Jiddu Krishnamurti and Bruce Lee

[Aikia]

The Journal of Asian Martial Arts has an article on how Jiddu Krishnamurti, a sort of anti-guru who became a spiritual leader/advisor to many, was able to pass on his beleifs through Bruce Lee.
The Journal makes the case that many of Bruce's key ideas, most of what Bruce called JKD philosophy after 1970 came almost verbatim from Krishnamurti. The article missed an important issue however.When did Bruce convert to the Krishnamurtian beleifs?
According to Linda Lee Bruce hurt his back in 1970 and was confined to bed for 3 months. Linda says during those months Bruce read and studied Krishnamurti. By 1971 Bruce may have completely converted to Krishnamurtianism. Problem was that Krishnamurti was 100% against organized knowledge in the form of an art,style,system or organization. Krishnamurti felt that the "Organized dispair" that was the organization served to coerce the individual into giving up his personal expression and becomming a pawn of the organization. Krishnamurti stressed that the individual must be free of all restraints.
In compliance with his new spiritual/Krishnamurtian beliefs Bruce closed all JKD schools in 1971 and disbanned the teaching of JKD. His 1971 article for Black Belt introduced Krishnamurtian philosophy as JKD claims the Journal article.
Before Bruce discovered Krishnamurti jeet kune do was an art in which students learned skills that were called jeet kune do. Because of his intrepretation of Jiddu Krishnamurti Bruce concluded that organized arts, even the art of jeet kune do was wrong. He therefore begain to identify JKD as a philosophy...or concept. But he never fully explained how he intended to fullfill the Krishnamurtian concept that he was now calling JKD. And, most importantly, Bruce never had time to fully understand how these massive changes in his once fluid martial art would impact his students.
I remember as a black belt instructor in 1971 Bruce was considered a real rebel . No one knew at the time Bruce was just repeating Krishnamurti's anti- establishment agenda. And of course we never heard of Krishnamurti.
Perhaps it was the fact that the doctors told Bruce he would never fully regain his physical ability after the back injury in 1970 that Bruce decided to plot a new conceptual framework for JKD. Bruce was on medication for the rest of his life. When you consider what a massive structural and conceptual change this was for the art of jeet kune do ( from art to Krishnamurtian legacy of the "pathless path") it is no wonder that people have been confused for decades. Even Bruce's own students disagree on the nature of JKD and when it stopped being an art and became a concept.
Imagine if, instead of Krishnamurti, Bruce had studdied BJJ then came back to the JKD kwoon and told everyone forget the stand-up stuff JKD was now sport groundfighting. Bruce changed everything after he went with Krishnamurti. But was the new wave JKD or just Krishnamurtianism beeing passed for JKD?
The point of the Journal article was that Krishnamurti was indirectly responsible for changing the course of JKD, and that Bruce was instrumental in promoting the Kristunamurtian legacy.
If it had not been for the 1970 back injury Bruce may not have found time to study Krishnamurti, and jeet kune do as we know it today may have been very different. It was an art ahead of all others in 1970. Because of what Krishnamurti wrote Bruce felt it necessary to reject his own art. Very interesting.

[frankenbeans]

this is indeed quite true about Krishnamurti's teachings

The Journal of Asian Martial Arts has an article on how Jiddu Krishnamurti, a sort of anti-guru who became a spiritual leader/advisor to many, was able to pass on his beleifs through Bruce Lee.
The Journal makes the case that many of Bruce's key ideas, most of what Bruce called JKD philosophy after 1970 came almost verbatim from Krishnamurti. The article missed an important issue however.When did Bruce convert to the Krishnamurtian beleifs?
According to Linda Lee Bruce hurt his back in 1970 and was confined to bed for 3 months. Linda says during those months Bruce read and studied Krishnamurti. By 1971 Bruce may have completely converted to Krishnamurtianism. Problem was that Krishnamurti was 100% against organized knowledge in the form of an art,style,system or organization. Krishnamurti felt that the "Organized dispair" that was the organization served to coerce the individual into giving up his personal expression and becomming a pawn of the organization. Krishnamurti stressed that the individual must be free of all restraints.
In compliance with his new spiritual/Krishnamurtian beliefs Bruce closed all JKD schools in 1971 and disbanned the teaching of JKD. His 1971 article for Black Belt introduced Krishnamurtian philosophy as JKD claims the Journal article.
Before Bruce discovered Krishnamurti jeet kune do was an art in which students learned skills that were called jeet kune do. Because of his intrepretation of Jiddu Krishnamurti Bruce concluded that organized arts, even the art of jeet kune do was wrong. He therefore begain to identify JKD as a philosophy...or concept. But he never fully explained how he intended to fullfill the Krishnamurtian concept that he was now calling JKD. And, most importantly, Bruce never had time to fully understand how these massive changes in his once fluid martial art would impact his students.
I remember as a black belt instructor in 1971 Bruce was considered a real rebel . No one knew at the time Bruce was just repeating Krishnamurti's anti- establishment agenda. And of course we never heard of Krishnamurti.
Perhaps it was the fact that the doctors told Bruce he would never fully regain his physical ability after the back injury in 1970 that Bruce decided to plot a new conceptual framework for JKD. Bruce was on medication for the rest of his life. When you consider what a massive structural and conceptual change this was for the art of jeet kune do ( from art to Krishnamurtian legacy of the "pathless path") it is no wonder that people have been confused for decades. Even Bruce's own students disagree on the nature of JKD and when it stopped being an art and became a concept.
Imagine if, instead of Krishnamurti, Bruce had studdied BJJ then came back to the JKD kwoon and told everyone forget the stand-up stuff JKD was now sport groundfighting. Bruce changed everything after he went with Krishnamurti. But was the new wave JKD or just Krishnamurtianism beeing passed for JKD?
The point of the Journal article was that Krishnamurti was indirectly responsible for changing the course of JKD, and that Bruce was instrumental in promoting the Kristunamurtian legacy.
If it had not been for the 1970 back injury Bruce may not have found time to study Krishnamurti, and jeet kune do as we know it today may have been very different. It was an art ahead of all others in 1970. Because of what Krishnamurti wrote Bruce felt it necessary to reject his own art. Very interesting.

If you look up Krishnamurti on wikipedia.com, you will find some of his quotes, part of an interview, and an explanation of his philosophy. Indeed, you will notice that his philosophy is very much in tune with the "way of no way" idea, about rejecting all organizations or ties to such groups. Krishnamurti felt that if one's mind was set to improving for the sake of the organization, one was on a path to destruction and violence in one's life. He felt that people should go their own way with just about everything, and that the key to life was developing one's inner peace, one's own path, alone. The "alone" factor is what made Bruce feel that being part of an organization was a waste, especially since doing that would only lead to destruction. This is pretty much was Krishnamurti felt, and it is quite obvious if you compare Bruce's philosophy post-1970 and Krishnamurti, side by side. Bruce could not have students anymore, since Krishnamurti did not have disciples.

Krishnamurti quotes:

# "Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection." [1] (http://www.kfa.org/teachings_core.htm), [2] (http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/the_truth.asp)

Bruce Lee: "Jeet Kune Do favors formlessness so that it can assume all forms and since Jeet Kune Do has no style, it can fit in with all styles."

Bruce Lee: "To understand Jeet Kune Do, one ought to throw away all ideals, patterns, styles..."

Bruce Lee:

"The way to transcend karma lies in the proper use of the mind and the will. The oneness of all life is a truth that can be fully realized only when false notions of a separate self, whose destiny can be considered apart from the whole, are forever annihilated." --Tao of Jeet Kune Do

Krishnamurti (all 3 quotes):

"I am going to take an example and work it out, and you will see. Let us say I am violent, as most people are. Our whole culture is violent; but I won't enter into the anatomy of violence now, because that is not the problem we are considering. I am violent, and I realize that I am violent. What happens? My immediate response is that I must do something about it, is it not? I say I must become non-violent. That is what every religious teacher has told us for centuries: that if one is violent one must become non-violent. So I practise, I do all the ideological things. But now I see how absurd that is, because the entity who observes violence and wishes to change it into non-violence, is still violent. So I am concerned, not with the expression of that entity, but with the entity himself. You are following all this, I hope

"Now, what is that entity who says, `I must not be violent'? Is that entity different from the violence he has observed? Are they two different states? Do you understand, sirs, or is this too abstract? It is near the end of the talk and probably you are a bit tired. Surely, the violence and the entity who says, `I must change violence into non-violence', are both the same. To recognize that fact is to put an end to all conflict, is it not? There is no longer the conflict of trying to change, because I see that the very movement of the mind not to be violent is itself the outcome of violence."

# "Obviously what causes war is the desire for power, position, prestige, money; also the disease called nationalism, the worship of a flag; and the disease of organized religion, the worship of a dogma. All these are the causes of war; if you as an individual belong to any of the organized religions, if you are greedy for power, if you are envious, you are bound to produce a society which will result in destruction. So again it depends upon you and not on the leaders – not on so-called statesmen and all the rest of them. It depends upon you and me but we do not seem to realize that. If once we really felt the responsibility of our own actions, how quickly we could bring to an end all these wars, this appalling misery! But you see, we are indifferent. We have three meals a day, we have our jobs, we have our bank account, big or little, and we say, 'For God’s sake, don’t disturb us, leave us alone'."

Bruce Lee:

"To obtain enlightenment in martial art means the extinction of everything which obscures the 'true knowledge,' the 'real life.' At the same time, it implies boundless expansion, and indeed, emphasis should not fall on the cultivation of the particular department which merges into the totality, but rather on the totality that enters and unites that particular department."
--from the Tao of Jeet Kune Do

[Aikia]

Frankenbeans,
Did your homework, I see. Krishnamurti felt that following organizations, teachers, dogmas, religions, styles etc would lead to stagnation. He cautioned others that when you discipline your mind to accept a certain bit of knowledge as truth you run the risk of creating a habit and your ability to adapt becomes stale. He felt that imitation, like when the teacher demonstrates and you follow leads not to skill and mastery but a lack of wisdom. Bruce must have totally been taken in by this guru because he changed JKD to reflect Krishnamurti's rather strange philosophy.
Sure it sounds like you are beyond basic intelligence when you can whip out one of the Krishnamurtian phrases. Krishnamurti has already told us that we are not to follow him, he is not a guru, and if you attempt to follow him you will be unsuccessful because the path to Krishnamurtie's truth has no path. It is a "pathless land" according to the big "K".
Bruce, after becomming a Kristhnamurti diciple started the same concept in martial arts. By the way Krishnamurti hated violence so he would have rejected Bruce as a disciple...and "K" did not have disciples anyway. So for years we have been arguing about JKD and now we discover the post 1970 JKD was based on the very strange Krishnamurti. Bruce paraphrased the Krishnamurti lingo, it wasn't even original.
At least the JKD concept follows organized instruction, you can get ranks/certifications, you can identify the arts you are representing etc.
Either Dan didn't understand where Bruce was going with the Krishnamurti stuff and ended up producing a first rate method in spite of the Krishnamurti JKD, or, Dan did understand that Bruce had stepped off the deep end and rejected the Krishnamurti JKD and inserted his own concept as the new JKD.
Then too maybe Bruce just wrote and talked about this Krishnamurti JKD. Behind closed doors he still practiced and taught the art of JKD.
Either way it appears 1970/71 was the year that JKD changed from art to philosophy/concept.
The catalyst was a bad back and a book by Jiddu Krishnamurti. Too bad Bruce didn't last a few more years so he could tell us why he rejected his own creation just to mimic Krishnamurti? It's been a lot of arguments for nothing!

[Aikia]

Mike,
I think you are on the money in your response. Bruce was taken in by Krishnamurti, I think. He repeated his new found knowledge and I guess students proabably just agreed because Bruce was the teacher and because they really didn't know what he was talking about. Most of Bruce's original students can/ have taught seminars etc on technique because they understand the pre-1971 art of JKD, but none have attempted to explain Bruce's far out Krishnamurti interpretations. In fact the whole Krishnamurti connection has basically been forgotton, ignored or covered up.
Why did Bruce make an effort to copy the Krishnamurti phrases , I think, ego. Some of those "truth is beyond organized attempts"... phrases makes it sound like you are really on to something. Too bad he didn't study pragmatism as a philosophy while he was in the bed. The Book of Proverbs would have been a good choice to gain wisdom also. How Krishnamurti managed to change the course of JKD is a subject worth following. And we have been debating the outcome over and over again. Erase the Krishnamurti influence and you do away with the OJKD versus the JKDC argument. Then we would all be on the same page.

[frankenbeans]

this Krishnamurti thing really opens the door to a lot of possibilities

I think the Krishnamurti stuff probably made some sense to Bruce, but a lot of others probably didn't know what the heck he was talking about or were probably wondering why being part of an organization was so bad. I think some of the students who say they do "JKD as Bruce taught it" is because they decided to stay on the path he taught when it was still heavily a martial art and less of a concept. The Krishnamurti stuff may have alienated some of the original students, who decided not to completely evolve everything else in JKD as the concepts crowd does. It seems like there is so much stuff that is integrated into JKD (whoever is leading it at the time), that the art will probably change even more once the next prominent successor steps to the plate after Dan decides to retire, if he ever does. Since he brought the Filipino arts influence in, what will come next? Anyway, I think the Wed Night Group and some of the other Original crowd knew it was going to change and decided to stick with what they knew without adding too many new concepts to the art. At that point, it would become a new art, something beyond JKD or whatevert it is now. It still has a Bruce feel of it, I'm sure in all circles, but it seems so different depending on who is teaching the art itself.

I think the thing about Bruce Lee finding a way to justify a large ego is true. This is no doubt; just ask people who knew Lee. I know one guy who lives down here who grew up with him and said he was a friend of his. However, he told me Bruce was too hot-headed and he had to kick him out of his kung fu class one time because he was being too cocky. Bruce was probably a nice guy, but the ego thing was no question about it. There was NO hesitation at all when the old Chinese grandmaster explained this to me explaining that he was Bruce's friend AND Bruce had an ego in the same sentence. He is probably someone who obviously had enormous talent, but he knew it too. However, it doesn't mean he was a bad person or a bad teacher, just overconfident in his abilities and probably always seeking ways to make himself look like he knew what he was talking about, and Krishnamurti seems to have provided some answers here.

[Aikia]

Mike, You're getting too deep for me. I am still on the level where it's just a punch and just a kick. Sort of wished Bruce had stayed at that level. I have been working on the Krishnamurti connection for a few weeks, drafted an article and ready to move on to the next subject.

[frankenbeans]

I think we can all agree (without, of course, having known him) that Bruce Lee's ego was equal in stature only to his legacy. However, I think it's probably important to realize that a big ego - even one inflated to the level of someone who feels as though they've discovered the key to truth above all others - is one of many essential factors in actually inspiring long-term change. That ego was what gave him the confidence to voice such rebellious and unpopular opinions. It was said by one of my Psychology professors (and I'm sure he heard it somewhere else) that every ever made in the history of humankind was made in one's own self-interest. That is to say, when one is faced with a choice, he assigns value to each option and goes with the one that has greater value. Even so-called selfless acts serve one's own ideals of greater good in spite of self-sacrifice. I think that has something to do with what we're talking about here. You make a discovery that truth can only be discovered by the individual in his own time and in his own way. Voicing this places your own value judgments and limitations on what that "way" can be. But still you voice it, because the recognition for discovering this great thing is more important to you than simply knowing it for yourself and walking the path. What does that say about Krishna or Bruce Lee (or any of us, for that matter)? Well, in my humble opinion, it says that they stumbled upon something that inspired them to great energy and accomplishment - and they said so. They may have misinterpreted that energy and accomplishment as "Truth," but that doesn't cheapen the accomplishment or the energy itself. For example and I'm sorry for the religious references, Jerry. I know you hate it when I do this. ), some people have accomplished incredible things in the name of Christianity, in the name of Democracy, or even in the name of Communism or some other "establishment" ideal. That kind of invalidates the idea that "real truth" (as if there were some other kind) can only come from independent discovery. After all, the legacy of a Krishna or a Bruce Lee can be considered pretty impressive, but what is it compared with the legacy of Ancient Egypt, Rome, or our Founding Fathers? They were all legacies built upon establishment. And while no legacy really has to do with the discovery of truth, most enduring legacies have everything to do with improving (as far as the majority perspective at least) on what came before them. They may also therefore be considered paths in themselves toward self-improvement and ultimately, self-enlightenment.

I guess that was a pretty contrived way to say any path we choose is indeed "Our Path." Any decision we make and any ideal we choose to embody becomes our truth. So maybe the real question involves asking whether or not "Truth" is a separate thing from "Personal Truth." And if it isn't, and one must let go of "self" in order to realize truth, then what good is it? With no "self" to utilize it (there's that pragmatism again), truth itself has no purpose whatever.

It is true that great egos can go along with technical superiority or some outstanding talent. A lot of martial artists seem to display some level of cockiness. Some utilize the ego to realize the great truth behind what they are doing in martial arts, that they believe what they do works above most other methods. This is how they convince themselves that what they're doing is effective. I have one instructor who some would consider to have a big ego because he feels that what he studies is way beyond what the guys I used to study under did. He is so convinced of the praticality of what he does that he pretty much dismisses the notion that the stuff I did before even works effectively and may have even taught me bad habits that are counterproductive. However, the "ego" and the confidence that goes with it is a driving force that makes him an outstanding instructor and allows him to show others a side of combat that has not been often tread by many traditional instructors, which is why he's been invited all over the States and different parts of the world. He in fact trains with the younger brother of one of Dan Inosanto's instructors and is extremely proficient in various arts. The other guys I think don't understand this confidence and merely dismiss it as cockiness. It depends on one's perception, but he is blunt and honest about what he thinks works, will say it out loud, and is not afraid to be opinionated, even to another's face. I think this is his defense mechanism againts BS martial arts, looking out for his students, and sincerely wanting his students to get something out of their training. It sounds crude and harsh, but the ability of his black belts speaks for themselves. He himself is outstanding in his abilities, but I have seen stuff that his black belts can do that is just unbelievable, which shows how well he is able to translate his abilities into his students. It just blows me away with how young these guys are and how proficient they are compared to anything I ever saw before, which is why I switched to training under him primarily. I think the same can be said about Bruce. He stated unpopular opinions, he had a big ego, but he cared deeply about the welfare of his students. Some of these guys are in a league of their own.

I think it's quite evident when you step into an elite school, that you know it's an elite school, or just by the quality of the students who are products, even at some point, of the school. For example, every single person I have ever met, period, that trained at some point at the Francis Fong Academy down here, which is nearby, had incredible, outstanding skills of various sorts, in sparring, fighting methods, strategy, or even plain skill sets with body mechanics and techniques. This is no suprise, then, that Inosanto chooses to do the Southeast Division training of his affiliated organizations here twice a year (and probably why my instructor has been able to draw some ex-students from that school, maintains consistent relations with Fong and Inosanto, and shares in training practices with those guys occasionally). There is no question; I've seen a run-of-the-mill student from an ordinary MA school, and then I watch some guys train from the Fong Academy and observed what they can do. Obviously the standards are higher at some schools than others. My instructor described it as the major or the minor leagues, or the difference between those staying in high school and those going on and graduating from college. Some schools stay in the minors forever because their approach doesn't integrate realistic training or adapt to practical principles of fighting for combat (some are like day-care centers for kids, or have horrible students that they just pass through a belt factory with more sport focus than combat focus). They just do repetition, repetition, without any core goal of where their training is supposed to take them. However, when you combine training strategy with the training itself, it takes everything to a whole new level. Sometimes it takes a man with great ambition, like Lee, to revolutionize change.

[HtTKar]

He himself is outstanding in his abilities, but I have seen stuff that his black belts can do that is just unbelievable, which shows how well he is able to translate his abilities into his students.

I know this is off topic, but I wanted to remark on this statement. I take private lessons in Goshin Jutsu/Shotokan. as taught by Hanshi Capela, 3 times a week from a buddy of mine, and he has the kind of ego you talk about. He has learned alot through testing and is able to break down seeminly difficult techniques to their very basics. Once he explains something you wonder why you didn't already know that. "That makes sense" is what I am always saying, and he has the ability to hurt you or bruise you in slow motion because his techniques are so refined. He has taken many styles and incorporated that into what he is teaching. The type of Ego you are speaking of is not bad at all I think. Can you be a leader without having an Ego? At some point you need that grit to be able to stand up for what you KNOW, not just what you have been taught.

All the time there is an argument of style-v-style. Every style has something to share. The people that are successfull truly do take what is tested to be functional and disregard the rest. That is the philosophy that BL, your instructor, or any good instructor that I have ever met follows. What BL introduced had already been here. From the data here, it seems he just needed a philosophy to back up what he already knew. Many people do that. I dont think he was following Krishnamurti, his ego was too large for that, but he agreed with his teachings. By reading, BL may have found a way, and some words, to voice his own opinion. Just because he agreed, doesnt necessarily make him a follower.

Thank you for allowing me in this discussion. I hope I haven't sidetracked this too far.

[Demi Barbito]

"""The Journal of Asian Martial Arts has an article on how Jiddu Krishnamurti, a sort of anti-guru who became a spiritual leader/advisor to many, was able to pass on his beleifs through Bruce Lee."""

That's too bad...

[fenwick99]

re

Bruce was influenced by many Asian religions and theories, but he became primarily devoted to JK's ideas late in life. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar once said in a interview that Bruce Lee was like a "renegade Taoist priest."

[ecamd1025]

"""The Journal of Asian Martial Arts has an article on how Jiddu Krishnamurti, a sort of anti-guru who became a spiritual leader/advisor to many, was able to pass on his beleifs through Bruce Lee."""

That's too bad...

that is incorect.

For those who can see. the truth is what it is, simply the truth. If you change it it is not the truth but the truth will always be what it is. . No philosophy of the modern times involved.
Philosphy has changed, so have words and their meanings. Why dont You find out for yourself. Instead of discuissing something about krishnamurti or bruce lee written in a book. the book or the word is not the thing. Just like the words on this page are not. Humans have grown accustomed to believing whta satisfies them, and no one can change you. Nor had Jiddu done anything to alter JKD or Bruce in any way. If you can see what change is then you would not speak of what you are speaking off now.
Another way to look at it is if you go on any of the Jiddu K sites you will see the people on that site who speak of being enlightened but they still argue, struggling in their little corner to move on and take the other one over, but yet they are afraid to leave. Find out for yourself not from me or some guru, teacher, organized religion. Because the truth is not that. And I or any other entity can not make you see that. Take care

[ecamd1025]

Hello Sir

What is the ego? What is My way your Way?

I think we can all agree (without, of course, having known him) that Bruce Lee's ego was equal in stature only to his legacy. However, I think it's probably important to realize that a big ego - even one inflated to the level of someone who feels as though they've discovered the key to truth above all others - is one of many essential factors in actually inspiring long-term change. That ego was what gave him the confidence to voice such rebellious and unpopular opinions. It was said by one of my Psychology professors (and I'm sure he heard it somewhere else) that every ever made in the history of humankind was made in one's own self-interest. That is to say, when one is faced with a choice, he assigns value to each option and goes with the one that has greater value. Even so-called selfless acts serve one's own ideals of greater good in spite of self-sacrifice. I think that has something to do with what we're talking about here. You make a discovery that truth can only be discovered by the individual in his own time and in his own way. Voicing this places your own value judgments and limitations on what that "way" can be. But still you voice it, because the recognition for discovering this great thing is more important to you than simply knowing it for yourself and walking the path. What does that say about Krishna or Bruce Lee (or any of us, for that matter)? Well, in my humble opinion, it says that they stumbled upon something that inspired them to great energy and accomplishment - and they said so. They may have misinterpreted that energy and accomplishment as "Truth," but that doesn't cheapen the accomplishment or the energy itself. For example and I'm sorry for the religious references, Jerry. I know you hate it when I do this. ), some people have accomplished incredible things in the name of Christianity, in the name of Democracy, or even in the name of Communism or some other "establishment" ideal. That kind of invalidates the idea that "real truth" (as if there were some other kind) can only come from independent discovery. After all, the legacy of a Krishna or a Bruce Lee can be considered pretty impressive, but what is it compared with the legacy of Ancient Egypt, Rome, or our Founding Fathers? They were all legacies built upon establishment. And while no legacy really has to do with the discovery of truth, most enduring legacies have everything to do with improving (as far as the majority perspective at least) on what came before them. They may also therefore be considered paths in themselves toward self-improvement and ultimately, self-enlightenment.

I guess that was a pretty contrived way to say any path we choose is indeed "Our Path." Any decision we make and any ideal we choose to embody becomes our truth. So maybe the real question involves asking whether or not "Truth" is a separate thing from "Personal Truth." And if it isn't, and one must let go of "self" in order to realize truth, then what good is it? With no "self" to utilize it (there's that pragmatism again), truth itself has no purpose whatever.

[frankenbeans]

oh great this is complicated

I am trying to figure this out. It's probably true that the ego influenced Bruce. If you ask many who knew him, Bruce obviously had an ego, but it came with a genius attached. So what if Bruce did? Look at what he accomplished, that's all that matters. Hey Mike, this is a good discussion about religion and Krishnamurti. Alot of religious philosophers say things that are similar in meaning when comparing across different religions. The grandson of Gandhi spoke at my school recently, and he wanted people to know that all religions have the same basic message. Even Mahatma Gandhi studied and was heavily influenced by the Bible, he said, and some Hindu book called the Ghita just as much, but the message was the same. Also Mike, I think the idea about religion is kind of similar that people suit religion to fit the image of God, but God probably has different manifestations to different people, so God influences man, more or less, or the image of what they see as God is probably just related to one's culture. There's always an important deity in every society, so more people are actually religious in humanity than not religious, but it all means the same stuff, so who cares. God gives us the ability to choose different paths, and so it's great that we can pick the one we think it best for us.

Bruce carved his own path after learning Yip Man's path and some other masters, but it still had a flavoring of Yip Man and later Krishnamurti, I'm sure. Everybody is biased, which is what you learn in politics. Family, religion, political affiliation of parents heavily influence how you think, and it's impossible to be completely unbiased and uninfluenced by others. People carve their own path, but come on, we know that by looking at your teachers in martial arts, you'll have a flavoring of what they taught you, no matter what; just accept it as merry and you can make yourself distinct anyway. By looking at Mike's teachers, we can sort of tell what kind of perspective he's coming from, by looking at Frankenbean's teachers, we can see what he's been exposed to and what point of view he comes from when doing his own stuff, by observing what ecamd1025's teachers studied, we can see what kinds of martial arts initially affect his thinking. There is no absolute, complete neutrality in the world, but people can come pretty close at least, and that's the best we can do because we're human. Tough, I'll have to admit this about myself, but political correctness is a figment of the imagination rather than a fact, especially when we start realizing that everybody has biases, hates, loves, things that make one happy, or sad, otherwise we'd be robots or like Data (before he got his emotion chip) on Star Trek.

[ecamd1025]

Hello. To answer your question (rhetorical as it may have been) ego, to me, is the mind's way of assessing where a person stands in relation to his/her surroundings. It is the tool that gauges a person's capabilities, confidence level, and overall capacity within a given environment. Since it is a purely subjective tool, it is always subject to error - sometimes on a huge scale.

As for your response to Demi on this matter, I have to respectfully disagree. I hear arguments like your all the time about the word not being the truth. In my humble opinion, that's an escape - an excuse for ignorance and a lack of clarity. It may indeed be true that the word isn't the truth any more than a book is the subject itself, but the definition of a thing, and the expression of that definition is what gives it substance in the human experience. If you in fact strip away all titles, definitions, descriptors, and words, then whatever truth you find has no meaning anyway since you have no way to define or express the experience, and no way to relate it to anything else you "know." To your way of thinking, then, truth is nothing (and not even that, since "nothing" is too much a descriptor in itself). I still maintain that it is a plain and simple crock to say that "the way cannot be found through others, but only by finding your own path." Any path you walk is your own path, by simple virtue of the fact that you are the one walking it! It doesn't make any difference that someone else might have blazed the trail before you, or that others might be walking it behind you. The experience will still be your alone. For example, if you and I are walking side by side on the same road one day, and we look up at the sky, will we see the same thing? Will your image of "blue" in the sky above you be the same as my own definition? Not likely. WIll you feel the wind the same way I do? Will your feet feel the ground through your shoes the way mine do? Nothing whatever will be the "same" for the two of us, even though we're right beside each other. Therefore, the advice itself is not only redundant, but unnecessary. The same flaw exists in the advice for people to "follow their own path and not look for answers through teachers or guides" as exists in the theory that whatever someone sees as God is omnipotent, and yet people somehow have the power to act outside His influence. Anything truly omnipotent would surely know of everything you'd do throughout your life at its outset, and therefore anything you chose to do would be within His plan for you. But like your theories on Krishnamurti, people bend the doctrine, the ideas, the words to suit their own meanings. For you, truth exists beyond all definitions, words, books, teachers, paths, etc. For me, it's worthless in that state. There is no pragmatic value in truth that cannot be expressed. For someone else, they may strive to live within the confines of a set of religious rules governing their behavior so as not to disappoint a God that, theoretically, knew every aspect of that person's life and behavior when He consented to create them in the first place. And if God didn't know those things, then that person's idea of "All-Powerful" is woefully short of where it ought to be.

The bottom line in any discussion of this sort is that all ideologies, whether Christian or Krishna, Shinto or Shiite were founded to give people a way to pursue their own personal ideals. You don't follow Krishnamurti's teachings because they explain the world to you. You follow them because they justify the world you created in your own mind long before your decision was made. krishna, to you, explains life better than some other options, just like Christianity explains it better to others. In the end, man really did create God in his own image. But as long as whatever teachings you follow lead to a better life for you and those around you, so be it. Call that my pragmatic nature if you choose...

Ok now how do you seem to know so much. YOu mention god does god exist if it does then show it to me. Please You seem to know much so show it to me. Im not interested in concepts or theories. So show it to me?

Nor do I deal with opinions about the ego.

[ecamd1025]

No show it to me. Seriously show it to me? you say that is so so show it to me. I dont deal with belief, so show it to me. Since you base your logic and reason by something you are not even sure exists. Show it to me?
This is not defense, Im not trying to be right. Its simple show it to me?
If you read what I posted carefully you would see. So show it to me and please read from first to last. And then respond. And also read what you are saying.
Think about it if Demi chooses? what is choice? I am not a teacher nor am I demanding him to do so. If he does because of me then my words are his guide. Because he made me that.

Sensitive, aren't you?

I merely pointed out the flaws in the argument you made. You encouraged Demi to go and seek truth, and proceeded to cite how words and books are not "the thing." You told him not to follow a teacher and said that he should seek it himself, but if he takes your advice and does what you suggest, isn't he indeed following a teacher or a guide? Again, I see myself as a little more pragmatic than idealist. Because "proof" of God will make no difference to me in how I relate to my God, I don't bother trying to find proof. Nor do I need it to justify my beliefs.

In fact, I might also point out that in your demands for such proof, you've exposed the lie within your own philosophy. You're asking me to show you the truth, which means you are seeking truth from another. And in demanding my explanations, you in turn rely on my words and my definitions, which cannot possibly be "the thing" according to your own beliefs. In other words, my friend, it is as pointless for you to ask for my explanations as it is for me to give them, as according to your own belief structure, they would hold no meaning for you anyway, and the method by which you obtained them would not constitute "your own path."

So while you search for a way around the fact that truth exists absent of the "self" that is benefits, and cannot possibly be expressed or defined, and cannot possibly be pointed out by another and retain its full intrinsic truth, I'll go on about my own life, content in the idea that I neither have nor need all the answers in order to live a full and prosperous life. Seek your own path, search for your own definitions. But don't step on other people and act like you're above them - handing out the directions for true enlightenment - when you haven't even got your own belief system worked out yet.

And by the way, your initial question asked me for my opinion, so you can jump up and down and say that you don't deal in opinions about the ego or God or different people's "way", but that is what you asked for. It has to have been...I know that an enlightened one such as yourself would never seek the answers from some teacher or guide...

P.S.
You made it a point to mention that you are not interested in concepts and theories. Does that mean you honestly believe that all of your own opinions and beliefs are 100% truth? No theories, no assumptions - just 100% truth?

Well, young grasshopper, that would qualify in my book as a fine example of runaway ego.