advice on how to make our lives better. If his point is that metaphysics is a waste of time, well, the scientists already knew that, and they spent their school years learning something useful.

I agree that he is a nilhist, that nilhism is useless, and that there is something at the core of Buddhism that is awfuly close to nilhism, which is why I am not a Buddhist.

Greetings Yahzi.

I agree that he is a nilhist, that nilhism is useless, and that there is something at the core of Buddhism that is awfuly close to nilhism, which is why I am not a Buddhist.

I respect your belief, may I just ask with respect and for conversation what is it you feel there as at Buddhism core that is nihilist?

If you mean nihilist as Revolutionary,radical it was greatly so at the time and will be so to beings that are more God based i.e. creation God protected etc.

I am not sure but perhaps you mean as some misunderstand say the Buddhist teaching or view of part of the nature of life here being dukkha http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dukkha.html this word that is translated as "stress," "unsatisfactoriness," "suffering.


This in no way means we believe or Buddhism teaches that is all life is here or we need to seek to end our life to run from it.


On the contrary we find this birth as Buddha said very precious and to be respected, all life and seek to live a long life. Suicide is seen as even worse then to kill another as there is no chance in this birth to over come this mistake.

Buddhism meditation is not about being in another astro plane etc it is about being fully awake in the here and now, not dwelling in the past or seeking only the future. Mindfulness is a base teaching of Buddhism to be totally aware of what is right here now we walk through life rushing around missing so much that is right in front of us.

We crave what we do not have and think we want then become disappointed when we have it and it gets old and worn out and we keep craving new and more.


What we look at is the reality of life and so do not fear death or loss that is going to happen, pain will happen, sickness, loss in many ways. People spend most or their life ignoring death and the rest fearing it.

Fear is an illusion, self imposed suffering.

As I said I respect your beliefs and just express mine.


I did notice you spoke of scientific education, and then he could offer some constructive advice on how to make our lives better. and another reference to scientist.

I know you were speaking about U. G. Krishnamurti but would like to offer some scientists thoughts on Buddhism.

Albert Einstein regarded as the father of the theory of relativity says,

"Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single cosmic whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, as an example in the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhaur, contains a much stronger element of this."


'Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all
things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity' – Einstein

Niels Bohr who developed the presently accepted model of the atom together with Earnest Rutherford says,

"For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory….. (we must turn) to those kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like the Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the drama of existence."

“Albert Einstein quote: “If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.”

'Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity' – Einstein”

Einstein said, "If I’m compelled to select a world religion or an international religion, I would select Buddhism." We must examine the profundity of his statement and work together in harmony, for nowadays even the learned scholars of the East remain unaware of this. That is why I must emphasize the whole system of Buddhist philosophy.

"Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single cosmic whole.
The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, as an example in the Psalms of David and in some the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhaur, contains a much stronger element of this".

Albert Einstein, On Religion and Science, 1930.

Nuclear Physicist, Robert Oppenheimer,
"The general notions about human understanding … which are illustrated by discoveries in atomic physics are not in the nature of things wholly unfamiliar, wholly unheard of, or new. Even in our own culture they have a history, and in Buddhist and Hindu thought a more considerable and central place. What we shall find is an exemplification, an encouragement and a refinement of old wisdom." - Robert Oppenheimer.

It is interesting that a lot of physicists seem to follow Buddhist principles, which is perhaps, not so surprising after all...The Buddha had a remarkable ability to see what there is to see and to deal with what's there. That made his approach to the spiritual or to the human problem of existence very refreshing. This is very similar to what a scientist does. We try to drop all assumptions about the way things should be, and deal with things the way they are. Although that's not always possible to do, it nevertheless is the basis of Buddhist thought.
Fred Allen Wolf, PhD.

Buddha's last words: "Decay is inherent in all compounded things. Strive unceasingly." Buddha stated the second law of thermodynamics. His inherent understanding still amazes me.
William A. Russell



Niels Bohr who developed the presently accepted model of the atom together with Earnest Rutherford says,

"For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory….. (we must turn) to those kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like the Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the drama of existence."


Derek Parfit, Fritj of Capra (the well known Nuclear Physicist) and Gary Zukav accept the Buddhist view of matter and believes in the need to liberate ourselves from the prison of material particles.

“The process of human reproduction is explained in Buddha's teachings as parental union when mother is fertile and the arrival of consciousness. The former supplies the full complement of chromosomes needed to create a Zygote which by normal cell division creates the physical body. The arrival of consciousness into the physical body makes it an individual. Stating with the creation of test tube babies in 1968 by Dr. Robert Edwards's team of scientists at Cambridge University, incredible advances, culminating in cloning in 1996, have taken place in reproductive biology. Yet all these advances have only shifted the site and altered the mechanism of creation of the zygote. The maturing of the zygote to a foetus, making it an individual by the arrival of consciousness and birth remains as per Buddha's teachings.

It is now increasingly becoming clear to those who reach the front lines of modern science that what science has been discovering a new had been known to the Buddha over 2500 years ago. This is confirmed by the following statements made by topmost scientists of the twentieth century.”



Here is a site with many such quotes. http://web.singnet.com.sg/~sidneys/praises1.htm

In the Kalama Sutta explains how we need look at all things, what is the base of scientific thought and procedure.




Kalama Sutta

Do not believe in anything (simply)
because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe in anything because it is
spoken and rumoured by many.

Do not believe in anything (simply) because
it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority
of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis
when you find that anything agrees with reason
and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all
then accept it and live up to it.

Buddha
(Anguttara Nikaya Vol. 1, 188-193 P.T.S. Ed.)

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Upchurch
There are other ways (I would say, more positive and constructive ways) to be free from religious doctrine or philosophy without being a nihilist.

He is a "nihilist" from religious and spiritual thought only. What other kinds of positive and constructive ways are there?


But what are the implications and are they implications we want to embrace?

A life without religious, spiritual and philosophical unneccesary rubbish maybe.

Q

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Actually it is,
1-You quote U.G. Krishnamurt’s statements about Buddhism
2- you pm,ed me asking if Upchurch was right concerning Buddhism.

Both points have already been cleared. I think.



OK, I respect that but please explain how and why and how U.G. Krishnamurt is right and how Buddhism is wrong.

UG thinks that it is worthless to search for enlightenment and to self-impose all sort of physical and intellectual tasks because there is nothing at the end of this.



I asked
Do you really think UGK is free from pain and suffering? You believe he feels no pain? He does not get ill, he will not die? Experience old age? Cramps? A headache?

Do you believe he does not get sad? Feel disappointment? Will he not feel lose of loved ones?

Of course that UGK is not free from physical pain, I didn't say otherwise. I just mentioned that UGK is completely against the self-imposition of pain and limitations to feel pleasure as a means to reach certain mental states and mystical experiences. They are worthless.



If the answer to all are yes and he is truly free from all these human conditions I will say he is right but I have pointed out as to the human condition of old age and death for example he is wrong.

He might be wrong regarding many issues. I do not have the slightest interest in idolising him.

Q-S

[Pahansiri]

Of course that UGK is not free from physical pain, I didn't say otherwise. I just mentioned that UGK is completely against the self-imposition of pain and limitations to feel pleasure as a means to reach certain mental states and mystical experiences. They are worthless.

But as I pointed out Buddhism is also against self-imposition of pain so I am not sure where his point is as to Buddhism.

Again I do not speak to what all people who may be Buddhist do that is silly as I can not know what all people do just as U.G. Krishnamurti can not.

I did not see this before but would like to make comment on it now. Love and hate are exactly the same. They have together resulted in massacre, murder, assassination, and wars. This is a matter of history, not my opinion. Buddhism has resulted in horrors in Japan. It is the same thing everywhere. All our political systems have come out of that religious thinking, whether of the East or of the West.

This has nothing to do with Buddhism and everything to do with people and there cravings which is the very opposite of Buddhism.



The fact is there have never been any Buddhist wars, no inquisitions etc. The tipitaka (Skt. tripitaka): The Buddhist Canon is in size 11x’s larger then the OT and NT and in all of the text there is not one act of or call for or condoning violence. It tells that all beings are equal etc.

Now we find in everything that people will seek to use what ever to feed their personal cravings. What happened in Japan was the ruling class came to believe through ego the teachings were just for them and became very cruel to others which stands against everything Buddhism stands for and for that reason it fell apart as to this ruling class and Zen Buddhism arose.

You are an Atheist does this mean that because of Communist USSR, Stalin, Pol Pot, Communist China etc all atheist are evil or Atheism is evil?

You wrote in response to my asking if UGK is free from suffering.



Of course that UGK is not free from physical pain, I didn't say otherwise. I just mentioned that UGK is completely against the self-imposition of pain and limitations to feel pleasure as a means to reach certain mental states and mystical experiences. They are worthless.


Well you did say otherwise. You wrote:

UGK is against all this because the body is the only means that we have to reach a natural state. Free from pain and suffering.

Here he said the body is the only means to reach the natural state of being free from pain and suffering.

For that to be true he as the proponent of this would have to be free from pain and suffering. He is of course is not, the natural state of the body is pain and suffering and that is the first of the 4 Buddhist noble truths.

Dukkha: All existence will be unsatisfactory and filled with suffering. This does not mean every second but this is the nature of life.

Trsna: The root of suffering can be defined as a craving or clinging to the wrong things; searching to find stability in a shifting world is the wrong way

Nirvana: It is possible to find an end to suffering

The Noble Eightfold path is the way to finding the solution to suffering and bring it to an end


Just what i believe, be well my friend.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Q-Source


He is a "nihilist" from religious and spiritual thought only. What other kinds of positive and constructive ways are there? Secular Humanism or even just simple non-nihilistic atheism for starters.

[drowden]

Whilst U.G. is certainly more interesting that the other Krishnamurti, he is bascially a game-playing, pretentious fart who consistently contradicts himself. If he really believed half of what he says, he would never discuss philosophical matters with anybody.

He might simply like the sound of his own voice but that isn't a basis upon which one might take him seriously.


Dan Rowden