Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00193)

Bjorn:
>Thoa Tran wrote:
>> All these
>> attachments, though they appear positive, actually destroy the total
>> picture of Reality. Hence, to get closer to the whole picture, his process
>> destroys them. Negating the negative creates a positive.
>
>I understand his "philosohy" very much as you described it above. Only that I
>don't agree with the last sentence: Negating the negative is not in itself
>enough to create a positive. And therein, as I see it, lies the failure of
>K. He
>is negating the negative (if you want to call identification with ideas such)
>but he does NOT provide the right alternative. In theory he would transcend the
>intellect and its attachments, but in actuality he lacks the humility and
>devotion to do so. His solution is no solution at all. He does not escape the
>limitations of the intellect but his therapeutic process is based at a subtle
>intellectual level of denial/nihilism. He believes himself to be free but, IMO,
>his "freedom" is an intellectual counterfeit, not the real thing.

Since my exposure to him is through books, I did not pick up any arrogant
tone. True, he was not devotional, but that would be in line with his
philosophy of looking within yourself to find the truth, and not rely on
others for second hand truth. As far as providing an appropriate solution,
how could anyone actually provide a solution? If no one, not even the
Masters, can really describe the indescribable, then how could anyone say
what the solution is? All a teacher can do is point the way. The right
teacher will show you your own ladder to climb. I don't think K would have
the arrogance to tell you what the solution is, but he will tell you to be
aware. By being aware, you can find the solution that is right for you.

I have to agree that his method is grounded and not for those who wish for
a speedy contact with the higher self. However, I feel his contribution to
be enormous as an alternative to the rash of starry-eyed "New Agers" and as
a code of conduct for everyday life. That is why he is popular with the
masses. The masses are more interested in being self-sufficient
psychologically and are more interested in relating to each other, rather
than some spiritual entity.

>> He replaced these with an awareness of mind. He wants us to be aware of
>> the conditioning of our mind through focus on the present moment, on seeing
>> things as they are, without judgment, without preconception, and without
>> expectation.
>
>Yes, this is the theory.
>
>> With this comes direct truth,
>
>Nor necessarily. He is too much caught in the intellectual process of what you
>describe to really trascend the intellect and perception through it.

At some point of spiritual development, you would have to go beyond the
intellectual process. I do not follow one philosophy exactly. I take and
leave what works for me. Strangely, his philosophy of awareness, as long
as I don't get caught up in the logic of it but FEEL it, makes me see my
environment in an almost magical way. When I carry that into my
meditation, I sometimes have amazing experiences.

Thoa :o)