The dilemma with Buddhism and what Krishnamurti taught was that what religion does for and to the self is the antithesis to what it promises. Religions offer an easy path of an illusory and ideal world, and being religious does not require understand what the self is attracted to about it. It is a self-serving behavior. It is self-validating. It gives the ego exactly what it craves. Once religious belief gets under a person's skin it becomes a very difficult task to examine it objectively. The more a person accepts and adopts more and more belief, and becomes more convinced it's true, them more layers of dogma suffocate the spirit.
To my mind the human spirit is suffocated by religious belief, and being free of the walls of religious dogma is the successful spiritual path. Ironically it can be non-believers who are open to a more authentic and true life experience as a result. It takes more personal responsibility for the self, as dogma offers a huge crutch and distraction from the self being responsible for itself.
What Siddartha was referencing above is how the self can see the self for what it is, not for what a dogma says the self should be, or can be, or ought to be. Krishnamurti would call this process "the observer and the observed" both being the self. A religious path is easy. A path where the self has to be true to self, authentic, responsible, moral, and accountable is very hard. We humans are lazy and will go the path of least resistance. This tends to be a subconscious drive, much like the temptation for religious belief is.
If this was an objective and rational process you will be able to submit your line of thought to this group and we will see you are correct. Do you think we will confirm your thinking?
So vague references that you interpret is Baha’u’llah. No direct mention of this name, correct?
So why did you dismiss the Urantia book so quickly? I doubt you read the whole 2000+ pages in a day and saw no reference that could be interpreted as Baha’u’llah.
And what if he is incorrect?
