/lit/ - Literature

The man literally singlehandly desultory the theosophical movement.
You gotta respect him for that.

>>15053451
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rna3QrudAO0

>>15053440
But the term "mind" just refers to the internal processes of said computer, as experienced by awareness. You could argue for non-self along the lines of non-dualism or something, but then that isn't really what people mean when they say "mind" anyway. Absolute sophistry regardless. OTOH he was quite the troll, so credit for that.

Sounds based. What should I read by him?

>>15054307
He never wrote. People wrote of him, he didnt want to be remembered for anything. I recommend you go through this thread >>/lit/thread/S15038991#p15039023

>>15054300
You dont get what he's saying, stop brining nondualism into this. UG BTFO nondualism anyways

>>15054300
>But the term "mind" just refers to the internal processes of said computer
Yes, but that doesnt mean that there is anything there. He goes into detail on this in the books "mystique of enlightenment" and "mind is a myth".
> as experienced by awareness
Just another mind trick, dont get caught up in that shit
> You could argue for non-self along the lines of non-dualism or something, but then that isn't really what people mean when they say "mind" anyway.
refer to >>15054433

>>15053440
>This [pointing to himself] is just a computer.
It's good to know that a local pajeet-kun knows what even extensive scientific research doesn't.

>>15054454
It functions similar to a computer (not literally obviously), he denies an entity or "I" by saying that, it is one consistent unilateral stream

>>15053440
>computer
no, no, no.
Computers do not get linked with each other by their own means, by their own needs, by their fears and desires, that is, by themselves.
And the human body is made of.. well, other "computers" as well.
"I" is just the action of the human's brain.
>>15054441
>nothing here
What is the Law of Action/Reaction, anon?
A Law that rules nothing or a Law that rules things?
>>15054470
A certain stream of a certain human. Humans do not share the same stream. Animals (with brains, duh!) do not share the same stream. We differemciate the streams. We then differenciate humans by their streams. We meme We/He/I/You into the human stream and it/you into non-human stream and into things without stream. We

>>15054470
What is he if not the object that says this crap?

>>15054546
No different than you or me really

>>15054546
He is not the vocal chords, indeed
(The Vocal Chords are part of the same human that the brain [that causes him] is part of)

>>15054552
That's precisely my point. He's not external to "the computer", he is the very object that he calls a computer. That object he identifies and the object we identify when we say "U.G Krishnamurti" are one and the same.

>>15054568
Yes

>>15054433
>UG BTFO nondualism anyways
OH NO NO NO NO NO

>>15054433
wasnt ug a monist lmao?

>>15054577
The experiencer is still there, or how else would you have recognition of a nondual state? As he would say when you are finished with that Vedanta you are finished with everything

>>15054568
>>15054573
this is correct.
The issue arises when we believe that "U. G Krishnamurti" is a human and not just a part of a human.
Such issues may lead to stupid shots like Suicide, "Self-harm", Transgerderism, Transhumanism, Anorexia, Useful Idioticy, ..., that is, Fifth Column Attacks (like "Human Rights").

>>15054586
Sure, but>>15054587

>>15054596
>>15054586
A reminder we are talking about things which words do it no justice

>>15054587
>The experiencer is still there, or how else would you have recognition of a nondual state?
How is that supposed to be a btfoing of non-dualism? This is exactly what Advaita maintains that the Self is eternally present even in moksha despite there no longer being any Self/non-Self distinction
>>15054586
advaita isn't monism and is actually opposed to it

>>15054637
>How is that supposed to be a btfoing of non-dualism? This is exactly what Advaita maintains that the Self is eternally present even in moksha despite there no longer being any Self/non-Self distinction
It never dies, but the link between "I" and thoughts no longer link or mix together. The people who sell nondualism as some sort of loving state or blah blah are fooling themselves How can one describe that? "Enlightenment" (will assume it is real) is purely biological, as UG described it as "calamity". But, hey dont take my word for it. "Alright if there is anything such as a non-dual state or have gone beyond mind why the hell are you describing that state as love, bliss, beatitude you are selling your own brand of cigarettes fooling us all and telling us all it is nicotine free but they are also cigarettes" - UG Krishnamurti
>advaita isn't monism and is actually opposed to it
I always thought they meant the same thing I'll have to re read about monism

>>15054441
There's obviously something there - whatever processes are running.
>mind trick
Ah so the thing that isn't there is being tricked now? No-mind isn't the same as no mind.

>>15054732
>There's obviously something there - whatever processes are running.
I mean no "I", but of course its happening in a uniformed way
>Ah so the thing that isn't there is being tricked now? No-mind isn't the same as no mind.
I meant to not get caught up in that, if there is awareness of "awareness" there is still a strong sense of "I"

>>15053440
He's half-right. The brain is a 4-dimensional object that is scanned by meta-universal machinery in order to produce a conscious experience within that external machinery. There is no consciousness in the brain or the universe.

>DUUUUUDE BRO SELF IS AN ILLUSION BRO WE'RE JUST THOUGHTS OF BUDDAH OR SOME SHIT LOL
>Ok, then prove your point by killing yourself right here right now, after all only a separate self would have any interest in self-preservation (hence the name)
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ALSO PAY ME FOR MY SHITTY LECTURES

>>15054813
Horrible bait, at least understand what you're talking about.
>Ok, then prove your point by killing yourself right here right now, after all only a separate self would have any interest in self-preservation (hence the name)
The separate self (illusion) is not the body. It only has interest in its self-preservation because it is thought, thought is wanting, they are the same, without wanting there is no thought. The self/mind is perpetually malcontent, it survives purely off the individuals belief in it, and lack of questioning (try to find the "I"), as UG would say we are stuck in a thought sphere and there is no way out. If you are hit somewhere hard the thought arrives "I am hurting"(generalizing) something to that sort, you are experiencing the event through thought, you have separated yourself from life, this was not done by any volition of your own, but the self consciousness we find ourselves in, why is it like this? Not sure, but it serves a purpose. To kill the self is the self, only the self wants to kill the self, there is no way out (but there is read about UG's calamity), what UG did was a miracle very few have done that, but dont take my word for it, always question.
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ALSO PAY ME FOR MY SHITTY LECTURES
He never has lectures, people would come to him because he had a reputation and word of mouth spread about him. The videos on youtube of him speaking are from a couple of his friends would video record him, he had nothing to do with that, he never profited off any books writted of him, he never wanted to write he thought it was burlesque, also when asked in an interview "what is it you want to be remembered for?" UG replied "Nothing, burn and destroy everything in my name".

>>15053440
>"Tell them that there is nothing to understand."
>This [pointing to himself] is just a computer.

Computers are mechanical and deterministic and hence the mind can be understood and reverse engineered for the purpose of decreasing human suffering, perhaps even transcendence.

How about we stop listening to people from a culture that hasn't even understood toilets, let alone the mind.

>>15054865
>Computers are mechanical and deterministic and hence the mind can be understood and reverse engineered for the purpose of decreasing human suffering, perhaps even transcendence.
The mind is mechanical and deterministic as well
>How about we stop listening to people from a culture that hasn't even understood toilets, let alone the mind.
He would talk shit about India funny enough

>>15054871
>>15054865
He half jokingly said in an interview "Hitler was the best thing to happen to India, because he ended the British empire" he would also lament about how India was behind the West and had no say in world events, he would also lament about how the focus on spirituality was to the detriment of India among other condemnations.

Interview here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC1GULbovo8

>>15054891
>>15054865
Might be this interview where he mentions that,but regardless good interviews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMAv0Vq2xKE

last bump refer to this linked thread for further info on UG
>>/lit/thread/S15038991#p15039023

>>15053440
I can tell by his attire that this man gives no fucks.

>>15055203
Look closely at his face as well

>>15055206
>>15055203
Read this
http://www.travelswithug.com/resources/UGCookbook.pdf

>>15053440
I like Krishnamurti but I dislike how people point to him as some sort of spiritual authority. That is the exact opposite of what he was arguing.

>>15055263
>I like Krishnamurti but I dislike how people point to him as some sort of spiritual authority. That is the exact opposite of what he was arguing.
Agreed

>>15053440
I honestly have no idea how this man became famous, particularly in the west. Looking at his Wikipedia, it doesn't seem as if he ever wrote anything. His philosophy of "man is machine" is not novel. The whole thing seems like one massive larp. It would be interesting to chart how individuals like this manage to become famous for their supposed intelligence in the first place.

>>15055327
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXyLbU1GGqU
He was clearly intelligent.

>>15055327
>The whole thing seems like one massive larp.
If there is one thing the man isnt its a larper...

>>15054300
No, it doesn't. UG understands that when people talk about mind they always refer to a mind substance, a spirit, an essence or a substance. You might shift the definition of mind but the thought does not change.

>>15055333
So? Eloquence isn't usually sufficient in itself to garner this level of praise. His fame fascinates me because the man essentially contributed nothing yet is regarded as a serious intellectual force by some.
>>15055337
Anti-larp is also a larp if you don't actually develop a compelling metaphysics and ethics in writing to support what you believe. It's also a massive cop out: if you don't put down what you believe in writing, as a coherent theory, you cannot ever really be criticised or put to the test.

>>15055355
>So what? He was eloquent and said intelligent things that doesn't make him eloquent or intelligent!
What?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kJa2kwoZ2a4

>>15055355
>Anti-larp is also a larp if you don't actually develop a compelling metaphysics and ethics in writing to support what you believe.
He did not larp as anything, he didnt larp as an anti larper, he was not interested in altering society in anyway etc.He produced the most straight forward, cut throat approach to self actualization/enlightenment as something biological and not existing as any other way.
> It's also a massive cop out: if you don't put down what you believe in writing, as a coherent theory, you cannot ever really be criticized or put to the test
No its not, why does he have to? He was a sledgehammer. There are books about him in QnA format and biographies which I recommend

>>15055361
That isn't what I said at all; your reading comprehension is terrible.

>>15055375
That is the gist of your point against him though. You dislike him because he 'essentially contributed nothing' although he didn't want to contribute anything. Why is 'contributing' a sign of intelligence? What he did contribute is what others asked him to; you seem to be insinuating he wanted fame as some erudite mystic when that is just blatantly false if you have read or watched anything about him.

>>15054759
Indeed. So really, it's more about "false mind" vs "true mind", or something like that? Not being facetious, I honestly think a lot of the problems with this sort of thing come from insufficiently defined terms & the inadequacies of language.

>>15055345
And what would be the difference between a process instantiated in a machine, a spirit, or pixie dust for that matter? It smacks of reductionist handwaving to me, of that's all he meant. A different substrate is kinda trivial.

>>15055372
>He did not larp as anything, he didnt larp as an anti larper,
Yes, he did. He was happy to make TV appearances and give talks and receive praise and so on. That's him making his mark, making a statement as it were. To put oneself forward as a thinker in this way without ever having produced any literature is intellectually dishonest. Again, I would be really interested to know how such a figure became famous as a philosopher/wise man in the first place. How did he transmit his thoughts originally? Since he never wrote anything down, we can only assume that he became famous by being well connected, by knowing the right people ... otherwise why else would anyone bother to notice what one man happened to think in this day and age? There's a nepotisitic element here. I imagine it has something to do with his wealthy grandfather and the Theosophic society; I know he denounced them, but he must have first been introduced to the right circles here. It all seems very shallow, very affected.

>>15055383
Not at all. Again, your reading comprehension sucks. It's fairly obvious he didn't want to be seen as a mystic. That doesn't validate him intellectually, however. See >>15055398

>>15055398
>Yes, he did. He was happy to make TV appearances and give talks and receive praise and so on. That's him making his mark, making a statement as it were.
He was asked to why wouldnt he? He had nothing to gain, if he said no then there is a deliberation, a reason, the man was totally unbothered, it was IRL shitposting for him, he knew the whole thing, the human species was doomed and all efforts to remedy or reform it were futile.
>To put oneself forward as a thinker in this way without ever having produced any literature is intellectually dishonest
Not at all you dont get UG, not that youre supposed to, that's not the point
>Again, I would be really interested to know how such a figure became famous as a philosopher/wise man in the first place.
When he was young before his calamity of his 49th year he was part of the thesopical society, he had a reputation, after his 49th year (his calamity) people began to know something was unique about the man, funny enough he made no motions entailing that he was someone to ask for advice of any kind.
>There's a nepotisitic element here. I imagine it has something to do with his wealthy grandfather and the Theosophic society; I know he denounced them, but he must have first been introduced to the right circles here. It all seems very shallow, very affected.
These are speculations and wrong, you dont understand UG and you dont want to understand UG, he scares you, you want your comfort philosophers, you want the thing by the book, by how culture embeds it in you, UG challenges you, he frustrate you, he lives you in an empty pit, dont take my word for it though

>>15055398
>ever having produced any literature
He has literature though, which had been published by the time of his television appearances. Are you mentally deficient?

>>15055395
>Our mind (and there are no individual minds — only "mind", which is the accumulation of man's knowledge and experience) has created the notion of the psyche and evolution. Only technology progresses, while we as a race are moving closer to complete and total destruction of the world and ourselves. Everything in man's consciousness is pushing the whole world, which nature has so laboriously created, toward destruction. There has been no qualitative change in man's thinking; we feel about our neighbours just as the frightened caveman felt towards his. The only thing that has changed is our ability to destroy our neighbor and his property.

>>15055385
>I honestly think a lot of the problems with this sort of thing come from insufficiently defined terms & the inadequacies of language.
Of course

>>15053440
Why don't people like him understand metaphors? Is it autism?

>>15055426
You're not getting what I am saying. I'll try and spell it out for you: logistically, someone in the modern era does not simply think certain things and wind up being hailed as an intellectual. It's a process. Usually, people will go through the traditional route of attending university, receiving degrees, publishing papers etc, before writing their treatise or whatever. People become aware of this or that treatise because they can purchase a physical copy of it and because the individual publishing it has a history in certain circles thanks to their prior work and experiences. What is strange about UG is that he has none of this prior history, yet is hailed for repackaging (in words alone) what is essentially just another form of positive nihilism with regard to the mind being a computer. I am saying it would be interesting to look into the genealogy of this guy's rise to fame because it clearly isn't all that organic. Who publicised him to begin with? Why did they bother to take notice?

>>15055435
see >>15054423

>>15055480
>b-but he didn't physically write those words!
If you stand by this notion, then intelligence to you is the rote copying of words rather than coming up with the thoughts behind those words

>>15055477
>What is strange about UG is that he has none of this prior history, yet is hailed for repackaging (in words alone) what is essentially just another form of positive nihilism
No, it isnt, very reductionist, you dont get it! Not that that's the intent thought. Everything more or less is repackaged, there is nothing "unique" UG states this, his sorta "everything is doomed" message is as unique as anything, you either explore this or you dont, if you do though "you" wont like it. You have no unique thoughts, desires, experiences etc you are a machine, atoms, neurons, cells etc
>I am saying it would be interesting to look into the genealogy of this guy's rise to fame because it clearly isn't all that organic. Who publicised him to begin with? Why did they bother to take notice?
He had one or two somewhat wealthy family members one with a connection to the thesophical society that's it. Word of mouth spread about him that's it

>>15055484
>paraphrasing vague conversations is substitute for new theory
lol

>>15055529
Those were his words though, he just didnt write it

>>15055536
>>15055529
Mind is a myth

>https://archive.org/details/U.G.KrishnamurtiMindIsAMyth/mode/2up

Mystique of enlightenment

>https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/U.G.-Krishnamurti-The-Mystique-of-Enlightenment.pdf

>>15055510
>He had one or two somewhat wealthy family members one with a connection to the thesophical society that's it. Word of mouth spread about him that's it
>he can't formulate a coherent theory in writing that's it
>he's the beneficiary of nepotism that's it
Without that initial connection, you would never even have heard of this man's name. That's my whole point - his ideas are not sufficiently novel or compelling to stand on their own. And his failure to formulate lends credence to this.

>>15055536
>Those were his words though, he just didnt write it
In other words, another writer paraphrased what he said and slapped UG's name on it.

>>15055575
>In other words, another writer paraphrased what he said and slapped UG's name on it.
No they were taken from convos word for word

>>15055566
What you are saying is true for any person though. Even if some complete savant is out there, if there isn't money and connections to get that person noticed and out there he would be out there. I am sorry if you believe otherwise. Yes Krishnamurti was know because of the theosophical society but why does that matter at all?
>But his ideas were not novel enough to be noticed as a literally who
Confucius called himself a transmitter of ideas rather than a creator. Does that make him less intelligent, less novel, less influential than another figure? No.
It seems your impotent autistic rantings amount to screeching about the publishing industry rather than Krishnamurti.

>>15055566
>>he can't formulate a coherent theory in writing that's it
Incorrect read his books
>Without that initial connection, you would never even have heard of this man's name. That's my whole point - his ideas are not sufficiently novel or compelling to stand on their own. And his failure to formulate lends credence to this.
His work is more significant than any philosopher to ever have live if you have interest in that stuff, but again dont take my word for it

>>15055566
>- his ideas are not sufficiently novel or compelling to stand on their own
There is no such thing as a novel idea, you have no thoughts of your own, no desires of you own, no experiences of your own, you are a puppet and you dont even realize this, living a total fiction (when I say you i refer to us all)

>when your """""""philosophy""""""" is just harping on semantics

Normal person: It's a house
Pajeet philosopher: ITS A COLLECTION OF BRICKS ASSEMBLED AND GIVEN FALSE PURPOSE OF HARBOURING LIFE

Normal person: Hi I'm Dave
Pajeet philosopher: YOU'RE NOT DAVE YOU'RE JUST A PHYSICAL FLESH INSISTING ON ITS OWN PERPETUATION BY CREATING THE ILLUSION OF PURPOSEFUL HUMANE EXISTENCE REEEEEEEEEE

>>15055613
Incorrect try again

>>15055592
>What you are saying is true for any person though.
Cop out. Resignation in the face of vice is the behaviour of a coward.
>Confucius called himself a transmitter of ideas rather than a creator.
Others have "transmitted" the same ideas as UG within recent history and they have done so more effectively.

>>15055635
Given that my first point left you without any recourse but the name game, please name me one recent philosopher who has been more effective at Krishnamurti's ideas than Krishnamurit.

>>15055613
kek

>>15055635
>Others have "transmitted" the same ideas as UG within recent history and they have done so more effectively.
No they havent, they attempt to make you believe there is something out there, something attainable, UG slams the door shut

>I discovered for myself and by myself that there is no self to realize -- that's the realization I am talking about. It comes as a shattering blow. It hits you like a
thunderbolt. You have invested everything in one basket, self-realization, and, in the end, suddenly you discover that there is no self to discover, no self to realize --and you say to yourself "What the hell have I been doing all my life?!" That blasts you.
So was he a pratyekabuddha or what?

>>15055678
Just an ordinary man, he was himself, fully

>>15054865
t. retarded anime tranny
Yeah west metaphysics lmao they stole from east anything of worth

>>15055684
Yeah but you have to reach that 'youself fully' , hes bullshiting that there is no improvement just be as you're now is retarded.
I respect him as a troll but come on
He meditated and done a lot of spiritual work which a layman hasnt and cannot even come close.
Anyone who embarks on the path can see instant benefits of more bliss, freedom etc before reaching higher stages.
I had mystical experiences that set a high reference point far beyond the ordinary normal everyday layman experience.
>>15055613
kek and a bit true since all this semantic bullshit doesnt matter only the practice when one can feel as hes in a higher state of being

>>15055653
>t. has never even heard of Hume

>>15055439
I'm still suspicious of exactly what he means by "minds", but in general I agree with the sentiment. Material conditions, altered via technical knowledge, do seem to have been a large driver of apparent "progress" without replacing the instinctual "animal". And he does seem to be arguing that the Industrial Revolution & its consequences have been a disaster for the human race - which is something I'll always agree with.

>>15053440
based