The following is a gem - this has been my guiding star for more than a decade.
The self hides in many ways, under every stone, the self can hide in compassion, going to India and looking after poor people, because the self is attached to some idea, faith, conclusion, belief, which makes me compassionate because I love Jesus or Krishna, and I go up to heaven. The self has many masks, the mask of meditation, the mask of achieving the highest, the mask that I am enlightened, that “I know of what I speak.” All this concern about humanity is another mask. So one has to have an extraordinary, subtle, quick brain to see where it is hiding. It requires great attention, watching, watching, watching. On Mind and Thought, p 133
The lyric expresses a longing to know more, but alas, we are forever confined to our senses; similar to Kant's perspective, which suggests that, although we can know information about a thing (i.e., via the senses, "touch" and "see", as the lyric suggests), we can never know a thing in and of itself (i.e., outside of our senses). We can only ever experience a sense-based representation of a thing, and not the thing's true nature.
Moreover, we cannot touch (i.e., experience) or see (again, experience) anything outside of the present moment. No matter what changes, we are locked in the moment, because there is no past or future, in the sense that we can experience those concepts now (i.e., there is only the present moment in time). Everything that has ever happened, occurred in a series of present moments.
The lyric expresses these truths, while intertwined with a saturnine feeling; that is, we are bound by our senses, and bound by the moment, but we long to experience more. However, it is all we ever have; it is: "all your life will ever be."
Touch sth. with your hands? Or touch it with your mind? Is all everything? Or just the things we can remember? Do your eyes see everything, or only the important parts? Do you remember every second of your life? Can you remember everything?
Read my damn words twice.
The idea that if we help each other when we are in a position to. (Low cost for us. High cost for other).
Also don't cost others suffering.
How you look at it. Are we being selfish or selfless is up to your personal preference of optimism / skepticism. It doesn't really matter.
Ideally if you believe in a type of consciousness rebirth - Likely not taking anything from past life but as we were never dead our consciousness probably* mutates to being a different person.(Do you really think you "Are" the person you were at birth?) -
Then you will want to have enlightened self interest.
Personally I believe causing others suffering (Eating animals ect) is a kind of cannibalism / self inflicting harm.
Why is it that we think of ourselves as OTHER?
Survival is at our core but otherwise it is foolish not to work together.
I'm afraid society is moving towards a kind of semen race to the top. Mindless acquisition of material goods to satisfy the ego. We can do better.
This seems like a much more concrete perspective than anything I've seen in the article. Is it derived from Krishnamurti's teachings or something of your own?
This is not meant to be understood consciously. It is a practice instruction. Can you objectify the sense of self? Can you observe the 'I'? Once you see it, that is a moment of awakening.
He says "can"... so I think it's open to interpretation.
I think if you deplete the term like that, it becomes meaningless, but the difference in scale between "I'm helping these people to glorify my name" and "I'm helping myself directly" is significant enough that the term still has meaning. We have a Newtonian scale concept of selfishness that works even if we don't have a quantum scale concept that works.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that there is really no reason why "self" must refer to an individual. Who you are realistically intersects with many things on many scales - life, culture, family, individual. They are all your "self" in some sense, and service at any scale will be selfish in such a sense.
In part. Life is gray, not black and white. There is certainly a grain of self interest because you will feel good having done it. But that doesn't make the act selfish.
When a poor is helped by a man and gets education and somehow he becomes rich, he also wants to help poor people because of gratitude not because he wants to feel better about himself. Its a selfless act not selfish.
First, your self's subjective view of the world, is of course centered at/on/from the self. It's the origin of your coordinate system. (Note that the way I am using "(your)self", here is different from the way that J Krishnamurti uses "the self" in his writing)
Secondly, if you use something like chaining whys for root-cause analysis (like in the Toyota TPS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys ), you pretty soon get to something that looks like: "I ought to do a selfless thing." Why? "Because it is good to be selfless" Why? "Because everyone says so?" Why? ... you either end up going in circles or you want yourself and/or others to think well of you -- accruing in prestige and/or favorable treatment.
Being guided through this process while in a light hypnotic state is a quicker way to the core of it than most people can easily reason through on their own:
Krishnamurti's teachings are based on scriptures such as Upanishads and Gita. He was averse to the notion of having a Guru (or teacher) because the teachers he had seen in his time were very steeped in orthodoxy, despite their learning. He was also against quoting verses from scriptures because he wanted to break away from the traditional teacher-student model.
His teachings are appealing to many people who do not have a sufficient background in the study of Vedanta (the culmination or final word of vedas). There are many contemporary teachers whose teaching is similar to that of JK. Eckhart Tolle, Mooji, Robert Adams, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi etc.
To appreciate the teachings of any of the above spiritual giants, one needs to have an intense/burning desire to seek the Self. Once it is realized, it puts an immediate end to all suffering and seeking. The glory of the Self has been described in great detail in Upanishads and Gita. There are supplementary texts that also discuss the approaches to attain it.
> Krishnamurti's teachings are based on scriptures such as Upanishads and Gita.
"the truth is a pathless land", what place does sacred scripture hold in JK's teaching? From everything I've read by him, none. Similarly for meditation practices, which he usually described as one of many ways to avoid the truth, there was a rejection of all (non)traditional means to awakening.
If anything JK's teaching is that of the Buddha: negate all ways and the truth appears.
As for contemporary teachers in the JK lineage, Ramana Maharashi actually precedes JK (with some overlap); otherwise I only know of Tolle and Mooji, the latter of which should not, IMO, be linked with JK, Maharshi or any other spiritual giant (attending one of his talks at his retreat center in Portugal felt more like a cult of personality than anything else).
> If anything JK's teaching is that of the Buddha: negate all ways and the truth appears.
Nagarjuna's doctrine applies. Every concept is inherently void. The meaningfulness that we find within concepts is a construction of our own [deluded] minds. The truth is what's left when we accept the inherent emptiness of things.
Mooji's teachings very much follow Ramana Maharshi's method of self-inquiry. That he has a cult-like following is an unfortunate side-effect. I have seen his videos and noticed that some of his "followers" worship him. This phenomena is not surprising. Teachers of philosophy, devotion etc. are often surrounded by parasite-like followers who pay very little attention to teaching and practicing it in their lives. Their focus is mostly to hang around the teacher and hope for a miracle to happen.
"I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief."
"Again, you have the idea that only certain people hold the key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one holds it. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of Eternity."
Note the context -- he was himself "chosen" to be "the guru" as he was 16(!) and he recognized the absurdity of it as he was 32:
"The Order of the Star in the East was founded in 1911 to proclaim the coming of the World Teacher. Krishnamurti was made Head of the Order. On August 3, 1929, the opening day of the annual Star Camp at Ommen, Holland, Krishnamurti dissolved the Order before 3000 members."
"One of the central tenets of late 19th-century Theosophy as promoted by the Theosophical Society was the complex doctrine of intelligent evolution of all existence. This was said to be occurring on a Cosmic scale, incorporating both physical and non-physical aspects of the known and unknown Universe, and affecting all of its constituent parts regardless of apparent size or importance. The theory was originally promulgated in the Secret Doctrine (published 1888), a book by Helena Blavatsky, one of the founders of contemporary Theosophy and the Theosophical Society."
Edit: Upanishads have, unsurprisingly, many more different teachings than what "tech_browser" wrote below:
Most religions claim that God is a person and maintain that God created the universe, thereby making God and the universe two separate entities. Further, religion and philosophy are also mixed up. "God in heaven", "Good actions give heaven and bad ones yield hell" etc. are some statements that we often hear.
The distinguishing teaching about the Upanishads is that
1. God is not a person
2. The universe, as we perceive, is an illusion and its underlying reality is God
3. The individual (a person like you and me), is not just a collection of bones, muscles and tissue. Neither is the individual his/her mind. The true-nature of an individual is the indestructible Self.
4. The individual Self and God are one and the same.
There's no such teaching like this in the world. It blows my mind as I read and contemplate on the verses that talk about it. There are several saints who have realized this truth and their position on the issue of God, individual and world are identical to what the Upanishads teach.
IMHO A person who has put to test the teachings of the Upanishadic in his/her own life, and lives by its vision is a real teacher.
THIS.
Everything that you have said here, I completely believe in that too. If one observes the world and tries to find a pattern in it, the findings will align with this theory. Would you please share in which teachings exactly did you read about this. I mean specifically about the one where they state that God is the universe itself and not a person who is different from it. Was it the Upanishads? Is there some specific book or source ? Thanks for your input.
There's not a specific book where this information is laid out. I'll write what I know and can refer to source if you have questions. At the outset, I'd like to mention that there are dualistic (dvaita), non-dualistic(advaita) and qualified non-dualistic (vishishta-advaita) interpretations of the Upanishads. As a follower of advaita, I clearly see from texts that non-duality is what these scriptures teach.
The Mandukya Upanishad talks about "ajata-vada", ie the argument that nothing is ever born. Its teaching is very close to buddhist philosophy.
The Mundaka Upanishad talks about the creation being God itself. A famous mantra quotes an example of a spider which is not only the efficient but also the material cause of the webs that it spins.
Chandogya Upanishad chapter 6 has the "maha-vakya" i.e. great statement "tat-tvam-asi" - thou art that.
Of course, reading a translation will not be sufficient to understand the depth of this text. These texts are usually expounded by scholars who are steeped in the tradition of studying and understanding them. For advaita (non-dualistic) philosphy, the master-commentator Shankaracharya has written brief commentaries on all the Upanishads. Their translations are available in English, but like I said earlier, a mere reading of them may not bring about the desired affect of "oh my god this is so awesome".
You may find the extended lore of the Elder Scrolls games, of all things, to be interesting in relation to this subject. There's a lot of philosophical prodding at the idea of "world and identity as illusion", and at the nature of characters in fiction, and the ways those two concepts interrelate.
It's ultimately not all that deep, but I'm fairly sure it's the only top-selling mass-market video game series to touch on the concept in even that much depth.
The initial impetus is not really important. It may have been something as trivial as a book, or a friend, or somebody on TV. People start all sorts of pursuits for all sorts of silly reasons, and usually end up abandoning them for the next-best-thing to come along. Promises of a better life ("the end of suffering!") are tempting to the unfortunate and downtrodden.
A better question to ask is what _keeps_ people dedicated to this quest? And of course I mean the ones who end up fulfilling it or getting close.
Once you see you can't unsee. Once these practices (that are numerous and not constrained to the East) are followed, things happen. You catch glimpses of the absolute. Mystical experiences and synchronicities become common. The intuitive aspect of yourself comes to the foreground and it's the one that drives this process. One gets all the validation one needs, not from teachers or gurus, but by direct experiential knowledge.
Once on that path, it's hard for someone to turn back. He'd have to delude himself by repeating lies often enough that he'd come to believe them (what are beliefs but thoughts you keep having?).
>"One gets all the validation one needs, not from teachers or gurus, but by direct experiential knowledge."
Sure, I have no problem with that. However, if you let your past experiences define who you are, it'll always limit you, even if your past experiences include 'glimpses of the absolute'.
Simply put, the most common mode of human existence is that of a storyteller. If you see connections between event A and event B you're telling a story. There's no harm in that, it's a natural part of who we are. Of course there are moments where the self fades and the story has less of a structured narrative, but we still find ways to tie it together.
I like to ask myself this, if someone achieves enlightenment, what do they do with the rest of their life? Are they going to spend their time maximising their new found connection to their senses? What gives pleasure to someone who minimises personal attachment?
This is a goof example of what I was referring to...
>"Push the details of life back into the mist and just sit with knowing that 'I am'. Why's that of any great interest? I'll tell you why. Because I didn't know I was, and then I did, and that amazing fact is somewhat skirted over being concerned about anything else."
This is the storyteller considering that 'I am God' makes everything else seem trivial in comparison. Why would you do ordinary human things when you see yourself as a God?
Ultimately it just seems like a waste of time to me, to deny yourself the richness of external experience just to trip on the magnificence of your self-image.
Why bifurcate into the position, all things are god, or the converse position, no things are god, Storytelling, Truth, Falsity. Even after the most profound proof realized, you stop to get a drink of water.
My point is, so called enlightenment does not necessarily lead people to living a richer life. Paradoxically, even though enlightenment is meant to remove burdens, some "enlightened" people treat it as a burden in its own right, even though they wouldn't necessarily admit this.
The answer is simple. A human's life remains unfulfilled regardless of his material gains such as wealth and pleasures. The fear of oldage, death and disease looms large and so does the uncertainty of the future. If one were to examine the world objectively, one would find that whatever I've mentioned above is seen aplenty.
The entirety of a human's life is based on the notion I-am-the-body-and-the-mind. If one were to discover one's true nature and shed these limitations, eternal happiness and peace follow. The path to learning this is fraught with difficulties. The biggest obstacle is to learn things differently from what we already know. A cursory reading of books isn't sufficient. This is where the Upanishads and Gita stand out in comparison to other texts on philosophy. Not only do they describe in great detail the true nature of the Self, but also prescribe many practices on reaching the goal.
There's every reason to pursue Self-realization or enlightenment as the only worthy goal of life. Such a goal never comes in one's way of being employed, raising a family etc.
>"There's every reason to pursue Self-realization or enlightenment as the only worthy goal of life. Such a goal never comes in one's way of being employed, raising a family etc."
What if the only way to understand it was to not pursue it?
You are right. To beginners, self-realization is pointed as a goal worthy of pursuit. As one treads along this path, one realizes that nothing new is to be pursued or attained. If the Self were attainable as an object with the passage of time (and some exertion), it is not a worthy goal since everything within the realm of time will perish. The Self is ever-realized. One only needs to forego incorrect notions and predilections for the Self to manifest in all its glory.
This is the method recommended by many teachers of non-duality to know the Self. In fact, there is nothing akin to knowing the Self, for it would then become an object and the division of seer-seen will again appear. To know the Self is to Be the Self.
Then why is it necessary to follow this or that belief system to get to something so obvious? Why is it necessary to read up on this school of thought or another when the only thing they can teach you is they have nothing to teach you?
Because there's a difference between intellectual understanding of the Self or non-dualism as a concept, and actually manifesting that "truth" by living it. Or as someone once wrote: Philosophical truths are transmitted through "praxis", not like pieces of eight. You've spent years conditioned to think a certain way, decades building that self-model you call "you". These associations will not be destroyed easily, just by someone saying so.
The Hindu/Vedantic systems emphasize self-enquiry and the importance of having a teacher guide you, which may look like pushing belief systems to outsiders, but it's really a process.
The western mystical tradition is more explicit in how important process/techniques are rather than dogma.
Let's put it like this. The main benefits of self-inquiry are not tied to one school of thought. To observe the change in ones thoughts and senses with equanimity does not require anything from old scriptures.
The reason Hindu/Vedantic systems and other systems of spirituality have extra merit is not in what they teach per se, but in the sense of pleasure we get from their poetic expression, and from feeling connected to other practitioners.
That's not to say schools of spirituality have no merit, they do have merit as a social construct, but in terms of self-exploration all you really need is the basic technique and some time to do it.
There is no need. Note that every person has a different conditioning of the mind and not everyone reacts in the same manner to a philosophical statement. Consider several pieces of firewood, each with a varying degree of dryness. Each of them will react differently when ignited with a spark.
The process of understanding the Self requires a teacher, at least in the beginning stages. There are exceptions to the norm, as always. Ultimately, an individual is best equipped to decide what's best for him. Contemplation on the wise sayings of seers may be suitable for some, whereas studying scriptures under a teacher and practicing austerity might be appealing to others.
How else would a person learn or hear about the Self? It is not a solid thing that can be perceived by the senses. Neither is it as abstract as nothingness. It is one's real nature and the source of the notion "I am". Further, it is that which makes it possible for the mind and senses to function.
You may argue that all this information can be gleaned by reading a book. At best, this will remain in the realm of theoretical knowledge. Only a person who has treaded along this path can offer some insights into what the Self is and how it may be realized. If you don't like to label this person as a teacher/preceptor, feel free to give him any other name you like.
To tell a person that he's the body and mind requires no knowledge. Further, such ignorance is well established in every individual. The knowledge of the Self is something a person has to discover after being introduced to it via some medium.
I believe only Chinese Chan (which evolved in to Japanese Zen, and similar Korean and Vietnamese traditions) uses the dramatic "mental conundrum provides sudden enlightenment" approach. The rest of Buddhism apparently generally considers needlessly verbose or obtuse speech to be unskilled and counter to progress. Indeed, it could be argued that speech - with some exceptions - is generally discouraged.
Indeed, it could be argued that speech - with some exceptions - is generally discouraged.
This is inline with the absolution of the self... If Buddhism believes that the self doesn't exist it's hard to use language that directly engages with the idea of self (subject).
Some of his teachings are indeed present in the Upanishads. Especially, his statements about the Self, happiness etc. all do exist in Indian Scriptures. He was a maverick philosopher that shunned the traditional system of teaching.
Sure but that doesn't mean they were "based on ", i was mostly curious about that part.
afaik, they were just based on a pure common sense not based on Hinduism/Buddhism etc. There is a video on youtube of him talking to some Buddhist scholars where he goes into this.
Unfortunately this common misconception of miscategorizing him as "hindu guru" which instantly turns off most westerners, stopping him from gaining much wider acceptance.
Of course I'm going to get flamed for this but this guy has written a bunch of nonsense.
"Love and emptiness cannot abide together; when there is the feeling of loneliness, love is not. "
1. Emptiness is not the same thing as loneliness.
2. If you feel anything bad while you think you feel empty then that's not actual emptiness.
3. When you practice true love for others it makes you lonely because it makes everyone abandon you. How does he reconcile those? He can't.
"You will ask, then what is love? Love is a state of being in which thought is not; but the very definition of love is a process of thought, and so it is not love."
That's not a definition. That's coincident phenomena with an effect of true love. But other things can make you stop "thinking". Such as losing oneself. Or taking drugs habitually. QED.
Only a person who has lost his own self can say the sorts of things that Krishnamurti said. Please: Beware of everything. He did not have a real enlightenment. When you ask a real enlightened teacher what love is, they can tell you on the spot. Love is blessing. Blessings are that which enable or cause a good result for something or for it to change for the better. That's a wholly completely different quality of definition than spending hundreds of pages making up one's own words for the purpose of instilling his spirit into others. The only reason I can give the correct definition while Krishnamurti could not is that I learned it from someone who actually knew and could verify his answers.
I'm having similar problems understanding your post as I do with understanding his writings.
This discussion would have probably been a lot more productive if either of you defined what in the world do you mean by "love"/"true love", because you're using a lot of the emotional load typically placed there to define concepts that seem to be different.
> I'm having similar problems understanding your post as I do with understanding his writings.
How do you confirm the similarity of the problems? One thing's for sure - I can help you get more concrete understanding the more you ask me concrete questions and check. The same cannot be said of Krishnamurti's teaching as his words cannot be verified (they lack verifiable problems). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like. If you want to do something good for yourself or society I'll be happy to see if I can help identify the causes and the way to the result you want.
> This discussion would have probably been a lot more productive if either of you defined what in the world do you mean by "love"/"true love"
You probably just missed it, but I certainly did define it concretely… unless you replied before reading my entire post. You have to be on your guard for whether you can confirm how well you really understand the definition. It took me a long time to see it, myself.
Yes, that's correct. Excellent questions. If you want to understand the definition of love correctly you need to learn conscience and justice first of all. Conscience is the way to brighten one's mind, and justice is the way to brighten our world. Is there any greater blessing than living with a bright mind in a bright world ?
Like in math, answers are made by problems/questions. Literally cannot get a certain solution without correctly understanding the problem. So, the quality of answers depends on the quality of questions. The more accurately, precisely, and realistically you can point out what you want to know the more specifically an enlightened being would be able to answer you. Please note this is my answer to the specific question you asked. If you want to know the definition of justice, its function, how it can be practiced or generated, etc., I'll need to know what you have in mind.
Love is not incompatible with connectedness. The very way of the world is love. So people who are alive cannot exactly not be "unified".
But people do what I described because they have different destinies than you. It takes them a long time to come to know facts because they can't understand or accept what you had to open your mouth to tell them right off the bat. The reason is that we, who are ordinary people who are not enlightened, do not really recognize the causes we carry within our own consciousnesses. We only witness results/effects and don't fully perceive the problems that made them become that way. So even if you could predict the future people can't accept what you say without their own verification.
But people only take exactly what they are ready to take even from a perfect teaching. Basically, people hear what they want to hear. Plus, it's really arduous to change for the better in most cases. So people who have such things in them have to distance themselves from you if you retain your sincerity as it's hard for them to stay near a person who doesn't agree with their expectation that they're right. Their pride feels hurt.
Eventually, if your words were true (true love), then they have the chance to come to know you in the future, after they confirm and experience lots of things through their own living. But it's hard for them to reapproach you if what they have done made Karma inside of their consciousness. And that's provided they don't destroy or lose themselves in the process.
>"But people only take exactly what they are ready to take even from a perfect teaching."
I agree that to be prepared for an idea makes someone more receptive to it. I find the same thing with creative thinking as a whole. When I've taken the time to reflect on an puzzle, I'm more receptive to a solution.
Regarding the other points you raised about love, another question... Is sincerity important for true love? Or to put it another way, can illusory actions be conducted in a loving way?
Interesting to see JK on HN. I went to the first boarding school he founded, Rishi Valley, in southern India. Certainly the most transformative part of my life, although we weren't exposed to much of his philosophy. He also founded the Oak Grove School in Ojai, California.
He's the boss. He despises idol worship, but if I have to name one person that has the most/best influence on my life, this is the one (for the past twenty years). I highly recommend his work.
As with all enlightened superstar spiritual teachers, just don't look his life too closely or you will be disappointed. Even people who start good and their feet on the ground (like Krishnamurti) end up full of shit when they get too much wrong kind of attention. https://tricycle.org/magazine/the-shadow-side-krishnamurti/
“If you want to lose your religion, make friends with the priest.”
As someone who's second career is basically meditating (in terms of time and effort) I acknowledge the value and importance of having personal teacher as a guide. On the other hand I strongly warn about getting into trap of thinking them as something else than specialists that can help you with some issues.
'After the Ecstasy, the Laundry: How the Heart Grows Wise on the Spiritual Path' by Jack Kornfield is essential reading on the subject.
I am aware of all of his "scandals", but there never is any hypocrisy on his behalf. If some follower wants to put him on a pedestal, that's the follower's fault.
JK voluntarily tried to give up his fame by the Dissolution of the order of the star.
"The Order of the Star in the East was founded in 1911 to proclaim the coming of the World Teacher. Krishnamurti was made Head of the Order. On August 3, 1929, the opening day of the annual Star Camp at Ommen, Holland, Krishnamurti dissolved the Order before 3000 members."
""I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path.""
>“If you want to lose your religion, make friends with the priest.”
Sounds quite puritanical a view.
Even if we consider Christianity, a priest can and will be (or have been) as flawed as any man, including even a hypocrite, greedy, murderer or worse, and even all kinds of original Christian doctrine (except the BS about the Pope being some kind of super-saint) agrees with that. Heck, the very first person believed to go to heaven in the Christian faith was the murdered/thief/etc next to Christ on the cross.
Clerics in Western religions (Z, J, C, I) (claimed to) sit on a privileged spiritual perch and certainly in Christianity are subject to the "original" 'beam/mote' admonishment.
So yes, if your neighbor is an adulterer, it may be "puritanical" to get on a high horse, but if your confessor is a wolf in sheep's clothing, that is a different story.
Ultimately, I can't prove anything, but given that everyone is "dispelling his teachings" and states that he wanted his "teachings" to live on, etc. -- oftentimes in the same paragraph of "but he wasn't a teacher" -- makes this whole thing seem really silly to me.
Not completely, but somewhat, yes. Gandhi is a terrible example of how to be a husband, but he nevertheless managed to teach nonviolent protest and help liberate a country. MLK also did some philandering, but it doesn't detract from what he did for civil rights. It's easy to be dismissive of a cardboard priest, but if you had an actual human in mind, it would become less black and white.
If you need your spiritual, religious, philosophical leader to be pure as the driven snow, you're going to get some pretty inhuman advice from your leader. Most of us have faults and things we struggle with. If someone doesn't, how do they relate, how do they help?
In other words, it's one thing when someone is claiming to speak on behalf of a deity; it's another otherwise. To be hypocritical in such a context reflects much more harshly on the priest than it does on, say, the civil rights activist.
True, but that only makes the argument weaker for Krishnamurti, who really refused the role of teacher quite strongly himself and certainly didn't want anyone believing in a supernatural savior instead.
The Sufi master Attar [1] wrote an entire book [2] -- using the symbol of "flyers" or "birds" -- describing the stages of seekers' path to enlightenment. The mataphor used was 'seven valleys of love' [3] encountered on the way to the 'King of the Birds', each with their own distinct psyho-spiritual state and requirements.
The journey has stages but for some there is a 'successful' end.
"If he who sets out on this way will not engage himself wholly and completely he will never be free from the sadness and melancholy which weigh him down."
An alternative perspective is that "meta-okayness" might be a goal to aim for. Can I be fundamentally OK even when I don't feel OK? Could I be OK with depression? Could I be OK with sadness? Could I be OK with being human?
Maybe instead of needing to be more enlightened, I just need a nap?
On a personal level "to thine own self be true". Definitely.
But if you are "depressed", "sad", and "don't feel OK" and rather take a "nap" instead of striving for enlightenment, you shouldn't go around giving talks on spiritual matters as a "teacher".
This is interesting, but I find most texts like this mentally stimulating but lacking in practical suggestions that I have time to understand. Any suggestions for similar work but with a more practical bend to it?
It is a cultural thing / mentality coming from the enlightenment (in the western sense;) (and for me this is one of the most important legacy of enlightenment): EVERY ideology is (should be) open for criticism
More criticism, more open discussion leads to more (or at least more educated) freedom of choice.
This, of course, may cause bad feelings in the devoted adherents, but that's a price I happily pay! This critical - "no sacred cow" - mentality have done a lot good to the society, and I definitely would not like to live in pre-enlightment times/places.
Anecdote: Years ago I attended a talk by him at a large open ground in Chennai. Many people including some bigwigs were present. A few memories:
- at one point he said, "burn all books, including those of the speaker / author". He used to refer to himself like that, not with "I" or "me" or "mine".
- at one point, in some context, he used the words "over the table, under the table" - before he could even complete the sentence, huge knowing / guilty laughter erupted in the audience.
Interesting question; I did not think anyone would interpret my quote of JK in the way you seem to have. But yours is certainly a valid possible interpretation, though not the right one, IMO.
To make it clear: I do not think he meant it at all in the way you think - your interpretation is something like the burning of the Library of Alexandria or other such vandalizing acts. I am pretty sure JK meant it something like this:
Do not (slavishly) rely on books to form your opinions; think (critically) for yourself.
Nothing else.
Buddha is supposed to have said much the same - per a book I read:
Appo deepo bhava
which is Pali or Prakrit for:
Be a light unto yourself.
Edit: orasis (sibling comment) probably said it better than me; it's just that in Indian thought, knowledge (jnana) is supposed to be one of the paths. Bhakti (devotion, e.g. Meera) and karma (action, e.g. Arjuna) are two among some others.
Just that knowledge itself isn't the end. Knowledge is just a thing, not "Truth" in and of itself. Thinking and knowledge simply obscure the perfect Truth that is this moment.
Reminds me in an oblique way of some of Hanshan's poetry:
I usually live in seclusion
but sometimes I go to Kuoching
to call on the Venerable Feng-kan (pickup)
or to visit master Shih-te (big stick)
but I go back to Cold Cliff alone
observing an unspoken agreement
I follow a stream that has no spring
the spring is dry but not the stream
- Hanshan, #44, The Collected Songs of Cold Mountain by Red Pine
I would like to add more to this conversation, but don't know that I have much to offer beyond what others have said.
There are two quotations regarding this topic that others here may like, though. One is (in my view) about the infinity of potential relationships that pass every day, and the other about trying to connect to someone else while we are limited as corporeal beings.
...
"The barber was cutting our hair, and our eyes were closed - as they are so likely to be. We had passed into that deep and bountiful world of repose which one finds only at the end of the tonsorial trail. The scissors, stroking, had entered into the deliberate phase well behind the ears; our head was bowed, and peace had settled over the hair, with only the asthmatic inhalations of the barber marking life's beat. Deep in a world of our own, we heard, from far away, a voice saying goodbye. It was a customer of the shop, leaving. "Goodbye," he said to the barbers. "Goodbye," echoed the barbers. And without ever returning to consciousness, or opening our eyes, or thinking, we joined in. "Goodbye," we said, before we could catch ourself. Then, all at once, the sadness of the occasion struck us, the awful dolor of bidding farewell to someone we had never seen. We have since wondered what he looked like, and whether it was really goodbye.
-E.B. White, "The Sadness of Parting", The New Yorker, May 4 1935, page 9.
"We suffer a lot in our society from loneliness. So much of our life is an attempt to not be lonely: 'Let's talk to each other; let's do things together so we won't be lonely.' And yet inevitably, we are really alone in these human forms. We can pretend; we can entertain each other; but that's about the best we can do. When it comes to the actual experience of life, we're very much alone; and to expect anyone else to take away our loneliness is asking too much."
- Ajahn Sumedho, The Way It Is
Gita doesn't say that God created the caste system. The four "varnas" are loosely translated as "castes" but that is not quite so. A varna is defined by an individual's occupation. Those who teach are brahmanas, those engaged in ruling the kingdom and protecting people are kshatriyas, those involved in business are vaishyas and those performing jobs like construction, farming etc. are shudras.
It is unfortunate that many consider a "varna" to be the same as "caste". The latter is a degeneration found aplenty in the Indian society whereas the former is simply a way of classifying people based on their occupation.
There is no parallel to the teachings of Gita. In 18 chapters, it covers all aspects of God, universe and individual and also the means of attaining liberation.
Yes, Ashtavakra Gita is a vedantic text that focuses on describing the absolute truth.
Bhagavad Gita is more versatile since it covers the many aspects of action (karma), devotion (bhakti) and knowledge (jnana). The highest truth about the Self is described in a few verses that are sprinkled throughout the text and many other aspects such as creation of universe, modes of mind, action, renunciation, imbibing godly qualities, shunning demonic qualities etc. are all found in it. Shankaracharya's commentary on it makes it very special too.
There are many wonderful spiritual texts. This is blather. Most primates experience loneliness because, in the wild, they can't survive long alone, much less breed. The best you can say for this text is that it gives the readers extra heads, a pejorative Zen phrase meaning that it provides readers with an intellectual illusion of understanding that will delay genuine understanding even if they do meditate.
I'm very willing to assent to the idea that spiritual masters experience less loneliness, but it ain't 'cause they read this sort of pap.
> I'm very willing to assent to the idea that spiritual masters experience less loneliness
Chogyam Trunpga, founder of the Shambhala Buddhist tradition, said "Egolessness is a concept, a philosophy, but loneliness is a reality that you experience. A feeling of loneliness is part of the journey. As for me, I feel that way constantly, and I think it's a very healthy feeling, a very real feeling."
I was a big fan of Krishnamurti in my teenage years, still am, even though I now think religion and ritual can also be a good away to approach 'Truth'.
For those knowing a bit about this guy, this is a nice and humorous 'skeptical' way of looking at Jiddu. In Jiddu's spirit, stripping him of his guru-ship http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/krishnamu...
Have you read the article? Understanding how things work is one of the fundamental quests of humanity. It might not be a scientific journal, but calling it "spiritual" junk is unfair.
Spiritual inquiry of this nature is not completely illogical. It's frequently shown that the free will humans believe they have is an illusion, and the topic of identification of the ego is revered enough to be included in psychiatric textbooks. The concept of consciousness is very pertinent to AI. I believe these topics are relevant enough.
I assume you trust logic and empirical tests. Here's something that is both repeatable, and as empirical as it gets. Consider every instance of knowing anything "objectively". You will notice that consistently it is always first and foremost a subjective experience. You can't get around it. Thought is very quick to dissect, categorise, extrapolate etc. and then you create a division of the thinker, which you take to be yourself, and the things "out there" which are separate from you. You take your understanding of the world as absolute truth, while spiritual giants, dared to dig much deeper in a manner no less scientific than the greatest scientists the west has known, only directed it inwards instead of outwards and arrived at understandings which are no less remarkable than what scientists have. The difference is that they can't demonstrate it by getting a rover to mars, but by becoming totally free of any form of suffering caused by an incorrect understanding of reality, which I dare say is at least as impressive.
They say they're free from suffering, maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but they can't tell me how to repeat that in a way I can reproduce for myself. Which is my entire point. Maybe something worked for them, but won't work for me or vice versa.
Results that can't be replicated and aren't predictive aren't really results at all. Not in a logical or meaningful way. They're just claims. Bizarre and baseless claims.
> They say they're free from suffering, maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but they can't tell me how to repeat that in a way I can reproduce for myself.
If that were true, I'd take the same position as you do, but the good ones never tell you to trust them. In fact they insist that you look for yourself with brutal honesty and never trust any guru on their word. In fact, I see their conduct as the epitome of the scientific method, only directed at understanding what's at the core of the subjective experience. What experiments have you tried so far to claim that these are bizarre and baseless claims?
It goes to show that there are a lot of Indians with H1-B liking such mystic writings and skewing the ranking on hn. Trump is right; H1-B overuse is messing up everything - our country and hn. How sad.
The above paragraph was a joke. Please don't flame at me.
I haven't seen the site from the link at the time it was accessible, but analyzing the link it seems the site contained the text of the book "Commentaries on Living" by Jiddu Krishnamurti:
Moreover, it probably linked to the chapter "Loneliness" from the first book, which can be found online in various forms, including on this nice site (Chapter 42 `Loneliness'):
1. I've gone through an OSHO 'phase' long ago. there is a certain quality in you when you are young that finds him appealing but you grow out of it. when I look back at it now its seems not worth my time as many ideas seem rather half baked (sorry, no offence, just my impression).
2. SJV I like, have been practicing isha processes for a bit, there is a certain directness to him that I like. However, Intellectually I feel his ideas/thought mechanics are tailored towards masses that I struggle to find alignment in (sorry again). Isha practices are good but IMO but there is something else to him that you experience only when you meditate with him.
There are quite a lot of gems out there in various cultures. Have you read Chuang Tzu? He's deeply insightful.
But a word of caution that the effect of mere words wears off, and more seriously, it is trivial to misunderstand the intended meaning of these various masters. When I was young, it chafed me to read about the novice-master relationship (which is stressed in almost all spiritual schools regardless of time or place), but in mid life I've come to accept that it is truly a necessity if one is seeking truth and wishes to arrive.
I saw it as an attempt to draw a contrast between the internal struggle of the mother (and that of every human suffering from loneliness) and the relative placidity and pleasant obliviousness of nature. To me, it highlighted the power of mindfulness.
There's always something odd to me about teachings in this category. For one, it's often very hard to tell where they're really going, what they're proposing, and the verbose language with sprinklings of mysticism doesn't really help. For another, they often take things that are fairly omnipresent, and then say the person shouldn't feel them. The utter focus often seems to be on the person feeling them, as if that is the biggest crime.
Such philosophies often come with implicit assumptions that, say, desire, self-concern, ambition, etc., are all negative things, which seems to be accepted in some circles, even though, to me, that is the claim that needs proving. Strangely enough, despite this being widely accepted by most people you ask, the same people don't live that way, which makes it look like an extensive signaling operation.
The commentary is gigantic but I'll try to do my best to show what I mean.
> 1. He said he was obsessed by stupid little things, and that these obsessions constantly changed. He would worry over some imaginary physical defect, and within a few hours his worry would have fixed itself upon another incident or thought. He seemed to live from one anxious obsession to another. To overcome these obsessions, he continued, he would consult books, or talk over his problem with a friend, and he had also been to a psychologist; but somehow he had found no relief. Even after a serious and absorbing meeting, these obsessions would immediately come on. If he found the cause, would it put an end to them?
> 2. Does discovery of a cause bring freedom from the effect? Will knowledge of the cause destroy the result? We know the causes, both economic and psychological, of war, yet we encourage barbarity and self-destruction. After all, our motive in searching for the cause is the desire to be rid of the effect. This desire is another form of resistance or condemnation; and when there is condemnation, there is no understanding.
> “Then what is one to do?” he asked.
> 3. Why is the mind dominated by these trivial and stupid obsessions? To ask “why” is not to search for the cause as something apart from yourself which you have to find; it is merely to uncover the ways of your own thinking. So, why is the mind occupied in this manner? Is it not because it is superficial, shallow, petty, and therefore concerned with its own attractions?
1. An exposition that I've seen in a lot of sub-philosophies or religions of this variety: a person has feelings, those feelings bother the person, and those feelings need to be corrected. For one, the exposition is extremely vague. What physical defects? Was this always a character trait of the person? Have those actions helped them in some way before?
It seems likely that this is a feature of the brain, and it could work for good or for ill. Without context, it's very hard to tell, sounds like hypochondria. I'd say that paragraph is very vacuous. But it seems a lot of people relate to it, which goes to the next question: if it's a problem many people have, why is it a problem with those many people? Also note that many people have done away with this problem, at rates that are likely comparable to those of improvement via reading such teachings, but they are not mentioned here.
2. Again, very vacuous. The benefits of finding a cause are obvious enough that I don't need to outline them. It is too bad that we don't pay attention to causes of bad things, although I don't see how that's a good argument for not seeking causes. Finding the correct cause is very helpful at times. It may also be very difficult to do so, which may be an argument against trying to find, but not finding. But trying to find a cause and failing to find it is indeed a stressful task, but in that of itself there's nothing particularly wrong.
3. The claim appears to be that that the cause of the obsessive thoughts is the person's mind, and to figure out where they're coming from is for the person to understand their own mind. That's well and good. Then it jumps straight to:
> Is it not because it is superficial, shallow, petty, and therefore concerned with its own attractions?
Eh, OK? I thought condemnation was bad? That seems quite a jump, and, more importantly, it doesn't really say anything. Those are all fairly loaded terms that require a proper context. The poor fellow, trained to take attacks on himself and his mind in stride, just accepts the claim. In the end, though, we have learned nothing.
A staggering amount of this style of spirituality seems to follow this formula: person comes with troubling thought patterns, the other person tells them that those thought patterns are bad and unjustified, and then the person leaves with "I have odd thought patterns because my mind is <bad>". It's not much progress from the tautological conclusion: "My mind has odd thought patterns because it has odd thought patterns". Something that can be summarized as another common maxim: stop thinking about things or asking questions.
Similarly, some after that seems to suggest accepting things, which reminds me of stoicism. But it's not enough to state that one should accept things, it needs to be proven. Again the author seems to be piggybacking on preexisting agreements where Buddhist or stoic positions are perceived as wise so he doesn't need to defend them.
A lot of text but nothing concrete to hold on to if I want to avoid injecting my own thoughts into it, which, fortunately, jar too much to do it automatically. This appears to be more a stream of consciousness. One could try to extract something from it, but it would be of their own doing. I wonder if that's the appeal.
That being said, with the current lack of better options, if you want to quiet some thoughts and calm down, I'd just suggest to try Buddhism. It has a lot of the same problems since it's basically saying the same thing, but there's at least a method to the madness.
The self hides in many ways, under every stone, the self can hide in compassion, going to India and looking after poor people, because the self is attached to some idea, faith, conclusion, belief, which makes me compassionate because I love Jesus or Krishna, and I go up to heaven. The self has many masks, the mask of meditation, the mask of achieving the highest, the mask that I am enlightened, that “I know of what I speak.” All this concern about humanity is another mask. So one has to have an extraordinary, subtle, quick brain to see where it is hiding. It requires great attention, watching, watching, watching. On Mind and Thought, p 133