“In one of your write-ups you mentioned about J Krishnamurthi..I have read quite a lot of his works..and i always felt his underline “idea” has always been to be free from all the beliefs and then one can know truly about oneself. But I fail to understand, how can one do that…isn’t getting rid from the beliefs also a belief in itself?
I agree that one should constantly question their beliefs and “work” on them, but how can one not have a belief?
This question has been on my mind for quite sometime now…”
This question could be applied to the “common good.”
Thank you for your question! Please place your undivided attention into this writing and a new insight may develop. 🙂
Intellectual understanding is very limited for things which are related with “living life to the fullest.”
Avyakt7 is not saying that “intellectual understanding is bad.” No.
Intellectual understanding is “good” for “another day at the office, honey…” type of scenario. 🙂 Intellectual understanding is “good” to get your certification in Cisco routers and to successfully complete a test in a school setting, etc.
If we are trying to use our intellectual understanding to “get” what J. Krishnamurti is conveying, we will have a very vague idea, no matter how many of his books we read.
J. Krishnamurti is usually labeled as a “thinker…”
Aristotle was a thinker. Voltaire was a thinker. Descartes was a thinker. A philosopher is a thinker…we cannot say the same for men who have experienced a different level of consciousness.
“Thinking” is not the adequate word, for that thinking comes from “conditioning,” that is from the past.
Krishnamurti had insight and so, many others so-called “spiritual teachers.”
For example, whenever a person uses his intellectual ability to understand “God,” he will be like Epicurus.
His philosophy departs from a preconceived idea of who “God” is.
God is omnipotent. God is omniscient. God is this and that…
That belief “defines” his “God.” Every religion has a different belief, a different definition of their “God.”
Atheists could jump in the “bandwagon” for Epicurus has demonstrated “logically” that there is no God needed.
Epicurus have only negated his own definitions and ideas by using the game of words.
God is not a definition. A definition is not the thing.
That is the tricky aspect about relying in the logic and reasoning of intellectual understanding.
Logic and reasoning are part of the “office” environment. That is part of the “man made” artificial world of squares and triangles, cement and computers…
What is the shortest path between point A and point B?
Intellectually, we repeat. A straight line.
Bravo! That conditioning works great. However, there are no straight lines in Nature.
You may be able to pass your exam at the College near you, but at the same time; we need to be aware that we are dealing with “Disneyland knowledge,” that is something which only exists in our imagination… 🙂
With the above little preface, we could go into your question.
isn’t getting rid of beliefs also a belief in itself?”
The intellectual answer is “Yes and No.”
Do you like that? 🙂
Let us try the Zen method for intellectuals.
First get rid of all your beliefs…
Now, get rid of the belief that “getting rid of beliefs is a belief in itself…”
No more beliefs…
Now that our minds are clean from intellectual cluttering, perhaps we could share something meaningful…
When Avyakt7 refers to “get rid of beliefs,” Avyakt7 is constrained by language. The simple but dangerous “black or white” understanding may arrive for some.
“Pink pigs are able to fly.” It is a belief.
If someone tells you: “NO…you are wrong.” How do you feel about it? Do you defend yourself?
If yes. Get rid of that belief. If No… it wasn’t a belief. It was a thought… 🙂
Now, that we understand the game of beliefs, we could go further to push our own beliefs.
“Abortion is good”
What do you think?
If you disagree with me, that is fine as long as that statement does not move you, that is as long as you don’t put your energy to defend yourself or your position.
The issue with beliefs is not whether they are “right or wrong” that is debatable intellectual morality. The issue is to discover what moves you into some uncomfortable setting, something that gets you out of a peaceful self.
Let us try another one.
“God does not exist.”
Did it move you? Do you feel like defending God or rather your belief about God? 🙂
The opposite holds true. If you tell an atheist (someone who has labeled himself as “not believing in God”) that “God exists,” that person may strongly argue with you if he has identified with his beliefs.
On the other hand, if not he will carry on as a “normal” peaceful person, acknowledging your statement without “believing” in it…
How is that possible?
We shouldn’t forget that we are dealing with “perceptions of reality” and everyone is entitled to their beliefs. The problem is when we identify with them by REJECTING anything else.
That rejection in life will bring a lesson from life to learn to be open. ( As many other articles here explained that.)
Because there is oneness in openness. If we reject a part of life, we reject ourselves.
One more time, life is not interested in how “right or wrong” we are in our beliefs. That is of no consequence once we understand that we are dealing with perceptions.
Now… comes Mr. Intellectual and asks:
“You are saying that reality is a perception, right? Isn’t that another perception?”
And then… Avyakt7 will reply like his friend Mathias taught him:
“Yes and No.”
And if that doesn’t do the trick, then Avyakt7 will go back to the “Zen method” for intellectuals….
Any teaching that comes from insight is not to be taken intellectually. We could get lost in words, concepts and definitions by doing so.
Those teachings are meant to be used as a mirror to look at ourselves. Once we do that, we could “understand without understanding…”
Paradoxes are beyond logic and reasoning.
Life is a beautiful paradox. 🙂
Peter saw a wasp in one of the walls inside his room. Immediately, he brought a broom and smashed the little wasp. Peter felt good about it. He got rid of a potential harmful insect who could sting him at anytime. He may be allergic to its poison. That sting could have been very painful, he thought. Even though, Peter haven’t experienced what is like to be stung by a wasp in “real life” his belief in the painful experience, his belief in a “harmful insect” was predominant.
In Peter’s mind, he has done “something good” for him.
Carlos watched a wasp in his room. He immediately thought on how to collect that wasp to put it outside his room. Carlos watched the wasp and picked up a broom to get the wasp within his reach. The wasp was up-high in the wall. Carlos observed how the wasp didn’t have any energy left. Apparently the wasp was in the room for a long time, probably trying to get out. The wasp calmly step into the end of the broom and Carlos was able to open the window, maneuver the broom to go outside the window and let the wasp go.
Carlos didn’t feel good nor bad about this, but he felt that he wanted to help. Carlos believed that this wasp wanted to get out and even though he knew about the possibility of being stung, he offered the opportunity to the wasp to be free again. Nevertheless, Carlos felt “good,” a nice flowing feeling within.
In the above, we see different scenarios. None of them is “good” nor “bad.” There certainly will be consequences to be experienced which in turn will be further “teachings” in life.
Peter acted with fear. That fear transformed itself into violence. Nevertheless, in his mind his action was “good,” that is his belief; but as far as life is concerned he may need to experience that fear and violence which he sent out.
Yeah.. it is “bad karma”…Right?
Nope, it is called “learning” for those who are able to.
Carlos on the other hand, will experience the consequence of being open and having empathy to other beings which are part of the totality of life. Perhaps his action would have changed if he saw 100 wasps in his room! Maybe… but that is not part of his reality, thus to think in that possibility is an empty thought. Every “reality” will appear according to what we need to experience.
A wasp is neither good nor bad. Please see how we are the ones labeling that insect. It is like labeling a snake to be the devil, or to be “bad.” That is just a belief. When we agree to let that belief inside ourselves that belief becomes our way to see the world.
“… and then the serpent spoke to Eve and told her to give the apple to Adam…”
Please see that “reality” is neutral. It is the dance of the movement of the forces of yin and yang, duality. It is intended to achieve something so its complementary force could arrive in its own time, thus maintaining the balance in the totality of life.
You live what you believe. No matter what it is. This belief could be a religious dogma, it could be a belief about someone or something or even about ourselves.
Nothing exists in our mind as “good or bad” until we believe it to be either way. Obviously there are consequences for everything, but those consequences cannot be labeled as “good or bad” either, because those consequences will bring benefit in one way or another. Some need a little teaching. Others more than that.
Many times, like Peter; we could create stories in our mind. To see a wasp in the wall could bring so many different stories to many individuals… Moreover, when those stories are recurrent and go to the extreme, then there could be an issue with our minds.
The problem is not being able to realize this, to be able to see it in us.
Any type of behavior which is non-harmonious with the totality, has some belief in it which is not allowing harmony to emerge by itself.
Any experience when made into a “trauma” creates a belief which generalizes into something.
If Roger experienced being bitten by a dog, then “all dogs are bad.” 🙂
We can only hope that sanity will be experienced in Roger’s mind. Only a mind blessed with sanity could take advantage of a situation, that is make it a teaching, an experience in the spiritual path of opening our hearts to the totality of life.
To that which we all belong to.