Ugk

[Davidallany]

Its a pity the sound quality is not better.

I agree that the sound quality is not that good, however the video is still watchable. Thank you for your input Mr.greybeared.

[Milneman]

Ok I'd like to try and unpack what I just saw. To qualify, I am a meditator, but not in what would be considered the eastern traditions.

When Krishnamurti (UGK) was 49, he experienced something physical that had he perceived as having no mystical or religious content to it. It was simply another, as he says, phenomenological experience of sensation. He questions, what makes me different than the enlightened people everyone speaks about (currently and historically I'm assuming). When questioned by the interviewer, he emphasizes again that what he experienced, again, what a sense experience (which seems to make me perceive that the experience he has was empirical in nature, that it could possibly be measured somehow, be it electrical impulses in the brain, biochemical reactions, etc). Holding this belief has several problems however which I will address after unpacking the interview (which sound cut off just after the mirror comments, so I will withhold making any remarks about his interview at that point).

He says there is no such thing as a new experience, which I take to mean that every experience comes with an input of sense perception and an output of biochemical reactions that are confused as pleasure, or interpreted as pleasure. We constantly seek new experience which will produce a higher output of pleasure. Spiritual experiences, then, are not higher experiences but just other empirical experiences which we falsely qualify, and which "gurus" or "teachers" take advantage of by emphasizing this false representation. Gurus, as he puts it, are selling "pleasure goods". There is a supply and demand market for guru-ship. "If one leaves, another comes in." He does not attempt to free anyone from their beliefs, what he has experienced cannot be shared, has no value for society. What the listener brings out from what he says we bring out from our own empirical understanding of what he says. Even more interesting, he says that if we find anything false with what he says it is not because there is something false about what he is saying, but rather we are reading what he is saying incorrectly.

"I have nothing to offer....I have no meaning...if you find it, that is your tragedy."

The first issue I have is with the statement that if we find something false with what he is saying, then we are reading what he says incorrectly. The problem is, he has already claimed not to free anyone from their beliefs (for example, a belief that something he says is false), what he says can't be shared or fit into any value system (so it can't be quantified as being true or false, even though it can be experience empirically); in short, he has nothing he can share or say, and even if what he experiences is something he claims everyone already experiences empirically, it can't ever be justified because my experience can not be false, and his experience can not be false, and neither of our experiences can be shared. However we must agree, even though we cannot quantify these experiences as something shared in common, as just normal experiences every human being has but experiences which we falsely quantify as higher experiences when in truth we should be lowering them to other, pleasurable experiences.

I can't make up my mind if he's a hedonist, a marxist, a solipsist, or just someone who is saying nothing and hoping he can make something from what he is saying.

However, there's a bigger problem in including these kinds of experiences as purely empirical. If it's only a chemical response that we've falsely included as a spiritual experience, and is equal say to the chemical response of say, a sneeze, then it's purely naturalistic. Which means a higher consciousness, say God, can't have played a part in creating. This leads me to the assumption that UGK is pro porting to believe in a kind of solipsistic naturalism. The problem with this here is that if you follow this line of thinking, you are going to end up with a defeater for any experiences you claim your sense perceptions tell you. How does that work?

Following this line of thinking, our behaviour comes about because of natural selection. Natural selection is a purely random process that favours random mutations that make a species more successful. As long as the behaviour is successful, the species mutates until the mutation becomes the norm, and on it goes until another random mutation comes about. However, ideas which occur during this random mutation are....get ready for it....irrelevant to the mutation, the process, or the being in question. In other words, if UGK pro ports to believe that energy, or God, or goodness exists, it must play some part in the process which brings about these chemical reactions in our bodies that we consider spiritual. If that's not a clear enough evidence that they are, in fact, higher experiences, consider this:

If he has nothing to offer, and what he says has no meaning, why are you listening to anything he has to say about anything? He is the embodiment, in this aspect, of a self-refferentially absurd hypothesis.

Or, to put it 20 words or less, that's 15 minutes of my time I'll never get back.

[Davidallany]

Posted by Milneman (here)
Ok I'd like to try and unpack what I just saw. To qualify, I am a meditator, but not in what would be considered the eastern traditions.

When Krishnamurti (UGK) was 49, he experienced something physical that had he perceived as having no mystical or religious content to it. It was simply another, as he says, phenomenological experience of sensation. He questions, what makes me different than the enlightened people everyone speaks about (currently and historically I'm assuming). When questioned by the interviewer, he emphasizes again that what he experienced, again, what a sense experience (which seems to make me perceive that the experience he has was empirical in nature, that it could possibly be measured somehow, be it electrical impulses in the brain, biochemical reactions, etc). Holding this belief has several problems however which I will address after unpacking the interview (which sound cut off just after the mirror comments, so I will withhold making any remarks about his interview at that point).

He says there is no such thing as a new experience, which I take to mean that every experience comes with an input of sense perception and an output of biochemical reactions that are confused as pleasure, or interpreted as pleasure. We constantly seek new experience which will produce a higher output of pleasure. Spiritual experiences, then, are not higher experiences but just other empirical experiences which we falsely qualify, and which "gurus" or "teachers" take advantage of by emphasizing this false representation. Gurus, as he puts it, are selling "pleasure goods". There is a supply and demand market for guru-ship. "If one leaves, another comes in." He does not attempt to free anyone from their beliefs, what he has experienced cannot be shared, has no value for society. What the listener brings out from what he says we bring out from our own empirical understanding of what he says. Even more interesting, he says that if we find anything false with what he says it is not because there is something false about what he is saying, but rather we are reading what he is saying incorrectly.

"I have nothing to offer....I have no meaning...if you find it, that is your tragedy."

The first issue I have is with the statement that if we find something false with what he is saying, then we are reading what he says incorrectly. The problem is, he has already claimed not to free anyone from their beliefs (for example, a belief that something he says is false), what he says can't be shared or fit into any value system (so it can't be quantified as being true or false, even though it can be experience empirically); in short, he has nothing he can share or say, and even if what he experiences is something he claims everyone already experiences empirically, it can't ever be justified because my experience can not be false, and his experience can not be false, and neither of our experiences can be shared. However we must agree, even though we cannot quantify these experiences as something shared in common, as just normal experiences every human being has but experiences which we falsely quantify as higher experiences when in truth we should be lowering them to other, pleasurable experiences.

I can't make up my mind if he's a hedonist, a marxist, a solipsist, or just someone who is saying nothing and hoping he can make something from what he is saying.

However, there's a bigger problem in including these kinds of experiences as purely empirical. If it's only a chemical response that we've falsely included as a spiritual experience, and is equal say to the chemical response of say, a sneeze, then it's purely naturalistic. Which means a higher consciousness, say God, can't have played a part in creating. This leads me to the assumption that UGK is pro porting to believe in a kind of solipsistic naturalism. The problem with this here is that if you follow this line of thinking, you are going to end up with a defeater for any experiences you claim your sense perceptions tell you. How does that work?

Following this line of thinking, our behaviour comes about because of natural selection. Natural selection is a purely random process that favours random mutations that make a species more successful. As long as the behaviour is successful, the species mutates until the mutation becomes the norm, and on it goes until another random mutation comes about. However, ideas which occur during this random mutation are....get ready for it....irrelevant to the mutation, the process, or the being in question. In other words, if UGK pro ports to believe that energy, or God, or goodness exists, it must play some part in the process which brings about these chemical reactions in our bodies that we consider spiritual. If that's not a clear enough evidence that they are, in fact, higher experiences, consider this:

If he has nothing to offer, and what he says has no meaning, why are you listening to anything he has to say about anything? He is the embodiment, in this aspect, of a self-refferentially absurd hypothesis.

Or, to put it 20 words or less, that's 15 minutes of my time I'll never get back.

Let us assume for a moment that UGK had reached a state of knowing, but he was not able to teach it, because he didn't know how to. There are beings called Pratekya Buddhas. They are those that reach enlightenment through their own efforts without following instruction from another teacher, but who are either not able to or prefer not to teach others what they have discovered for their own reasons.

UGK mentioned that all of us seek pleasures and that what he had found can not be taught because it is in the area of experience, besides it has no value for society according to him. His experience is the candy that he withheld from us, the kids, because it has no value to us, or maybe he just doesn't want to share it?!

He sure does say a lot, for a person who doesn't want to say anything. Ok so he has experienced something that he doesn't want to or is unable to share with the rest, to me this seems to be either laziness, carelessness or an inability or all of these together.

UGK makes it clear that he doesn't want to bother with those of us who are not fortunate enough to know what he presumably knew saying that "....it is their tragedy"

He said that there was nothing extraordinary about him, but to whom? to himself or to others? He did mention something about repetitive experiences that we seek out of boredom. Now if he had the ability to do things that we couldn't do yet, and that he was doing those things all the time, then that is surely something that was not extraordinary to him any longer.

[greybeard]

As far as organic change goes pre enlightenment and sometimes post enlightenment.
Several have spoken of this---seemingly the body is made ready to accept a higher spiritual vibration--- this may be Kundalini or other wise.
Spontaneous Kundalini awakening within my own experience.
His response to the interviewers question regarding Kundalini a bit vague.


Chris

[markpierre]

Posted by Davidallany (here)

The enlightened see everything as enlightened.

Possibly, I can't say that what you're suggesting is true. I find it hard to talk about things without a frame of reference. Isn't it a dogma to take what others say for face value without actually experiencing the thing itself first?

Back to topic. I highly appreciate everybody's input, especially non- meditaters' on the UGK video.

Okay, I'll just affirm it for you. It's true. You don't even need to be enlightened. Somebody made that word up when somebody else said,
'ya, it's like the light comes on.'

[markpierre]

Posted by Milneman (here)


"I have nothing to offer....I have no meaning...if you find it, that is your tragedy."

The first issue I have is with the statement that if we find something false with what he is saying, then we are reading what he says incorrectly. The problem is, he has already claimed not to free anyone from their beliefs (for example, a belief that something he says is false), what he says can't be shared or fit into any value system (so it can't be quantified as being true or false, even though it can be experience empirically); in short, he has nothing he can share or say, and even if what he experiences is something he claims everyone already experiences empirically, it can't ever be justified because my experience can not be false, and his experience can not be false, and neither of our experiences can be shared. However we must agree, even though we cannot quantify these experiences as something shared in common, as just normal experiences every human being has but experiences which we falsely quantify as higher experiences when in truth we should be lowering them to other, pleasurable experiences.

That's a nice paragraph.
He isn't believing anything. He's communicating with a world where 'belief' seems to be everything, or at least enough. He's trying hard as hell
to express what he experienced/experiences, and knows perfectly well that anything he says isn't going to be it. Not only that, someone who is
virtually anyone and everyone, is going to run off and piece up a dogma from it and miss it entirely. And here we are. He always seems to try
to arrest that if he can. How the hell can anyone agree or disagree with someone else's experience? You're you. You said it beautifully.
You're experiences are elegantly exclusive to you. And they are shared. Nothing is not shared. The mind that's preoccupied won't notice it.
It's also the mind that thinks 'enlightenment' is a big deal. Or believes there is such a thing. It's a belief. It either is or it's a belief.
I like UG's 'natural state'.

That's why he resisted teaching. "I have nothing to teach" is a pretty good excuse. It's also a pretty profound teaching.
"what he experiences is something he claims everyone already experiences empirically" is what any other real teacher will tell you.
The ability to give everything it's meaning. You and only you, is where you haven't been looking. The meaning giver.
The place you didn't search for your keys; the ignition. They had to be somewhere other than the obvious. I'm not speaking for UG. I'm speaking for me.
Being in your 'natural state' is pretty useful wherever you find yourself. Searching for it is not a natural state. Living among things that
aren't clear in their purpose, and needing you to give them meaning, is not a natural state. Dwelling uncomfortably in the effects of those meanings,
is not a natural state.

When someone reaches the point where he knows that what he is, is more intimate and personal than can be communicated externally,
they usually shut up. There are more people like that than you think. Be careful when you presume that no one around you is in that
experience, maybe seemingly not aware of it. But everyone has those moments, and usually dismiss them.
You won't be aware they are, until you are.

People do get hooked on ecstatic experiences. People get hooked on imagining them. How they view themselves, and feel in their
moment to moment isn't good enough. It doesn't seem to contain any love and acceptance and freedom. Where does that come from?
So they go looking for enlightened ones. Someone else thinks they know who is and who isn't.
Dress up in white or orange and hang around with those guys.

Where the 'thinking' mind is and what it's doing doesn't reflect anything true or real. Eventually it quiets down. I don't know if it ever entirely
stops muttering it's viewpoints. I don't really care if I know that it's the reasoning mind that conjures up grief. Doing what it does.

[Davidallany]

Okay, I'll just affirm it for you. It's true. You don't even need to be enlightened. Somebody made that word up when somebody else said,
'ya, it's like the light comes on.'

Ok, I will admit it. That made me laugh.

[Davidallany]

After considering what UGK was saying I came to the conclusion that what he was referring to was that the problem is with actively seeking experiences rather than just relaxing (being) in what one has in the now.
He was saying that everyone already has it, but we choose to constantly chase something else, rather than resting (being) in the now, just because of boredom.

[Milneman]

Or...alternatively...stop trying to get other people to tell you what to do, and do what you know what you should innately.

I have to admit having slept on this, he has many ideas that are (if only vaguely) akin to Reformed Epistemology.

[Johnny]

Posted by Davidallany (here)
What are your thoughts on UGK's commentaries in this video? Everyone's input is welcomed especially from those who are no meditateres.
UGK says that anything learned is just an obstacle and distraction for our won salvation. He also suggests that a noticeable physiological change is felt before reaching true freedom.

I like him, and I agree about what he is saying. In this video, he is kind and accommodating, but he can be a harsh person to his surroundings

Since the thread's name is Ugk, then allow me to put another video in the thread, that could have under the title:

"There are thoughts, forget about the thinker".

This video made ​​me laugh in a sad way, if possible

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=T7qLZFWAgQ8

Johnny

[Davidallany]

"There are thoughts, forget about the thinker".

This is a good idea. But why forget about the thinker? how does one forget about the thinker? and who is the thinker?

[Davidallany]

Posted by Milneman (here)
Or...alternatively...stop trying to get other people to tell you what to do, and do what you know what you should innately.

I have to admit having slept on this, he has many ideas that are (if only vaguely) akin to Reformed Epistemology.

Does that apply to a person who grows up with monkey away from any human contact in the forest?

[Johnny]

Posted by Davidallany (here)

"There are thoughts, forget about the thinker".

This is a good idea. But why forget about the thinker? how does one forget about the thinker? and who is the thinker?

But why forget about the thinker?

UGK say it in the video.

how does one forget about the thinker?

Have you forgot have to forget ??? (just kidding )

and who is the thinker?

Perhaps he considers that the thinker is a thought in itself ! I can agree with that.

Remember we have learned all the words. You have learned the Spanish words, I learned the Danish words and so on, and if we use pictures or will express feelings, then we interprets them in words.

The 'YOU' is before we learned the words. I know it sounds crazy, but I do not know how else to say it. And it is THAT 'YOU' we need to know (about), But on the other hand we ARE that you, and that have very little to do with

Johnny

[Milneman]

Posted by Davidallany (here)

Posted by Milneman (here)
Or...alternatively...stop trying to get other people to tell you what to do, and do what you know what you should innately.

I have to admit having slept on this, he has many ideas that are (if only vaguely) akin to Reformed Epistemology.

Does that apply to a person who grows up with monkey away from any human contact in the forest?

David,

Sorry but if you found any meaning in what I was saying that would bring about questions such as the one you're asking, I'm afraid that's your tragedy.

[Davidallany]

Posted by Milneman (here)

Posted by Davidallany (here)

Posted by Milneman (here)
Or...alternatively...stop trying to get other people to tell you what to do, and do what you know what you should innately.

I have to admit having slept on this, he has many ideas that are (if only vaguely) akin to Reformed Epistemology.

Does that apply to a person who grows up with monkey away from any human contact in the forest?

David,

Sorry but if you found any meaning in what I was saying that would bring about questions such as the one you're asking, I'm afraid that's your tragedy.

I didn't, although it is still my tragedy which is why I threw in that question. Now that is really tragic.

[greybeard]

Posted by Johnny (here)

Posted by Davidallany (here)

"There are thoughts, forget about the thinker".

This is a good idea. But why forget about the thinker? how does one forget about the thinker? and who is the thinker?

But why forget about the thinker?

UGK say it in the video.

how does one forget about the thinker?

Have you forgot have to forget ??? (just kidding )

and who is the thinker?

Perhaps he considers that the thinker is a thought in itself ! I can agree with that.

Remember we have learned all the words. You have learned the Spanish words, I learned the Danish words and so on, and if we use pictures or will express feelings, then we interprets them in words.

The 'YOU' is before we learned the words. I know it sounds crazy, but I do not know how else to say it. And it is THAT 'YOU' we need to know (about), But on the other hand we ARE that you, and that have very little to do with

Johnny

Hi Johnny.
I particular I agree that the moment words come into use the "You" is lost.
Every word brings some kind of identification, judgement, concept, belief, sooner or later.

Eckhart Tolle jokes--It all starts with you name---pretend for moment or two that you dont have a name.

The opening video seems to suggest that you throw everything up in the air.
ACIM says that all thoughts are untrue.
Whatever a lot of things have to be let go of.

Chris

[Johnny]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Hi Johnny.
I particular I agree that the moment words come into use the "You" is lost.
Every word brings some kind of identification, judgement, concept, belief, sooner or later.

Eckhart Tolle jokes--It all starts with you name---pretend for moment or two that you dont have a name.

The opening video seems to suggest that you throw everything up in the air.
ACIM says that all thoughts are untrue.
Whatever a lot of things have to be let go of.

Chris

Hi (again) Chris

Thanks for your reply.

Eckhart Tolle jokes--It all starts with you name---pretend for moment or two that you dont have a name.

Yes, our name is a kind of joke, I usually say: "My mom certain my name should be Johnny and the entire cosmos had to obey it."

ACIM says that all thoughts are untrue.

Try to see the truth in the untruth.

Whatever a lot of things have to be let go of.

That is where discernment comes in, not as a conclusion, but as a beingness, also called awareness It also removes the confusion about "Johnny and the I". (mostly )

Kindly regards Johnny

[Milneman]

I had to really process this over the last couple of days.

If he's sincere, he's a solipsist, in which case we're all just figments of his imagination and we should treat him well because once he goes, we all go.

OR

He's a sophist.

I'm going with solipsist myself. In which case...well....yah...end of discussion really.

[skamandar]

Posted by Davidallany (here)
What are your thoughts on UGK's commentaries in this video? Everyone's input is welcomed especially from those who are no meditateres.
UGK says that anything learned is just an obstacle and distraction for our won salvation. He also suggests that a noticeable physiological change is felt before reaching true freedom.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bMTeNfOd45I

In short, what I feel he thinks is:
I AM SO FED UP!!!
Don't ask stupid questions if possible, because this is spamming and trolling me.
Go experience more and speak less.
I need more people willing to play with me, otherwise the boredom of being surrounded with sleeping people will make me leave the planet.
That's all what the video is about.

[kirolak]

Apropos of nothing really, when I was a small child I used to drive my mother mad by earnestly saying, "Everything that is, is; and everything that is not, IS not." It was the beginning of my feud with the verbs "to be" (2 of them in spanish) & in UG I found an echo of that feeling.