Me and Steve were talking about meditation

[ding dong]

Me and Steve talked on the phone about meditation today. We were doing a bit of note comparing, and I told him how I thought that if we go into meditation looking for something to happen - a big payola - then meditation is not possible. Here is a video I saw recently of J. Krishnamurti saying much the same thing.

Time to watch: 20 minutes

[ding dong]

This guy, Lahiri Mahasaya's grandson, seems to be giving it pretty straight too...


https://www.vibby.com/watch?vib=Qy9ycjzRW

[Jitendra Hydonus]

i am not a practitioner of T.M. so i can not comment. He signals out this form of meditation. The meditation i practiced from Amma came without a cost and the cost of the meditation techniques by Yogananda were the price of mailing and printing. Krishnamurti speaks of the costs. What did he charge to see him? Krishnamurti asks the question what is the motive of meditation? My answer for me is happiness and i find happiness at various levels during meditation.

His 'technique' of walking is also used by Buddhists; 'walking meditation.' When one meditates the energy from the body withdraws and soul consciousness instead of body consciousness begins. Krshnamurti talks about stopping the mind from chattering. This is precisely what takes place while meditating deeply. 'If you listen to the mind rationally. When you listen to the mind it becomes silent. Scientists must have quiet minds while investigating. Can we do the same?'

'Begin at the rational level by walking, standing and sitting.' He says. i see nothing wrong with his 'technique' for listening to the mind and silencing it. However i would like to go beyond mind. For me this requires a tremendous stillness which cannot be accomplished by walking or standing. The breath actually is slowed down and may even be stopped. This is not possible for me while standing or walking. The physical body is still very active and requires  maintenance at the very biological level while standing or walking with this bodily activity going on the mind becomes quickly distracted by sounds and the senses which are activated by pains, aches and changes in environment and sensory stimulation. Endless sensory information coming in at the conscious level while walking etc. distract the attention from focusing and interiorizing. Observing the mind is one thing but to still the mind is something entirely different.


My solution is to get beyond both the body and mind as much as possible and to focus without distractions from the environment. These distractions are quite obvious in the method  Krishnamurti gives. While there is benefit in what he prescribes for observing the mind i see it as very limited as compared to being in meditation. It reminds me of hearing people try to tell me they are meditating while for instance fishing. It is quite evident they have had no real meditation; while they might have had a peaceful afternoon. We can speak of observing the mind which is a helpful spiritual practice. However when he compares a meditation technique with observing the mind he is missing a key point. That is that true meditation is more then observing the mind. It is only one part of the whole practice.

Me and Steve talked on the phone about meditation today. We were doing a bit of note comparing, and I told him how I thought that if we go into meditation looking for something to happen - a big payola - then meditation is not possible. Here is a video I saw recently of J. Krishnamurti saying much the same thing.

Time to watch: 20 minutes

[ding dong]

Finding it harder and harder to deny what J. Krishnamurti is saying. 



He's right. 

[Jitendra Hydonus]

How do we know he is speaking the truth?

[SI]

How do we know if any guru or any scripture is truth?

[ding dong]

@Steve, of course. I think someone has to be already at the point of asking that question (about everyone) to understand what Krishnamurti is saying.

I posted the videos of Krishnamurti, not because I think he is some great savior, but because I think he is speaking with a lot of precision and clarity in these videos. What he's saying sorta just seems painfully obvious to me.

@SI, It seems to me that every scripture is useless insofar is it is something you merely agree with or disagree with, believe or disbelieve. That process is very shallow.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

How do we know if any guru or any scripture is truth?

By practicing what they say and see if it is truth for you.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

@Steve, of course. I think someone has to be already at the point of asking that question (about everyone) to understand what Krishnamurti is saying.

I posted the videos of Krishnamurti, not because I think he is some great savior, but because I think he is speaking with a lot of precision and clarity in these videos. What he's saying sorta just seems painfully obvious to me.

@SI, It seems to me that every scripture is useless insofar is it is something you merely agree with or disagree with, believe or disbelieve. That process is very shallow.

If it is obvious for u and works for u then follow it or listen to it. What certain gurus say to me is obvious. Different strokes for different folks.

[SI]

By practicing what they say and see if it is truth for you.

Well that may be only true for how truth is found for you.

Much spiritual truth seems to rely on pure faith alone, even if one says they have intuition.

[ding dong]

You are the ultimate authority on everything, whether you like it or not. It is us who decides which gurus are right and which wrong, and how much, and so on. It was always us. You are a light unto yourself whether you like it or not. That's the only light there ever is or ever was or ever will be. I believe that when all is said and done one finds oneself utterly alone.

 

[Jitendra Hydonus]

By practicing what they say and see if it is truth for you.

Well that may be only true for how truth is found for you.

Much spiritual truth seems to rely on pure faith alone, even if one says they have intuition.

Faith is the proof of things unseen the  knowledge of things unknown.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

You are the ultimate authority on everything, whether you like it or not. It is us who decides which gurus are right and which wrong, and how much, and so on. It was always us. You are a light unto yourself whether you like it or not. That's the only light there ever is or ever was or ever will be. I believe that when all is said and done one finds oneself utterly alone.

We may be a flame that is hard to ignite without the rite conditions. A fire can much easier ignite if it has the rite wood and for instance birch bark and kindling to start it but without the rite ingredients it can lie dormant for years if not centuries. The guru provides the rite elements for me and many others that ignites the spiritual flame.

[mccoy]

How do we know if any guru or any scripture is truth?

First of all, a 'Guru' must have credibility. A couple of examples of gurus or self-proclaimed gurus who lost all credibility: Osho and Kryiananda. Credibility is defined by a set of conditions which must be satisfied

[mccoy]

Personally, I of course found Yogananda credible, even though I realized, by cross references, that he tends to depict facts in a glamorous way in his Autobiography. A tad too glamorous, but there he has the specific purpose to attract the right people people.
Likewise, Sri Yukteswar is totally credible, even though some of his  scientific explanations appear simplified or oversimplified by the present development of science.
These prophets have mantained a reputation of credibility in their lives. Even though there have been people who tried to slander them heavily.

Un-likewise, Kryiananda has turned out to be a self-conscious, self-aggrandizing, materially-inclined, very poor excuse of a guru.

Osho has turned out to be even worse than Kryiananda, although the latter would have liked to possess the material riches and the favour of as many female disciples as OSHO enjoyed.

Whatever these false prophets have told, I regard everything as a manifestation of Satan, half truth, half lies. Best to disregard them totally.

@ Steve: the astrological book by Kryiananda has most probably been written copying the material of other authors and possibly it has been written by some female disciples of him (female whom he probably slept with while letting himself called a 'monk').