Is it possible to prove U.G. Krishnamurti wrong?

now why did you do that user

is it possible to prove the existence of an interesting conversation about ug krishnamurti

i'm dissapointed

probably

yes: he cant be proved right.

Either way, his words are completely useless to all of us. It's like what Wittgenstein said about the lion. Or in this case, a dog.

He seems angrier than I would have expected....

useless for eating and shitting and reproducing you mean?

Do you even need to? he is speaking of something that lies outside experience. it is at the same level of religion. pure irrelevant speculation for those with too much time on their hands.

>he is speaking of something that lies outside experience
other way around

>it is at the same level of religion
I don't think this means anything

>speculation
you just pick whatever words sound good to you

> implying anybody here understands him at all

I'd be surprised desu

read more than the wikipedia please.

>implying he understood it

Yes, useless to that, and useless in any other way too.

>read more than the wikipedia please.
I read more than your mum

now make some other random remark instead of trying to communicate

so you are looking for tools to do something? what is that?

btw I don't see how you connect the lion to this guy, cause the lion you wouldn't understand, and this guy you can understand...

I don't think any of us can truly "understand" old U.G.. Another reference that always comes to my mind when talking about U.G. is Plato's cave story. U.G. is out of the cave, but we're still in it. As for what I'm talking about as far as uselessness, many of us would like to leave the cave, or at least think we would like to, and U.G. seems like he could help, but really he can't. Can't help, can't teach, can't nothing. That's why I compared him to Wittgenstein's lion, or a dog barking. It's like asking an animal how to achieve the mindset of an animal.

Am I expressing myself well? Please note, I'm no U.G. expert. I may have an idea of him in my head that is different from what I would find him to be if I looked into him more.

oh god... ok: one of his few ever repeating phrases is that all we experience is built by thought for its own continuity and that what he is talking about lies outside that experience. he says that if you stumble upon it then that 'you' disappears.

now, if you say 'the other way round' it means you havent read any of it.