The Last Message of U. G. Krishnamurti

I love Charlie too! All those guys said some profoundly truthful things and we laughed at them.
 
What's the contradiction? Just because nothing has any inherent meaning, doesn't mean that we can't enjoy things.

Provided we really put in the effort to dumb ourselves down with enough alcohol, pot, meat, casual sex, killing, gambling and such.

But at some point, one does get bored of these things.
 
I'm not as big a fan of J Krishnamurti.

Provided we really put in the effort to dumb ourselves down with enough alcohol, pot, meat, casual sex, killing, gambling and such.

But at some point, one does get bored of these things.
That's retarted. What about a beautiful summer day?

You've ever been to one of his ashrams?
Hell no, I'm not that dumb.
 
Sure. This then requires a lot of work, too. Especially work on creating what is in effect just a different set of myths, lies, hoaxes and magical thinking.

Did he make recourse to another ruler of the Universe and everything in it? AFAIK, no. Thus, his speaking is still an example of attempting to rule over nature and everything via the mind.

And if he proposed there is no ruler of the Universe, then he was proposing nihilism and/or chaotism.

UG never said life didn't require work nor did he say that you had to work.

I am not sure I know what you mean by 'no ruler to the universe'. Could you explain please? If you mean the belief in 'god' well I don't think its nihilistic nor chaotic to not believe in a god. I don't think you need someone else or a god to provide you with a meaning of life, meaning in your life nor a way to live. What U.G emphasized was the independence from crutches, the spiritual mentor for example. He would say constantly that no one can give you the truth about your existence, no one can tell you what to do or what to think. A pre-packaged belief system will promise all of this, that's what they offer, but you cannot then speak of 'freedom' in that context, this is all U.G proposed. This all came about mind you when people began following him looking for the 'truth' hoping he would be a crutch and a guide and he was saying you don't need a crutch nor a guide from him nor anyone else, he said it like this 'at first you will fall down but you will get back up and learn to walk'. There wasn't anything nihilistic nor chaotic about U.G.
 
Just kind of funny.

"Listen not to the psychics, for I am a psychic and I know the truth of immortality...urrrrrrrgghh."

Sorry, not trying to be offensive, just the traditional English suspicion of soapboxes. And soap, according to Aussies. Who are the descendants of murderers, thieves and prostitutes.

U.G's idea of immortality was the nitrogen cycle. The thing is that its no more offensive to be critical of U.G than it is to be critical of Jesus or any of the other prophets or holy people or gurus etc. Why should we believe ANY of them? U.G never proposed to be anything. U.G never thought he had the truth to give.
 
I am not sure I know what you mean by 'no ruler to the universe'. Could you explain please? If you mean the belief in 'god' well I don't think its nihilistic nor chaotic to not believe in a god.

If you follow atheism through to its logical conclusions, it is nihilistic/chaotic.


I don't think you need someone else or a god to provide you with a meaning of life, meaning in your life nor a way to live. What U.G emphasized was the independence from crutches, the spiritual mentor for example.

Independence from "crutches"? A person cannot survive if left to themselves.
The rest is all about where you draw the line between considering something a "crutch" and not.


He would say constantly that no one can give you the truth about your existence, no one can tell you what to do or what to think. A pre-packaged belief system will promise all of this, that's what they offer, but you cannot then speak of 'freedom' in that context, this is all U.G proposed. This all came about mind you when people began following him looking for the 'truth' hoping he would be a crutch and a guide and he was saying you don't need a crutch nor a guide from him nor anyone else, he said it like this 'at first you will fall down but you will get back up and learn to walk'.

Yet for some odd reason he endured having many followers ...


There wasn't anything nihilistic nor chaotic about U.G.

Spoken like a true follower ...
 
U.G's idea of immortality was the nitrogen cycle. The thing is that its no more offensive to be critical of U.G than it is to be critical of Jesus or any of the other prophets or holy people or gurus etc. Why should we believe ANY of them?

Because left to ourselves, we are lost.


U.G never thought he had the truth to give.

For someone thinking so he sure spoke a lot then!
 
Signal: For someone thinking so he sure spoke a lot then!

Like what? What were U.G's 'truths' that he said we must all live by? U.G only responded to questions, he never offered a way or life nor a constitution to live by.

Signal: Because left to ourselves, we are lost.

Rubbish! Speak for yourself. I do not feel 'lost' in the world because I don't have a belief in god. I think its sad that someone would feel so 'lost' that they would grab hold of any belief system like a life raft. People are free to grab hold of what they like and if it works for them so be it but there is no evidence that atheists are lost. Did you think that those who latched on to jim jones as 'saved'?

Signal: Spoken like a true follower ...

I am not a follower of U.G or anyone else. I have read some of his work which for me are only interesting when juxtaposed to other teachers in Indian philosophy. I have read J. Krishnamurti's work as well and also find him to be interesting, it doesn't make me his follower.

Signal: Yet for some odd reason he endured having many followers ...

No he didn't, they were free to ask what they wanted and many left 'empty handed' or rather they were not appeased.

Signal: Independence from "crutches"? A person cannot survive if left to themselves.
The rest is all about where you draw the line between considering something a "crutch" and not.

Why can't we survive? Do you dismiss the philosophers who embarked on investigation of the meaning of life and everything of their own accord? I do not need for someone else to show me how to live life nor what to believe. In short I do not need someone else to package a belief system for me as guidelines to live by, you know like those people in Jonestown.

Signal: If you follow atheism through to its logical conclusions, it is nihilistic/chaotic.

No its not. There is still meaning to be found in life even if its not attached to a god. I don't believe in god yet my work has meaning. I don't believe in god yet my relationships have meaning. I don't believe in god yet love has meaning. I can find joy in life and enjoy life without thinking, believing or acknowledging a god. In short my life has meaning for me. The belief in god does not guarantee one happiness nor a decent life nor does it guarantee an explanation and context for all things that happen in life. If it did there wouldn't be posts like this by believing members:


"As if experiencing the deaths of 5 friends in less than 5 months wasn't enough, now my mom is in the hospital for liver failure. If there is a God, he better watch out cuz he's really pissing some people off."

Atheists also have no guarantees but we are not dependent on them either.
 
Signal: For someone thinking so he sure spoke a lot then!

Like what? What were U.G's 'truths' that he said we must all live by? U.G only responded to questions, he never offered a way or life nor a constitution to live by.

For someone who believed he had nothing to tell he sure spoke a lot.


Signal: Yet for some odd reason he endured having many followers ...

No he didn't, they were free to ask what they wanted and many left 'empty handed' or rather they were not appeased.

He certainly allowed people to record, collect and publish his speeches.
And he accepted their money!


Signal: Independence from "crutches"? A person cannot survive if left to themselves.
The rest is all about where you draw the line between considering something a "crutch" and not.

Why can't we survive? Do you dismiss the philosophers who embarked on investigation of the meaning of life and everything of their own accord? I do not need for someone else to show me how to live life nor what to believe. In short I do not need someone else to package a belief system for me as guidelines to live by, you know like those people in Jonestown.

How's being without air going?
Fine? Are you self-sufficient?


Signal: If you follow atheism through to its logical conclusions, it is nihilistic/chaotic.

No its not. There is still meaning to be found in life even if its not attached to a god. I don't believe in god yet my work has meaning. I don't believe in god yet my relationships have meaning. I don't believe in god yet love has meaning. I can find joy in life and enjoy life without thinking, believing or acknowledging a god. In short my life has meaning for me.

I'm sure it does, but you apparently have not followed atheism through to its logical conclusions.


The belief in god does not guarantee one happiness nor a decent life nor does it guarantee an explanation and context for all things that happen in life. If it did there wouldn't be posts like this by believing members:

"As if experiencing the deaths of 5 friends in less than 5 months wasn't enough, now my mom is in the hospital for liver failure. If there is a God, he better watch out cuz he's really pissing some people off."

MZBoy is a theist? That's news ...
 
I am speaking specifically of belief in a god or having a specific religious doctrine to live by, if you are speaking of something else then make it clear.

Having some inkling about where the air we breathe comes from and the space we live in and so on, is connected directly to a person's beliefs about God.
 
Last edited:
Signal: For someone who believed he had nothing to tell he sure spoke a lot.

He was asked a lot.

Signal: He certainly allowed people to record, collect and publish his speeches.
And he accepted their money!

Why shouldn't he accept money for books or public appearances etc? He would have been stupid not to. Why shouldn't he allow people to record or collect or to publish? Why not? What he was saying is important in the context of traditional eastern philosophy, he was reacting to traditional religious dogma in his society, something that hadn't been done in quite this way before, this is why there was interest. You could imagine all those people from the West who were completely enamored with eastern teachers, Vedanta and the Vedas sending themselves into ecstasies suddenly coming across U.G, it was probably like having someone throw cold water in their face.

Signal: How's being without air going?
Fine? Are you self-sufficient?

I refer you to post #53

Signal: I'm sure it does, but you apparently have not followed atheism through to its logical conclusions.

I don't have to Signal. Atheism isn't a dogma to me nor a personal philosophy, its not a 'way of life' it is simply a lack of belief in a god.

Signal: MZBoy is a theist? That's news ...

One does not have to be religious to belief in god and since he used god in the way he did I doubt he is an atheist. When my grandmother died I didn't question gods motives but maybe that's because I'm an atheist.
 
Have some inkling about where the air we breathe comes from and the space we live in and so on, is connected directly to a person's beliefs about God.

I believe in nature signal but I don't believe in a god. If you believe there is a god behind nature pulling the strings fine, I personally do not. I certainly do not have to believe that in order to find meaning in my life as it isn't necessary.
 
Why shouldn't he accept money for books or public appearances etc?

For someone who proposed he had nothing to say it is certainly odd to accept money for it, and to allow recording and publishing.

A nihilist accepting money is a contradiction ...


Signal: How's being without air going?
Fine? Are you self-sufficient?

I refer you to post #53

Signal: I'm sure it does, but you apparently have not followed atheism through to its logical conclusions.

I don't have to Signal. Atheism isn't a dogma to me nor a personal philosophy, its not a 'way of life' it is simply a lack of belief in a god.

Perhaps you really don't understand ... and I need to understand that.
 
For someone who proposed he had nothing to say it is certainly odd to accept money for it, and to allow recording and publishing.

A nihilist accepting money is a contradiction ...


Perhaps you really don't understand ... and I need to understand that.

Maybe you see it as a contradiction because he wasn't a nihilist. I see nothing wrong in accepting money for it, I mean what did you think he was anyway? A holy man? ;)

Don't understand what Signal? What is it that I do not understand? So smug aren't you. Theists always try and make atheism out to be more than it is, which is a lack of belief in a god. Lack of belief in a god doesn't mean you stop believing in other things.
 
Back
Top