"Come closer, sit down with me, and let us discuss the philosophy of Life"
Well, in essence, that could be a "poetic" translation of the word Upanishad, which more or less does mean, "come, sit, near" and was a term that designated a teaching method that ultimately the Buddha, Krishnamurti and many other educators would come to embrace. Invite the student to your physical comfort zone and space and learning will emerge.
Well, otherwise proclaimed teachers such as the Buddha, Krishnamurti and many others quickly realized that this type of Upa-ni-shad leads to idolatry and worse, disciples.
The Buddha, upon his dying words, decreed that more or less there should not be followers and each man (and woman, as at the time, it was not gender-based, to a degree) should be responsible for his or her own Path, the Eight-Fold Path.
But, isn't it easier to have teachers? Isn't it easier to have someone tell us what to do? Isn't it easier to blame someone when that teaching goes wrong??
Yes, it is easier.
And, there is no metaphysical proof one way or the other that mandates that education of any level leads to something better or worse, and yet both sides of the equation, teachers and students, each have a stake and at times are at complete odds with each other.
So, what gives?
Education and means of education have been a topic of concern for thousands of years, this much is evinced by the mere form of the Upanishads in the genealogy of Indian philosophical thought. However, what it really marks is a turning away from the dogmatic views of the Brahmanic caste of priests towards a "New Hope (Star Wars IV...)" of what the knowledge of the universe actually means.
Siddhartha Guatama was born into the Kshatriya caste, or the Warrior Caste, and not the Brahmin, or Priestly Caste, contrary to many pre-conceived ideas. He was destined to be a warrior-king, but an old mendicant proclaimed him to be a great teacher, much to his father's disgust and disgrace. A teacher he shall not be, but a king.
Well, things did not go as planned by the father and Siddhartha left the royal fold to later become one of the world's greatest teachers, as was the words of the prophet at his birth.
But, what made him a great teacher?
Much in the tradition of the Chandogya Upanishad, the teachings of the Buddha are so incredibly "simple" that they on the surface seem to be mere tautologies.
However, the beauty of a tautology, or self-evident "truth" is that it takes one decades if not lifetimes to either see the simplicity and to accept it or to forever remain blinded to the fact that on a daily basis, if we do, for a moment, sit down, come closer, and listen, we just, just perhaps, might learn something from others on a secular and worldly level.
Or, we can walk with our heads in the clouds all day and be none pence the richer.
Well, in essence, that could be a "poetic" translation of the word Upanishad, which more or less does mean, "come, sit, near" and was a term that designated a teaching method that ultimately the Buddha, Krishnamurti and many other educators would come to embrace. Invite the student to your physical comfort zone and space and learning will emerge.
Well, otherwise proclaimed teachers such as the Buddha, Krishnamurti and many others quickly realized that this type of Upa-ni-shad leads to idolatry and worse, disciples.
The Buddha, upon his dying words, decreed that more or less there should not be followers and each man (and woman, as at the time, it was not gender-based, to a degree) should be responsible for his or her own Path, the Eight-Fold Path.
But, isn't it easier to have teachers? Isn't it easier to have someone tell us what to do? Isn't it easier to blame someone when that teaching goes wrong??
Yes, it is easier.
And, there is no metaphysical proof one way or the other that mandates that education of any level leads to something better or worse, and yet both sides of the equation, teachers and students, each have a stake and at times are at complete odds with each other.
So, what gives?
Education and means of education have been a topic of concern for thousands of years, this much is evinced by the mere form of the Upanishads in the genealogy of Indian philosophical thought. However, what it really marks is a turning away from the dogmatic views of the Brahmanic caste of priests towards a "New Hope (Star Wars IV...)" of what the knowledge of the universe actually means.
Siddhartha Guatama was born into the Kshatriya caste, or the Warrior Caste, and not the Brahmin, or Priestly Caste, contrary to many pre-conceived ideas. He was destined to be a warrior-king, but an old mendicant proclaimed him to be a great teacher, much to his father's disgust and disgrace. A teacher he shall not be, but a king.
Well, things did not go as planned by the father and Siddhartha left the royal fold to later become one of the world's greatest teachers, as was the words of the prophet at his birth.
But, what made him a great teacher?
Much in the tradition of the Chandogya Upanishad, the teachings of the Buddha are so incredibly "simple" that they on the surface seem to be mere tautologies.
However, the beauty of a tautology, or self-evident "truth" is that it takes one decades if not lifetimes to either see the simplicity and to accept it or to forever remain blinded to the fact that on a daily basis, if we do, for a moment, sit down, come closer, and listen, we just, just perhaps, might learn something from others on a secular and worldly level.
Or, we can walk with our heads in the clouds all day and be none pence the richer.
