Krishnammurti, Sexual Trauma, and The Blaming of Time

I'm beginning to think that the entire habit of demonizing time in the so-called 'Aryan civilizations" - but really applicable to al traumatized people - forms in the background of the relational trauma of early life sexual abuse.

Let's be perfectly honest: C.W. Leadbeater, a famous theosophist, was also pedophile. Krishnamurti was raised by this man, and no doubt, unfortunately, was forced to metabolize many experiences that, as is well known to ALL PSYCHODYNAMICALLY ENLIGHTENED therapists (capitalized because of its fundamental importance!) is the basis of what's known as "borderline states of consciousness".

Early life sexual abuse is the very beginning and core of "not being known". To think a child of any age - before puberty - has any such desires, is to be naively related to the intersubjtecively generated affects that underlie your motivational states. You are confused - lost - and unable to reorder yourself in a semiotically coherent way, when the past, and a symmetry dynamic that was necessary for healthy development (I.e. adult UNDERSTANDS what child is feeling/wanting is complementary/symmetrical) was VIOLATED by a perversely organized adult that pretended - because of the various unconscious social-circumstances that are mindlessly TAKEN FOR GRANTED as important - that he had a "higher reason" for doing what he did

Blaming time is the only road left if shame and the consequences of its effects are left unaddressed. The only reason - the only basis - for a pathological obsession of "ending-time", has its roots in the relational dysregulation - inhumanity, selfishness, and egoistic pursuit of desire - that doesn't relatedly mindfully - or with a sense of conscious power - in relation to illicit thoughts or feelings.

Krishnamurti, perhaps a good man at times, was fundamentally in denial about the structured nature of his mental experience. Even though perception occurs through time, and experience is constantly being conditioned by past experience, with each new meaning modifying the last, the power of shame, and the power of its dysregulating impact on an adult human consciousness, is extreme - so much so that all this meaning can be dissociated and ignored in the reasoning process.

As much as Krishnamurti imagined himself "outside time", he and his questions, for instance, in "The Ending of Time", are completely riddled by motivations of guilt, confusion, and semantical incoherency, primarily because Krishnamurti is so abtract - so out of touch with the facts of contemporary neuroscience and philosophy, around embodiment, extension, and complementarity of structure. He wrote in a different time period, yet the book is still turned to today as if the issue, as he presented it, doesn't imply some unrecognized pathological orientation.

Tryign to explain the human being outside of the INTERSUBJECTIVE context is a doomed failure - doomed because it pretends that the sign-systems of communication between humans are not simultaneously functionally and semantically involved in generating new ontological structure. Our mind IS our Brain; there is no "two" - but an inside, and an outside. Krishnamurti's dissociative tendencies reach absurd lengths, when, like Descartes, he wonders whether a part of the brain "lies outside time".

In short - your face looks as it does because another face was trying to extract meaning from it. Your sclera - or white of your eyes - looks as it does because other people needed to see YOUR intentional states, which are indicated by the contrast between the pupil/iris and the white.

To claim, in short, anything about yourself - ontologically - that tries to abstract from the social-context - from the conditioning impact of development, or what pediatricians and child psychologists call the "neurosequential model of therapeutics", where the most effective forms of treatment are those which properly represent the period of time in a persons development where something went wrong - is fundamentally ignorant, fantasy-based, and from an educated perspective, pathetic in it's grasping at "fixing" a problem in a way that will ONLY WORSEN the problem.

If states, for example, depend on acknowledging time - such as being punctual in relationships, acknowledging what anther person said, etc, then there is, in fact ,"psychological time".

[I]“You see, I want to [laughing] abolish time, psychologically. You understand?...To me, that is the enemy.” [/I] – J Krishnamurti, David Bohm, The Ending of Time; pg. 14, Harper One, 2014

Or does internal representations - known in philosophy as "non-conceptual meanings", not exist? In the brain, such meanings are 'right-brain' signs, recognized implicitly, which direct the formulation of the approach taken by linguistic based cognitive systems. Krishnamurti, in not being a psychologist, proves how utterly useless his philosophizing is against the facts of clinical psychology and its growing understanding that the issue, fundamentally, is about affect-regulation i.e. not feeling right at the affective, analogue, self-other semiotic level, i.e. experiencing percepts that tend to represent the environment or others negatively, and this dysfuntion is predominantly the environment, but also, partially, and thanks to the accumulated effect of thousands of years of a traumatizing world that spread aryan and middle eastern fantasies about the self (built out of imperialist motives) genetic and epigenetic systems that make people "sensitive" to the cultural meanings that their system is already sensitive to receiving.

How do we fix this, if such egotism is connected to people with these sorts of beliefs? Unless Sex - and its noxious, perverting influence in the form of child sexual abuse, is acknowledged as what redirects consciousness towards time, and away from traumatological affects with an inherently social structure i.e. shame, and how such affect operates by directing our conscious experience in such a way at to prevent the emergence of destabilizing states of mind.

Westerners have ben peddling this delusion about time for a long time, and it is insidiously off-target in trying to make the world better.

The problem is not, and has never been, and cannot even be - at a sheer logical level - the issue of time. Whatever Krishnamurti experiences in the height of meditation, of course, is profoundly interesting; but side by side with his spiritual insight, lies a hurt child - unknown, and unacknowledged - because Krishnamurti chooses to make his meaning in a way that doesn't acknowledge - or couldn't acknowledge - facts of neuroscience, phenomenology, and developmental psychology, which see's the human being as fundamentally an intersubjective, and dyadic phenomenon: thus, trying to find an explanation for any question of conflict that doesn't address how we experience ourselves in relation to certain issues that unconsciously activate shame (such as the present issue, for those people who DO have some history they are not in conscious contact with).

We live in a SEMIOTIC reality. It is because we take thing in in such an ignorant, simple-minded way, that the genius of someone like Charles Sanders Peirce, who wrote more than a century ago, has gone unrecognized, because the rotten, capitalist creed of "its good to be selfish", utterly perverts human beings and their awareness - or care to be aware of - the motivations which underlie their actions.

Sources? Or is this just gobledy gook?

originally posted by: Blueracer
Sources? Or is this just gobledy gook?

Pretty sure the primary source was a Thesaurus...

a reply to: Blueracer

Only one of the greatest 'thinkers' of all time.

I dumbed that down a bit so you would get it.



peace

a reply to: silo13

His thinking is incompatible with reason.

His ultimate point is that exploring the psychological self is irrelevant. Irrelevant, he claims. Why can't he be more honest, and explain, why?

The idea that motivation isn't present within us - isn't implied by our non-conceptual experience of ourselves in relation to actions and words towards us - is obscene in its idiocy.

We search in vain for scientific solutions - for ideas of "immortality" - so long as we fail to address and live truthfully with the semiotics of existence.

Krishnamurti thought long and hard, but his conclusion and his meandering in getting there, is incoherent.

People with ordered minds i.e. accept the "mathematics" of the 3rd person structure of nature, the intersubjective truths of 2nd person experiences of interacting with Other humans, and the 1st person facts of experience.

Krishnamurti's way of being, is, finally, a fantasy. Structured knowing is basic to relating. Krishnamurti, constantly, talks of inside and outside as if they aren't the same thing expressing different sides of a singular process. He believes he can talk coherently and reasonably in this way, even though his every state of experience is itself a structure of (a) self-other interactions beginning in infancy, and (b) how those interactions have set fundamental constraints on what is thinkable and knowable.

If Krishnamurti was sexually abused as a child, then one wonders how he can imagine his thinking to be coherent if such an early-life trauma lies hidden, unspoken, and unshared. Why else hide such a fact unless it exerted powerful control over the flow of your awareness, and so, your awareness was forced to evolve in the shadow of the trauma?

This is just bad philosophy and bad reasoning. He talks of the brain as a simple object. He talks as if he hasn't himself been modified in his knowing-and-feeling-relation by asymmetrical violations perpetuated by others, to which, during the act, and following the act, he was forced into a self-regulatory process that set him elsewhere - towards a different semiotic attractor, consistent with, and similar to, the attractors of theosophy from where his conditioning first began.

I am, of course, quite happy and satisfied with his belief in love, but I find his belief in love to be a fantasy without the scaffolding of reason - as love, itself a symmetry forming dynamic between humans, is merely what operates between people positively knowing one another. Similarly, as per Goethe, knowing the world in a truthful way is a relation of love between self and object. Thus, knowing our evolution - our relatedness to one another - our embeddedness in a mostly deterministic semiotic process - is a knowledge - a symmetry (because it truthfully represents the process is describes) which, amazingly, releases torrents of energy - an unusual compassion, and tolerance, when the knowledge is there within the self, held and known, as a way to make sense of the signals you experience from others, as well as what you experience within yourself.

This is all about OTHER orientedness, with the self treated as "other" vis-à-vis your observing consciousness, and ones thoughts and feelings, treated as what they are: environmentally assimilated structures - known to be 'foreign' as an essential fact of the object that it is. Similarly, the other Humans outside us are the primary dynamical objects which activate or effect energy within us. A face, with its particular organization, is instantly communicative to our structure, and "upends' us far more powerfully than anything we could do on our own in our head.

Krishnamurti cannot face the other, because he harbors an injury which prevents him from looking back again. So he latches on to an existing theme: blaming the quality of time - and yet, insisting that the doesn't mean the end of thought or action. This is dualism, and dissociation, and, fundamentally, and deservedly, disliked by believers in reason.

We are FAR OLDER than 6,000 years old. Archeology shows a 200,000 year old creature. The idea that sexual-abuse is normal, or that the structuring of the outside world doesn't fundamentally control the behavior of our consciousness, a belief this stupidity is based upon, needs to end. Asymmetrical relational experiences stemming from such periods severely change consciousness, which, without a safe-enough context, cannot find coherent expression without representation i.e. naming.

Thanks for the thread, Astrocyte.

I've read some of his works.

I like to watch another man's way of thinking, because I feel my own mindset is so limited. I can agree or disagree with this or that author on his view, logic or conclusions (for me this information is secondary), but it's interesting to me to learn how exactly the author thinks, meaning how his mentation is constructed and works. This is what I want to discover. Not the ideas nor revelations, but the specifics / peculiarities of the thought process. Even some extreme freaks, whose point of view is a complete and utter nonsense, may have an interesting method of thinking or unique perspective that I would be interested to explore. Supposedly this point of view has much more potential than analyzing another guru's instructions.

So, I always try to segregate things like a person himself, his belief system, and the way his mind works.

I'll think a bit whether I'm able to contribute to your thread more specifically (сoncerning Krishnamurti's personality / teachings / way of thinking), but anyway, thanks again for the topic.

If it is recognised that all is happening now - why would you (the observer) feel shame?
You are merely aware of the dream. If you believe that you are a person in time then you will feel guilt and shame - but you are not a person (a thing) in time.
You are the ever present witness of what is appearing presently.

If a story about someone in time happens then you, the witness of the story, will know it is not about you. This is freedom.

a reply to: Astrocyte
Have you ever listened to this talk?

Thought implies that there is a thinker - a someone separate from thought - but is there really a thinker separate from thought?
It might seem as if there is 'someone in there' that needs fixing but is there?

a reply to: Astrocyte

Krishnamurti cannot face the other, because he harbors an injury which prevents him from looking back again.

You are missing the point entirely!
There is only ever what is happening - there is no other, ever.

What is happening is what there is - even if there are thoughts happening that speak of 'other' - other times, other places, other people - there is only what is happening.

It is far too simple.

Thought is always working things out but what is there to work out when it is found that all is showing up and the real you only witnesses the showing up.

Tryign to explain the human being outside of the INTERSUBJECTIVE context is a doomed failure - doomed because it pretends that the sign-systems of communication between humans are not simultaneously functionally and semantically involved in generating new ontological structure. Our mind IS our Brain; there is no "two" - but an inside, and an outside. Krishnamurti's dissociative tendencies reach absurd lengths, when, like Descartes, he wonders whether a part of the brain "lies outside time".

What is being failed to notice? Is this fellow was indoctrinated in the systematic peodphile ring of slavery to a family for various reasons. Many adopted children are abused in the system; seen as unwanted... so how to imprint a child onto a family that has no connection to them? Abuse because that is an assumption of what will make them "feel" at home. Then like some homing pidgeon keep returning to that abuse or time line as an event so that others may exist in one's mind/thoughts whether they want them there or not.

Absolutely not the case but it is for many reasons; like the trope of the abused housewife that keeps returning to a man that beats her or the matriarch that lets the partner abuse the children because she lives in relative ease and at least it isn't her.

Krishnamurti... this should show that the author is or has sought out a philosophical life outside of the Western realm of thought. Throwing that sort of psychology at anyone is in itself pathological and systematic.

A mind is not a brain... form in and of itself is not a person but a moment of awareness called being.

In tranquility a pond is clear like a mirror, shattering the image of the self or being is to throw a rock at the surface... yet like all attached minds grasping at some image they fall into a state of confusion when others not oneself claim to know their experience... such a thing is a conceptual hive mind.

Consider the bee demanding the wasp to make honey. This is what Western society and other forms of capitalistic thinking or government structure demands even communism.

The demand for such social pathological structuring is for branding people and all other life as a slave one of servitude instead of self control and reliance on one's own skills and abilities, as a fetter to society.

Society to an individual is a fetter to that individual in the limitation of freedom; while too much choice can leave one with too many options to consider, too few is like a tree in a storm in-flexible it snaps and breaks.

Yet another mirror or echo of what my way and no other way in the duality of self needing/depending on other instills or trys too for control of a or any being other than oneself.

Dependent arising is nothing new; one's own cause is the effect of one's own action... the intent behind that action whether deemed good or bad, gets morals applied to it to add an extra layer or social responsibility to that hive mind as if there where not enough laws as it is to limit life. The external structure outside of moral? Is ethical behavior... something the science of mind and other things in general leave all life as a test subject or something to study and consider instead of simply live.

It is a noose that becomes too tight in collectivity instead of freedom.

Can one hold up a mirror see the image and not speak a word? Can one do the same when looking out at anyone else and do the the same?

Yes. Such a thing is called the end of bias or duality... meaning peace within and without; the ONLY conflict that arrives? Is then those that expect you to be a slave or a dependent just like anyone else...

Remove the hive mind of societal expectations and the prison/pathological/social structure ends.

What remains? Only the food chain... the thing that ALL life from smallest known to smallest unknown, to largest known, to largest unknown requires for life to continue... the rest is just one huge ad-hominem attack on one's being called expectation as an excuse to do all else, and the expectation that one will or else others will will be forced upon you the same as the monkey in the cage experiements.

Social training/learning is always going to be systematic in the trope of society that is nothing but a cycle of rinse repeat with different, names, faces, places and yet? The suffering remains the same DUE to all of those bondages that others add for no reason except to feel that they somehow belong.

It is said that one must except a greater power than oneself no matter what? And that is the gravity of the situation.

The silly thing is society wants to think that; we are not even an animal and yet condition each other in dominance and submission to keep the entire mass going... but that entire mass called earth has spun and will continue to spin without any of this thought deemed superior either way.

Thought is the posion, one can put a puzzle together on sight and touch alone... this is how we so called evolved in the first place... out of contact, seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting the conceptual ball over all of us, is not the earth or the sun and yet paradoxically? It is.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
I am, of course, quite happy and satisfied with his belief in love, but I find his belief in love to be a fantasy without the scaffolding of reason - as love, itself a symmetry forming dynamic between humans, is merely what operates between people positively knowing one another.

The love that J Kristnamurti speaks of is 'unconditional love' - it is what IS - prior to any name or label (concept) - it is this that IS.
When thought is not appearing concerned with 'someone in time' - the peace that is always here is unveiled.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Uncnditional love, leads to a very heavy heart as the world and all life sort of becomes one's children... and people wonder why Atlas had such a strong meaning.

Altas being an archtype for gravity it is better to let the moment weigh itself, the path to next choice is always one task left to be yet undone this is called future out of the present moment.

Why? When one has dropped all past? Those that haven't... swell and drive around you like a river towards a future of grasping.

In the present moment? One might as well be invisible with all of that mental conceptual grasping and hopping around... so one step out of the void is the next sense to take hold; my ciggarette went out, while typing this so after clicking reply? That is my future.

Wu Wei being moment to moment to moment and yet going no where except the next moment in that infinite list one movement of eye, ear, nose, taste, touch or simply contact away.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Uncnditional love, leads to a very heavy heart as the world and all life sort of becomes one's children

Where is the 'world'? Isn't it just made out of language?
I see or hear no world.

In the present moment? One might as well be invisible with all of that mental conceptual grasping and hopping around... so one step out of the void is the next sense to take hold; my ciggarette went out, while typing this so after clicking reply? That is my future.

You say 'mental conceptual grasping' - but there is just thought arising - no one can grasp thought. Has any thought come and not gone?
If you are not invisible - can you say what you appear as?

No one can be in the moment!!

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Uncnditional love, leads to a very heavy heart as the world and all life sort of becomes one's children... and people wonder why Atlas had such a strong meaning.

Only if you believe you are of the world!
What is appearing is just a dream - all of it - a show - a play of light. Are you concerned about the people that appeared in the dream that happened last night while you seemed to be sleeping in your bed?
You are the witness of the dream - but even this is not true - because 'witness' and 'dream' are two. Really,there is just the only - dreaming - streaming - whatever is appearing.
No chooser - no choice.

The World is a Story made of Language.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

You caught your own tiger by the tale on this one.

However you spin that ball of concept the tongue is still attached.

Freeing the mind one's ass is sure to follow when a tail is still attached and the monkey shines on in it's own nit picking.

The thesis of this thread is undermined by its assumption that Charles W. Leadbeater was a paedophile. Having examined this issue very thoroughly and carefully (I talked at length with Dora Kunz, Leadbeater's secretary and developer of "therapeutic touch"), I came to the conclusion that there is NO proof of this and that all the alleged evidence was concocted by a few Theosophists who were jealous of the position he held within the Theosophical Society. Annie Besant is widely regarded as a highly ethical woman who helped to start the trade union movement in England and, as second president of the Indian National Congress, helped the Indian people rid themselves of British colonialism. She would NEVER have re-admitted Leadbeater into the Theosophical Society, which she led at the time, had she thought that he was a paedophile. Of course, if you don't accept Theosophy, you will mindlessly and uncritically grab whatever false insinations and rumours were made at the time in the campaign by some (mostly American) Theosophists to discredit Leadbeater. But, these accusations have faded over the time and Theosophists today recognise them for what they always were: scurrilous lies created by internal tensions at the time between the American and British sections of the Theosophical Society. Besant, the first woman ever to defend herself before an English court of law, examined the charges some jealous individuals had laid against Leadbeater and dismissed them as vile, empty accusations, advising her colleague to leave the society for a while whilst the storm blew over.

Critics of Theosophy stil uncritically interpret all this to throw yet more mud at its founders, just as they did towards Madam Blavatsky, whose so-called "exposure" as a medium by the London Society for Psychical Research was debunked by this very organisation several years ago, confessing that it had been a hatchet job. The notion that Krishnamurti was a victim of paedophile advances by Leadbeater and that his philosophy was warped by these hypothetical experiences is ludicrous. It is sad that so many people at ATS who criticise reports as "fake news" are incapable of recognising past versions of it when the debunking of these would undermine their belief systems. It demonstrates that what would now be regarded as "fake news" is often merely what they want to believe, often concocted in order to undermine and discredit someone. Instead of accepting vacuous accusations ever repeated by those hostile towards Theosophy, they should first examine the facts. That way, they will not perpetuate myths and will start to live up to the motto of ATS: "Deny ignorance".

a reply to: Itisnowagain

No one can be in the moment!!

posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 06:57

You were in the moment.

peace

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: Itisnowagain

No one can be in the moment!!

posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 06:57

You were in the moment.

peace

There is no one - there is only ever what is happening.
The someone is an added extra that does not actually exist apart from what is happening. There is nothing separate!

a reply to: Itisnowagain

YOU are the cause of your own effect... your intentions birth each moment based on where your attention lay. That is usually based on your OWN personal attachments or cravings and desires.

If you cannot see this? You are stepping into the same shadow over and over again repeating your own round and round or cycle of chosen poison over and over again... in the cycle of life; how is it any different for anyone else?

That difference is a self, that sameness is no self but that is just experience.

Each moment different than the last except in grasping... what one takes hold of now? Is a fetter for the future, what one has taken hold of in the past? Is all the ties that bind one's OWN self into the future.

Gossip carries others on their back like a frog carrying a scorpion across a river... set all of that down and where is the momentum? Even the stomach has a distaste for things when the mind gets upset it too vomits all over the place.

Call it language or regurgitation, the concept remains the same. When the ears cannot listen the head is already full.