Kingdom of Heaven

Bomb Rating: 

For a movie that's about the Crusades and all, "Kingdom of Heaven" doesn't seem all that interested in elaborating on the religious differences and beliefs of the participants. I could be wrong here, not being a Crusades expert, but I think it might have played a role.

What is the deal with Liam Neeson and typecasting? Maybe I'm the only one paying attention, but it seems that in every role he plays, he's the sage who teaches some young apprentice how to fight. First there was his role as Qui-Gon in "Star Wars Episode I: Jar Jar Disaster." Then there's this film, where he plays the father to Balian (Orlando Bloom). Godfrey, Liam's character, just shows up one day and teaches Balian how to fight and what to fight for. Then there's Liam's role in the upcoming "Batman Begins" where he appears to teach Bruce Wayne how to fight and what to fight for. Anyway, that's screwed up. Liam needs a new agent. However, whatever he does seems to work as Balian appears to learn absolutely everything about being a noble Lord after merely whacking one guy with a sword.

So, did I mention that Godfrey shows up and teaches his son, Balian, how to fight and what to fight for? Frankly, I don't know shit about the Crusades or this particular time in history, but according to this film, it was all about one white guy holding off a shitload of Arabs so he could get laid. Balian basically goes to Jerusalem and ends up defending the whole place, which allows him to screw King Baldwin the Leper's (Edward Norton) sister, Sibylla (Eva Green), who is not a leper. Actually, he proves to her that he's an extremely moral person and kind of converts her to being a moral person and then, presumably, he sleeps with her.

When Balian arrives in Jerusalem, he's mostly concerned with speaking to God or something because his wife committed suicide and he's concerned she'll be condemned to hell. What he finds in Jerusalem turns out to be surprising. The King is dying. The man likely to succeed him is a dick. The King's sister is married to another dick, Reynald (Brendan Gleeson), who likes to run around slaughtering Arabs. And if somebody doesn't do something and fast, Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) is going to attack.

Not being a big fan of religion, I don't advocate inserting such things where they don't belong, but for a movie that's about the Crusades and all, "Kingdom of Heaven" doesn't seem all that interested in elaborating on the religious differences and beliefs of the participants. I could be wrong here, not being a Crusades expert, but I think it might have played a role.

Eventually, Saladin attacks Jerusalem and I'm pretty sure that director Ridley Scott, instead of wasting the special effects, simply spliced the attack on Minas Tirith from "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" and saved himself a lot of money, which is kind of admirable in a way.

To spread the word about this Kingdom of Heaven review on Twitter.

To get instant updates of Mr. Cranky reviews, subscribe to our RSS feed.
61 Comments

Like This Kingdom of Heaven Review? Vote it Up.

0

Rate This Movie:

Other Cranky Content You Might Enjoy

  • What does two artists fighting look like?

  • Perhaps the release of two films by director Bille August("Smilla's Sense of Snow" was the other) so close together will put an end to the misconception that Danish people have any business making mov

  • Cranky guest reviewer: Trent Lott.

Some not so nice Koran (Qur'an) quotes

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

"9.5":    So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

"9.29":    Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

"9.30":    And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! 

http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/HolKora.html

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=HolKora.sgm&images=image...

{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  Maybe the Taliban know what they are doing after all.

Words mean little...

michael3b's picture

...even if they appear to have far-reaching consequences.  Actions are what count; and the T-ban, however deluded, are following in the footsteps of medieval X-tians (and any other "righteous" army of the past). Only difference is that the crusaders and inquisitors had no such explicit marching orders from their source text of choice. 

In short, the spirit of the law is what matters. Neither Islam nor Christianity is inherently violent, regardless of what the arcane authors of their holy books wrote down.  They essentially say, "love god" (which is an argument for another day). The more violent/arcane passages of these books reflect the humanity of their writers and are, IMO, vestigal organs on a much larger organism.

In short(er), screw the books.  Jesus said there were two rules- love thy neighbor as thyself and love god.  I forget what Mohammed said, but is that not enough?  Apparently, not for the murderous and/or hypocritical self-righteous fools* who love to get caught up in words.

*not talking about you, Dan.  Only those that use the word to subvert the spirit.

I saw another "holy" book full of some real nasty shit

Coaster's picture

I think it was called The Old Testament.

Stoning in the Old Testament wasn't a form of execution

Rajah's picture

It was more like an enhanced pummeling technique

They got valuable pieces...

michael3b's picture

...of skin and bone from the stonees that would have otherwise remained unavailable.  Especially if they used a sharp rock.

"pay the poor-rate" sounds like some kind of Muslim tax

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

The Prophet Mohamed never wrote anything down.  Just like Jesus.  His followers wrote down his sermons after his death. 

I'm no expert but I think I read somewhere that the main scribe who wrote the Qur'an  was in the employ of a local political leader.  It amuses me to think that a religion might have been created in part to encourage people to pay their taxes.

It is a fact that almost immediately after the founding of Islam its followers swept out of Saudi Arabia and conquered a vast empire.  Can there be much doubt that the Qur'an was fueling that great surge?

{;-) Dan in Miami

Maybe.

michael3b's picture

The Koran may have played a role, but only when used as a tool to manipulate the ignorant.  It is the nature of the people of earth and not the will of...whatever...that makes these things happen. 

Anyhow- the point was that these are just books of words written by fallible, brilliant, greedy, loving, stupid humans.  My guess is that Mohammed and Jesus would have no truck whatsoever with much of what goes on in their names because of these books...unless, of course, they were terrorists.  But that goes without saying.

I'm sure I could go on forever about this but...

TMundo's picture

...the Bible pretty much states to let those come to God by their own accord.  As in, you can't kill people because they don't believe.

As far as the old testament goes, the Israelites had a different relationship with God, in that they were married to him in a sence.  My guess is that I'm sure God didn't want a waring nation, but remeber, God was unable to be in the presence of sinners, and people were sinning big time, so I guess he decided to get everyone's attention by taking a small nation that was outnumbered in comparison to all the others, and have them go around defeating other nations to gain the recognitian of God.  It is not my feeling that these other nations were simply being good and minding their own business when Israel came along.  Once the surrounding nations had a good idea that the God of isreal was real, and had seen and heard of some of the miracles God had done for them, and how he had punished them when they were bad (not to mention He was also getting tired of Isreal's fowl-ups) he was then able to send Jesus to dispatch His true Word and/or rules of existence.  

I think if he just sent Jesus before all that, nobody would have listened.

Again, I'm no expert.

Nobody was ever murdered in the name of agnosticism

FearlessFreep's picture

Us agnostics shall inherit the earth.

 

But doesn't agnosticism just scream of half-assedness?

Coaster's picture

Embrace atheism.  It's the logical thing to do.  Embrace The Truth.  Today's Special:  No faith required. 

There is no truth.

Scumby's picture

Only faith supported by the evidence that we choose to find persuasive.

Even in mathematics we choose to believe in things like imaginary numbers, infinite decimal expansions, conventions for throwing out undesirable solutions to equations, etc.

There is only truth.

michael3b's picture

The rest is the stuff we put between ourselves and The Truth (i.e. religion, science, politics, etc.).  These things may be "true" in a finite sense, but Truth is our direct, unadulterated, undeluded interaction with the world. Some call it love, some call it god, but it is the only thing that "is".

google "Krishnamurti" and watch some vids, or read Meeting Life by J. Krishnamurti...he had a true grasp of what matters.

I see things in a far simpler manner

Coaster's picture

Truths are verifiable and backed up with objective evidence. 

Faith requires suspending  what you know not to be true.  Why would anybody choose to do that? 

There is no objectivity

Scumby's picture

All we have are our subjective interpretations of evidence.

My favorite science story is of the experimenter who worked with fleas.  He first made a loud sound, and the flea jumped.  He then removed one of the flea's legs.  He made a sound again, and the flea jumped, albeit a little less ably.  Successive leg removals reduced the flea's response until he removed the last leg.  The legless flea did not jump at all in response to a sound.

The experimenter triumphantly announced: "I have proven that fleas hear through their legs."

You're way down in the weeds, Scumby.

michael3b's picture

So to speak-

Interpretation is subjective.  What is is not.  And, like I said in my misplaced post, what is CAN be seen.  You just have to stop looking at the world with a conditioned mind (yes, you can) and see it, feel it, as always new. Then you realize that you are the world (you are the chiiiildren) are humanity. The "facts" tend to get in the way of understanding this.

Anyhow, the experimenter's conclusion in that parable is ridiculous, but the flea did not jump because it had no legs.  One can see that, certainly.  And that is the long and the short of it.  Arguing about the whys and whatfors is just getting yourself further tangled up in the thought process which made the conclusion, which was no conclusion but a projection of what he already thought. 

You guys are lying about truths!

Coaster's picture
  1. Truths are objective and absolute, not subjective.
  2. Science seeks truths. 
  3. Science is a methodology, not a believe system.
  4. Truths seekers remove themselves as best they can from the equation to negate matters of perception. 
  5. It's lunchtime and I want some pie.

I am down with #5

michael3b's picture

Science seeks A truth, not THE truth...at least not the truth that ate Chrissie Watkins, and not the truth that attacked that little boy, which I was about to prove to you by cutting the truth open on the dock...

You can't actually remove yourself from the observation process. Science (and I utilize scientific fact by trade) is "true" in a sense, but it is not, nor can it ever become "truth".  Truth is a process of sorts, while scientific facts are static conclusions re: this process, which affords no conclusions. 

Now, about that pie. Boston Cream or 3.14159265...?

I want the truth, but was told I can't handle it

Coaster's picture

You really have over analyzed this.  There is no Big "T" truth and no little "t" truth, just truth.  I've quoted the entry from dictionary.com below

truth    –noun, plural truths

  1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
  2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
  3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
  4. the state or character of being true.
  5. actuality or actual existence.
  6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
  7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
  8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
  9. agreement with a standard or original.
  10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
  11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy. —Idiom
  12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.

 What I'm pointing out here is that my take on truth is backed up by accepted usage of the word. Clearly truth is equated with facts. Statistics is but a tool that allows one to gage closeness to truth. Of that, I'm 97% certain with a margin of error of +/- 2%. 

The mind like a parachute only functions when open

Rajah's picture

Do you truly possess an open mind free from all preconceptions? Does anyone?

Nope.

michael3b's picture

But it can happen, and I am...ah...working on it.

 

I've over analyzed it? I'VE OVER ANALYZED IT!?!?!??!

michael3b's picture

In my HOUSE!? Where my children SLEEP!?!!?

You are correct, Coaster. There is only truth.  What I was getting at is that facts and the mental machinations that get (most of) us through the day alive, are not useful in knowing who we are.  And we can't truly, and without a filter, know truth/love/god/salma hayak without first TRULY understanding ourselves.

Wait just a second...

TCP's picture

...a Crankylander that reads (or watches) Krishnamurti?!  I might just have to stick around here.

You, too,,huh?

michael3b's picture

Good on ya. 

Tough to turn back after running into that sort of penetrating stuff. 

It's like becoming a member of The Borg, only with better jokes...and beer...and no laser eye patch thing...and you really don't join anything.  OK, maybe it's more like Cheeze-Its.

Yeah, me too.

TCP's picture

I love how you have a sense of humor about it.  It's way too easy for me to get caught up in it as a Very Serious Business.  I'm always trying to remind myself that it's all insignificant, and I'm just one more organism on this sphere of water and rock spinning in the great starry void.

And yeah, Cheez-Its.

If you can turn off your internal dialogue

Rajah's picture

Things will start to happen on their own. You must go to the place where there's nothing left to defend. In other words give up. The Great Spirit will find you but you must be open to it and try to not go crazy while you are going crazy.

Well, you're right.

TCP's picture

But good luck trying to turn it off!  You can't do anything to turn it off.  It's not within your control.

I see myself as honestly half-assed

FearlessFreep's picture

Sure, the Jesuits will sneer at my kind.  But at least _I_ know where I stand (or don't)!

 

Terry Eagleton addresses some of these issues in his new book

FearlessFreep's picture

It's called REASON, FAITH AND REVOLUTION.

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2009/04/28/terry_eagleton/

 

Coaster, are you trying to convert us?

Rajah's picture

I don't know if there is or isn't a God

You seem way too certain

How can you be certain about the unknown?

It's not incumbent upon me to prove there isn't a god

Coaster's picture

but rather to let the proof of god's existence upon the feet of believers.  The reason is simple: One cannot prove a negative. 

The faithful have had thousands upon thousands of years to offer proof.  The best they can do is "It says so in the Bible."   Weak. 

Let them believe in their Guy in the Sky

Rajah's picture

Why does it bother you so?

Can you explain why I don't really suffer from OCD anymore?

TMundo's picture

I used not be able to leave my house or star my car without turning it on and of 16 times.  Freaking out, and acting insane.  Thinking I'd never be normal and not being able to imagie what normal would be like.   Seeing psychiatrists that would prescribe medicines that would offer some help, but could never do as much as has been done now.  Because of Jesus and God in my life, I can live a normal life.  That's my proof.  And it stands as a story I can tell to others.

It's strange, why am I only cured 90%?  I do still have an imbalance.  Why isn't the imbalance gone completly?  Would God want to cure me 100%?

about 8 years ago my girlfriend at the time left me, and a psychiatrist put me on an antidepressant that liberated me to just about the 100% mark.  I had little or no anxiety of imbalance.  So little, that I began to go out on drug binges and began not caring about the consequences of anything.  After 8 years of this behavior, that almost killed me, I finally weaned myself off of that medication.  It wasn't easy because even that had withdrawel symtoms.  I did it when I was on vacation and at the end of my trip I got a stomach virus, ended up in the hospital only to find out that my prior drug use had lead to kidney failure.

I think I need that imbalance, I think it keeps me in line.  OCD is an overwhelming need to always want to do things the right way, and without knowing the tru rules to life, I was simply making up my own.

Personally I always wanted proof too when I was agnostic.  When you go into some of the born-again/pentecostal churchs, you'll see that God has a presence there.

I think or am told, if God came down and told you what to do in person, you'de only be doing it because he told you, and not because you really wanted to.  God wants us to do the right thing not because he's standing their behind us ordering us to do it.  You have to make the decision on your own.

I thought I found God once

Rajah's picture

My dog started talking to me. At first I thought that was strange but if you spell dog backwards it spells god. So I let my dog tell me what to do for awhile. He had me chasing cats and cars and eating things I ought not to eat. Then he told me to lick my own butt and I knew he was a false god  then cause God would know that's physically impossible for a human to do. So I fixed him!

Some people here need to

jazzdrive3's picture

Some people here need to read The Black Swan: Impact of the Highly Improbable.

It's a good first step to start curing epistemological arrogance, and deals with the Unknown Unknown. <-- Not a typo.

People have a deep need to believe in a force for good...

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

...in the universe.

This was especially true for the early Christians who were mainly Roman slaves.
You could probably say the same for black slaves in the early USA.

{;-) Dan (cynical and agnostic) in Miami

Only small "t" truths are verifiable.

michael3b's picture

"T"ruth is what you know to be via your interraction with it.  It's what is left when you abandon facts and faith as a means of confirming something, i.e. when you cut out the middle man- the thought process.  Bottom line: the brain exists to perpetuate its own thought process.  This is good and necessary in terms of us surviving and maneuvering the physical world, but it is bad when used to understand ourselves and our relationship to that world.  A microscope cannot know the nature of the microscope by looking through the microscope.  And...

"a flute without holes is not a flute...a donut without a hole is a danish."

 

edit: this should be further down the thread.

Much respect to you.

TCP's picture

Because you are trying to explain something that is fundamentally un-explainable.

Of course, you will never get anyone to understand it by speaking about it logically, presenting an argument, etc., etc.  No one will ever say, "Hey yeah, I get what you're saying now!"  I've tried for years and years.  You can't understand it through words.  You can't transmit it to them.  A shift in consciousness has to take place, and you can't cause the shift.  Isn't that what Krishnamurti tried to do?  And Jesus?  And Buddha?  And all of them?  Hardly any of their followers ever reached that same state, that same way of being.

I haven't reached it either.  (And, of course, "reached" is the wrong word because it implies a linear process that occurs in time, somewhere in the future.) 

I realize this probably sounds rather vague and cryptic to everyone else, but do you get what I'm talking about michael?  Are we on the same wavelength here?

 

There are no facts.

Scumby's picture

Your interactions in the world are mediated by faulty senses that are easily fooled, as magicians, Plato, and the Wachovski brothers have explored.  The chair is there because you believe it is there and trust your senses that the flickers you see on the cave wall are representative of reality.

Our minds are constructed of belief systems, not truths.  Therefore, the distinction between "truth" and "faith" is meaningless.

 

Then how come I don't hit the floor when I sit down (mostly)?

michael3b's picture

In a sense I agree.  But the chair is there, as was the tree that it came from.  Stepping outside of our senses and ignoring causality to see things as "whole" may be possible, but imagining the unimaginable is pointless at best.  The brain doesn't distinguish between real (chair) and unreal (flickers on cave wall), which is where an adjustment of our relationship with...everything...has to come into play. This adjustment is a change in how our consciousness reacts to/understands the world, not in how it senses it.

Truly knowing and understanding what our senses tell us (i.e. cutting out the internal experiencer/homunculus/middleman) is doable and helpful. If you quiet your mind (not actively, as that is also conflict), your brain will not be conflicted by the chair v. flickers case...or any goofy academic argument-in-a-teacup.   It won't change the fact that on some level our mind sees both things as real, but it will end the suffering one undergoes as a result.  This is the problem: we imagine sides and so pick sides...and choice=suffering.  So, once the illusion of choice disappears, so does the pain/hate/conflict/whatever.

It will NOT however make Eyes Wide Shut any shorter.  This, I've tried.

The chair is real and the world is real

Rajah's picture

But that doesn't mean that's all there is to it. Even science hints at the possiblity of other worlds, other universes and realities. Are ghosts real or fig newtons of one's imagination? And these out of body experiences and near death experiences are they merely a trick of the brain? Can we trust our senses in all things?

Ghosts are in the eye of the beholder

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

The human eye is full of a liquid.  Certain types of sound frequencies can cause this liquid to vibrate in such a way that you can see ghostly images that aren't really there.  Or at least that is what I read a long time ago.  It would be interesting to try to produce these ghostly images in a laboratory.

{;-) Dan (the friendly ghost) in Miami

 

"Well Dude, we just don't know."

michael3b's picture

I don't buy into ghosts and astral projection and the like, but even if they are real things, then they are real things.  The stuff isn't beyond us, only beyond what our self-involved minds have told us what "is".   So, if we can experience (as opposed to believe in) these things, they don't change the fact that in order to see things clearly we have to remove static thought from the equation.

I heard a scientist try to explain away these near death ...

Rajah's picture

experiences as a trick the brain plays when it's dying. But people who have experienced them swear they happened and it changes their lives.

The Aborigines regard the dreamworld as the real word.

I'd love to continue this toking session...

Scumby's picture

but unfortunately my bong has been emptied.  Off to refill!

Also can we agree that Coaster and his claims about the "truth" of atheism have been sufficiently obscured in ontological navel-gazing smoke?

It's only navel gazing...

michael3b's picture

...if you're indulging yourself, which is easy to do. 

The effect of what I've been babbling about is quite real, though.

Fun to talk about, too.

But I see dead people

Coaster's picture

Oh wait.  It was only Courtney Love. 

Never mind.

You're seen God, Coaster!

Rajah's picture

Well a goddess anyway

isn't she lovely?

<drools>

Nice contacts!

michael3b's picture

And it looks like lost a bet and had to suck on a Harley tailpipe again. Poor thing, she should never drink and go to Sturgis...

Yeah...

michael3b's picture

I can't speak to that stuff, or how these people's lives are changed.  But when I was 17 I tried a meditation technique where I let my hand come to my forehead while seated, extremely relaxed with my eyes closed while attempting to "look" through my forehead.  When my hand reached what my "new eye" thought was my head (which is actually just a way to trick yourself) it actually had to go another few inches before it actually touched my head. I was completely freaked out ("my HAND is in my HEAD, man!").  But I realize now that it was just a way to show that perceptions and experiences are not seamlessly intertwined. That expectations drive our responses to an extreme degree, hence echo suppression, etc..  I dunno.  Maybe that's what The Aborigines are doing... indulging that state of freaked-out.  Makes sense if they are b/c it's fun.  But I highly doubt that they (or the nutbags who speak in tongues) are seeing anything that is unseeable.

What I mean by truth...

TMundo's picture

The same way water does not mix with oil, but separates itself, is the same way that good does not hang out with evil.  They don't mix.  The problem is, that man following his own heart, is not able to perceive this difference.  Sure, he thinks he can, every person does what they think is right, but there's only so much you can do on your own before you fall short of true righteousness.  That's where Jesus comes in.

Jesus is like the line of separation between oil and water.  Sure he's the water too and he is the separation as well. He is that line that defines where the good ends and the evil begins.  Even when you shake that oil and water up, and it breaks up into thousands of little bubbles, the same way that life becomes so complicated that you can't tell which way is up, Jesus can still define right from wrong in every complex situation.  And maybe he can keep that situation from becoming as complex if you start out doing the right thing in the beginning, maybe doing the right thing wouldn't be as complicated and as hard if you had just done that in the first place.

Jesus was not just some guy with a name, he was God's spoken word.  He even stated that the words that he spoke, were not his, but that they were the Father's.  The words were that line of separation between good and evil, and they were also that,  'good' as well.  People say that Jesus was God's word with hands and feet.  You never see a situation in the Bible where someone asks Jesus if we should go and get some food and then go shopping, anything anyone asked him was reponded to with more Word.  They asked him about simply going to get something to eat and he responded with more lessons, he never responds with casual conversation.  because all he is is Word.  How do you expect that Truth to respond, but with more Truth.

On top of that, this truth also healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, and brought back the dead.  This truth was also capable of healing power.  Now someone wrote all those words of truth down, and people can read them and get them inside their head and live by them and be healed by them.  That same Jesus (truth) is written down in the Bible.

Capish?

What do ya mean good doesn't hang out with evil?

Rajah's picture

I've hung out with Coaster several times

And which is which?

FearlessFreep's picture

Just askin'.

 

Amen

michael3b's picture

Edit: this is supposed to go under TCPs last post.

Essentially, all of these people are saying the same thing.

Krishnamurti made 2 turns of phrases that changed everything for me (paraphrasing):

"You must be willing to die psychologically."

and

"You don't have to know or be able to speak the truth, you simply have to know and so say what is false."

Keep those things in mind, and everything gets a whole lot clearer. Not easier, mind you...but if you say "this is false" often enough and you will by default end up knowing truth. Do it without fear of yourself changing or of people seeing you change, and great things happen inside.

Of course, it's all a paradox.

TCP's picture

You're seeking something that can only emerge when you stop seeking.

And yet I can't stop -- I am eternally seeking; my whole life has been devoted to this.  I did stop seeking once, for a brief few seconds, back in 2005.  It was not on purpose (you can't stop on purpose, after all), but rather out of immense frustration and despair.  It was a moment of total surrender, and it was in that moment that everything just shifted for me.  I won't go into details, but it was a definite "awakening."  And that's the thing: it comes by itself.  You can't bring it into being -- not through a technique, or a method, or anything.  It will only come when you stop trying.

And yet I still try, still go chasing after it.

Maddening, isn't it? 

By the way, check out "the other Krishnamurti" (U.G. Krishnamurti) if you have not.  He's nothing like Jiddu, but definitely worth listening to.

I'm reading (Jiddu) Krishnamurti's Think on These Things right now.  Just picked it up at a used bookstore for $1 yesterday.

 

Yeah...

michael3b's picture

It's not easy to shed that baggage (desire/drive/etc.), to become passive in a sense, or to see JK as just a guy speaking the truth as opposed to a guru or priest pushing a doctrine.  Like they wrongly but correctly say- seek and you will find.

And to speak to your other post, it is serious business. It just isn't "serious business".  I mean, it matters but it is not like a sacrament or vow or anything.  Angels will NOT sing from on high..and you will receive no reward (of this earth or otherwise). It's just a turning/tuning of consciousness toward love... one that requires a religious mind and one that happens to change your whole life. 

In short- you don't have to get there, dude.

No, it's not easy.

TCP's picture

I think I am naturally passive, though.  Yin to the extreme. 

Yeah, so if I "don't have to get there", what am I seeking?  That's the trouble, of course. 

"Dude", eh?  When you said that, it suddenly occurred to me that I'm the *only* female left in Crankyland.  I am, right?  I haven't seen any others.

 

I knew you were a femme.

michael3b's picture

"Dude" was more of a punctuation.

But, yes, this place is a sausage party.  And not in a good, spicy, with onions and peppers kinda way. Not that I am aware of anyhow...

Ah, okay.

TCP's picture

Not that it really matters, I guess.  I've come to see my gender as fluid rather than fixed.

Mmmm, sausage and peppers.  Now I'm hungry.  Time to go make dinner.

Mal Content and Nessie show up now and then

Rajah's picture

Terribelle has been gone for awhile but she did cross over to the new site

I'm surprised skilly hasn't stopped by to tell us what a shithole this place is

Oh, that's right!

TCP's picture

I forgot about Nessie -- she popped up in another thread.  I knew I couldn't be the *only* one.

It's all about perception

Rajah's picture

We've all been taught from an early age to perceive the world like the other people around us. But there are other forms of perception and other worlds beside this one we call reality. Your awareness is stuck in one spot and that's how you see the everyday world. When we are dreaming it shifts a little bit but it doesn't move far from that one spot. If you can move your awareness to another spot a different world would appear. You are blocked off from this by your internal dialogue. It and the list of things we keep in our head keep us fixed in this world. Oh to see the world through a baby's eyes before it's taught reality! There is actually no real order to the universe, it's chaos. We impose order to the world so it will make sense to us and we can function in it. We do this by learning to ignore the things we see when we are a newborn baby. We narrow our perception of the world. Otherwise we'd go crazy.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.