“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. 🙂