Krishnammurti, Sexual Trauma, and The Blaming of Time

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness
Not sure what you mean by all that?
Maybe you could condense it down for me as I am having trouble even starting a reply.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Your cause of posting is the effect called my reply. Each action you do as an individual compounds into countless effects... understanding intention allows one to understand the building of one's individual karma. Understanding the intentions of groups of others... whether it be family, friends, or other group association, such as club or organisation, county, city, state or country even world there is an effect cycle.

Freeing oneself of karma one comes to the end of the self cycle of generation always in the present moment. Others however trapped in their own cycle have their own personal burden of cause and effect. Some would say put family first as a cause; when it should be top down as in world causes first afterwards such as global poison seeing the world itself as an enlightened being a part of an enlightened universe, and then helping down smaller and smaller until there is no remainder of delusion, greed or hate from all of the ignorance of those not interested in any cause or effects greater than ones own or immediate families personal gain.

Consider the Bhavacakra to be a wheel of life emblazoned on each and everyone's back as their own cycle of becoming, life all contained within one's own being. Each individual has more responsibility towards all life than they could ever imagine.

Constantly repeating there is NO-thing is an extreme view of being. You say it is impossible to remove thought; however thought is a thing. So you have struck yourself over and over again with such claims in language trying to explain the impossible which is also a thing.

There is no-thing in and of itself in dependent origination we all depend on the universe and earth etc. to sustain us as life on the larger scale then the other concepts trickling down to however far that conceptual chain one chews on in that cakra or wheel of existence one is constantly turning one wants to call a "mind" awareness requires no thought. Consciousness is in the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, touch or simply contact. These can become void the eye can see/read/ and comprehend with no thought nor prompt to do so like a camera left on, the ear the same, the nose, the same, the tongue the same, and touch or all in one contact? The same. The end of all duality or bias...

This does not mean others cease to exist; if so? Who would the buddha been teaching and what would he have been discussing? No one and nothing. So why would he have painstakingly bothered to teach for over 80 years? Out of compassion and empathy sure; but ignorance, greed and hate from all of the delusional grasping at concepts is painful prone to suffering... as is ALL existence. Even when free from the wheel? That just means one can transmigrate at will at any time and at any place or anywhere on it that one desires too as well as make as many illusory or dream bodies to aid other sentient beings on the cycle to aid them to freedom.

Nothing? If such a thing is a reality to you even though you reply on something; you post on something, respond to something, and yet say there is nothing? My friend you are stuck in an elaborate dream or makyo that is preventing you from reaching any progress forward on your path to whatever it is you seek from it. The ground of being is like all pervasive space. When I sit with my eyes closed it is like sitting on the stratosphere on top of the world a blue bubble arc line below and rainbows of many colors below and above.

Nothing to do there except sit in peace... no work can be done to aid others or even oneself. So doing such is a waste of time, this is also why other awakened beings of various types teach; they also flow through all others including animals trees rocks etc. as energy itself... no big deal. That is why the ego is the enemy of each individual... there is no freedom there only pain suffering and struggle... when one frees from the cycle with no remainder as in a flame with nothing burning in the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the touch or contact? Then it flows on and on.

My life is not mine; it arises due to the compassion and empathy that other life gives me in return... it manifests out of being due to respect held mutually. Those holding onto a so called self, for whatever reason? Still need help... this process can go on and on why? Because people hold onto a past, even though every experience no matter how many times it is repeated or the conditions met to make it the same? Cannot ever in any way be the same. So saying I don't like tuna offends the tuna and all of those in the industry that provide tuna for the world So that area of life or bias WILL not support you unless is it out of compassion/empathy or nonduality.

Great care in any intention should be taken future is always arising due to plans made in a moment based on past... the present moment? There sits no intention out of duality and bias all the consciousness eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or contact like a fire gone out. No fuel nothing to attach too that would bring pain and suffering in another... the pain and suffering that exists to such a being? Arises from others... and it takes a great amount of compassion and empathy like a parent watching to try to minimize harm by issuing words of wisdom to ease pain, trouble, and burdens so that the sickness that is oneself to the world and the sickness that is of others to the world and the universe as a whole? Gets better.

a reply to: Astrocyte

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.

No no no no no. My eyes are red because of Johnny Walker!

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).

Forgive me starting with a little joke. Great Op btw...


Initially I thought, reading this op, that I could say….AHA….Have I finally seen on ATS a certified disciple of the most renowned philosopher of our age that is the Einstein of consciousness, the redoubtable Ken Wilber!


I detect a lot of Wilber in this very, very formidable OP. Though at the end not as much. This then is an example of advanced thinkers being students of similar schools of philosophical thought….Fine.

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).

Interesting, I think I understand the gist of your ideas here. I don’t necessarily agree with all of them but think your ideas are complex enough and exiting enough to make this a good OP.


Ill only say Krishnamurti whatever else he was, was a mystic and they do claim the right in itself to interpret reality from standpoints of higher consciousness which, although never denies the exigency of the lower realms, still have a place for what people might call or understand as specialized consciousness, or in ontological reference, a State. It has to do with what mystics would call, the above. It gets outside of something enough to see better….clearer. Its focus is so intense that clear light focuses awareness on a phenomenon and can be understood better.

You suggest though a valid argument of the exigency of the inter-subjective, but here’s where I disagreed with the Wilberian philosophy and I disagree with yours as well.

There are discreet realms where reality is above itself, or realms of it in sequential order so often consciousness rises up to see something that's at the base of the lower…


A human being can rise above the intersubjective tangle of phenomena and see something. What they make of that is up to them, of course

Granted one has to pay the piper one way or another to the god of whatever realm their entangled in. Therein time has its day


Its sort of like the old myth of magicians having to pay the devil its do, sooner or later.


The key in getting around the devil is something we all know and its called transmutation. The thing is were not in control of that

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness
There are no individuals!!
There is what is happening now - there is nothing other.
The idea that you are an individual makes you try to do life right and not wrong. After eating from the tree of knowledge of good and bad you try your best.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

How am I supposed to do my best if not an individual?

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Itisnowagain

How am I supposed to do my best if not an individual?

Well that is the issue!!

Each action you do as an individual compounds into countless effects...

There is nothing individual but there seems to be a belief there that you are - so trying (seeking) happens.
Is there freedom if there is seeking?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Art is individual and that's what life can be transmuted into... infinite being with continually arising; in non grasping by simply letting go, some cannot and there lay the prison until that karma of past action is resolved then things seem fixed or without freewill. However when one ceases intention one stops acting in the dream and instead is just present.

Interaction to whatever arises also a choice; grasping and letting go in a continual cycle. Like ceasing the moment instead of ceasing the day...

So perhaps we point to the exact same thing; and yet choose a wording that makes sense to only that individual expression or choosing... I call that the art of being, sorry for not seeing your expression of it as one taste...

I've been noticing the phenominal twist known as synesthesia lately in awareness; life expresses and always seems to find some way or mode of expression... when intentional it is either art or deception.

a reply to: Willtell

Ill only say Krishnamurti whatever else he was, was a mystic and they do claim the right in itself to interpret reality from standpoints of higher consciousness which, although never denies the exigency of the lower realms, still have a place for what people might call or understand as specialized consciousness, or in ontological reference, a State. It has to do with what mystics would call, the above. It gets outside of something enough to see better….clearer. Its focus is so intense that clear light focuses awareness on a phenomenon and can be understood better.

I subscribe to the scientific method, something Krishnamurti did not.

So what is the scientific method? Stated simply and easily: hypothesis and observation - oscillating back and forth. Hypothesis and observation could be said to be the way Humans 'discourse with the universe' in COHERENT ways i.e. in ways that are consistent with the ecological and relational substratum of things.

When you said about Krishnamurti made my blood boil. Do you know how I responded? I think to myself: if you express this affect, or accept this affect i.e. simply by writing from it, you, or the person I am communicating with, will experience my writing in a negative way. That is, you will sense the underlying intentional state that motivates my writing.

Krishnamurti completely lacks this sort of ethological, i.e. naturalistic and biologically truthful, way of thinking or thinking about himself. Why is that? I grant that he lived through the "crazy 60's", and like many other "gurus", seems to have become a confused narcissist because his reference points for thinking were entirely polarized or reductive, which is to say, because mainstream science has for so long been ridiculously reductive and antagonistic towards objective meaning, other people, without realizing it, but quite aware of the "schools they oppose", jumped into the opposite perspective, all the while non-realizing the dynamical continuity between their own chosen direction and the polarized views of others.

In other words, Humans are like Russian dolls: the outer doll is the society-world relationship, which is long developed, and very old: it precedes us and is exactly that which we genetically/epigenetically inherit from our immediate ancestors. It contains the entire corpus of the self-object relations that give rise to human reality.

Around this society-world relationship - a point/counter-point structure in the Uexkullian sense, is he Self-Other relationship. The former relationship becomes 'relational' through the transmission and evolution of symbols. By developing sign-systems, humans come to "know" the World i.e. the ultimate metaphysical Other; Self-Other relations, in turn, are directed or under the influence of body language, facial expressions, eye gaze and vocal tone - this being the 'intersubjective matrix" where meaning is first processed and made. This meaning-carrier PRECEDES symbolic consciousness, and so, necessarily, precedes the words/ideas used by Krishnamurti.

Finally, within the intersubjective matrix lies a point-counter point dialogue between perception and action. Affect links the two in the same way that non-verbal communication links self and other, and signs/symbols link humans to the world.

The lie, or the intense delusion, is that one can have a true understanding of the world (Krishnamurti) without first establishing coherency in the interpersonal context (nonverbal meanings and their intrinsic powers) as well as the intrapsychic context.

Do you see why I am claiming here? Ancient metaphysical systems are GUESSES at how reality works, yet people with INSUFFICIENT knowledge, i.e. operating in an informationally sparse environment (the ancient world) come to views which are inherently one-sided i.e. taking reality in from only one perspective i.e. the emergent.

The issue is real, and because sexual-childhood abuse is inherently traumatic, and typically something that is difficult to put into language without the support of an outside other to scaffold your preparedness to think and feel about it, the idea that Krishnamurti thought truthfully, or could reason truthfully, without even a consideration of his own probably history of sexual abuse (this applies to Whitley Screiber as well) is quite amazing.

The pretense of humility simply does not square with his worm-like tendency to avoid reflecting, and, because he is so used to being treated, or rather, thinking of himself as the sole arbiter of truth, as the theosophists spent so many years entraining him into believing, what you seem to end up with is a person who is perhaps pathologically incapable of experiencing himself in the mode of student, particularly vis-à-vis the scientific method.

Lastly, if the human can, as I believe, make contact with the 'top', what on Earth would one ever assume that the bottom - or the actual structure of reality, as described by the sciences - is irrelevant?

For me, knowing that symmetry runs from bottom to top, is the 'bottom' that parallels the "top" (or gnosis) that Krishnamurti was apparently effected by. The difference between me and him, is that I'm committed to a perception of time, and do not consider time to be outside the universe or incompatible with the Universe's essential nature.

What's terribly odd, to me, is how anyone pursuing a spiritual or ultimate meaning could push out of their head/reality facts of science, or assume, as so many do, that such facts wouldn't embody truths of a more theosophical nature.

I.e. symmetry - is equality. Equality is care, love. It's also restraint, patience, and temperance.

There are those who advance positions that are intrinsically narcissistic, megalomaniacal, and so, for many, many people, a source of trauma as the traumatizing narcissist is simply too involved with their own self-regulation/narcissistic sense of self-importance to recognize the damage they cause others.

a reply to: Astrocyte

No problem, scientific methodology is fine as far as it goes, and it goes as far as the reality of the five senses.

You seem to attack yourself to materialism and spiritual people or mystics merely claim a contact with a higher sense world that isn’t really based on belief or ordinary perception.

Mystics btw don’t argue against one who has confined themselves to a five sense reality being the be and end all of reality.

It’s not a question of belief or argumentation but experience.

Therefore, one embedded into the material 5-sense paradigm, cant even judge certain states of mystics, objectively speaking.

I wonder, though, why pick on him particularly. I knew more about him years ago, but never actually was attached to him particularly, and am certainly not defending him in any way particularly, though maybe generally, somewhat.

Your views are reasonably ordinary from a belief standpoint.

a reply to: Astrocyte

What's terribly odd, to me, is how anyone pursuing a spiritual or ultimate meaning could push out of their head/reality facts of science, or assume, as so many do, that such facts wouldn't embody truths of a more theosophical nature.

It’s not my experience that spiritual people push out of their heads things such as you state. It’s actually a question of addition not subtraction. Also, an idea that the addition substantiates the ordinary.

It’s an idea that ordinary consciousness has been somehow restrictive towards a greater reality. Although, I’m not here to venture into doctrine or theory, but excuse me for offering an analogy: its like a waterfall going into a gorge and constantly overflowing because the gorge isn’t massive enough to contain the water so loses it to another place. The theory goes we have a bigger gorge inside us that we aren’t even conscious of that can contain all of the precious water.


My understanding is that Krishnamurti believed that common religion and philosophy is not a way to find the gorge we don't perceive but through experience. I agree with that.

On the other hand, indeed, many mystics like Krishnamurti decried the intellect as a way to truth, but to me its just another tool and shouldn't be cast aside.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Scifentific method... one has to be careful applying such a thing. Because first one has the concept with a hoped for or wished outcome in desire for it to be true. This is where a lot of bad science arises from as discursive thinking or a conversation with the "self" as inner dialog takes place. Some refer to this a conscious thought. Discriminating wisdom is taking that experience and holding it up against past experience no word needs to be said or even thought in such a thing as contact is made.

If you grasp one stick you can grasp another... now occams razor like evolution of the mind. First there was something, not even a stick just an object so language made it "a stick" others in that conglomerate of "knowledge" say ok we agree in your conspiracy to call that a stick. Others calling it something else left out but yet it is the same and not the same. This is where language and communication fails... unless knowing.

That knowing occurs by sight not the word, unless one knows the object for the word. If not then it requires code breaking to figure out what the hell someone is eluding too or just ignore it as people desperately grasping at ignorance to keep some delusion.

So knowledge base, that comes from the eye, the ear, the nose, the mouth, and touch... but all of that is contact. Once known? What good are thoughts? One can do without them, they become good for one thing... communication.

So "stick" in one "hand"(mind you all of these individual words so far is just concepts previously learned); the hope is that those reading it can comprehend what is being said; as they are strung together. That comprehension occurs on many different levels, cease thought and comprehension is automatic or easily grasped the same way a child rapidly learns... a mind already full of distinction and bias is already closed to new suggestion input or learning.

So empty the mind of the eye, the ear, the nose, the mouth, touch, or simply contact? And all experience goes back to brand new moment to moment without held bias; sure there are personal preferences from that already gained wisdom, but no fighting or duality... just ease like a duck in water, the rest becomes acceptance of what is and what could be.

Placing those two sticks together they can be used to lift food off of a plate. One can be thrown to a dog and when it comes back show it how quick you are at fetching what is already in it's mouth... can it tell the difference? Or just one stick doesn't matter to the dog or maybe it does, depends on the dog as an individual in experience. Or you can rub them together and produce fire...

So many things out of two sticks... what needs to be said about them? All of that becomes an analog of knowledge based around grasping a stick in contact. Not interested in a stick? Lots of other things to grasp... this lots of other things is never ending, infinite. The mind becomes agitated because it feels already full of whatever it has grasped and in wanting to release it... seems to not be able too.

This is where meditation, healing and other forms of health come into focus... maybe guilt from grasping at something society does not approve of whether moral concepts or ethical concepts. If one feels shame for such a thing; it can either be wisdom after contact or a habit they cannot get rid of; if they do not want to get rid of that habit? Then self righteousness and self defense, since people do not want to feel alone in such graspings that others do not approve of? Then comes in that group seeking, or some closet to hide in or that buzz word called indoctrination like haha you are just as guilty so lets make pacts, etc. and then see how long it takes for the truth to come out about what we do as a consiracy to hide it from all others.

So hypothesis... simple awareness of the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, and of touch. Knows contact when it occurs, whether it attaches or not? Can occur from greed, hate, or delusion all of those together depends on the ignorance of others... like got your nose, here's a quarter behind the ear.

The conceptual ladder one swing and it falls... attention. Where the eye is placed? There it is... what arises on contact? It is what it is in reality... knowledge graps that is also a reality and yet not because it is an accepted reality and not actual reality.

Nothing wrong with creation, and it is not limited to anything except each other.