/lit/ - Literature

>>15284833
Cogito ergo sum

>>15284833
According to I

>>15284833
Soulless bugman detected.

>>15284833
If identity is a complete bullshit construct, would you be fine with my buddy Ahmed raping your ass? You can just identify as a sub tranny for the duration, so you can enjoy it

>>15284861
>>15284844
https://youtube.com/watch?v=W-LZSl6TGdw

shut up eugene. go back to your suitcase and eat you oatmeal cream in silence.

the natural state of people is believing in the self.

>>15284882
>implying that's impossible

>>15284882
That's a non sequitur.

>>15284893
Alright man, no problem then! We will also chop off all your limbs, gouge out your eyes and tongue before we let you go. But I know you won't be worried, cause you can just identify as a happy masochistic quadriplegic blind mute for the rest of your life! It's all a bullshit construct anyway

>>15284938
The self, or "I" is not the body, it mimics the body while having no reality the self is illusion

>>15284938
See >>15284913

A disbelief in the ego also means that I don't have to sympathize with your pain either. It works both ways. When the ego is dissolved, so is morality.

>>15284833
me <--------------> I

>>15284882
>>15284877
>>15284861
>>15284938
>>15284892
We are always talking about thought and thinking. What is thought? Have you ever looked at thought, let along controlling thought; let alone manipulating thought; let alone using that thought for achieving something material or otherwise? You cannot look at your thought, because you cannot separate yourself from thought and look at it. There is no thought apart from the knowledge you have about those thoughts -- the definitions you have. So if somebody asks you the question, "what is thought?" any answer you have is the answer that is put in there -- the answers that others have already given.

You have, through combinations and permutations of ideation and mentation about thoughts, created your own thoughts which you call your own. Just as when you mix different colors, you can create thousands of pastel colors, but basically all of them can be reduced to only seven colors that you find in nature. What you think is yours is the combination and permutation of all those thoughts, just the way you have created hundreds and hundreds of pastel colors. You have created your own ideas. That is what you call thinking. When you want to look at thought, what there is is only whatever you know about thought. Otherwise you can't look at thought. There is no thought other than what there is in what you know about thought. That's all that I am saying. So when that is understood the meaninglessness of the whole business of wanting to look at thought comes to an end. What there is is only what you know, the definitions given by others. And out of those definitions, if you are very intelligent and clever enough, you create your own definitions. That's all

>>15284979
When you look at an object the knowledge you have about that object comes into your head. There is an illusion that thought is something different from objects, but it is you who creates the object. The object may be there, but the knowledge you have about that object is all that you know. Apart from that knowledge and independent of that knowledge, free from that knowledge, you have no way of knowing anything about it. You have no way of directly experiencing anything. The word "directly" does not mean that there is any other way of experiencing things other than the way you are experiencing things now. The knowledge you have about it is all that is there and that is what you are experiencing. Really, you do not know what it is.

In exactly the same way, when you want to know something about thought, or experience thought, it is the same process that is in operation there. There is no inside or outside. What there is is only the operation, the flow of the knowledge. So you cannot actually separate yourself from thought and look at it.

So when such a question is thrown at you, what should happen is [the realization] that none of the answers have any meaning, because all that is acquired and taught. So that movement stops. There is no need for you to answer the question. There is no need for you to know anything about it. All that you know comes to a halt. It has no momentum any more. It slows down, and then it dawns upon you that it is meaninglessness to try to answer that question, because it has no answer at all. The answers that others have given are there. So you have nothing to say on that thing called thought, because all you can say is what you have gathered from other sources. You have no answer of your own

>>15284956
it's been fun trolling you, but you really don't get what's being talked about.

>>15285028
This is coming from the guy whose "trolling" was based on an obvious logical fallacy? That's rich.

If there is no “l” then who’s left to give a fuck? Huh? Checkmate.

>>15285077
Only will remains.

>>15285077
OP here, There was never an "I" there, only an illusion of "I", it's all just unilateral process where the stimulus and response is not separate or different. You are a puppet devoid of free will and devoid of freedom of action

Bump

>>15284833
Yesss!
I love all the UG threads popping up.
The courage to stand alone changed my life.

>>15284833
But what about the I intuiting itself? How the I is both subject and object?

>>15285976

ug uses the language of vedanta to get his point across. the constantly changing, heraclitan, phenomenal 'i' is an illusory aggregate. the actual 'I' that every spiritual teacher is trying to find is the pure, monistic, unchanging form that powers everything in this changing realm. if you manage to understand that he will make more sense, if you don't understand it don't even bother reading any more until you do

>>15284991
How can he address *me* as 'you' when there is no I? Pity U. G. never read Hegel.

>>15286016

not even a full minute after my post and yet another one got filtered hard >>15286016

>>15284833
>There is no self, no soul, no mind, no psyche, no "I"
Based

>>15286009
how can a doctrine remain unchanged in despite of flux?

>>15286077
What then has been proselytized?

>>15284833
Sounds and looks like a real fucking pussy that tried to justify his blandness by dehumanizing everyone else, even life itself.

>>15286079

weird little materialist question. the doctrine is constantly changing, since every spiritual doctrine is different. the doctrine is a vehicle then. the destination is not changing

>>15286104
>is not changing
when.. as how could it when there's no destination? No 'vehicle' either ftm

Has anyone ever refuted Hume on personal identity?

>>15286125

try harder with your posts, i don't even know what your question is. have you studied vedanta or buddhism at all?

>>15286134
No need to because ultimately he bequeaths everything to the human imagination- a topic on which philosophers have very little to say, which is primarily why philosophy and poetry are at odds. Kant's a Romantic because he follows Hume: the Romantic Big Bang

>>15286103
I know a burger wrote this

>>15286159
Different anon. Does western empiricism lend itself to Buddhist thinking generally?

>>15286009
>ug uses the language of vedanta to get his point across.
OP, here he doesn't, he always said once vedanta is out of your system the whole thing goes
>phenomenal 'i' is an illusory aggregate. the actual 'I' that every spiritual teacher is trying to find is the pure, monistic, unchanging form that powers everything in this changing realm
It is illusory, via U.G's biological calamity the "I" was more or less gone, thoughts were still there, but they no longer linked to a subject

>>15286016
This is aburdism and a non sequitur totally misunderstanding

>>15286190
OP here,**

>>15286159
Not at all, but I am interested. I have Calasso's Ka- should I read it? His small essay collection Literature and the Gods is what has only recently piqued my interest. What you rec to a beginner who has otherwise read quite a bit?

>>15286175

empiricism? not really, since so many claims that are in doctrine and that you can experience aren't measurable. basic facts like buddhist theory of aggregation line up well, but it goes out the window when a typical reductive materialistic will argue that consciousness is the seat of the "soul" and consciousness itself is what is emergent. real buddhists think that kind of thinking will send you straight to a deva realm, which is also not knowable through science

>>15286190

just because he no longer 'needed' vedanta as a system doesn't mean that he isn't using that language to talk to people that may understand it

>It is illusory, via U.G's biological calamity the "I" was more or less gone, thoughts were still there, but they no longer linked to a subject

not sure if you're agreeing with me or not here

>>15284885
>Nothing to be realised,nothing to be said,then why these guys keep on stimulating him,again recieving the futile answers,stop asking and stop seeking,and there is nothing to seek
Kek this is the top comment on your schlock. You got btfo by the very content you posted

>>15286103
UG was personal friends with a movie director who had an affair with the woman in pic she was a famous actress who spent some time with UG, she was having a lot of personal health issues. The woman described UG as the most special person she ever met. Here is her account of her time spent with UG

http://ug-krishnamurti.blogspot.com/2010/09/parveen-babi-on-ug-i-must-state-few.html?m=1

>I must state a few facts about U.G. Krishnamurti here, because it is impossible to understand my case without knowing a little bit about U.G. and the facts of his enlightenment. The only word, which aptly describes U.G., is ‘perfect' human being.

>U.G. is the most perfect human being I have met in my life and in the world. There is nothing apparently extraordinary about him. It is when you spend some time with him that you see the perfection operating. I have lived and traveled with U.G. and after being with him for a substantial period of time I realized that U.G. treats human beings as human beings—as the human beings should be treated: with respect, consideration, understanding, and compassion. I also realized that he treats everybody as his equal, whether the person is younger, poorer, richer or older. We all treat people as relations—either above us or below us—we do not treat people as our equals. U.G. treats people not as relations but as human beings, and as his equals. I had never known or experienced anybody treating human beings this way. I saw and experienced U.G. treat human beings with the respect and dignity human beings deserve. U.G. also treats each person as one needs to be treated.

>Every act which U.G. performs is the right act—the act which is morally right, ethically right, circumstantially right, right for the other people, and right for himself. This behavior comes naturally to U.G. He does not make deliberate effort to act this way. Nor is his behavior accompanied by the feeling that he is a special person, that his behavior is special and that he is doing people a favor by treating them with respect and dignity. This behavior is so natural and so unselfconscious that most people do not even recognize and notice that his behavior is perfect and that they are being treated in a very special way. Most people who come in contact with him do not even recognize these very special qualities about him. Not everybody can recognize perfection. To recognize perfection one has to have it’s germ in oneself.

>>15286229
I dont mean science when I say empiricism. For example, Hume says the self is just a succession of impressions held together only by memory. I think, if I read him correctly, that he says the means for receiving impressions ceases upon death and that the memory of sucession which gives it identity ceases with it.

>>15286234
No? Fits perfectly that's the point retard concides with OP

>>15284877
>NO I'M SPECIAL AND UNIQUE, JESUS WILL MAKE SURE THAT I CONTINUE TO EXIST AS ANON FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER

>>15286255
>lip service from a hole
And you tout it like it fucking means something. Nothing you post could ever appeal because it takes not an ounce of effort to spout the very much parroted rhetoric he does.

>>15286261
It's not about the "point" or validity of what OP is saying, it's about it's effects. If this truth is so transcendent, why doesn't he fuck off? Hard to imagine someone with such insight would go to 4channel dot com board slash lit and spam one random man who stumbled upon this truth. It's almost as if this realization at best brought nothing to OP and at worst is completely impotent and there's no reason everyone shouldn't live their life as before

>>15286263
I must say, even when I disagree with the purport of these posts I almost never dislike them. If you uh'd I'd miss you, anon.

>>15286224

i don't know who that is. read ramana maharshi's 'who am i' book, for a meditation methodology that actually works, watch ken wheeler's videos on youtube about metaphysics and read the pali canon

>>15286257

this is accurate up until death in eastern doctrines. there is a 'subtle body' (residing in your physical body) that transmigrates from body to body endlessly. the subtle body collects impressions just like the brain does, but is 'wiped' like a computer at each death.this is the basis for remembrance of past lives, and a justification for why you were born in your physical body

>>15286279
He admits to this, he wondered why people came to him, he denied himself being enlightened and enlightenment itself
>>15286299
U.G is demystifying and obliterating your spooks, "you" are being destroyed if you listen carefully. U.G is helpful, but not helpful he's not here to teach you an ism, or convert you, but for you to realize it's all futile, metaphysics is a dead end. This is not nihilism, he was very life affirming, but you either live in illusion or in his case he got out.

>>15286324
I suppose the idea of a "subtle body" is at odds with empirical thought. Empiricists tell us we can only have knowledge of our peceptions. There is no perception of a subtle body, much in the same way that there is no impression of self. What leads Buddhists to the idea of the subtle body without resorting to some kind of rationalism which could potentially indicate towards a soul?

>>15286351
>>15286299
>>15286279
"I don't give people what they want. When they realise they will not get what they want here, they invariably go away. As they are leaving for the last time I like to add the rider, 'You won't get it anywhere.'" - U.G. Krishnamurti

>>15286198
If so, then it's your business to show me how. How can the other doctrine possibly make sense to me if I'm not familiar with it? What guarantee do I have that the presumptive teacher knows more than the potential student *in general*? None. This renders your comment a shirk. For instance, *how* is mine a non sequitur? Don't fault me for not following you if you can't follow me.

You can never understand the tremendous peace that is always there within you, that is your natural state. Your trying to create a peaceful state of mind is in fact creating disturbance within you. You can only talk of peace, create a state of mind and say to yourself that you are very peaceful—but that is not peace; that is violence.

>>15286367

the subtle body IS a collection of perceptions, all of these come from the senses. so that isn't the conflict. buddhists definitely believe in a soul, so there you go. but soul is such a pathetic and vague word in english. doesn't mean anything now. the subtle body could be likened to having the 'will' of the soul in a way, the desires that cause you to incarnate in a certain form or seek out certain things. before the subtle body there is atman, which is the unchanging 'I' that i mentioned earlier. everything that we experience is like the light coming down from the sun. light will radiate regardless, the sun is unaffected by its own production of light

>>15286324
Ok. I'll do the first two and investigate the third.

>>15286399
But he obviously has something you want otherwise you wouldn't be pushing him here.

>>15286418
>If so, then it's your business to show me how
When we have a formal discussion we refer to ourselves or whatever in pronouns like "I" or "you". The "I" in the context we are talking about is the "I" inner thought, this is the illusion, that there is some separate self guiding the body which appears (but doesnt) to have independent reality
>What guarantee do I have that the presumptive teacher knows more than the potential student *in general*?
U.G is not a teacher, he hated gurus, teachers, religious freaks, etc for attempting to created something grandiose when the beauty was already there in front of you, but sadly we are blind (not literal)

>>15286446
It is counterintuitive

>>15284885
>I define individuality as something completely different than the phenomenological categorical classification and therefore I'm right.

This man is retarded.

>>15286446
Are you familiar with the word kenosis, anon? In it's initial sense of 'emptying' is where all this ends.
dif anon, clearly

>>15286468
What we call "you"/self/psyche has nothing unique about it. It is data, passed down to us generation to generation

>>15286483
And your contradistinction is?

The fact I exist is a self-evident proposition, to me. Which is the only thing that matters, to me; in order to construct a synthetic philosophy of being, for myself.

You're a retard. Bundle theory is what this absolute troglodyte doofus is misconstruing.

>>15286506

the lame academics have arrived

>>15286624
Are you a “cool” academic?

>>15284833
No u.

>>15286506
>The fact I exist is a self-evident proposition, to me. Which is the only thing that matters, to me; in order to construct a synthetic philosophy of being, for myself.
The thing is the "I" doesn't exist, it has no reality, it is simply a neurological issue which has seperated us from the world around is, how can it be real? It refers to the body, "I" am having a hard time breathing. How is the "I" affected? It is the body, not the "I". How you experience yourself is illusory.
>You're a retard. Bundle theory is what this absolute troglodyte doofus is misconstruing.
Not really, what we call "you" is an amalgam of experinces, desires, memory. The "you" projects the data onto the object, you never see the object, you the see the projection>>15286506
>The fact I exist is a self-evident proposition, to me. Which is the only thing that matters, to me; in order to construct a synthetic philosophy of being, for myself.
The thing is the "I" doesn't exist, it has no reality, it is simply a neurological issue which has seperated us from the world around is, how can it be real? It refers to the body, "I" am having a hard time breathing. How is the "I" affected? It is the body, not the "I". How you experience yourself is illusory.
>You're a retard. Bundle theory is what this absolute troglodyte doofus is misconstruing.
Not really, what we call "you" is an amalgam of experinces, desires, memory. The "you" projects the data onto the object, you never see the object, you the see the projection

>>15286729
Fucking shit I accidently copy pasted sorry >>15286506 phone faggotry

>>15286743
Super high right now

>>15284833
who cares about some hack who parrots ancient religions

>>15286776
You got filtered

>>15286729
Alright fucking retard. Have you ever eaten chocolate? So you tasted chocolate right? You experienced the taste of something right?

>>15286950
Yes

>>15284833
TAKE THIS, MOTHERFUCKER

>>15287000
No

>>15286868

>>15286962
Then why are you denying phenomenal experience

>>15287098
I'm not denying the senses, I'm denying the stories told about sensory experiences

>>15284833
>There is no self, no soul, no mind, no psyche, no "I"

Retroactively refuted by Shankaracharya (pbuh)

>>15287759
>Shankara was too stupid to count past one
~ based Madhvacharya

>>15287759
shankara is known by every hindu in history as a "cryptobuddhist"

>>15287831
based

>>15287759
He goofed

>>15287831
this kills the nondualist

>>15284833
Impossible to refute this man. He'll drive you mad or save your life

>>15284844
Utterly BTFO by Nietzsche. Try again.

>>15288412
Based

>>15284861
Thread should have ended at this point.

>>15289049
Filtered. According to "I" makes no difference when there is no such thing

>>15289100
There is immediate knowledge of the self, and it is the logical prerequisite of all experience, which is also immediate. If you would reduce it maximally, in that it would only be momentary experience, you would still not be able to annihilate it.
There is no reason at all to speak about this, any attempt to annihilate the self is pure sophistry.

>>15289119
>There is immediate knowledge of the self, and it is the logical prerequisite of all experience, which is also immediate.
Awareness or whatever word fits into the framework of the knowledge instilled in us, it is just a clever trap there is no freeing oneself from the knowledge, any attempt to free oneself by the self is a self generated activity
>If you would reduce it maximally, in that it would only be momentary experience, you would still not be able to annihilate it.
It can essentially snap where thought no longer connects with a subject ("I") leaving thought headless
>There is no reason at all to speak about this, any attempt to annihilate the self is pure sophistry.
Says the self. Also, how would you know? Have you freed yourself from the death gripe of "I"?

>>15284833
>There is no self, no soul, no mind, no psyche, no "I"

>>15289270
The complete opposite you NPC!

>>15284938
defensive actions may be taken in the moment to escape or prevent pain, but there is no self that is being defended.

>>15289143
>any attempt to free oneself by the self is a self generated activity
but if the self doesn't exist, how can it generate activities? honest question.

>>15289413

how can a car exist when it drives you place to place? stop getting so hung up on words like 'illusion' and phrases like 'doesn't exist'. this is why UG is terrible for beginners. the wheels and frame and furniture in the car are obviously real, just as this phenomenal world is obviously real. however just like the car is an aggregate of parts and machines, so are 'you'. and each moment in time is it's own absolute, we simply invented time and memory to give ourselves a form of continuity. but 'you' are only connected to the 'you' of the past and future by that succession of time and memory. the subject/object dualism comes from the mind, the components that feed into the mind can function without it

>>15289431
it makes more sense now, thanks I guess.

>>15289449
Very well

>>15289431
Based and truthpilled