Site best viewed through Internet Explorer;
there are some page display issues with Chrome & Firefox
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright © 2007-2010 Daniel Marks | beyondthemind.net. All Rights Reserved.
This website went online on November 22, 2007 and is being continually developed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Core of the Talks On Evolution
His Review of the Notebook "The inner awareness was always there"
A Discussion on Death, with David Bohm The Final (Deathbed) Statement
On Reincarnation On the Silent Mind - and 'That Thing'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
His Review of the Notebook "The inner awareness was always there"
A Discussion on Death, with David Bohm The Final (Deathbed) Statement
On Reincarnation On the Silent Mind - and 'That Thing'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Core
The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: ‘Truth is a pathless land’. Man cannot come to it through any organisation, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.
Man has built in himself images as a fence of security—religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man’s thinking, his relationships and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind.
So he is not an individual. Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not choice. It is man’s pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity.
Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge, which are inseparable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever-limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution. When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts he will see the division between the thinker and the thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep radical mutation in the mind.
Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence.
Krishnamurti first wrote a statement of the core of the teaching in October 1981 for Mary Lutyens, at her request.
She included it in her book The Years of Fulfilment, the second volume of her biography of Krishnamurti.
On re-reading the statement in 1983, Krishnamurti made changes which are included above.
This is the complete and final statement.
Copyright © 2002 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust
(From the Spring Newsletter, 2008; paragraphs added)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commentary: The statement "Truth is a pathless land" implies the ending of time, does it not? Truth is from moment to moment and cannot be accumulated. You cannot arrive at Truth through a series of experiences. It is either there or it isn't, in the present, and it cannot be carried as memory.
The other statement that "Thought is time" is a complementary observation. The impediment to truth is the path of thought, which can only occur in time, both chronological and psychological. Thought is the past projected into the future. All time - all thought - must end for the present to be.
Thought has created the central image, the thinker, the observer - which is the self. The self then becomes the image-maker, always searching for security. The images in one's mind cause the division that exists between people; these images prevent true relationship with others. Choiceless awareness of the images and the daily activity of the mind is observation without an observer, the self; only this passive awareness brings an end to thought, through negation of everything thought has created. Negation is seeing the false and discarding it.
This whole statement, the apotheosis of sixty years of talks, is entirely centered around the ending of psychological time in the mind. (Flaws in the Mind)
A review of the Notebook, following its publication in 1976:
“… To Krishnamurti what seems the most important thing, and he has repeated this in all his talks and dialogues, is that there must be freedom to observe, not some ideological freedom but freedom from the very knowledge and experience which has been acquired yesterday. This brings about a tremendous problem. If there is no knowledge of many yesterdays, then what is it that is capable of observing? If knowledge is not the root of observation, what have you with which to observe?
Can the many yesterdays be totally forgotten, which is the essence of freedom? He maintains that it can. This is possible only when the past ends in the present, meeting it fully, head-on. The past, as he asserts, is the ego, the structure of the ‘me’ which prevents total observation.
… Krishnamurti explains very carefully in manifold ways the necessary memory and the psychological memory. Knowledge is necessary to function in any field of our daily life but psychological memory of our hurts, anxiety, pain and sorrow is the factor of division and hence there is a conflict between the essential knowledge which is required to drive a car and the experience of knowledge which is the whole movement of the psyche. He points out this fact in relationship, in our fragmented ways of life. …
As far as I have come in my studies I have not found the phrase ‘the observer is the observed’, with its full meaning. … One of the most important things that Krishnamurti has found is this great truth which, when it actually takes place, as it has occasionally happened to me personally, literally banishes the movement of time. … With critical examination I find this book totally absorbing because he annihilates everything thought has put together. It is a shocking thing when one realises this. It is a real physical shock.
Can a human being live in this state of absolute nothingness except for his daily bread and work - in the total emptiness of consciousness as we know it? As K points out over and over again, consciousness is the movement of all thought. Thought is matter, measurable, and thought is time, which implies that psychologically there is no tomorrow. That means no hope. This is a devastating psychological fact and our everyday mind is not only shocked by this statement but probably will refuse to examine it closely. It is death now.
From this death arises a totally different quality of energy, of a different dimension, inexhaustible, and without an end. He says this is the ultimate benediction. …”
{Mary Lutyens, Volume 2: Years of Fulfilment, pp. 212-13}
[Ellipses, emphases and paragraphs added; Single word emphasis in the original]
Commentary: Essentially the first part of this statement puts forward the possibility of the end of all psychological memory, of the self. The self is the factor of division, it is the observer in the phrase "the observer is the observed". As the past, the self will dissolve when it meets the present head-on. The death of the self is the death of consciousness as we know it, of thought as we know it. One can then observe, one is then free to look. The question of what it is that actually observes remains unanswered.
Again, as in the Core statement above, the central point being made in this overall summation of the Notebook is the ending of psychological time.
A Discussion on Death:
"We have never asked what is the meaning of death. We have put death in opposition to life.
... death implies the ending of attachment. It is only in the ending that there is a beginning."
(Pupul Jayakar, A Biography: Chapter 38, page 393)
'The following extract (Krishnamurti and Bohm, 1985, pp. 149-53) on the holomovement and death seems particularly appropriate, in view of Bohm's recent passing (as well as Krishnamurti's in 1986).'
K: "What is movement, apart from movement from here to there, apart from time - is there any other movement?
B: Yes.
K: There is ... is there a movement which in itself has no division? ... Would you say it has no end, no beginning?
B: Yes ... Can one say that movement has no form?
K: No form - all that. I want to go a little further. What I am asking is, we said that when you have stated there is no division, this means
no division in movement.
B: It flows without division, you see.
K: Yes, it is a movement in which there is no division. Do I capture the significance of that? Do I understand the depth of that statement?
... I am trying to see if that movement is surrounding man?
B: Yes, enveloping.
K: I want to get at this. I am concerned with mankind, humanity, which is me ... I have captured a statement which seems so absolutely
true - that there is no division. Which means that there is no action which is divisive.
B: Yes.
K: I see that. And I also ask, is that movement without time, et cetera. It seems that it is the world, you follow?
B: The universe.
K: The universe, the cosmos, the whole.
B: The totality.
K: Totality. Isn't there a statement in the Jewish world, "Only God can say I am."
B: Well, that's the way the language is built. It is not necessary to state it.
K: No, I understand. You follow what I am trying to get at?
B: Yes, that only this movement is.
K: Can the mind be of this movement? Because that is timeless, therefore deathless.
B: Yes, the movement is without death; in so far as the mind takes part in that, it is the same.
K: You understand what 1 am saying?
B: Yes. But what dies when the individual dies?
K: That has no meaning, because once I have understood there is no division.
B: ... then it is not important.
K: Death has no meaning.
B: It still has a meaning in some other context.
K: Oh, the ending of the body; that's totally trivial. But you understand? I want to capture the significance of the statement that there is
no division, it has broken the spell of my darkness, and I see that there is a movement, and that's all. Which means death has very
little meaning.
B: Yes.
K: You have abolished totally the fear of death.
B: Yes, I understand that when the mind is partaking in that movement, then the mind is that movement.
K: Yes, I would say that everything is ... One can never say then, "I am immortal." It is so childish.
B: Yes, that's the division.
K: Or, "I am seeking immortality." Or "I am becoming." We have wiped away the whole sense of moving in darkness ...
B: Just going back to what we were saying a few days ago: we said we have the emptiness, the universal mind, and then the ground is
beyond that.
K: Would you say beyond that is this movement?
B: Yes. The mind emerges from the movement as a ground, and falls back to the ground; that is what we are saying.
K: Yes, that's right. Mind emerges from the movement.
B: And it dies back into the movement.
K: That's right. It has its being in the movement.
B: Yes, and matter also.
K: Quite. So what I want to get at is, I am a human being faced with this ending and beginning. [This] abolishes that.
B: Yes, it is not fundamental.
K: It is not fundamental. One of the greatest fears of life, which is death, has been removed.
B: Yes."
Extract courtesy of: Lifework of David Bohm: River of Truth by Will Keepin, posted online by Alex Paterson.
Commentary: The central statement here is that there is in fact no division anywhere in life, in the universe. Everything is interconnected; there is no separation between anything; the only difference is in the expression of life, which is the physical form. This is called here a movement; people have for eons called it eternity. This is saying that the mind of man (not "my" mind) is an inherent part of this movement, as is all matter. Matter arises from this movement and then falls back into it. Thus, actual physical death has no inherent meaning. This then is a new expression of the old saying: From ashes to ashes. The only thing that ultimately dies when the physical form dies is all the psychological attachment - that is, the self. This is the true origin of the statement: Death is now. The self must die now, not at some time in the future; then you are at one with the movement behind all life itself - pure energy:
See Life after Death: A Most Extraordinary Discussion - on the Stream, Pure Energy, Death & Reincarnation
~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Reincarnation:
"... those who believe in reincarnation, believe they will be reborn with all that they have now - modified perhaps - and so carry on, life after life. Belief is never alive. But suppose that belief is tremendously alive, then what you are now matters much more than what you will be in a future life. In the Asiatic world there is the word `karma’ which means action in life now, in this period, with all its misery, confusion, anger, jealousy, hatred, violence, which may be modified, but will go on to the next life.
So there is evidence of remembrance of things past, of a past life. That remembrance is the accumulated `me’, the ego, the personality. That bundle, modified, chastened, polished a little bit, goes on to the next life. So it is not a question of whether there is reincarnation (I am very definite on this matter, please) but that there is incarnation now; what is far more important than reincarnation, is the ending of this mess, this conflict, now. Then something totally different goes on. ...
I have said that the present life is all-important; if you have understood and gone into it, with all the turmoil of it, the complexity of it - end it, do not carry on with it. Then you enter into a totally different world. I think that is clear, is it not?"
(Questions and Answers, Ojai, California, May 13, 1980, 'Reincarnation'; paragraphs and ellipses added)
Commentary: What is clearly stated here - and carefully repeated so that you understand it - is that the revolution, or incarnation, is now. Once that happens (that is, the end of the ego) then one enters a different state, which one cannot know about in advance. It is called a new dimension. Hence the statement, "death is now". So there is reincarnation, but this reincarnation is of the stream of humanity, the self. One must step out of the stream of humanity when one is still alive:
See Life after Death: A Most Extraordinary Discussion - on the Stream, Pure Energy, Death & Reincarnation
~~~~~~~~~~~
On Evolution:
Questioner: “Do you believe in evolution? You have often said that understanding is immediate, the act of learning is on the moment; where does evolution play a part in this? Are you denying evolution?
K: It would be foolish - would it not? - to deny evolution. There is the bullock cart and the jet plane, that is evolution. There is an evolution of the primate to the so-called man. There is evolution from not-knowing to knowing, Evolution implies time; but psychologically, inwardly, is there evolution? Are you following the question? Outwardly one can see how architecture has advanced from the primitive hut to the modern building, mechanics from the two-wheel cart to the motor, the jet plane, going to the moon and all the rest of it - it is there, obviously there is no question whether these things have evolved or not. But is there evolution inwardly, at all?
You believe so, you think so, do you? But is there? Do not say `there is' or `there is not'. Merely to assert is the most foolish thing, but to find out is the beginning of wisdom. Now, psychologically, is there evolution? That is, I say `I shall become something" or `I shall not be something; the becoming or the not being, involves time - does it not? `I shall be less angry the day after tomorrow', `I shall be more kind and less aggressive, more helpful, not be so self-centred, selfish', all that implies time - `I am this' and `I shall be that'. I say I shall evolve psychologically - but is there such evolution?
Shall I be different in a year's time? Being violent today, my whole nature is violent, my whole upbringing, education, the social influences and the cultural pressures have bred in me violence; also I have inherited violence from the animal, the territorial rights and sexual rights and so on - will this violence evolve into non-violence? Will you please tell me? Can violence ever become non-violence? Can violence ever become love?”
(Talks with American Students: Chapter 12, New School for Social Research, New York)
"The inner awareness was always there”
Rom Landau: "How did you come to that state of unity with everything?"
Krishnamurti: "People have asked me about that before, and I always feel that they expect to hear the dramatic account of some sudden miracle through which I suddenly became one with the universe. Of course nothing of the sort happened. My inner awareness was always there; though it took me time to feel it more and more clearly; and equally it took time to find words that would at all describe it.
It was not a sudden flash, but a slow yet constant clarification of something that was always there. It did not grow, as people often think. Nothing can grow in us that is of spiritual importance. It has to be there in all its fullness, and then the only thing that happens is that we become more and more aware of it. It is our intellectual reaction and nothing else that needs time to become more articulate, more definite."
(Extract from an interview by Rom Landau in his book God is my Adventure: A Book on Modern Mystics, Masters, and Teachers
Reprinted, 2008; reproduced from Google Books, page 286; this interview was conducted in Carmel, California, in 1934.)
The Final (Deathbed) Statement (1986):
(Last days: Star in the East: Krishnamurti, The invention of a Messiah, by Roland Vernon - Book extract: All the world was his classroom)
On February 17, 1986, Krishnamurti died of inoperable cancer of the pancreas, which had spread to the liver; in the last weeks of life he was occasionally given morphine for the pain. Nine days before his death he made this final statement at Ojai, in response to an earlier question put to him in writing from Mary Cadogan, who was not present when this statement was made. This statement was tape-recorded by Scott Forbes (who was the only other person present in the room at the time) at Krishnamurti's request (with pauses - not ellipses - as indicated):
"I was telling them this morning -- for seventy years that super energy -- no -- that immense energy, immense intelligence has been using this body. I don't think people realize what tremendous energy and intelligence went through this body -- there's twelve-cylinder engine [sic]. And for seventy years -- was a pretty long time -- and now the body can't stand any more.
Nobody, unless the body has been prepared, very carefully, protected and so on - nobody can understand what went through this body. Nobody. Don't anybody pretend. Nobody. I repeat this: nobody amongst us or the public know what went on. I know they don't. And now after seventy years it has come to an end. Not that that intelligence and energy -- it's somewhat here, every day, and especially at night. And after seventy years the body can't stand it -- can't stand any more. It can't. The Indians have a lot of damned superstitions about this -- that you will and the body goes [sic] -- and all that kind of nonsense.
You won't find another body like this or that supreme intelligence operating in a body for many hundred years. You won't see it again. When he goes, it goes. There is no consciousness left behind of that consciousness, of that state. They'll all pretend or try to imagine they can get in touch with that. Perhaps they will somewhat if they live the teachings. But nobody has done it. Nobody. And so that's that."
(Mary Lutyens, The Open Door: 1988, pp. 148-49; emphases in the original)
~~~~~~~~
Commentary: This deathbed statement has been the subject of some controversy, due principally to the phrase "many hundred years." Many people have seen this as an acknowledgment that this "supreme intelligence" (ie, the otherness, or 'that thing' - see the quote below) is only for a select few and thus is essentially pre-ordained in human history. It will only operate in a carefully prepared and protected body which is selected out from humanity by this intelligence. This dovetails neatly with the unique awakening of 1922 and the resultant "process" that he underwent for decades after. It leaves an opening, of course - "perhaps they will somewhat", implying that there is a partial awakening that we can attain. But this is distinct from an immense intelligence that "uses" the body, as an apparent, direct, human manifestation.
There is another way of looking at this statement however, one which has not hitherto been canvassed. It could be incorrect. The man at the time was for the most part in the grip of strong pain, to the point where morphine was used, even though it is a known fact he had experienced adverse reactions to even such things as mild drugs in the past. Late-stage, metastatic, terminal cancer is not conducive to clear thinking. The biographer states that there were times in the final weeks when he refused to talk as his mind was not clear. Was this statement uttered at a time when his normal judgment was clouded?
The fact is that no-one, not even this man, could (and can) accurately predict the future. In fact the talks themselves imply this, as a given. Life is action, life is constantly changing, every moment is a unique event. The "end of time" means the end of predicting the future for the future is not what is, and cannot be known with any certainty (unless there is another meaning of past, present and future that is beyond our current understanding). So this statement predicting the future clashes (ostensibly) with the essence of the talks themselves. Hence, it could well be wrong.
Another point regarding this statement is that the phrase "But nobody has done it" did not only apply, as some have stated, to the people in the room, as Scott Forbes was the only other person present (this is aside from the fact that he explicitly used the phrase: "amongst us or the public"). What is being implied here is that if someone during his lifetime had reached liberation from the self, then that person would have contacted Krishnamurti as a natural action. (He would then have had the perceptivity, or mental acuity, to determine the state of mind of this other person.) Hence, because no-one had done so during his lifetime, then he could clearly state that "nobody has done it." And it's true, nobody has done it, otherwise the world would know about it.
On the Silent Mind - and 'That Thing':
Mary Lutyens: "The teachings are not simple. How did they come out of that vacant boy?"
Krishnamurti: "You admit a mystery. The boy was affectionate, vacant, not intellectual, enjoyed athletic games. How could that vacant mind come to this? Was vacancy necessary for this to manifest? ... Why didn't he become cynical, bitter? What kept him from that? This vacancy was guarded. By what? ...
Was the vacancy intended for the manifestation? The boy must have been strange from the beginning. ...
The vacancy has never gone away. At the dentist for four hours not a single thought came into my head. Only when talking and writing does 'this' come into play. I am amazed. The vacancy is still there. ... The mind of this man from childhood till now is constantly vacant. I don't want to make a mystery: why can't it happen to everyone?"
ML: When you give talks is your mind vacant?
K: Oh, yes, completely. But I'm not interested in that but in why it stays vacant. Because it is vacant it has no problems.
ML: Is it unique?
K: No. If a thing is unique then others cannot get it. I want to avoid any mystery. I see that the boy's mind is the same now. ...
ML: The essence of your teaching is that everyone can have it.
K: Yes, if it is unique then others cannot get it. But this isn't like that. Is it kept vacant for this thing to say, 'Though I am vacant, you - X - can also have it?'
ML: You mean it is vacant in order to be able to say that this can happen to everyone?
K: That's right. That's right. But did that thing keep the mind vacant? How did it remain vacant all these years? It is extraordinary. I never thought of it before. It would not be that way if it weren't detached. Why was he not attached? That thing must have said, 'There must be vacancy or I - it - cannot function.' This is admitting all sorts of mystical things. So what is that that keeps it vacant in order to say all these things? Did it find a boy that was most likely to remain vacant? This boy apparently didn't have any fear of going against Leadbeater, going against Theosophy, against authority. Amma [Annie Besant], Leadbeater - they had great authority. That thing must have been operating.
This must be possible for all mankind. If not, what is the point of it?"
(Taken from: Krishnamurti: The Years of Fulfilment, Mary Lutyens, Avon Books: New York, 1983; Chapter 20: Who or What is Krishnamurti?, pp. 226-227. Discussion occurred at Brockwood Park in June, 1979, Mary Zimbalist was present and took notes; italic emphases in original; ellipses & paragraphs added)
The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: ‘Truth is a pathless land’. Man cannot come to it through any organisation, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.
Man has built in himself images as a fence of security—religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man’s thinking, his relationships and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind.
So he is not an individual. Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not choice. It is man’s pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity.
Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge, which are inseparable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever-limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution. When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts he will see the division between the thinker and the thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep radical mutation in the mind.
Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence.
Krishnamurti first wrote a statement of the core of the teaching in October 1981 for Mary Lutyens, at her request.
She included it in her book The Years of Fulfilment, the second volume of her biography of Krishnamurti.
On re-reading the statement in 1983, Krishnamurti made changes which are included above.
This is the complete and final statement.
Copyright © 2002 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust
(From the Spring Newsletter, 2008; paragraphs added)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commentary: The statement "Truth is a pathless land" implies the ending of time, does it not? Truth is from moment to moment and cannot be accumulated. You cannot arrive at Truth through a series of experiences. It is either there or it isn't, in the present, and it cannot be carried as memory.
The other statement that "Thought is time" is a complementary observation. The impediment to truth is the path of thought, which can only occur in time, both chronological and psychological. Thought is the past projected into the future. All time - all thought - must end for the present to be.
Thought has created the central image, the thinker, the observer - which is the self. The self then becomes the image-maker, always searching for security. The images in one's mind cause the division that exists between people; these images prevent true relationship with others. Choiceless awareness of the images and the daily activity of the mind is observation without an observer, the self; only this passive awareness brings an end to thought, through negation of everything thought has created. Negation is seeing the false and discarding it.
This whole statement, the apotheosis of sixty years of talks, is entirely centered around the ending of psychological time in the mind. (Flaws in the Mind)
A review of the Notebook, following its publication in 1976:
“… To Krishnamurti what seems the most important thing, and he has repeated this in all his talks and dialogues, is that there must be freedom to observe, not some ideological freedom but freedom from the very knowledge and experience which has been acquired yesterday. This brings about a tremendous problem. If there is no knowledge of many yesterdays, then what is it that is capable of observing? If knowledge is not the root of observation, what have you with which to observe?
Can the many yesterdays be totally forgotten, which is the essence of freedom? He maintains that it can. This is possible only when the past ends in the present, meeting it fully, head-on. The past, as he asserts, is the ego, the structure of the ‘me’ which prevents total observation.
… Krishnamurti explains very carefully in manifold ways the necessary memory and the psychological memory. Knowledge is necessary to function in any field of our daily life but psychological memory of our hurts, anxiety, pain and sorrow is the factor of division and hence there is a conflict between the essential knowledge which is required to drive a car and the experience of knowledge which is the whole movement of the psyche. He points out this fact in relationship, in our fragmented ways of life. …
As far as I have come in my studies I have not found the phrase ‘the observer is the observed’, with its full meaning. … One of the most important things that Krishnamurti has found is this great truth which, when it actually takes place, as it has occasionally happened to me personally, literally banishes the movement of time. … With critical examination I find this book totally absorbing because he annihilates everything thought has put together. It is a shocking thing when one realises this. It is a real physical shock.
Can a human being live in this state of absolute nothingness except for his daily bread and work - in the total emptiness of consciousness as we know it? As K points out over and over again, consciousness is the movement of all thought. Thought is matter, measurable, and thought is time, which implies that psychologically there is no tomorrow. That means no hope. This is a devastating psychological fact and our everyday mind is not only shocked by this statement but probably will refuse to examine it closely. It is death now.
From this death arises a totally different quality of energy, of a different dimension, inexhaustible, and without an end. He says this is the ultimate benediction. …”
{Mary Lutyens, Volume 2: Years of Fulfilment, pp. 212-13}
[Ellipses, emphases and paragraphs added; Single word emphasis in the original]
Commentary: Essentially the first part of this statement puts forward the possibility of the end of all psychological memory, of the self. The self is the factor of division, it is the observer in the phrase "the observer is the observed". As the past, the self will dissolve when it meets the present head-on. The death of the self is the death of consciousness as we know it, of thought as we know it. One can then observe, one is then free to look. The question of what it is that actually observes remains unanswered.
Again, as in the Core statement above, the central point being made in this overall summation of the Notebook is the ending of psychological time.
A Discussion on Death:
"We have never asked what is the meaning of death. We have put death in opposition to life.
... death implies the ending of attachment. It is only in the ending that there is a beginning."
(Pupul Jayakar, A Biography: Chapter 38, page 393)
'The following extract (Krishnamurti and Bohm, 1985, pp. 149-53) on the holomovement and death seems particularly appropriate, in view of Bohm's recent passing (as well as Krishnamurti's in 1986).'
K: "What is movement, apart from movement from here to there, apart from time - is there any other movement?
B: Yes.
K: There is ... is there a movement which in itself has no division? ... Would you say it has no end, no beginning?
B: Yes ... Can one say that movement has no form?
K: No form - all that. I want to go a little further. What I am asking is, we said that when you have stated there is no division, this means
no division in movement.
B: It flows without division, you see.
K: Yes, it is a movement in which there is no division. Do I capture the significance of that? Do I understand the depth of that statement?
... I am trying to see if that movement is surrounding man?
B: Yes, enveloping.
K: I want to get at this. I am concerned with mankind, humanity, which is me ... I have captured a statement which seems so absolutely
true - that there is no division. Which means that there is no action which is divisive.
B: Yes.
K: I see that. And I also ask, is that movement without time, et cetera. It seems that it is the world, you follow?
B: The universe.
K: The universe, the cosmos, the whole.
B: The totality.
K: Totality. Isn't there a statement in the Jewish world, "Only God can say I am."
B: Well, that's the way the language is built. It is not necessary to state it.
K: No, I understand. You follow what I am trying to get at?
B: Yes, that only this movement is.
K: Can the mind be of this movement? Because that is timeless, therefore deathless.
B: Yes, the movement is without death; in so far as the mind takes part in that, it is the same.
K: You understand what 1 am saying?
B: Yes. But what dies when the individual dies?
K: That has no meaning, because once I have understood there is no division.
B: ... then it is not important.
K: Death has no meaning.
B: It still has a meaning in some other context.
K: Oh, the ending of the body; that's totally trivial. But you understand? I want to capture the significance of the statement that there is
no division, it has broken the spell of my darkness, and I see that there is a movement, and that's all. Which means death has very
little meaning.
B: Yes.
K: You have abolished totally the fear of death.
B: Yes, I understand that when the mind is partaking in that movement, then the mind is that movement.
K: Yes, I would say that everything is ... One can never say then, "I am immortal." It is so childish.
B: Yes, that's the division.
K: Or, "I am seeking immortality." Or "I am becoming." We have wiped away the whole sense of moving in darkness ...
B: Just going back to what we were saying a few days ago: we said we have the emptiness, the universal mind, and then the ground is
beyond that.
K: Would you say beyond that is this movement?
B: Yes. The mind emerges from the movement as a ground, and falls back to the ground; that is what we are saying.
K: Yes, that's right. Mind emerges from the movement.
B: And it dies back into the movement.
K: That's right. It has its being in the movement.
B: Yes, and matter also.
K: Quite. So what I want to get at is, I am a human being faced with this ending and beginning. [This] abolishes that.
B: Yes, it is not fundamental.
K: It is not fundamental. One of the greatest fears of life, which is death, has been removed.
B: Yes."
Extract courtesy of: Lifework of David Bohm: River of Truth by Will Keepin, posted online by Alex Paterson.
Commentary: The central statement here is that there is in fact no division anywhere in life, in the universe. Everything is interconnected; there is no separation between anything; the only difference is in the expression of life, which is the physical form. This is called here a movement; people have for eons called it eternity. This is saying that the mind of man (not "my" mind) is an inherent part of this movement, as is all matter. Matter arises from this movement and then falls back into it. Thus, actual physical death has no inherent meaning. This then is a new expression of the old saying: From ashes to ashes. The only thing that ultimately dies when the physical form dies is all the psychological attachment - that is, the self. This is the true origin of the statement: Death is now. The self must die now, not at some time in the future; then you are at one with the movement behind all life itself - pure energy:
See Life after Death: A Most Extraordinary Discussion - on the Stream, Pure Energy, Death & Reincarnation
~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Reincarnation:
"... those who believe in reincarnation, believe they will be reborn with all that they have now - modified perhaps - and so carry on, life after life. Belief is never alive. But suppose that belief is tremendously alive, then what you are now matters much more than what you will be in a future life. In the Asiatic world there is the word `karma’ which means action in life now, in this period, with all its misery, confusion, anger, jealousy, hatred, violence, which may be modified, but will go on to the next life.
So there is evidence of remembrance of things past, of a past life. That remembrance is the accumulated `me’, the ego, the personality. That bundle, modified, chastened, polished a little bit, goes on to the next life. So it is not a question of whether there is reincarnation (I am very definite on this matter, please) but that there is incarnation now; what is far more important than reincarnation, is the ending of this mess, this conflict, now. Then something totally different goes on. ...
I have said that the present life is all-important; if you have understood and gone into it, with all the turmoil of it, the complexity of it - end it, do not carry on with it. Then you enter into a totally different world. I think that is clear, is it not?"
(Questions and Answers, Ojai, California, May 13, 1980, 'Reincarnation'; paragraphs and ellipses added)
Commentary: What is clearly stated here - and carefully repeated so that you understand it - is that the revolution, or incarnation, is now. Once that happens (that is, the end of the ego) then one enters a different state, which one cannot know about in advance. It is called a new dimension. Hence the statement, "death is now". So there is reincarnation, but this reincarnation is of the stream of humanity, the self. One must step out of the stream of humanity when one is still alive:
See Life after Death: A Most Extraordinary Discussion - on the Stream, Pure Energy, Death & Reincarnation
~~~~~~~~~~~
On Evolution:
Questioner: “Do you believe in evolution? You have often said that understanding is immediate, the act of learning is on the moment; where does evolution play a part in this? Are you denying evolution?
K: It would be foolish - would it not? - to deny evolution. There is the bullock cart and the jet plane, that is evolution. There is an evolution of the primate to the so-called man. There is evolution from not-knowing to knowing, Evolution implies time; but psychologically, inwardly, is there evolution? Are you following the question? Outwardly one can see how architecture has advanced from the primitive hut to the modern building, mechanics from the two-wheel cart to the motor, the jet plane, going to the moon and all the rest of it - it is there, obviously there is no question whether these things have evolved or not. But is there evolution inwardly, at all?
You believe so, you think so, do you? But is there? Do not say `there is' or `there is not'. Merely to assert is the most foolish thing, but to find out is the beginning of wisdom. Now, psychologically, is there evolution? That is, I say `I shall become something" or `I shall not be something; the becoming or the not being, involves time - does it not? `I shall be less angry the day after tomorrow', `I shall be more kind and less aggressive, more helpful, not be so self-centred, selfish', all that implies time - `I am this' and `I shall be that'. I say I shall evolve psychologically - but is there such evolution?
Shall I be different in a year's time? Being violent today, my whole nature is violent, my whole upbringing, education, the social influences and the cultural pressures have bred in me violence; also I have inherited violence from the animal, the territorial rights and sexual rights and so on - will this violence evolve into non-violence? Will you please tell me? Can violence ever become non-violence? Can violence ever become love?”
(Talks with American Students: Chapter 12, New School for Social Research, New York)
"The inner awareness was always there”
Rom Landau: "How did you come to that state of unity with everything?"
Krishnamurti: "People have asked me about that before, and I always feel that they expect to hear the dramatic account of some sudden miracle through which I suddenly became one with the universe. Of course nothing of the sort happened. My inner awareness was always there; though it took me time to feel it more and more clearly; and equally it took time to find words that would at all describe it.
It was not a sudden flash, but a slow yet constant clarification of something that was always there. It did not grow, as people often think. Nothing can grow in us that is of spiritual importance. It has to be there in all its fullness, and then the only thing that happens is that we become more and more aware of it. It is our intellectual reaction and nothing else that needs time to become more articulate, more definite."
(Extract from an interview by Rom Landau in his book God is my Adventure: A Book on Modern Mystics, Masters, and Teachers
Reprinted, 2008; reproduced from Google Books, page 286; this interview was conducted in Carmel, California, in 1934.)
The Final (Deathbed) Statement (1986):
(Last days: Star in the East: Krishnamurti, The invention of a Messiah, by Roland Vernon - Book extract: All the world was his classroom)
On February 17, 1986, Krishnamurti died of inoperable cancer of the pancreas, which had spread to the liver; in the last weeks of life he was occasionally given morphine for the pain. Nine days before his death he made this final statement at Ojai, in response to an earlier question put to him in writing from Mary Cadogan, who was not present when this statement was made. This statement was tape-recorded by Scott Forbes (who was the only other person present in the room at the time) at Krishnamurti's request (with pauses - not ellipses - as indicated):
"I was telling them this morning -- for seventy years that super energy -- no -- that immense energy, immense intelligence has been using this body. I don't think people realize what tremendous energy and intelligence went through this body -- there's twelve-cylinder engine [sic]. And for seventy years -- was a pretty long time -- and now the body can't stand any more.
Nobody, unless the body has been prepared, very carefully, protected and so on - nobody can understand what went through this body. Nobody. Don't anybody pretend. Nobody. I repeat this: nobody amongst us or the public know what went on. I know they don't. And now after seventy years it has come to an end. Not that that intelligence and energy -- it's somewhat here, every day, and especially at night. And after seventy years the body can't stand it -- can't stand any more. It can't. The Indians have a lot of damned superstitions about this -- that you will and the body goes [sic] -- and all that kind of nonsense.
You won't find another body like this or that supreme intelligence operating in a body for many hundred years. You won't see it again. When he goes, it goes. There is no consciousness left behind of that consciousness, of that state. They'll all pretend or try to imagine they can get in touch with that. Perhaps they will somewhat if they live the teachings. But nobody has done it. Nobody. And so that's that."
(Mary Lutyens, The Open Door: 1988, pp. 148-49; emphases in the original)
~~~~~~~~
Commentary: This deathbed statement has been the subject of some controversy, due principally to the phrase "many hundred years." Many people have seen this as an acknowledgment that this "supreme intelligence" (ie, the otherness, or 'that thing' - see the quote below) is only for a select few and thus is essentially pre-ordained in human history. It will only operate in a carefully prepared and protected body which is selected out from humanity by this intelligence. This dovetails neatly with the unique awakening of 1922 and the resultant "process" that he underwent for decades after. It leaves an opening, of course - "perhaps they will somewhat", implying that there is a partial awakening that we can attain. But this is distinct from an immense intelligence that "uses" the body, as an apparent, direct, human manifestation.
There is another way of looking at this statement however, one which has not hitherto been canvassed. It could be incorrect. The man at the time was for the most part in the grip of strong pain, to the point where morphine was used, even though it is a known fact he had experienced adverse reactions to even such things as mild drugs in the past. Late-stage, metastatic, terminal cancer is not conducive to clear thinking. The biographer states that there were times in the final weeks when he refused to talk as his mind was not clear. Was this statement uttered at a time when his normal judgment was clouded?
The fact is that no-one, not even this man, could (and can) accurately predict the future. In fact the talks themselves imply this, as a given. Life is action, life is constantly changing, every moment is a unique event. The "end of time" means the end of predicting the future for the future is not what is, and cannot be known with any certainty (unless there is another meaning of past, present and future that is beyond our current understanding). So this statement predicting the future clashes (ostensibly) with the essence of the talks themselves. Hence, it could well be wrong.
Another point regarding this statement is that the phrase "But nobody has done it" did not only apply, as some have stated, to the people in the room, as Scott Forbes was the only other person present (this is aside from the fact that he explicitly used the phrase: "amongst us or the public"). What is being implied here is that if someone during his lifetime had reached liberation from the self, then that person would have contacted Krishnamurti as a natural action. (He would then have had the perceptivity, or mental acuity, to determine the state of mind of this other person.) Hence, because no-one had done so during his lifetime, then he could clearly state that "nobody has done it." And it's true, nobody has done it, otherwise the world would know about it.
On the Silent Mind - and 'That Thing':
Mary Lutyens: "The teachings are not simple. How did they come out of that vacant boy?"
Krishnamurti: "You admit a mystery. The boy was affectionate, vacant, not intellectual, enjoyed athletic games. How could that vacant mind come to this? Was vacancy necessary for this to manifest? ... Why didn't he become cynical, bitter? What kept him from that? This vacancy was guarded. By what? ...
Was the vacancy intended for the manifestation? The boy must have been strange from the beginning. ...
The vacancy has never gone away. At the dentist for four hours not a single thought came into my head. Only when talking and writing does 'this' come into play. I am amazed. The vacancy is still there. ... The mind of this man from childhood till now is constantly vacant. I don't want to make a mystery: why can't it happen to everyone?"
ML: When you give talks is your mind vacant?
K: Oh, yes, completely. But I'm not interested in that but in why it stays vacant. Because it is vacant it has no problems.
ML: Is it unique?
K: No. If a thing is unique then others cannot get it. I want to avoid any mystery. I see that the boy's mind is the same now. ...
ML: The essence of your teaching is that everyone can have it.
K: Yes, if it is unique then others cannot get it. But this isn't like that. Is it kept vacant for this thing to say, 'Though I am vacant, you - X - can also have it?'
ML: You mean it is vacant in order to be able to say that this can happen to everyone?
K: That's right. That's right. But did that thing keep the mind vacant? How did it remain vacant all these years? It is extraordinary. I never thought of it before. It would not be that way if it weren't detached. Why was he not attached? That thing must have said, 'There must be vacancy or I - it - cannot function.' This is admitting all sorts of mystical things. So what is that that keeps it vacant in order to say all these things? Did it find a boy that was most likely to remain vacant? This boy apparently didn't have any fear of going against Leadbeater, going against Theosophy, against authority. Amma [Annie Besant], Leadbeater - they had great authority. That thing must have been operating.
This must be possible for all mankind. If not, what is the point of it?"
(Taken from: Krishnamurti: The Years of Fulfilment, Mary Lutyens, Avon Books: New York, 1983; Chapter 20: Who or What is Krishnamurti?, pp. 226-227. Discussion occurred at Brockwood Park in June, 1979, Mary Zimbalist was present and took notes; italic emphases in original; ellipses & paragraphs added)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Modern life revolves in one way or another around self-improvement, self-fulfillment, self-esteem - that is, narcissism,
the eternal glorification of the me. To say that self-fulfillment is an illusion is heretical to most people, for this is their central goal, purpose and motivation in life. Take away all our goals and fear arises through the preconceptions that one has of what one thinks is the consequent emptiness and stagnation in the mind.
the eternal glorification of the me. To say that self-fulfillment is an illusion is heretical to most people, for this is their central goal, purpose and motivation in life. Take away all our goals and fear arises through the preconceptions that one has of what one thinks is the consequent emptiness and stagnation in the mind.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
(Site exploring the relentless past conditioning of the mind;
Page last updated January 2, 2010)
Page last updated January 2, 2010)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
“It is not experiences that corrupt the mind but what they leave behind, the residue, the scars, the memories.”
(Krishnamurti Foundation Trust: Bulletin 4, 1969)
(Krishnamurti Foundation Trust: Bulletin 4, 1969)
|
"It is only the still mind that understands that in a quiet mind there is a movement that is totally different, that is of a different dimension, of a different quality."
(First Question & Answer Meeting at Brockwood Park: September, 1980)
(First Question & Answer Meeting at Brockwood Park: September, 1980)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
(Photo courtesy beachhunter.net; Clearwater Beach, Florida)
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
