Is the way of acceptance the same as the way of the revolutionary?Subscribe |
|
Sun, 06/29/2008 - 08:51
|
|
Julian Kingman
Join Date: 2005-03-16 Forum Posts: 186 |
I have been puzzled by this question for some time. The question became clear in a talk VM Belzebuub gave recently in qwhich he said he had followed the teachings of Krishnamurti for a short time but found it to be circular and not lead to significant inner change. This got me thinking because up to that point, I had found the teachings of Krishnamurti to be much more resonant with my experiences. I would be thinking about something and read it in a book of his, I could open to any page and see my thoughts reflected back at me and could almost use the books as meditation. However, I´m not sure that any of it fundamentally changed my psychology, especially as that is something only I can do, in the end. I´ve found similar things with Eckhart Tolle, Pema Chodron, and other people who preach the way of acceptance and love. |
|
|
Join Date: 2005-01-26
Forum Posts: 862
If Mr. Pritchard was like I am now, he probably didn't care what Krishnamurti taught because he knew what he had to do and it ultimately involved not believing anyone else but one's own Being.
Similar to why Samael revered Krishnamurti, because he said Krishnamurti figured it out on his own and never studied under anyone else.
I think you're drawing a comparison between the Atman and Buddhic aspects of being which complete each other and work together. Buddhic Compassion is not complacency with ego/selfishness/evil, and Atman uses compassion in a revolutionary way.
If anyone can reply and add to this, go for it!
*********************
..."is the path of self-acceptance the same as the path of the revolutionary ..."
- I don't know if anyone can accept their "selves" and then be able to change anything.
Here is my Kabbalistic answer why:
To be complacent with our own evil, should we even realize it, is a crime.
This is an inverted aspect of the sephirot Gedulah, something said the demon Baal employs although I have not cared enough to verify what he does. According to Belzebuub, he's had a run in with him before so you can ask him...
The inverted (klippothic / empty) aspects of the sephirot are the spiral path along the abyss.
I hope that didn't go over anyone's head.
It is important to understand the tree of life and comprehend it's intricate and deeper meanings. Gnosticweb doesn't teach the sephirot directly but shows us how to realize and utilize the tool of esoteric experience. Then we can apply it on our own if we want to learn other things like the Tree of Life. We will be able to come to know it more intricately.
Join Date: 2005-03-16
Forum Posts: 186
Mr. Pritchard specifically stated that Krishnamurti`s arguments were circular and lead nowhere in particular. As to vm SAW considering Krishnamurti highly, I am not sure. It is further complicated because they both refer to Krishnamurti as though there were one, when there were in fact two, Jiddu and U. G. and both were alive at the same time and, apparently, were not friendly towards each other.
I`ll think about what you said about acceptance vs. compassion. Hmm.
-Julian
Join Date: 2004-05-28
Forum Posts: 943
Generally "Krishnamurti" refers to Jiddu Krishnamurti, and certainly when he is mentioned by Samael and Belzebuub since Belzebuub was mentioning hearing his talks in Brockwood Park where Jiddu gave talks.
I find a lot of Jiddu Krishnamurti's observations helpful in understanding certain things, but he didn't offer a complete teaching, the one that involves definitively destroying the egos and at the same time crystallizing the solar bodies to incarnate the Being. Incarnating the Being is the only way for real and definitive change (non-circular), otherwise we're just constantly fighting to be a better version of ourselves but we're still just same old lunar us.
Join Date: 2005-03-16
Forum Posts: 186
Thanks Jim. I suppose you are hitting closer to where my question lies when you´re talking about the teachings completeness. Is an incomplete teaching misleading? Is the path of acceptance, as it were, an incomplete teaching? On it´s own, does it just lead to complacency? Eckhart Tolle says something like ¨it is remarkable how quickly you move past anything you accept completely¨, but I´m not sure this always works. Thoughts?
-J
Join Date: 2004-05-28
Forum Posts: 943
I think that's just a trick of the mind, not real and fundamental change. That's not to say that it doesn't help with understanding. But we do need to be careful about what kind of teachings we might help spread because people can easily be misled and fall into all sorts of traps, and then that falls back on us. Instead it seems the best thing to do is to learn how to spread the teachings of a living Master, that way we receive a living help which is what we and Humanity need.
Short on time and won't be back until the 13th so catch you later,
Jim
Join Date: 2005-01-26
Forum Posts: 862
I agree with Jim B that it is a trick of the mind. Any incomplete teaching is misleading because it lacks the entire picture.
"On it´s own, does it just lead to complacency"
- If you believe in it. Tolle was right...
If you believe something then you accept truth without challenging it. It's a limit. You don't think about it again.
Alot of people believe things because it sounded good when they heard it.
Someone preached acceptance to them and they didn't bother to meditate and contemplate on it through applying it (lazyness). If you don't apply it, you can't crystalize it's deeper impact into your psyche. It remains unknown in it's entirety.
That behavior causes complacency. Observe that blindly following a the "path of acceptance" without the completeness of experience leads to complacency.
Going on what the mind tricks us with, without the conscious experience, people become complacent with their own ignorance and can be decieved, like Hitler was. Kinda where I was aiming with the previous post.
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()