Posts Tagged ‘jiddu krishnamurti’

Contempt: the pinnacle of all mental illness or ill will or sin

October 16, 2012

Contempt: the pinnacle of all mental illness or ill will or sin

What is the connection between rage, madness, mental illness, contempt, and ill will? First, what is contempt?

English: Photo of Jonathan G. Meath portraying...

English: Photo of Jonathan G. Meath portraying Santa Claus. Date approximate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Contempt is projected shame. When I am afraid to admit that I did not do something that I say “I should have done,” then there is nothing I can do to change the fact that I did not do whatever I did not do. If I condemn myself with some kind of idea that “I should have done something else,” there is no relief from that idea except for the release of that idea.

When I believe that I should have done something else but then do not want to experience the distress of facing my own self-condemnation, I may respond to any perceived threat by projecting that “should be different” accusation on to others in contempt. It is similar to blaming someone for a result that I experienced, except that blame may be “deserved,” as in “you did not tightly close the door behind you and now look what has happened!”

Contempt, like shame, cannot be easily balanced by future action. The labeling of something as “that should have never happened” is too intense to be balanced by any future action. The labeling itself either will persist or will be questioned and relax.

“Those people systematically use coercion against innocent civilians! It’s an outrage! We cannot stand by and let that happen. We need to seize the associates of those people and hold them hostage and threaten to kill them if those other people do not stop terrorizing innocent civilians.”

It’s ironic, huh? I’m not even condemning or shaming contempt, by the way, but I am noting the dangerous addictiveness of it. It is certainly something to be wary of.

Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986)

I was already exploring subjects like this (see my recent blogs) when someone recently asked me about a famous fellow named Jiddu Krishnamurti. I am familiar with him and yes I do “believe in” the kind of things that he promoted: introspection and personal responsibility as being subjects that are potentially economical (practically valuable, worthy of time and resources).

I also am clear how ridiculously strange it is that a movie like Zeitgeist would take quotes and clips of him talking about inner revolutions in language, psychology, and spirituality and then use that content to promote contempt and hysteria against “the system” or against any society or social tradition. Jiddu Krishnamurti called many social traditions silly, like I might say about literalists worshiping Santa Claus, but that kind of dismissal is not full of contempt and political rage. For a person who clearly spoke out against ill will and contempt and political rage and other mental illness such as shame to be used in the promoting of those same patterns is quite ironic, quite tragic, and yet also quite comic.

He was not saying that Santa must be defeated but that “hey by now we realize that there is no Santa except as a playful myth or game for influencing the behavior of naive children, so lets just move on rather than agonize about Santa and how to save the world from Santa or save the world for Santa.” His passionate dismissal of literalism is to contrast an alternative to literalism, not to start a new Holy Roman Imperial military inquisition crusade to politically and economically destroy the literalists. He had compassion for all people -even those that we might call fanatic literalists – while also having a clear appreciation of the risk of the addictive error or sin of literalism as a practice.

Annie Besant arrives in Charing Cross Station,...

Annie Besant arrives in Charing Cross Station, London with Jiddu Krishnamurti, his younger brother Nityananda, and George Arundale, prominent Theosophist and tutor to the boys. (Picture and caption appear on page 84 of Krishanmurti: The Years of Awakening by Mary Lutyens) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

He staunchly rebuked fanaticism and contempt. They go together. Contempt is something of personal fanaticism to vilify some perceived threat. Those who are not in a panic of desperately and hysterically clinging to some idolatrous sacred principle will never manifest a personal contempt. The contempt is like a fruit which shows the type of tree, or a symptom that indicates the spiritual momentum or karma of a desperate, panicked, hysterical clinging to some form of innocent sincere but entirely inaccurate fanatical literalism.

Confusion indicates a false presumption. To confuse one thing for something else, but not yet know the source of the interpretative mistake is confusion.

Frustration indicates the same: a mistaken literalism, a hysterical attachment to a particular interpretation or label. Blame and jealousy and contempt are all totally predictable forms of spiritual distress or hysterical sin that arise from an innocent idolatry of fanatical literalism.

What kind of statement indicates confusion? “I think that something is WRONG here.”

Only when “something is wrong” (the indicator of a confusion- typically a frustrating confusion), is there any relevance to project one’s own frightened guilt on to the villain to blame for “making my totally accurate presumptions suddenly no longer consistent with reality.” Well, maybe those presumptions are not totally accurate after all. Maybe my linguistic labeling should not be given priority over reality. Maybe “what should not be” about reality is not reality ruining reality, but just reality revealing an inaccurate expectation or presumption.

In contrast, those who are clear what god is and how god is related to language and all the other branches of god are free of all false beliefs and free of the psychological fruits of those false beliefs for they have the clarity of direct personal revelation which is faith.

Jesus from the Deesis Mosaic

Jesus from the Deesis Mosaic (Photo credit: jakebouma)

Faith does not need other people’s approval. Faith is not frustrated if other people are not interested or not responsive. Faith is not desperately trying to get in to an eternal heaven that is presumed to be elsewhere.

Faith is the fruit of the kingdom of heaven AKA kingdom of god, which are just English translations of ancient metaphors that precede the written recording of the Talmudand Torah and Gitas. One who is clear about the simplicity of the doctrines cannot be confused by imprecise translations or literalists who resist the idea that word are symbols that can be used quite differently over a few hundred or few thousand years.

Biblical Accuracy

Biblical Accuracy (Photo credit: swanksalot)

I was somewhat shocked when I learned what the Hebrew word Israel originally means. I was not shocked to learn that the Hebrew word for divinity (what we translate in to English as god or lord or savior) is the same as the Sanskrit Brahman, as in the inclusive reality which is beyond time (eternal) and locality (omnipresent) and identity (so it is almighty without any conflicting power to threaten it, as in omnipotent).

That many worship a personal savior like Santa Claus is fine. Many Hindus do not know what Brahman means and so anyone who talks to them might conclude that they are all literalist fanatics who all worship a trinity of three gods: the creator father, the sustainer holy spirit, and the destroyer son, plus they have all these different saints and holidays like worshiping Santa Claus and St Patrick and Saint Valentine and yet they claim to be monotheistic. You ask the average Hindu to explain and clearly they are just following some ancient rituals without comprehending the metaphors.

Corcovado jesus

Corcovado jesus (Photo credit: @Doug88888)

It is like trying to learn Christianity from the average Christian who has never studied the Talmud and has no comprehension of Isaiah or Abraham and thus have ridiculous fanaticism about Jesus instead of demonstrating the faith of Jesus and discipline of Jesus and spirit of Jesus. It is all totally predictable. What else could we reasonably expect?

If we experience it over and over and over, then maybe it is a pattern to learn from, rather than just a threat to the desperation and mental ill will that goes with literal fanaticism. Contempt is ill will. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke about it passionately, but as a warning against it, just like Isaiah and Moses and so many others warned about it passionately.

the way of heaven: cease blame and forgive your own condemnation

March 23, 2012

originally titled: “to heaven from… blame”

I question the presumption that there is anything wrong with the world, or any need to save it from anything. I borrow that idea from a fellow named Jesus, who is translated to have said: “I come not to judge the world, but to bring forgiveness to the world.” I am paraphrasing actually, but the verbatim saying is “not to judge the world, but to take away the sin of the world.”

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica...

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglican Church http://www.stjohnsashfield.org.au, Ashfield, New South Wales. Illustrates Jesus' description of himself "I am the Good Shepherd" (from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11). This version of the image shows the detail of his face. The memorial window is also captioned: "To the Glory of God and in Loving Memory of William Wright. Died 6th November, 1932. Aged 70 Yrs." (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In churches, I was taught that Jesus takes away the sins of the world. He said sin, though, not sins (at least that is how it is translated in the actual printed Bibles even if multitudes of Christians misquote the translation written on the pages of their Bibles). Also, Jesus was not talking about sin the way that others were- like the pharisees who wished to stone a woman to death who was accused of being a criminal (prostitution was a capital crime) and so on.

Jesus did not judge her or even direct her to “do penance” to compensate and earn her way back to heaven. He simply did not accuse her and invited her accusers to repent, which they did. He took away the accusation of the world. He saved the world from… accusations!

Jesus also did not direct her accusers to do penance either. He had no judgment against them from the beginning. He just said things like “well, alas, they do not even know what they are doing” and “remove the barrier from your own sight, not from the sight of another.”

Sin is not just partly “in the eye of the beholder.” Sin is a way of looking. Sin is ONLY in the eye of the beholder. Looking out and seeing sin, that is sin. (Looking in and seeing sin is guilt, but heaven is the way of being in which there is simply no blame, no accusation, no judgment against evil or for good, no need to forgive for there is no condemnation.)

Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986)

Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I invite you to consider a distinction to which I was introduced by Jiddu Krishnamurti: religion itself is not the problem. Religions, however- or at least certain human operations that go by the names of religions- sometimes seem to have a distinct absence of religion in their religions.

“…there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

Shakespeare (spoken by the character Hamlet).

Good and evil of this world of duality are unreal,
are spoken of by words, and exist only in the mind.”
Bhagavatam, XI, ch. XXII.

John 8:15 “You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.” (Jesus speaking to the orthodox religious leaders)

The one who judges other seeks to glorify (vindicate) himself. (See John 8:50)

http://niv.scripturetext.com/john/8.htm

First Published on: Dec 6, 2009

Related articles

“all things are possible” & “condemn not” – Jesus & the realm of language

February 28, 2012

Published as a page: 2010/03/13
Republished as a post: 2012/2/28/

Note the following two propositions.

1) All things are possible.

(Sound familiar? Here are some famous statements about the possibility that “all things could be possible.”)

Mark 10:27

“…all things are possible with God.” …

Matthew 19:26

“…with God all things are possible.” …

Mark 14:36

… And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you.” …

Mark 9:23
“All things are possible for one who believes.”

(Note that the above are English translations of the words of a heretical mystic, so some degree of misinterpretation might be among the alleged infinity of things that are possible.)

2) all experience is subjective perception

This assertion fits with the writings of numerous famous authors including Plato, Socrates, Hume, William James, Descartes, and the Islamic/Sufi Mystic Jili, among many others.

“All experience is subjective.” - Gregory Bateson Linguistic Anthropologist whose research and findings were formulated into a field called Neuro-Linguistic Programming

Let’s put these together into a chart:

There: of all possible things, some portion (whether 1% or 10%) could be perceived by a particular process of perceiving. Note also that when we refer to “what is possible,” we are doing so within the realm of language- not that there could not be possibilities beyond the realm of language, but just that we can only use language to reference a thing that is already  within the realm of language, so all of our linguistic references are limited to the realm of language.

Now that we are explicitly referencing the realm of language, we can also reference linguistic formations that propose that certain things are not possible. At that point, we have left what Jesus called the realm of God (the kingdom of heaven).

Note that if we forget that we are in the realm of language, our subjective perceptions or experiencings may be referenced in language as “what is.” (We can call our linguistic labels for reality “the truth,” but labels are still just labels. As Jiddu Krishnamurti said, “Truth is a pathless land,” as in a wordless land. Labels are distinct from the actuality that is labeled with the labels of language. Language is of course an aspect of reality, but quite distinct from all other formations in reality. Language, for instance, is the realm of lies and nonsense, which only exist in

Cover of

Cover of Truth Is a Pathless Land

language.)

Note that if among all of what should be, only some of it actually is present (or recognized/perceived), then the rest of reality may logically be “what is not (but should be).” Obviously, anything that should not be and is not is functionally irrelevant. Some of that may even be called “what can’t be” (AKA what’s denied as impossible), which is perhaps the most distinctive variation between the realm of God’s language and the realm of conventional or unconscious language.

By the way, the idolatrous worship of ideals of “what should be” does not precisely replace “the realm of possibility.” Realistically, the realm of possibility is of course more comprehensive than the limited realm of “what should be.” However note that only within conventional or unconscious language (as distinct from the language of God), there is the possibility of “what should not be (but is).”

That is the realm of “problems” or “evil,” that is, things to condemn or hide or fix. Note that for God, there is nothing to condemn or hide or fix:

“As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to…” demonstrate and share a radical new gospel of forgiveness. (John 12:47)

It is the particular language of the devil which would say in condemnation or accusation “that should not be!” It is not the words themselves, but the mode in which they are spoken which distinguish the language of the devil. For instance, in a training context, if one says to another “that should not be like that, but like this” and then shows the correct way to do something- such as to write a capital letter A- that is quite distinct from what Jesus was referencing when he taught “Condemn not.” (Luke 6:37)

Other early Christians taught similarly:

“No matter who you are, if you judge anyone , you have no excuse. When you judge another person, you condemn yourself,

Romans 2:1

“11Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?”

James 4:11 & 12

and once again

“As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to…” demonstrate and share a radical new gospel of forgiveness. (John 12:47)

as well as

“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.” (Luke 6:42)

“You judge according to appearances: I am judging no one.” (John 8:15)

and now a similar passage from the Old Testament:

But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7

Finally, back to the fundamental discovering of “what is possible,” here is a relatively “secular” audio recording called “from what should be to what could be:”

http://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/from-should-to-could/

Related articles

the language of creating

November 20, 2011

(See also my blog post “an introduction to language” which was two prior to this one.)

keywords: zen, advaita, transformation, language, nlp, jnana, mooji, jnana yoga,dhyana, dhyana yoga, meditative inquiry, toni packer, jiddu krishnamurti, lawrence platt, werner erhard, redemption, ACIM, disappearance of the universe, moral paralysis, analysis paralysis


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 755 other followers

%d bloggers like this: