What happened to this man and why do his words stay in the very core of my being?

what happened to this man and why do his words stay in the very core of my being?

Attached: ug033.jpg (319x480, 34K)

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=HGY37Am7dQ4
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

He knew.

A lot of what he says is ironically very similar to old Zen writings, despite him discounting all traditions and religions. You could view him as really having “killed the Buddha” after meeting him in the road.

>Dude just stop existing lmao

Eastern """Philosophy""" is such bullshit

Attached: descartes.jpg (476x484, 73K)

lol he actually he called zen monks nasty bastards. but i get what u mean. i would say he was more like boddiharma. boddiharma would throw his desiples of bulidings and choke them lol

you dont know much about ug. ug went to great efforts to bash eastern religions and expose all the gurus including buddah and vedic teachings as frauds. he even said himself eastern philosophy is far enferior to western

Eastern men are notorious liars, he was probably just doing that to put himself on top

what is his name

>boddiharma would throw his desiples of bulidings and choke them lol
no, he never did anything like that. the closest thing was inducing Huike to cut off his arm by ignoring him in his cave while he was meditating. I don't know where you got choking and throwing people off of buildings from, they broke people's legs in gates, cut a cat in half, kicked buddhist monks in the head, punched people, slapped emperors, poured out drinks on people and slapped the shit out of monks but they never did anything that would kill someone, I would need to see a specific instance cited where they choked someone. If its Japanese Zen bushido idiots then it does not count, the Chinese masters never did violence to discipline or harm people out of sadism
UG Krishnamurti you dumb know-nothing

>involved in theosophy
>failed marriage
>psychotic breakdown which leads to him claiming spiritual realization
>claimed made up nonsense about the pineal gland

ok idk but i remember reading from bagwan rajneesh that bodiharma would do that. obviously not kill anyone tho

>involved in theosophy
true and he realized it was fraudelent early on
>failed marriage
he realized all relationships are false and based on needs and wants. he recalled in one interview how he realized he was just using his wife for sex. he was about to have sex with his wife when his baby started crying and wouldent stop so he thought of strangeling the baby. that was a shock for him. he realized he was just full of lust and anger and completely contardictory to the teachings he was preaching.
>psychotic breakdow
he realized everthing he has being doing for 40 years was a lie. his was phony and he was sick of it. he never claimed anything spiritual but that his identity was gone and he became like an animal. or what he called "natural state"
>pineal gland
he only mentioned that the glands become more sensitive in the "natural state"

he sounds intresting what do i read by him desu

He sounds like a 16 year old scene kid going through the motions

fuck off

i would go with "no way out" but you are better off just watching his videos

m.youtube.com/watch?v=HGY37Am7dQ4

how?
why does the idea of a zen bing violent offend you so much?

>In 1939, at age 21, Krishnamurti met with renowned spiritual teacher Ramana Maharshi. Krishnamurti related that he asked Ramana, "This thing called moksha, can you give it to me?" – to which Ramana Maharshi purportedly replied, "I can give it, but can you take it?". This answer completely altered Krishnamurti's perceptions of the "spiritual path" and its practitioners, and he never again sought the counsel of "those religious people". Later, Krishnamurti would say that Maharshi's answer – which he perceived as "arrogant" – put him "back on track".
>From 1947 to 1953, Krishnamurti regularly attended talks given by Jiddu Krishnamurti in Madras, India, eventually beginning a direct dialogue with him in 1953. U. G. Krishnamurti related that the two had almost daily discussions for a while, which he asserted were not providing satisfactory answers to his questions. Finally, their meetings came to a halt. He described part of the final discussion:
>And then, towards the end, I insisted, "Come on, is there anything behind the abstractions you are throwing at me?" And that chappie said, "You have no way of knowing it for yourself". Finish – that was the end of our relationship, you see – "If I have no way of knowing it, you have no way of communicating it. What the hell are we doing? I've wasted seven years. Goodbye, I don't want to see you again". Then I walked out.

>old Zen writings
Yeah, he's either like that or just close-minded. It's hard to tell.

He seems to have been "realizing" a lot of shit and not doing very much actual thinking

more like all he did was think and ask questions for 40-50 years until he came to the conclusion thinking itself was the problem. where has thinking got you sir?

>implying you can personally exist in heaven when loved ones are burning in hell

nothing happened to him. he was just deceived by the world being what it is, so eh had to find out a way to keep his illusions and survive in a world unable to fulfill them. his words are an expression of how his mind allowed him to do that. he also couldnt find stability anywhere so he had to wander all his life.

and his words touch you because he is not giving a purely intellectual view that someone else passed on him but he gives us the result of his own experience. he is fully convinced of what he says, because he lives it. his philosophy is the result of his own life, and is part of it. he is what ancient philosophers were.

in a word, when you listen to him the content is irrelevant in itself, cause what you are getting is the impression of a fully integrated being, just like when you see an animal.

his best is 'give up', called the courage to stand alone in book form.

If they're there they deserve it

>where has thinking got you sir?

Further than you and these Indian street shitters I guarantee that much

he could be the father of peterson...

This is the shit that happens to you if you turn yourself retarded with theosophy and the search for enlightnement.
Read your aristotles and your kants if you want to put your mind atleast a little bit in order and disregard any shit that seems phony if you want to avoid some kind of mental breakdown like this dude.(i am not saying eastern philisophies have nothing to offer btw, just that its a rabbit hole that can lead to ugly consequences )

This is a very good post, are you in any way influenced by Gurdjieff at all? You strike me as thinking in the vein he taught.

How, when gurdjieff wanted to be free from illusions?

I’m not sure what you mean with everything you wrote after the comma/how it’s related to this convo, but if you mean by “how” how your post reminded me of Gurdjieff:
-emphasis on personal and truly understood knowledge (which he calls “understanding” in the terminology of his system) and merely superficial knowledge mechanically verbally repeated/merely registered in the intellect without also permeating the body and emotions
-corresponding different between essence (the really essential part of a person) and personality (social conditioning and norms, mask, parroting what we hear)
-comparing UG, who is all essence/speaks his philosophy from his essence and real experience, to an animal; according to Gurdjieff, animals are all essence, and this is why we often intuit/feel a certain nobility or honesty in them greater than that of humans, who are mostly an undeveloped essence covered up by personality

Also the point (very related) of living your philosophy, but it’s very valid to also say ancient philosophers embodied that too and it’s too great an idea to just belong to Gurdjieff. But nevertheless G. constantly exhorted his followers to either really embody whatever philosophy/worldview they had, or abandon it/not say that’s their philosophy or religion or whatever. Many also couldn’t help admitting, even if they disliked Gurdjieff, that he lived his teaching and his entire life that we know of seems to be equivalent to his teaching. He WAS his teaching, as some put it.

What a shit argument. Are you really insinuating that an omnipotent being would send good people to hell because he's just so petty? By virtue of God being God he knows where people belong. Quit being an edgy cocksucker.

How is that the case? A lot of his behavior is inexplicable. If you read life is only real when I am, he sounds like he had no self control over his emotions despite what he taught.

>German Idealism is good for your Brain and also Aristotle which is fucking empiricism and totally at odds with German idealism
>Don’t read eastern philosophy

it doesn’t making up stupid fucking stories to embellish it and not having the fucking decency to cite where they come from in the zen canon is obnoxious and i don’t want to talk with ignorant people anymore than i would about someone saying something the vedas don’t say

Why are the people in Eastern philosophy threads so bizarre and aggressive?

I think he was deliberately showing a weaker side of him because he didn’t want to seem omnipotent and wanted to wean people off of the temptation to see him as a godman instead of standing on their own feet. Not only that, but I get the sense, reading life is real only then..., that he is very calculated, very self-aware, but also very emotional. Will you blame a man for crying and having emotions, even if he’s a spiritual teacher? He’s still a human. Not only that, but “self control over emotions” isn’t completely what he taught. He emphasized controlling harmful and “irreal” negative emotions, but also said there were REAL negative emotions that shouldn’t be done away with but rather could be transmuted for the purpose of self-remembering, reaching a more intense state of consciousness — such as real grief for death of loved ones. He didn’t teach being emotionless or even stoic — in fact, for him, so-called stoics would be people with weak emotions/who had restricted the range of their emotions and thus their humanity.

lol you haven't read the vedas.

What about the sarmoung brotherhood? I find it hard to believe that place existed. It seems most likely that he borrowed from various Hindu traditions.

Meetings With Remarkable Men is allegorical. Different characters seem to represent different parts of the psyche/human self etc. I think it’s only true in a very broad sense, that he did indeed go traveling in Central Asia and monasteries and to dervishes for knowledge. I think he synthesized his teachings from Hindus, Sufism, Tibetan and perhaps Zen Buddhism, the Essenes and some Gnostic sects of Christianity, also mystical Orthodox Christians, Hermeticism, Neoplatonism and Plato himself, the alchemists, Ancient Greek mystery schools, Egyptian, Sumerian, and Babylonian mythology/history/teachings, while also claiming there was a historical hidden root to them all. Perhaps he did meet with some brotherhood which was the source of/United all these teachings, perhaps not. Either way, Meetings seems to clearly be not totally literal or meant to be taken as such, and you can find traces of his system in much more than Hinduism. I think Ouspensky said you could find traces of the system in all the major world religions, but bone of them brought them all so coherently and systematically as this system did, and there were some things in the system which couldn’t be found (exoterically at least) in other systems.

Didn't ouspensky say at the end of his life that there is no system and he has nothing to teach? Whereafter his students all joined other things.

Yes, in my opinion that’s because Ouspensky left Gurdjieff without fully understanding his teaching, without having the real “key”. This key was a real emotional and physical understanding, as many have pointed out, Ouspensky was very intellectual in how he approached the teaching. He was focused on the diagrams, the terms, the cosmology, how it dissected the human self, etc., etc. Gurdjieff, in my opinion, was just as equally concerned with Sufic baraqa (baraqa is what the Sufis and Muslims call a type of impalpable blessing, force, energy, radiation coming from holy things and enlightened people; in Sufism, a good deal of the disciples’ learning is simply by being around a fully-developed master and doing simple labor with him). Gurdjieff similarly emphasized something like this, teaching people subtly and slowly through jokes, paradoxes, conversations, even yelling at them and acting eccentric, as well as the communes he created where he had people garden, tend animals, work on construction projects, work with music and dancing and gymnastics etc. His aim was to effect a change in their entire being, including through non-rational means that couldn’t be put into a system. Ouspensky broke away from Gurdjieff without really getting this point, tried to teach only the intellectual part of the system, and realized he couldn’t do it apart from the other parts and wasn’t fit to be a teacher.

Google a document called The Case of P.D. Ouspensky, it outlines how Ouspensky secretly thought his student were idiots, actually manipulated them, and outright admitted to not being able to follow the system himself for a long one in his own life. If anything, Ouspensky seems to have become a more corrupt person for a while than Gurdjieff, even though Ouspensky seems more respectable!

(However, I’d like to point out that Ouspensky seemingly finally redeemed himself and was honest by saying there was no system and dismissing his students; that’s what the writer of that document, a secretary who knew Ouspensky well, also thinks, that he finally came back to his morality and conscience)

What is your opinion of the foundation groups and the nyland groups?

I've been attending a group for a while now and while everything "sounds good" in theory, something still feels missing.. something "higher" is absent

Also I have been following the instructions they gave me about dividing the awareness and have had certain experiences of real I but i still feel uncertain.

>Aristotle which is fucking empiricism

Attached: images (1).jpg (233x217, 6K)

I don’t have much of an opinion since I don’t know much about them. I agree with the Sufis though, and with Gurdjieff himself according to Ouspensky, that schools which have been set up through history can only be functional for a very short time before they begin to get corrupted, thrown into the maelstrom of mainstream history, misinterpreted, become hollow etc.

Good luck.

i dont even know who that is. and influences are irrelevant when still conscious. it is only when they are digested that they are usable, and at that point they are no longer conscious.

that is btw why this guy said he broke with all traditions and that all previous knowledge was out of his system after his calamity. it was only out of his consciousness cause his mind digested it and then made use of it to make his own philosophy: ti was not only an intellectual thing but it was vital. hed have died otherwise.

Attached: ugt.jpg (359x541, 31K)

You know how I know Veeky Forums is pleb? They're fascinated by UG rather than Jiddu. Wrong Krishnamurti, boys.

>UG Krishnamurti you dumb know-nothing

>he looks up pictures of writers

Spotted the pseud.

>x. he was about to have sex with his wife when his baby started crying and wouldent stop so he thought of strangeling the baby.
Why is that every single one of these types has the inner morality of a scoundrel?

fucking idiot

You should check out Gurdjieff, if you’re open minded enough (which you clearly seem you are) I think you would like him.

i did eye the wiki and it doesnt seem uninteresting but ive already found my tools. you cant cram the mind too much, gotta leave some space for something to grow.
but thanx for the reference, few times do i get interesting stuff i dont know from this board.

No problem, and I feel the same. You can only fit so much of the ocean into a cup, although I guess in a way what we want is to be poured out of our cup into the ocean. Interesting brief conversation, so thank you for that too.

You are probably like that. The average person is like that. I’ve thought things like that and admit I have the capacity to think things like that. He’s just capable of admitting it, and you’re just arrogant and sanctimonious.