Krishamurti

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Thanks a pantload, whoever recommended him. I've been reading "Think On These Things" for a few days now (couldn't find the book you suggested) and it is pretty surprising how ordinary and simple he relates the same sorts of ideas I've read about in other places which were difficult to understand through the belabored writing styles of some other authors who were obviously having some difficulty explaining these ideas. Krishnamurti, by comparison, addresses most topics and answers them succinctly within 3 or 4 paragraphs. Amazing. Also, he has quite a different insight than many other philosophers I've read, but similar to some of my own thoughts, surprisingly enough. I was surprised to see the book started right off with the idea that our education focuses on all the wrong things, which is something I was going on about not too long ago on here. I can't wait until I get into the parts about "self" and "thought". So far, everything he's said about the mind is calming and reassuring, as opposed to frightening and surreal, as these things often come across. After reading the Tao or Gurdjieff or whatever, I often feel dizzy. When I put this book down, I'm like, "Oh yeah, that's how it is! Think I'll go do some work now." It's pretty energizing, rather than draining.

So, anyway, thanks again. Here would be a good place to talk about whatever else you know about Krishnamurti, if you feel like it.

― Nude Spock, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

'allo, Guv'nah!

― Nude Spock, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Allo guv'nah!

Aye, it was me who recommended him, and what he said was pretty amazing. I'm quite surprised you found him calming and reassuring. A lot of people seem to feel pulled apart by what he says. I think his manner was much calmer and more rational than a lot of mystics, but his actual insights are far more devastating. It's probably the simplicity of it that is so powerful: he seemed to see what he spoke of so clearly that there was no need to puff it up with a lot of esoteric or occult baggage. The conditioned, sorrowful, ever-escaping mind is the root problem in the world, and until human beings are prepared to see the nature of their own deep fragmentation most of the violence and suffering will continue. I think his whole teaching was basically about watching every twist and turn of thought in its continual attempts to avoid the painful facts of life and perpetuate its own self-created fictions. I think he'd say that everyone is lost in thought which is why so many people don't actually *see* what's going on in the world. And his whole teaching was to unravel all those knots in the minds of his readers or listeners.

I've not read much of his stuff for ages now - I had a mad 12 months or so when I read just about everything he wrote, and I think the truth of it sunk in so completely that there's been little need to read any more. Actually, there's little need to read any spiritual or philosophical writing if you've fully understood what he had to say. I hope you go along way with it because he was the best aid to self- discovery you can find.

― Johnathan, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Thanks! And let me ask you, did it "help"? That's an arbitrary word I'm using. I guess what I mean is "did you feel better after having read it" or "do you feel better now (later) that you've read it"? Or did it have the ability to crush all illusions, leaving you empty and worse than before? Personally, I can't see this sort of stuff ever depressing me. The more I read (from a variety of sources) the more I understand the simplest things-- like "the search for understanding" for instance.

― Nude Spock, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Kind of both really. I think partly through reading him and partly through my own slightly simple nature, many of my illusions, hopes and escapes have been crushed. I realise that probably sounds very negative to many people, and while being emptied of illusions usually is a painful process, I think it's the only thing that gives you real security and happiness. Thought / the ego doesn't see it like that though; what Krishnamurti went into in great depth was the way thought is always attempting to create some kind of security for itself in any hope or belief it can find. And it's this constant demand that creates the deep psychological insecurity that underpins human consciousness.

So yeah, there's been plenty of pain and disillusionment, but it's been eminently worthwhile. The truth is a bitch, but ultimately a very, very beautiful one. :)

BTW, what's Gurdjieff like? His writings have always seemed too dense and impenetrable for my poor little brain.

― Johnathan, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Yes, Gurdjieff is a bitch... and not a beautiful one. Some of the stuff he says is just ludicrous and bizarre and then you're left to wonder if this is some "educational device" he's using... or does he really believe in kundabuffers and that the moon is feeding on the earth? Some of the stuff he says is insightful, but less insightful and less direct and ultimately less interesting than anything other eastern philosophy/religion describes. All and Everything is an extremely long book, deliberately written in a difficult style to aid the reader in "waking up". Gurdjieff also suggested the book be read three times in succession (that's 3714 pages choc full o' nutty passages). I think Gurdjieff was intentionally difficult because I have a feeling he had little to say that was actually valid and different from other gurus of the time.

― Nude Spock, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

two years pass...

Gurdjieff's talk of the Moon as a baleful influence on humanity is pretty strange but I've seen that theme creep up in other books on Sufism and magic (e.g. "the Zelator" by Mark Hedsel). "All and Everything" has an incredibly elliptical style but it's worth reading as a good shock to the system (for instance he sees the Greeks and Romans as being inferior to the cultures that preceded them and the kundalini as source of delusion not enlightenment). If you take everthing with a grain of salt the book has a lot to offer.
My favorite part is where he talks about America. He predicts that the ultimate collapse of our culture will be heralded by the development of a "comfort chair" which will allow you to feed, conduct business and defecate completely eliminating the need to ever move.

― Geoff Probst, Thursday, 19 February 2004 14:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I love Krishnamurti. I haven't read the books for years, but they were a big influence on me. Partly, cuz i already agreed with him on a lot of things. Partly, cuz it just happened to be the right thing for me to be reading at the time. I love his life story too. It's fascinating. I actually started reading his books cuz at the time-i was 19 or 20-i was reading henry miller-as 19 and 20 year olds are known to do-and he was a big fan. he writes about him in his book Books In My Life(i think that's the title). Anybody ever see that episode of Young Indiana Jones where Young Indy is shown India by a young Krisnamurti and given a theology lesson? It's great! And it even goes into the whole Theosophy movement and how Krishnamurti was the chosen one until he broke from that movement. Greatest Live Noiserock moment of the 90's for me: Seeing Swans at Limelight and M.Gira dedicating a song to K!! I nearly fell over.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 19 February 2004 15:01 (twenty-two years ago)

one year passes...

Is this: The Essential Krisnamurti a good selection of his writings, or is there another book people would recommend as a first read? ABout ten years ago I was pretty interested in this stuff (Thomas Merton more, probably) and then for some reason never really delved into it.

― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 2 January 2006 18:20 (twenty years ago)

J. Krishnamurti is not to be confused with U.G. Krishnamurtie, the 'anti-guru', who, like J., seemed to attract many adoring disciples in spite of himself:

http://www.well.com/user/jct/

― ratty, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 03:17 (twenty years ago)

kyle, yes, it's a good introduction. The First & Last Freedom is also a good start. But, honestly, there is no right one to start with. I think any one of the collections of talks, and there are many, can be easily read and understood. there is no beginning, in other words. his voice is consistent. there are some that deal with a single topic - death, etc, - that are also put together nicely.

― scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 03:29 (twenty years ago)

it's weird. i hardly ever talk in public about how much krisnamurti has meant to me. and he is really the only thinker/philosopher/spiritual figure who does mean anything to me in a real and important way.

― scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 03:32 (twenty years ago)

U.G. Krishnamurti, of whom I had not heard before this thread, strikes me as very interesting - somewhat Castaneda-like in his thrust but more hostile, really a pretty interesting guru figure at first glance

on the other hand he is against mantras & I can't be down with that stance, mantras are where it's at

― Mr Straight Toxic (ghostface), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 04:16 (twenty years ago)

He's against techniques for the attainment of enlightenment in general, isn't he? It's a while since I read his stuff (that's UG, not J).

― ratty, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 04:31 (twenty years ago)

if u.g. were true to his word he would just sit quietly. we wouldn't even know who he was.

― scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 04:33 (twenty years ago)

Yes, this is the classic Barrow's paradox: you cannot teach that something cannot be taught without self-contradiction.

― ratty, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 04:41 (twenty years ago)

erm, sorry, I got that wrong - you cannot teach that enlightenment cannot be taught via techniques without self-contradiction. I think that's it, at least, if you assume that not using techniques is itself a technique.

― ratty, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 04:44 (twenty years ago)

and jiddu krisnamurti was known as the anti-guru too. he hated the idea of gurus. so, u.g. isn't exactly original there either.

and JK was anti-mantra too, Mr. Toxic. Sorry. He thought they dulled the mind thru repetition and that you were just repeating what you already knew and that people used meditation and mantras like they used drugs. JK thought you should die to every day and every morning start anew.

― scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 05:12 (twenty years ago)

I once read a critical biog of J. - I think it was called 'Lives in the Shadow of J. Krishnamurti' by Rahda Sloss. In it, he is presented as a rather litigious and ruthless control freak. I don't know what evidence there is for this, though one can detect a kind of haughtiness in some of his conversations with Bohm and others. Both Krishnamurtis are nominally anti-guru, but there's theory and then there' practice. It could have been a kind of self-deception. I haven't read any non-hagiographic biographical material on UG. He seems equally adamant in print - a great talker, not a great listener.

― ratty, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 05:40 (twenty years ago)

Here's a link to the Sloss biog mentioned above:

http://www.silcom.com/~jmsloss/AW.html

― ratty, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 05:54 (twenty years ago)

there is a beautiful 100 year commemorative book that i have with all kinds of interviews with people who knew and where close to him. it's kinda for, um, fans though. great stuff in it and a full history. satan help me, i actually have a krisnamurti photo album too. great shot of him listening to records. (i also have krisnamurti records if you ever come by the house.)

― scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 05:59 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.