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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Preamble: The following eight questions are taken from the Foundation Focus Newsletter of the KFA, October 2007, (Volume 5, Issue 1 of 3). They appear in an article on Page 5 entitled: Creating Relationships in China. They are some representative questions put forward, mostly by Chinese students at Peking University, in 2007, at and following a presentation of a 1982 Talk. As an interesting exercise in and of itself, it was decided to take up all of these pointed questions:
* How did Krishnamurti become such a clear person?
The fact is he was different from the start. As a young child he was dreamy and vague, to the point of being unable to study or even concentrate in school classes. He was also gifted as a child with definite powers: clairvoyance, out-of-the-body experiences, the ability to read another's thoughts, seeing apparitions of dead people, and (later) healing powers. However, he entirely dispensed with or downplayed these powers later in life as being irrelevant to self-knowledge. He was to say that a state of inner awareness was present in him from the very beginning, which corroborates the reported selfless purity of his aura that first drew him to the attention of a leading occult Theosophist, C.W. Leadbeater, in 1909, when he was thirteen.
He was intensely connected to everything in nature, which was a constant throughout his entire life; it is apparent in many passages in the Notebook that he had a greatly heightened sensitivity to all the colors in the natural environment. In the Sydney Field memoir* the author relates that he told him that when you touch the source of all beauty, only then does Nature reveal all its significance and inner "special beauty" to you (which implies, of course, that we do not see its full beauty - aside from the fact that most people are really not interested in nature at all but only in themselves; it is the center, as the self, that blocks the seeing of this beauty). *(Krishnamurti: The Reluctant Messiah, downloaded book edition, pdf, pp. 30, 36, 78)
The distinguishing feature though was the absence of thought, of a fully functioning intellect. This is the so-called 'vacant mind' - discussed at length by himself in the second volume of the Lutyens' biographical compendium (See: Core Quotes). This meant his sense of self, of identity and image, was weak, not fully developed. Throughout his early years, he was never self-assertive or ambitious in any way. (This meant, of course, that he was not "wordly' in the devious ways of the human mind, which was eventually to result in a 17-year litigation process against his secretary and one of his closest associates, Rajagopal.) He was unburdened with the self-centered reactions with which we are afflicted and was thus able to directly perceive the actual nature of things - the "what is," without the intrusion of the word, the accumulation of knowledge via the intellect. (All the study he did for matriculation - which he failed three times - and for Cambridge University entrance was not retained: he left the exam paper entirely blank.) Then, of course, he experienced an undeniable 'spiritual awakening' in California in 1922, at the age of twenty-seven, when he underwent undoubted mystical experiences (which to this day have never been explained) and essentially became one with all things.
All this meant his mind was free from the start. He followed no authority, beyond what the leaders of the Theosophical Society taught him in the early years, which he was later to say went right through his mind, leaving no trace (some have disputed this). Although he appeared to have an early affinity with the Buddha, he did not study the Buddha's teachings, or that of Jesus Christ, or the Bhagavad Gita, or any of the other myriad religious traditions. This included all the philosophers and academic and scientific authorities and all their books written over the millennia, with which our minds are burdened (he didn't read books at all, save for a steady stream of detective novels for mental diversion, and a few other books of verse and nature books). In this sense, he was truly an original, free from the authority of all other human beings in psychological and spiritual matters; he never quoted authorities in the various disciplines. (This issue of authority and its enslavement and conditioning of the mind is a major theme throughout the talks.)
Because of this free, silent mind he was able to directly perceive the nature of thought and the self, without distortion. But this is not to say that we who do not have this background are unable to come to such a state of mind. It is a matter of intensity of awareness, questioning, applying the mind, realization and insight. The origin of the talks is essentially irrelevant - it is what the talks are saying that is singularly important, as pointers to the self.
We do not have to be Krishnamurti (nor can we be, nor should we be) to understand what is said, to free the mind of all its conditioning.
* Is there any practice that can help one to be aware in the way that he is talking about?
The answer is no. Any practice by its very nature implies a reward at the end of it, otherwise you don't practice it. That is, a practice by definition implies motive, which is the foremost drive of thought. The man throughout his life practiced the asanas (physical postures) of Hatha yoga, every morning when possible, but categorically denied that such practices had any affect on the psychological make-up of the mind, or that they were a path to enlightenment. The point is thar our minds are so heavily conditioned that we seek methods and techniques in order to bring about a silent mind - the ending of the constant chattering of thought. Yet, all we can do is to be fully aware of thought, letting each thought complete itself, that is, fully flower (see below).
Nonetheless, there is in the talks a pointer to the interval that lies between thoughts:
"If you watch very carefully, you will see that though the response, the movement of thought, seems so swift, there are gaps, there are intervals between thoughts. Between two thoughts there is a period of silence which is not related to the thought process. If you observe you will see that that period of silence, that interval, is not of time and the discovery of that interval, the full experiencing of that interval, liberates you from conditioning - or rather it does not liberate 'you' but there is liberation from conditioning ..."
(Book of Life Daily Meditations: 'The interval between thoughts' - May 30, 2008)
There is also a basis clearly given for a daily state of attention, whereby you begin with awareness of the outer before shifting awareness to the inner:
"First of all, sit completely quiet, comfortably, sit very quietly, relax. Now, look at the trees [the outside environment]... Look not with your mind, but with your eyes. After having looked at the colors, the shapes... then from the outside move to the inside. Close your eyes... You have finished looking at things outside, and now with your eyes closed, look at what is happening inside. Watch what is happening inside you. Do not think, but just watch. Do not move your eyeballs, just keep them very very quiet.... To see what is happening inside your mind, you have to be very quiet inside. And when you are quiet, do you know what happens to you? You become very sensitive, you become very alert to things outside and inside.
Then you find that the outside is the inside. Then you find out that the observer is the observed."
(Pupul Jayakar Biography: Chapter 22, "Be Awake" - pp. 246/7)
This is even further expanded in the following passage, to the point of clearly establishing a procedure for daily attention (note, not a practice) at the beginning of each day, without prescribing a specific method of meditation (as in Buddhist vipassana and all the other various techniques). The crucial point is to end each daily action as you do it, as well as ending each thought as it arises - actually complete each thought, without any carryover whatsoever. This is also referred to elsewhere as thinking things through, or the flowering of thought:
"You can't look if you are not attentive, which means being quiet. I don't know if you see the importance of this? That quietness is necessary because a mind that is really very quiet, not distorted, understands something which is not distorted, which is really beyond the measure of thought. And that is the origin of everything.
You see, you can do this not only when you are sitting in the room but all the time, whilst you are eating, talking, playing games; there is always this sense of attention you have gathered at the beginning of the day. And as you do it, it penetrates more and more. Do it ... there is the attention that you have given to watching the birds, the trees, the clouds. And then when you go into the room you are gathering that attention, intensifying it - you follow? And that goes on during the day even though you don't pay attention to it.
... Here, when I come in [to the room], I am not attentive to anything - I am just attentive. Then in that state of attention thought comes in - doesn't it? "I haven't done my bed", ... or whatever it is and you pursue that thought. Go to the very end of that thought, don't say, "I mustn't think that". Finish it. In the process of finishing that thought a new thought arises. So pursue every thought to the very end, therefore there is no control, no restraint. It doesn't matter if I have a hundred thoughts. I am going after one thought at a time so that the mind becomes very orderly. ...
I don't want to correct the movement of my hands, I watch it, I pay attention to it. When you pay attention to it, it becomes quiet - try it. I sit quietly, one second, two seconds, ten seconds, then suddenly up pops a thought: "I have to go to some place this afternoon". ... Or sometimes the thought is much more complicated: I am envious of that man. Now I feel that envy. So go to the very end of that and look at it. Envy implies comparison, competition, imitation. Do I want to imitate? - you follow? Go to the very end of that thought and finish it, don't carry it over. ...
So the thing that you are doing is finished each time, and when you sit quietly you are marvellously quiet, you bring an extraordinary sense of orderliness into your life. If you haven't that orderliness you cannot be silent, and when you have it, when the mind is really quiet, then there is real beauty and the mystery of things begins."
(Beginnings of Learning: Chapter 7: 'On sitting quietly with a still mind'; ellipses added to all quotations above)
* Do the English words “attention” and “observation” mean the same thing as when he uses them?
No. For a start, attention (that is, choiceless awareness) is not concentration, which is universally how we consider it. Choiceless attention to everything going on within and about us is foreign to our conditioning, where we have been told from childhood to concentrate. As for observation, we are so used to the thought process that says: "I must pay attention to my thoughts." This is where the "I" has set itself itself apart from what it is observing. It means you are not coming into direct contact with thought or feeling, you are seeing it from a distance; there is a gap between you and your thoughts. This detached observer, which is the controller, the self, then tries to change or suppress or censor or judge or justify that which it is observing.
There is also the issue of intensity. Attention is not idle or casual attention, it is attention with your whole being, your whole energy, all your senses. You must listen completely to what is being said, which is giving your complete attention. This intensity of attention occurs if you are deeply interested in the thing you are watching. This watching is listening; it is listening that is the key to self-understanding. Such listening means you have to end all the pre-formed conclusions and ideas from memory - the mindset - that the mind is burdened with. This is the central issue.
* It seems to me that what he is saying is for a few people. Or is it for everyone? If it is for a few people, how can that change the world?
You cannot start out with an intention to change the world, or even concern yourself with that. Change yourself, and see what comes out of that afterwards. The fact is you don't have the slightest clue what effect there would be on people around you if you ended the self, if you ended all self-centered thought - which lies at the very heart of the talks. All such thinking is just ideas (opinions), which have no value.
Is what is said for a few people? No, it is for everyone. But the fact is there are very few people in the world who have the real intention to understand and thus change themselves. Moreover, as the talks entirely sweep away all organized religions and the accepted view of religiosity - that it is something to be practised - it threatens our whole worldview. We are in fear of change. And as most people are perfectly content to drift along the way they have been doing, they have no intention of seing the falseness of the way they are living, or even that there is anything wrong with society to begin with, apart from a few issues at the margins. Change means leaving the known and bringing to oneself the unknown. There are very few who can even face this prospect without fear, let alone pursue an inquiry into it.
* I want to know if he was a usual person, because if he was unusual, then I probably can’t do what he is talking about.
This is the wrong approach. Truth is the truth, irrespective of who says it. It has nothing to do with the 'personality' or 'character' of the speaker. You are wanting an out at the start; if he turns out to be unusual - or you think or conclude he's unusual - then you don't need to apply yourself to what has been said. You are setting yourself up for defeat when you adopt this line of reasoning. To deny the possibility of change means no change is possible. You must look inside yourself to determine if what is being said is true, and this approach means the speaker is not important. Unfortunately, we are generally so caught up with the personality of the man. Whereas, if we looked at the talks as a mirror to the workings of the mind we would never concern ourselves with the person at all. (It's the Words, not the Speaker)
The analogy referred to in the talks is that we all don't have to be Thomas Edison in order to turn on an electric light. The hard work has been done, you don't have to redo it. In respect to the talks, the pointers are there, what we have to do is listen to them and through this to see the mind in action.
* Does understanding oneself influence other people?
Of course. If you are greedy, fearful and ambitious one day, and peaceful, calm and happy the next, do you not see that this would have an effect on your immediate family and friends? And that they would then themselves act differently as a result, even though not having self-understanding or enlightenment themselves? All social environments have a rippling affect. Did not the presence of Krishnamurti influence those immediately around him? (Of course, this is only the influence of a human being, not radical change, which has to come from within.)
But the primary object is not to influence others, surely. The object is to understand yourself. Then when you have understood yourself completely, things will happen of their own volition in wider social relationships - which you cannot possibly know about in advance.
* Is there a difference between influence and propaganda?
No. Influence is the past of knowledge and authority, which because it is not in the now - as truth is only in the now, not in the past - is false. Propaganda is also by definition false, as it is from prejudiced minds, from people who have a vested interest in what they are putting over to you.
Truth is impartial and objective, is it not?
* Isn’t he talking about universal love? Then how can I love just one person?
You can do both. Universal love is not preclusive of love for an individual. You can't live with the rest of the human race to raise children. What this really means is that love is not exclusive to one person, the way love is now (with its resultant jealousy and possession), but encompasses everyone. And as one person is representative of mankind, to love one single person is to love mankind itself. Again, this is not love as we know the word, but a state where there is no self-interest whatsover. So this does not deny a relationship as a couple in order to bring up a family.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“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 God is my Adventure, reproduced in the Kinfonet site's biography. The interview was conducted in Carmel in California in 1934, when Krishnamurti was thirty-nine.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* How did Krishnamurti become such a clear person?
The fact is he was different from the start. As a young child he was dreamy and vague, to the point of being unable to study or even concentrate in school classes. He was also gifted as a child with definite powers: clairvoyance, out-of-the-body experiences, the ability to read another's thoughts, seeing apparitions of dead people, and (later) healing powers. However, he entirely dispensed with or downplayed these powers later in life as being irrelevant to self-knowledge. He was to say that a state of inner awareness was present in him from the very beginning, which corroborates the reported selfless purity of his aura that first drew him to the attention of a leading occult Theosophist, C.W. Leadbeater, in 1909, when he was thirteen.
He was intensely connected to everything in nature, which was a constant throughout his entire life; it is apparent in many passages in the Notebook that he had a greatly heightened sensitivity to all the colors in the natural environment. In the Sydney Field memoir* the author relates that he told him that when you touch the source of all beauty, only then does Nature reveal all its significance and inner "special beauty" to you (which implies, of course, that we do not see its full beauty - aside from the fact that most people are really not interested in nature at all but only in themselves; it is the center, as the self, that blocks the seeing of this beauty). *(Krishnamurti: The Reluctant Messiah, downloaded book edition, pdf, pp. 30, 36, 78)
The distinguishing feature though was the absence of thought, of a fully functioning intellect. This is the so-called 'vacant mind' - discussed at length by himself in the second volume of the Lutyens' biographical compendium (See: Core Quotes). This meant his sense of self, of identity and image, was weak, not fully developed. Throughout his early years, he was never self-assertive or ambitious in any way. (This meant, of course, that he was not "wordly' in the devious ways of the human mind, which was eventually to result in a 17-year litigation process against his secretary and one of his closest associates, Rajagopal.) He was unburdened with the self-centered reactions with which we are afflicted and was thus able to directly perceive the actual nature of things - the "what is," without the intrusion of the word, the accumulation of knowledge via the intellect. (All the study he did for matriculation - which he failed three times - and for Cambridge University entrance was not retained: he left the exam paper entirely blank.) Then, of course, he experienced an undeniable 'spiritual awakening' in California in 1922, at the age of twenty-seven, when he underwent undoubted mystical experiences (which to this day have never been explained) and essentially became one with all things.
All this meant his mind was free from the start. He followed no authority, beyond what the leaders of the Theosophical Society taught him in the early years, which he was later to say went right through his mind, leaving no trace (some have disputed this). Although he appeared to have an early affinity with the Buddha, he did not study the Buddha's teachings, or that of Jesus Christ, or the Bhagavad Gita, or any of the other myriad religious traditions. This included all the philosophers and academic and scientific authorities and all their books written over the millennia, with which our minds are burdened (he didn't read books at all, save for a steady stream of detective novels for mental diversion, and a few other books of verse and nature books). In this sense, he was truly an original, free from the authority of all other human beings in psychological and spiritual matters; he never quoted authorities in the various disciplines. (This issue of authority and its enslavement and conditioning of the mind is a major theme throughout the talks.)
Because of this free, silent mind he was able to directly perceive the nature of thought and the self, without distortion. But this is not to say that we who do not have this background are unable to come to such a state of mind. It is a matter of intensity of awareness, questioning, applying the mind, realization and insight. The origin of the talks is essentially irrelevant - it is what the talks are saying that is singularly important, as pointers to the self.
We do not have to be Krishnamurti (nor can we be, nor should we be) to understand what is said, to free the mind of all its conditioning.
* Is there any practice that can help one to be aware in the way that he is talking about?
The answer is no. Any practice by its very nature implies a reward at the end of it, otherwise you don't practice it. That is, a practice by definition implies motive, which is the foremost drive of thought. The man throughout his life practiced the asanas (physical postures) of Hatha yoga, every morning when possible, but categorically denied that such practices had any affect on the psychological make-up of the mind, or that they were a path to enlightenment. The point is thar our minds are so heavily conditioned that we seek methods and techniques in order to bring about a silent mind - the ending of the constant chattering of thought. Yet, all we can do is to be fully aware of thought, letting each thought complete itself, that is, fully flower (see below).
Nonetheless, there is in the talks a pointer to the interval that lies between thoughts:
"If you watch very carefully, you will see that though the response, the movement of thought, seems so swift, there are gaps, there are intervals between thoughts. Between two thoughts there is a period of silence which is not related to the thought process. If you observe you will see that that period of silence, that interval, is not of time and the discovery of that interval, the full experiencing of that interval, liberates you from conditioning - or rather it does not liberate 'you' but there is liberation from conditioning ..."
(Book of Life Daily Meditations: 'The interval between thoughts' - May 30, 2008)
There is also a basis clearly given for a daily state of attention, whereby you begin with awareness of the outer before shifting awareness to the inner:
"First of all, sit completely quiet, comfortably, sit very quietly, relax. Now, look at the trees [the outside environment]... Look not with your mind, but with your eyes. After having looked at the colors, the shapes... then from the outside move to the inside. Close your eyes... You have finished looking at things outside, and now with your eyes closed, look at what is happening inside. Watch what is happening inside you. Do not think, but just watch. Do not move your eyeballs, just keep them very very quiet.... To see what is happening inside your mind, you have to be very quiet inside. And when you are quiet, do you know what happens to you? You become very sensitive, you become very alert to things outside and inside.
Then you find that the outside is the inside. Then you find out that the observer is the observed."
(Pupul Jayakar Biography: Chapter 22, "Be Awake" - pp. 246/7)
This is even further expanded in the following passage, to the point of clearly establishing a procedure for daily attention (note, not a practice) at the beginning of each day, without prescribing a specific method of meditation (as in Buddhist vipassana and all the other various techniques). The crucial point is to end each daily action as you do it, as well as ending each thought as it arises - actually complete each thought, without any carryover whatsoever. This is also referred to elsewhere as thinking things through, or the flowering of thought:
"You can't look if you are not attentive, which means being quiet. I don't know if you see the importance of this? That quietness is necessary because a mind that is really very quiet, not distorted, understands something which is not distorted, which is really beyond the measure of thought. And that is the origin of everything.
You see, you can do this not only when you are sitting in the room but all the time, whilst you are eating, talking, playing games; there is always this sense of attention you have gathered at the beginning of the day. And as you do it, it penetrates more and more. Do it ... there is the attention that you have given to watching the birds, the trees, the clouds. And then when you go into the room you are gathering that attention, intensifying it - you follow? And that goes on during the day even though you don't pay attention to it.
... Here, when I come in [to the room], I am not attentive to anything - I am just attentive. Then in that state of attention thought comes in - doesn't it? "I haven't done my bed", ... or whatever it is and you pursue that thought. Go to the very end of that thought, don't say, "I mustn't think that". Finish it. In the process of finishing that thought a new thought arises. So pursue every thought to the very end, therefore there is no control, no restraint. It doesn't matter if I have a hundred thoughts. I am going after one thought at a time so that the mind becomes very orderly. ...
I don't want to correct the movement of my hands, I watch it, I pay attention to it. When you pay attention to it, it becomes quiet - try it. I sit quietly, one second, two seconds, ten seconds, then suddenly up pops a thought: "I have to go to some place this afternoon". ... Or sometimes the thought is much more complicated: I am envious of that man. Now I feel that envy. So go to the very end of that and look at it. Envy implies comparison, competition, imitation. Do I want to imitate? - you follow? Go to the very end of that thought and finish it, don't carry it over. ...
So the thing that you are doing is finished each time, and when you sit quietly you are marvellously quiet, you bring an extraordinary sense of orderliness into your life. If you haven't that orderliness you cannot be silent, and when you have it, when the mind is really quiet, then there is real beauty and the mystery of things begins."
(Beginnings of Learning: Chapter 7: 'On sitting quietly with a still mind'; ellipses added to all quotations above)
* Do the English words “attention” and “observation” mean the same thing as when he uses them?
No. For a start, attention (that is, choiceless awareness) is not concentration, which is universally how we consider it. Choiceless attention to everything going on within and about us is foreign to our conditioning, where we have been told from childhood to concentrate. As for observation, we are so used to the thought process that says: "I must pay attention to my thoughts." This is where the "I" has set itself itself apart from what it is observing. It means you are not coming into direct contact with thought or feeling, you are seeing it from a distance; there is a gap between you and your thoughts. This detached observer, which is the controller, the self, then tries to change or suppress or censor or judge or justify that which it is observing.
There is also the issue of intensity. Attention is not idle or casual attention, it is attention with your whole being, your whole energy, all your senses. You must listen completely to what is being said, which is giving your complete attention. This intensity of attention occurs if you are deeply interested in the thing you are watching. This watching is listening; it is listening that is the key to self-understanding. Such listening means you have to end all the pre-formed conclusions and ideas from memory - the mindset - that the mind is burdened with. This is the central issue.
* It seems to me that what he is saying is for a few people. Or is it for everyone? If it is for a few people, how can that change the world?
You cannot start out with an intention to change the world, or even concern yourself with that. Change yourself, and see what comes out of that afterwards. The fact is you don't have the slightest clue what effect there would be on people around you if you ended the self, if you ended all self-centered thought - which lies at the very heart of the talks. All such thinking is just ideas (opinions), which have no value.
Is what is said for a few people? No, it is for everyone. But the fact is there are very few people in the world who have the real intention to understand and thus change themselves. Moreover, as the talks entirely sweep away all organized religions and the accepted view of religiosity - that it is something to be practised - it threatens our whole worldview. We are in fear of change. And as most people are perfectly content to drift along the way they have been doing, they have no intention of seing the falseness of the way they are living, or even that there is anything wrong with society to begin with, apart from a few issues at the margins. Change means leaving the known and bringing to oneself the unknown. There are very few who can even face this prospect without fear, let alone pursue an inquiry into it.
* I want to know if he was a usual person, because if he was unusual, then I probably can’t do what he is talking about.
This is the wrong approach. Truth is the truth, irrespective of who says it. It has nothing to do with the 'personality' or 'character' of the speaker. You are wanting an out at the start; if he turns out to be unusual - or you think or conclude he's unusual - then you don't need to apply yourself to what has been said. You are setting yourself up for defeat when you adopt this line of reasoning. To deny the possibility of change means no change is possible. You must look inside yourself to determine if what is being said is true, and this approach means the speaker is not important. Unfortunately, we are generally so caught up with the personality of the man. Whereas, if we looked at the talks as a mirror to the workings of the mind we would never concern ourselves with the person at all. (It's the Words, not the Speaker)
The analogy referred to in the talks is that we all don't have to be Thomas Edison in order to turn on an electric light. The hard work has been done, you don't have to redo it. In respect to the talks, the pointers are there, what we have to do is listen to them and through this to see the mind in action.
* Does understanding oneself influence other people?
Of course. If you are greedy, fearful and ambitious one day, and peaceful, calm and happy the next, do you not see that this would have an effect on your immediate family and friends? And that they would then themselves act differently as a result, even though not having self-understanding or enlightenment themselves? All social environments have a rippling affect. Did not the presence of Krishnamurti influence those immediately around him? (Of course, this is only the influence of a human being, not radical change, which has to come from within.)
But the primary object is not to influence others, surely. The object is to understand yourself. Then when you have understood yourself completely, things will happen of their own volition in wider social relationships - which you cannot possibly know about in advance.
* Is there a difference between influence and propaganda?
No. Influence is the past of knowledge and authority, which because it is not in the now - as truth is only in the now, not in the past - is false. Propaganda is also by definition false, as it is from prejudiced minds, from people who have a vested interest in what they are putting over to you.
Truth is impartial and objective, is it not?
* Isn’t he talking about universal love? Then how can I love just one person?
You can do both. Universal love is not preclusive of love for an individual. You can't live with the rest of the human race to raise children. What this really means is that love is not exclusive to one person, the way love is now (with its resultant jealousy and possession), but encompasses everyone. And as one person is representative of mankind, to love one single person is to love mankind itself. Again, this is not love as we know the word, but a state where there is no self-interest whatsover. So this does not deny a relationship as a couple in order to bring up a family.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“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 God is my Adventure, reproduced in the Kinfonet site's biography. The interview was conducted in Carmel in California in 1934, when Krishnamurti was thirty-nine.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Deconditioning or deprogramming the fully conditioned mind:
“Your mind is conditioned right through; there is no part of you which is unconditioned. That is a fact, whether you like it or not. You may say there is a part of you - the watcher, the super-soul, the Atman - which is not conditioned; but because you think about it, it is within the field of thought, therefore it is conditioned. You can invent lots of theories about it, but the fact is that your mind is conditioned right through, the conscious as well as the unconscious, and any effort it makes to free itself is also conditioned.
So what is the mind to do? Or rather, what is the state of the mind when it knows that it is conditioned and realizes that any effort it makes to uncondition itself is still conditioned? Now, when you say, "I know I am conditioned," do you really know it, or is that merely a verbal statement? Do you know it with the same potency with which you see a cobra? When you see a snake and know it to be a cobra, there is immediate, unpremeditated action; and when you say, "I know I am conditioned," has it the same vital significance as your perception of the cobra? Or is it merely a superficial acknowledgment of the fact, and not the realization of the fact?
When I realize the fact that I am conditioned, there is immediate action. I don't have to make an effort to uncondition myself. The very fact that I am conditioned, and the realization of that fact, brings an immediate clarification. The difficulty lies in not realizing it in the sense of understanding all its implications, seeing that all thought, however subtle, however cunning, however sophisticated or philosophical, is conditioned.”
(Book of Life Daily Meditations: 'No part of the mind is unconditioned' - May 28, 2008)
~~~~~~~~~
Commentary: This is the oft-quoted passage on conditioning that appears on first reading to close the door on unconditioning the mind. If the mind is fully conditioned, then it simply cannot uncondition itself, is that correct? Yes, but if you read carefully, this passage talks about the mind of thought - that is, it is thought that is fully conditioned and because thought comprises the content of consciousness, this means the mind as we know it is conditioned. Not the body as a whole, not the senses operating holistically, without the dominance of thought.
It is here that the door is opened, for awareness is not included in this conditioned mind. Awareness brings about the deep realization of the fact. That is, one can be aware of the movement of conditioned thought in the mind - the entire talks attest to this simple fact.
~~~~~~~
Here is another important excerpt on freeing the mind from conditioning:
*** "To free the mind from all conditioning, you must see the totality of it without thought. This is not a conundrum; experiment with it and you will see. Do you ever see anything without thought? Have you ever listened, looked, without bringing in this whole process of reaction? You will say that it is impossible to see without thought; you will say no mind can be unconditioned. When you say that, you have already blocked yourself by thought, for the fact is you do not know. So can I look, can the mind be aware of its conditioning? I think it can. Please experiment. Can you be aware that you are a Hindu, a Socialist, a Communist, this or that, just be aware without saying that it is right or wrong? Because it is such a difficult task just to see, we say it is impossible. I say it is only when you are aware of this totality of your being without any reaction that the conditioning goes, totally. deeply - which is really the freedom from the self." (Book of Life Daily Meditations: 'Freedom from the self' - May 23, 2008)
“Your mind is conditioned right through; there is no part of you which is unconditioned. That is a fact, whether you like it or not. You may say there is a part of you - the watcher, the super-soul, the Atman - which is not conditioned; but because you think about it, it is within the field of thought, therefore it is conditioned. You can invent lots of theories about it, but the fact is that your mind is conditioned right through, the conscious as well as the unconscious, and any effort it makes to free itself is also conditioned.
So what is the mind to do? Or rather, what is the state of the mind when it knows that it is conditioned and realizes that any effort it makes to uncondition itself is still conditioned? Now, when you say, "I know I am conditioned," do you really know it, or is that merely a verbal statement? Do you know it with the same potency with which you see a cobra? When you see a snake and know it to be a cobra, there is immediate, unpremeditated action; and when you say, "I know I am conditioned," has it the same vital significance as your perception of the cobra? Or is it merely a superficial acknowledgment of the fact, and not the realization of the fact?
When I realize the fact that I am conditioned, there is immediate action. I don't have to make an effort to uncondition myself. The very fact that I am conditioned, and the realization of that fact, brings an immediate clarification. The difficulty lies in not realizing it in the sense of understanding all its implications, seeing that all thought, however subtle, however cunning, however sophisticated or philosophical, is conditioned.”
(Book of Life Daily Meditations: 'No part of the mind is unconditioned' - May 28, 2008)
~~~~~~~~~
Commentary: This is the oft-quoted passage on conditioning that appears on first reading to close the door on unconditioning the mind. If the mind is fully conditioned, then it simply cannot uncondition itself, is that correct? Yes, but if you read carefully, this passage talks about the mind of thought - that is, it is thought that is fully conditioned and because thought comprises the content of consciousness, this means the mind as we know it is conditioned. Not the body as a whole, not the senses operating holistically, without the dominance of thought.
It is here that the door is opened, for awareness is not included in this conditioned mind. Awareness brings about the deep realization of the fact. That is, one can be aware of the movement of conditioned thought in the mind - the entire talks attest to this simple fact.
~~~~~~~
Here is another important excerpt on freeing the mind from conditioning:
*** "To free the mind from all conditioning, you must see the totality of it without thought. This is not a conundrum; experiment with it and you will see. Do you ever see anything without thought? Have you ever listened, looked, without bringing in this whole process of reaction? You will say that it is impossible to see without thought; you will say no mind can be unconditioned. When you say that, you have already blocked yourself by thought, for the fact is you do not know. So can I look, can the mind be aware of its conditioning? I think it can. Please experiment. Can you be aware that you are a Hindu, a Socialist, a Communist, this or that, just be aware without saying that it is right or wrong? Because it is such a difficult task just to see, we say it is impossible. I say it is only when you are aware of this totality of your being without any reaction that the conditioning goes, totally. deeply - which is really the freedom from the self." (Book of Life Daily Meditations: 'Freedom from the self' - May 23, 2008)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
The man himself, along with his personality, is completely irrelevant to your understanding of yourself, which is the thing in life
of paramount importance. To concentrate on the man is to fall into the trap of authority, to become a 'follower'.
of paramount importance. To concentrate on the man is to fall into the trap of authority, to become a 'follower'.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
(Site exploring the existence of something eternal in lfe, beyond the mind as we know it;
Page last updated February 22, 2010)
Page last updated February 22, 2010)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Life after Death: A Most Extraordinary Discussion -
on the Stream, Pure Energy, Death & Reincarnation
on the Stream, Pure Energy, Death & Reincarnation
____________________________
"The Wrong Turning of Mankind":
In the David Bohm dialogues, The Ending of Time, the wrong turning of humankind is equated with the dominance of thought/intellect in the development of the brain. The mind as a consequence is now trapped in a prison of desire, words and ideas, completely dominated by the intellect, which is but one of the senses. Thought has created the central idea of a separate self, which then tries to act upon thought itself, not seeing that it is the very thing it is trying to act upon. We now regard the self as a natural extension of the very structure of the mind, of consciousness, a part of 'human nature.'
This creation of the self was when thought became all important, and this is put forward as the actual wrong turning. The thought process existed in at least a limited form from the very beginning, developing over evolutionary time. There may never have been a silent mind, free of imagery, but the psychological conditioning at this early stage would have been less restricting and burdensome, which may account for the so-called 'wisdom of the ancients.' This conditioning, and the mental prison of words, has undeniably become more entrenched and neurologically hardwired as humankind has developed.
This wrong turning is also implicitly equated with the so-called 'Fall of Man,' or 'original sin'; occurring at the very earliest stage in the development of civilization, over 10,000 years ago. But this is not to say that, even now, it can't be turned around.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
____________________
Why has no-one got it?:
"When the guru says he knows, he ceases to be the guru; the man who says he knows does not know.
... Surely, a guru who says he will help you to realize can help you to realize only that which you already know ..."
(The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti: Volume IX, Third Public Talk, Madanapalle, February 26, 1956; ellipses added)
~~~~~~~
It has been often stated that at the end of his life there had not been one person who had "got it," or "done it." Since that time, no doubt many people have wanted to get it, or do it. This in itself is the issue. Any want or desire is a movement of the self; desire itself is the problem. It is the ways of the thought-created self that have to be fully understood, in the now. All desires are simply a moving away from "what is." The facts of what we actually are have to be fully faced.
The fact is, the talks say things we simply don't want to hear. We shun the challenge to all beliefs, to the comforting idea of nationalism, to the ending of all self-identity and attachment, both to ideas and things. All these go against the identification process that lies at the core of all our so-called 'security'. This means a mind that is no longer caught in time, in a progression to a better future, to hope. It means a mind in a state of complete attention. In a state of awareness of inattention. A mind that is totally in the present, with no trace of ambition or desire for a result or fulfilment. In a society founded on ambition and self-interest, this is a state of mind unfathomable to those people who desire to "get it," is it not?
Truth, or "getting it" is not a destination point. Life is dynamic, constantly moving. It is not a train journey, with an end in view, or achievement to be had. The term "got it" in the talks actually means no-one had fully understood them, is that correct?
And the answer to this question is quite simple, is it not? No-one has got it - or done it - because no-one has fully listened.
"The Wrong Turning of Mankind":
In the David Bohm dialogues, The Ending of Time, the wrong turning of humankind is equated with the dominance of thought/intellect in the development of the brain. The mind as a consequence is now trapped in a prison of desire, words and ideas, completely dominated by the intellect, which is but one of the senses. Thought has created the central idea of a separate self, which then tries to act upon thought itself, not seeing that it is the very thing it is trying to act upon. We now regard the self as a natural extension of the very structure of the mind, of consciousness, a part of 'human nature.'
This creation of the self was when thought became all important, and this is put forward as the actual wrong turning. The thought process existed in at least a limited form from the very beginning, developing over evolutionary time. There may never have been a silent mind, free of imagery, but the psychological conditioning at this early stage would have been less restricting and burdensome, which may account for the so-called 'wisdom of the ancients.' This conditioning, and the mental prison of words, has undeniably become more entrenched and neurologically hardwired as humankind has developed.
This wrong turning is also implicitly equated with the so-called 'Fall of Man,' or 'original sin'; occurring at the very earliest stage in the development of civilization, over 10,000 years ago. But this is not to say that, even now, it can't be turned around.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
____________________
Why has no-one got it?:
"When the guru says he knows, he ceases to be the guru; the man who says he knows does not know.
... Surely, a guru who says he will help you to realize can help you to realize only that which you already know ..."
(The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti: Volume IX, Third Public Talk, Madanapalle, February 26, 1956; ellipses added)
~~~~~~~
It has been often stated that at the end of his life there had not been one person who had "got it," or "done it." Since that time, no doubt many people have wanted to get it, or do it. This in itself is the issue. Any want or desire is a movement of the self; desire itself is the problem. It is the ways of the thought-created self that have to be fully understood, in the now. All desires are simply a moving away from "what is." The facts of what we actually are have to be fully faced.
The fact is, the talks say things we simply don't want to hear. We shun the challenge to all beliefs, to the comforting idea of nationalism, to the ending of all self-identity and attachment, both to ideas and things. All these go against the identification process that lies at the core of all our so-called 'security'. This means a mind that is no longer caught in time, in a progression to a better future, to hope. It means a mind in a state of complete attention. In a state of awareness of inattention. A mind that is totally in the present, with no trace of ambition or desire for a result or fulfilment. In a society founded on ambition and self-interest, this is a state of mind unfathomable to those people who desire to "get it," is it not?
Truth, or "getting it" is not a destination point. Life is dynamic, constantly moving. It is not a train journey, with an end in view, or achievement to be had. The term "got it" in the talks actually means no-one had fully understood them, is that correct?
And the answer to this question is quite simple, is it not? No-one has got it - or done it - because no-one has fully listened.
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The man was undeniably different, but he was not a great man. The minute you use this phrase to describe another, the immediate implication is that you are not as great. You therefore have a division in life: the great people in history... and the not so great. This also implies devotion, hence the term devotees. The minute you become devoted to another you are comparing, so you abnegate all self-understanding, as well as all possibility of it. You are you, you are not the pale imitation of another, no matter their 'stature'.
