So, thanks again to Niko for the work put into making this blog. We did not try as yet to promote it, so the number of readers is limited, but please share this link, as there is going to be more frequent activity here, with a focus, at least from my end, on comparing these two approaches. You know, looking at different kinds of teachings can be used as means or device to convey something else. in principle there is nothing at all wrong with this, depending upon if/how much you distort the actual material to convey what you want to convey. Of course, along the way there is also, hopefully, discovery–I know there is for me– but I do not find anything wrong about having a particular intent. The ground is not just to walk on. There are other functions for it; in short, the earth needs to be turned in order to garden. Now let’s go slow.
Re what Krishnamurti wrote about Gurdjieff ( https://www.jkrishnamurti.org/content/series-i-chapter-47-spiritual-leader ), he used this material of what a particular person told him and deliberately turned it into something else. Again, this is okay, as it is how the mind creates, but it depends where the intention is to go with it. Some people say that intention is the single most important thing, and with this I tend to concur, but K did not seem to have this perspective. I believe he referred to intention as having a motive and he considered the mind working in this mode to be counterproductive in that it was interconnected with a person’s subjective sense of “the me ” as being independent from the (perceptual) field. He was speaking, from the angle of accumulation on an emotional/psychological level as being counter-productive. Obviously some truth here, even ‘great’ truth, but imo the way he put the emphasis is not only not helpful, but even counter-productive, and I will be going into this in detail, maybe in a different blog.