• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Krishnamurti

I think Krishnamurti got many things right. But when it comes to his solution, which is not a solution according to him because a solution is always another form of conditioning, everything gets maddeningly vague, and ultimately somehow circular.

The way to solve conditioning and your problems and ultimately those of the world is to recognize that you are conditioned.

But any effort to end conditioning is just another form of conditioning, so don’t try to end conditioning.

Instead, recognize that you are conditioned and that any effort to end conditioning is futile. Then, instantly, conditioning will end.

It will? But how?

Go back to step one.

:confused2:


That about sums it up. A revolution in mind doesn't come easy.
 

------

Sorry, I cannot speak directly of Krishnamurti. I hope my posts aren't a derail from talking specifically about the fellow. It's been over 3 decades since I read any of his books and I have no memories of details. I remember him as emphasizing philosophical skepticism a bit more than other "nonduality" teachers. Though I think they're all on the same basic page, and that "basic page" is what I'm talking about. Hopefully it's at least interesting.

If it's interesting, see Sam Harris's book "Waking Up". Or listen to his app of the same name. Much of what I think that I know about this stuff is from the "nonduality" teachers he interviews. There's a secular* spirituality there that, imo, beats stoicism and buddhism and other "spiritualities" out there in the "marketplace" just now. It's there also in Buddhism and Hinduism and all the other axial age religions (yes, Christianity too... but among their "contemplatives", not their biblicists) but it's wholly separable from religious traditions too.

Krishnamurti meditates but rejects standard mediation practice, because he says it takes time and the dropping of attachment can take place in an instant, he says. I have read of scientific studies showing that brain states of those who meditate over time, and practice meditation, are notably different from those who do not.

Krishnamurti addresses the question, What Happens to Me After I Die? It is obvious from the text he is speaking in an eastern nation full of believers in reincarnation.

He says: “You are living in the past and the past is death.” I take this to mean he is telling his listeners that they already know what happens after they die, because they are already dead!

Reincarnation, he says, is just another thought, another idea, and it too is part of the dead superstructure of the past wherein we all dwell. So don’t worry about it. Rather, worry about the Now.

He asks, can you let go of attachment? Attachment is death, it is the past.

If you do, he concludes, “You incarnate in the present now.” And that is reincarnation, he seems to say, when rightly understood. Absent that, we already are dead from moment to moment, so we have answered our own question of what happens to us after we die.
 
He says: “You are living in the past and the past is death.” I take this to mean he is telling his listeners that they already know what happens after they die, because they are already dead!

I like “What happens after you die? Lots of things happen, they just don’t involve you,
Simple. No metaphysics, no challenging descriptions of the living state.
 
He says: “You are living in the past and the past is death.” I take this to mean he is telling his listeners that they already know what happens after they die, because they are already dead!

I like “What happens after you die? Lots of things happen, they just don’t involve you,
Simple. No metaphysics, no challenging descriptions of the living state.
I don’t think Krishnamurti is concerned with what happens to us after we literally die. He is challenging his listeners to understand that they already know the answer to the question.
 
Not sure why the eye roll. He is saying that his listeners are vitally concerned with what happens after they die, but because they live in the past, with concepts, images, ideas, nationalities, traditions, religion, politics, and on and on, they are already effectively dead. If they drop all that, they won’t worry about being reincarnated in an after life, because after dropping all that they will be, so to say, reincarnated from moment to moment.
 
Did you read the text I linked? I am curious whether you find something eyeroll-worthy in it.
 
The elephant in the room is the assumption that reincarnation is a thing - that we were all living different lives before we were born, and that we know what death is from direct personal experience, because we did it before.

Not only is this non-obvious (despite the possibility that to his audience it was axiomatic); It's also clearly utter bollocks.

Even the elephant is rolling his eyes.

It's as sensible to presume reincarnation, as it is to presume that those eyes he's rolling are not a sense organ.
 
Krishanamurti is not arguing for reincarnation after you die. He thinks after you die you are gone. He is trying to get his audience to see that they already know what happens after you die, because they are all metaphorically dead themselves — by clinging to the dead past, including all the stupid things they were taught to believe and continue to believe because they were so taught. So they are living a living death — that is his point. If they want to find reincarnation, they will not find it after literal death. They will find it from moment to moment by letting go of the past, and in so doing they are newly incarnated from moment to moment, the true reincarnation. Whether this claim itself is bollocks is open to dispute, but I am a rather surprised that K’s point is being missed here. The text seems quite clear to me.
 
Just read the final paragraph: “Because, when you die, all attachment ends. But can you invite the ending of attachment?”
 
Put another way, he is saying that, yes, there is reincarnation, but not after literal death. The true reincarnation is when you die to the past, to all your baggage of beliefs and memories and false teachings. Then you are reincarnated constantly, from moment to moment. It is similar to Christ allegedly saying, “the kingdom of heaven is within you,” and by implication not something waiting for you after you die. Krishnamurti was speaking to an audience of believers in reincarnation but could just as well have been speaking to an audience of Christians, by telling him that any kingdom of heaven is within they themselves, not externally.
 
That last paragraph:

Now, the question then is, what is death? Please ask this question: Are you just the vast reservoir of memory, words, pictures, symbols? Is your consciousness the rest of mankind, that you are not an individual? That what you think, other people think, your thinking, is not individual and that there is only thinking? When you realize you are not an individual though you may have a different form, different shape of head, different jobs, and so on, but that inwardly you are like the rest of mankind, what does death mean then? Look, sir. Suppose I am all that – name, thought, education, physical responses, psychological reactions, all the inherited racial memories and personal memories, which is all in the past, I am all that and all human beings are that, all human consciousness is that, then what does it mean to die? Ask this question, sirs. Now we are living, repetitively active, mechanically active, as most people are; but you are active, you have got life, you have got feelings, you have got responses, sensations, and when death comes, all that is wiped out. That is what we call death, which is to end all the things you have held, your joys, your house, your bank account, your wife, your children; all that you end; you and your attachment, that is death. But you want to carry it over to the next life which is just an idea, vision, fulfillment. Please listen: While living, can you end attachment? Because, when you die, all attachment ends. But can you invite the ending of attachment? Do you understand this? That is ending. Ending is death. So, can you, while living, vigorous, active, end your attachment, end a particular habit voluntarily, easily, quietly? Because then, where there is an ending, there is a totally different beginning. When you end something like attachment, there is a different activity going on: to incarnate in the present now. That is creativity.
 
Krishnamurti came up in another thread, so I thought I’d start a thread about him, beginning with What Love Is Not. I am especially taken with:

What happens when you face the fact and know for yourself that you do not love your neighbour or your son? If you loved your son, you would educate him entirely differently; you would educate him not to fit into this rotten society, but to be self-sufficient, to be intelligent, to be aware of all the influences around him in which he is caught, smothered, and which never allow him to be free. If you loved your son, who is also your neighbour, there would be no wars because you would want to protect him, not your property, your petty little belief, your bank account, your ugly country or your narrow ideology. So you do not love, and that is a fact.

So true! :ROFLMAO: Your ugly country, your petty little belief, your narrow ideology, your bank account, all the rest of it!

In the other thread I mentioned that I once attended a Krishnamurti talk in San Francisco, and when we stood up to applaud at the end he waved his hands at us and snarled, “You’re only applauding yourselves!” :)
I'm glad someone understands.

It is true, both parts, but he doesn't understand something or perhaps hams himself in the last bit. It's a bit over the top.

Maybe he should start with the statement that what he said is not grounds for applause but for silent reflection, and exit without a word, so that at the end he could remind them.

But it is true.

It's something I think too much and too often and it makes me so sad seeing it in the world.

Because it's true.

I see so little effective love. So many people want to love but they don't know how, or what to do with the feelings. It's confusing and it's hard. All the answers always seem like they are wrong.

Love is hard, and if done right, hardest on the people who love. The point of love is that you decide the hardest parts of being them are yours to share, something they don't need to feel the weight of. At least not all the time. Not when they decide they don't want to, anyway.

It means bothering someone with your existence but never so much as it's too much. Being loved is license to be yourself. Loving someone is not license to make them into you.


Not sure why the eye roll. He is saying that his listeners are vitally concerned with what happens after they die, but because they live in the past, with concepts, images, ideas, nationalities, traditions, religion, politics, and on and on, they are already effectively dead. If they drop all that, they won’t worry about being reincarnated in an after life, because after dropping all that they will be, so to say, reincarnated from moment to moment.
My personal thoughts is that all change is death and all death is change.

Many parts of me I encourage to remain though positive reinforcement: reinforcing myself against change. Other parts of me I kill, by changing from being such a thing, ending it's existence and replacing it with something else.
 
To incarnate in the present, again and again, while alive, and not after you are dead, is his point. He says somewhere that when someone says, “I know you,” it does not follow that he knows you at all. He just knows his memory of you. The present is always different.

A few days before his death, Krishnamurti reportedly said, “I have wasted my life. People took me as an amusement.”
 
Krishanamurti is not arguing for reincarnation after you die. He thinks after you die you are gone. He is trying to get his audience to see that they already know what happens after you die, because they are all metaphorically dead themselves — by clinging to the dead past, including all the stupid things they were taught to believe and continue to believe because they were so taught. So they are living a living death — that is his point. If they want to find reincarnation, they will not find it after literal death. They will find it from moment to moment by letting go of the past, and in so doing they are newly incarnated from moment to moment, the true reincarnation. Whether this claim itself is bollocks is open to dispute, but I am a rather surprised that K’s point is being missed here. The text seems quite clear to me.
Excessive use of metaphor always strikes me as a way to avoid being wrong.
 
From the Wiki page he was a physically and emotionally abused kid. Raised by Theosophists.



Krishnamurti asserted that "truth is a pathless land" and advised against following any doctrine, discipline, teacher, guru, or authority, including himself.[1] He emphasized topics such as choiceless awareness, psychological inquiry, and freedom from religious, spiritual, and cultural conditioning. His supporters — working through non-profit foundations in India, Britain, and the United States — oversee several independent schools based on his views on education, and continue to distribute his thousands of talks, group and individual discussions, and writings in a variety of media formats and languages.



Yet he set himself up as a philosopher writing books and teaching doctrines.

Theosophy turned him into a mystic to serve their institution..

Krishnamurti asserted that "truth is a pathless land"

That sounds Taoist.

I used to have a book on Indian traditional stories and sayings. He would have had a had a deep well to draw on.
 
To incarnate in the present, again and again, while alive, and not after you are dead, is his point. He says somewhere that when someone says, “I know you,” it does not follow that he knows you at all. He just knows his memory of you. The present is always different.

A few days before his death, Krishnamurti reportedly said, “I have wasted my life. People took me as an amusement.”
Well, to be fair, he didn't waste his life, though I do think there were some things he is wrong about with respect to recognizing others, and recognizing self.

I recall a passage of The Left Hand of Darkness: "I had met him on Earth, and on Hain, and on Ollul. I expect to meet him in Hell."

There is a secret of life and death buried in this truth, this knowledge that I have met some people in many places, behind different faces.

What happens when someone knows they are not alone in this manner? When someone knows they will be met by some other time and some other place, and knows well enough how to leave a message for themselves that will reach the heirs to their circumstances?

What if someone knows that among their heirs is probably the person who wakes in their bed in the morning, to the extent they think of that person as themselves and are not wrong to do so?

But what if that person is someone on the other side of the world, born of the same stories, and capable of sharing who they are with each other, and seeing themselves in the other only by a different name and capable of leaving their contributions for some as yet unborn example to find once they have become who they are in the way they must?

This is a thing that can be exploited, to some extent, I expect.
 
Back
Top Bottom