Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Loneliness

krishnamurti-teachings.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 190 posts

Re: On Loneliness

#141

Post by placebo »

problems wrote: post #111
EricDeb wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spiritual inquiry of this nature is not completely illogical. It's frequently shown that the free will humans believe they have is an illusion, and the topic of identification of the ego is revered enough to be included in psychiatric textbooks. The concept of consciousness is very pertinent to AI. I believe these topics are relevant enough.

> Spiritual inquiry of this nature is not completely illogical. Source? I cannot name a time when it has produced meaningful and repeatable results. Therefore I'd say it's illogical.

I assume you trust logic and empirical tests. Here's something that is both repeatable, and as empirical as it gets. Consider every instance of knowing anything "objectively". You will notice that consistently it is always first and foremost a subjective experience. You can't get around it. Thought is very quick to dissect, categorise, extrapolate etc. and then you create a division of the thinker, which you take to be yourself, and the things "out there" which are separate from you. You take your understanding of the world as absolute truth, while spiritual giants, dared to dig much deeper in a manner no less scientific than the greatest scientists the west has known, only directed it inwards instead of outwards and arrived at understandings which are no less remarkable than what scientists have. The difference is that they can't demonstrate it by getting a rover to mars, but by becoming totally free of any form of suffering caused by an incorrect understanding of reality, which I dare say is at least as impressive.

Re: On Loneliness

#142

Post by vram22 »

the_nozzle wrote: post #102
vram22 wrote: post #56

Anecdote: Years ago I attended a talk by him at a large open ground in Chennai. Many people including some bigwigs were present. A few memories: - at one point he said, "burn all books, including those of the speaker / author". He used to refer to himself like that, not with "I" or "me" or "mine". - at one point, in some context, he used the words "over the table, under the table" - before he could even complete the…

Knowing that "Wherever they burn books, in the end will also burn human beings." (Heinrich Heine) I am curious of the context ..

Interesting question; I did not think anyone would interpret my quote of JK in the way you seem to have. But yours is certainly a valid possible interpretation, though not the right one, IMO.

To make it clear: I do not think he meant it at all in the way you think - your interpretation is something like the burning of the Library of Alexandria or other such vandalizing acts. I am pretty sure JK meant it something like this:

Do not (slavishly) rely on books to form your opinions; think (critically) for yourself.

Nothing else.

Buddha is supposed to have said much the same - per a book I read:

Appo deepo bhava

which is Pali or Prakrit for:

Be a light unto yourself.

Edit: orasis (sibling comment) probably said it better than me; it's just that in Indian thought, knowledge (jnana) is supposed to be one of the paths. Bhakti (devotion, e.g. Meera) and karma (action, e.g. Arjuna) are two among some others.

Re: On Loneliness

#143

Post by problems »

placebo wrote: post #141
problems wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spiritual inquiry of this nature is not completely illogical. Source? I cannot name a time when it has produced meaningful and repeatable results. Therefore I'd say it's illogical.

I assume you trust logic and empirical tests. Here's something that is both repeatable, and as empirical as it gets. Consider every instance of knowing anything "objectively". You will notice that consistently it is always first and foremost a subjective experience. You can't get around it. Thought is very quick to dissect, categorise, extrapolate etc. and then you create a division of the thinker, which you take to…

They say they're free from suffering, maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but they can't tell me how to repeat that in a way I can reproduce for myself. Which is my entire point. Maybe something worked for them, but won't work for me or vice versa.

Results that can't be replicated and aren't predictive aren't really results at all. Not in a logical or meaningful way. They're just claims. Bizarre and baseless claims.

Re: On Loneliness

#144

Post by projektir »

blueprint wrote: post #113

Of course I'm going to get flamed for this but this guy has written a bunch of nonsense. "Love and emptiness cannot abide together; when there is the feeling of loneliness, love is not. " 1. Emptiness is not the same thing as loneliness. 2. If you feel anything bad while you think you feel empty then that's not actual emptiness. 3. When you practice true love for others it makes you lonely because it makes everyone a…

I'm having similar problems understanding your post as I do with understanding his writings.

This discussion would have probably been a lot more productive if either of you defined what in the world do you mean by "love"/"true love", because you're using a lot of the emotional load typically placed there to define concepts that seem to be different.

Re: On Loneliness

#145

Post by projektir »

JayHost wrote: post #96
dean wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So...everything you do, no matter how selfless, is actually selfish if you look closely enough?

Enlightened self interest. The idea that if we help each other when we are in a position to. (Low cost for us. High cost for other). Also don't cost others suffering. How you look at it. Are we being selfish or selfless is up to your personal preference of optimism / skepticism. It doesn't really matter. Ideally if you believe in a type of consciousness rebirth - Likely not taking anything from past life but as we we…

This seems like a much more concrete perspective than anything I've seen in the article. Is it derived from Krishnamurti's teachings or something of your own?

Re: On Loneliness

#146

Post by ZenoArrow »

armitron wrote: post #126
ZenoArrow wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why is it necessary to follow this or that belief system to get to something so obvious? Why is it necessary to read up on this school of thought or another when the only thing they can teach you is they have nothing to teach you?

Because there's a difference between intellectual understanding of the Self or non-dualism as a concept, and actually manifesting that "truth" by living it. Or as someone once wrote: Philosophical truths are transmitted through "praxis", not like pieces of eight. You've spent years conditioned to think a certain way, decades building that self-model you call "you". These associations will not be destroyed easily, jus…

Let's put it like this. The main benefits of self-inquiry are not tied to one school of thought. To observe the change in ones thoughts and senses with equanimity does not require anything from old scriptures.

The reason Hindu/Vedantic systems and other systems of spirituality have extra merit is not in what they teach per se, but in the sense of pleasure we get from their poetic expression, and from feeling connected to other practitioners.

That's not to say schools of spirituality have no merit, they do have merit as a social construct, but in terms of self-exploration all you really need is the basic technique and some time to do it.

Re: On Loneliness

#147

Post by contingencies »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #123
paolomaffei wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a Buddhist would say that just in the same way that a rock evolves into a human, a human evolves into a Buddha.

In the sense that a rock remains a rock, and a human remains a human. Does the direct answer gets someone to the truth just as easily as speaking in riddles?

I believe only Chinese Chan (which evolved in to Japanese Zen, and similar Korean and Vietnamese traditions) uses the dramatic "mental conundrum provides sudden enlightenment" approach. The rest of Buddhism apparently generally considers needlessly verbose or obtuse speech to be unskilled and counter to progress. Indeed, it could be argued that speech - with some exceptions - is generally discouraged.

Re: On Loneliness

#148

Post by ZenoArrow »

tech_browser wrote: post #138
ZenoArrow wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why is it necessary to follow this or that belief system to get to something so obvious? Why is it necessary to read up on this school of thought or another when the only thing they can teach you is they have nothing to teach you?

There is no need. Note that every person has a different conditioning of the mind and not everyone reacts in the same manner to a philosophical statement. Consider several pieces of firewood, each with a varying degree of dryness. Each of them will react differently when ignited with a spark. The process of understanding the Self requires a teacher, at least in the beginning stages. There are exceptions to the norm,…

>"The process of understanding the Self requires a teacher, at least in the beginning stages."

My question is, why? What does the student gain from this when the path is one of self-study?

Re: On Loneliness

#149

Post by contingencies »

eternalban wrote: post #41
0xFFC wrote: post #19

I am very curious about what people on HN do think about 1.OSHO 2.Sadhguru

There are quite a lot of gems out there in various cultures. Have you read Chuang Tzu? He's deeply insightful. But a word of caution that the effect of mere words wears off, and more seriously, it is trivial to misunderstand the intended meaning of these various masters. When I was young, it chafed me to read about the novice-master relationship (which is stressed in almost all spiritual schools regardless of time or…

Experience is the master and the truth.

He who controls the data controls the learner. - @pmddomingos

Re: On Loneliness

#150

Post by blueprint »

projektir wrote: post #144
blueprint wrote: post #113

Of course I'm going to get flamed for this but this guy has written a bunch of nonsense. "Love and emptiness cannot abide together; when there is the feeling of loneliness, love is not. " 1. Emptiness is not the same thing as loneliness. 2. If you feel anything bad while you think you feel empty then that's not actual emptiness. 3. When you practice true love for others it makes you lonely because it makes everyone a…

I'm having similar problems understanding your post as I do with understanding his writings. This discussion would have probably been a lot more productive if either of you defined what in the world do you mean by "love"/"true love", because you're using a lot of the emotional load typically placed there to define concepts that seem to be different.

> I'm having similar problems understanding your post as I do with understanding his writings.

How do you confirm the similarity of the problems? One thing's for sure - I can help you get more concrete understanding the more you ask me concrete questions and check. The same cannot be said of Krishnamurti's teaching as his words cannot be verified (they lack verifiable problems). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like. If you want to do something good for yourself or society I'll be happy to see if I can help identify the causes and the way to the result you want.

> This discussion would have probably been a lot more productive if either of you defined what in the world do you mean by "love"/"true love"

You probably just missed it, but I certainly did define it concretely… unless you replied before reading my entire post. You have to be on your guard for whether you can confirm how well you really understand the definition. It took me a long time to see it, myself.

Post reply on HN