This is the beginning of my serious writing here, not to imply that the previous writing was not serious. but there are different degrees and qualities. In response to a previous comment from Niko (see pt.1), at the time I did not know where I was going with this, though it was intuitive, and now I do know. Basically I will be approaching from the angle/perspective of the Madhyamika Prasangika school of Buddhism. From Google: Quote: “Prasangika is a subdivision of the Madhyamika school of philosophy in Buddhism that uses consequentialist arguments to establish the ultimate truth of emptiness. The name comes from the Sanskrit word prasaṅga, which means “consequence.” Unquote.
The way thought works is to compare one thing to another; this said, and imo a key point, when we do this we are working from a framework. The framework I will be working from here is my personal understanding of the teaching of this particular school of Buddhism, the Consequence (Middle Way school), which is based upon and designed around the utilitarian function of the two aspects of truth. Interestingly, which many reading may not know. one of the main ways this particular teaching is presented is by comparison with the teachings of other Buddhist schools. It is given in this teaching and in the teachings of a couple of other Mahayana Buddhist schools, I think Chittamatrin and also Yogachara (am not sure of the differences between these two and will have to study that), Yogachara being the teaching of those who so-called trained K, and these two schools apparently being similar to Zen, that the Buddha turned the wheel three times for people of different different styles/propensities in the processing of information. We can maybe look at this from the angle of food for thought, the digestion of information. So, the Madhyamika approach labels the Hinayana teachings as the smaller scope, the Zen-like teachings as being the middling scope and their own teaching (of course:-) as the larger scope. Btw all those taking these teachings consider their teachings to be the larger scope, and those taking the Hinayana teachings now call themselves Theraveda, as, understandably, they do not like being labeled as the smaller scope.
The starting point for me here is to lay out the ground for the presentation of this particular topic, the approach of the Middle Way. I intend to do so by comparing the approaches of Gurdjieff and Krishnamurti. By this tactic we can hopefully keep from getting struck in the codified presentation of any particular school or teacher but can digest this material in a way that is more fine-tuned. It is worth noting, btw, that reportedly, and I believe it to be true, G’s final message to his students as he was dying were “a fine mess I leave you in.” Also, one device will be looking at the consonant bases of words. “Ground” is an interesting word, as is “mess.” Neither of these words I have looked at until just now, but “ground” and “mess” will be a grand way to start. The consonant base is what is left when the vowels are removed. More to follow.
Deconstructing Krishnamurti 