Jiddu Krishnamurthi is a great teacher, in that there is no doubt. Sadhguru, in a video, said that Jiddu’s teaching is abstract and creates a lot of confusion to his listeners. Maybe this is why some people will not accept his teachings.
K. Rejects this ‘teacher’ label not because of modesty but because it is false and detrimental.
Jiddu always says that he shares what he understood about the concept.
Yes, I agree with Sadhguru. Krishnamurti was imo very intelligent (his understanding of the term), but not always so skilled at communicating with his audience. What do you think?
Could you cite some instances where he “always” says this?
Sorry for the delay. I have shared the video link below. Listen to the video for the first 4 minutes, you encounter the word “sharing”.
Some people find it boring and difficult to understand his words. One of my colleagues felt the same way as you said but for not me. I think, sometimes it takes deeper levels of attention to understand his view.
Boring, never for me. Difficult, yes, sometimes. Frustrating sometimes too.
Definitely. He might say, in passing, something that the minds of most of his listeners would need years to realize. That’s why I keep coming back.
I deceive myself constantly, so I know I am “not free to look directly, unconditionally,” but only with bias, prejudice, what-should/should-not-be.
We are talking about “a state of observation” without an observer.
I don’t know that this “state of observation” is possible or real for anyone, so I can only talk about what is real for me.
If there is no doubt, it has been shouted down by belief.
You study K’s teaching because you’re lost and you think you’ve found your guide. But if you know you’re lost, whatever you have found is questionable; you have reasonable doubt about it. You’re either questioning, uncertain, or you’re convinced. If you find certainty more comfortable than uncertainty, you’re self-deceiving. If you find uncertainty more amenable, it’s because you know you’re conflicted and confused, and that the only thing you know for sure is that you can be mistaken.
The questions that arise for me after watching this video are what is this “order” that the harried brain is trying to bring about in sleep? Aside from the outward physical order, what is an orderly brain? Empty? Silent?
And how does the brain establish this “order” in dreams, by placing a ‘me’ at the center of often fantastic, threatening, uncomfortable, etc situations?
Since we all share the same physical brain, its ‘dreams’ must bear a similarity in trying to secure this ‘order’?..if this is the case.
Is this the similarity, that in the ‘waking’ state the brain functions with a ‘center’ or ‘self-image and in the ‘sleep with dreams ‘ state, it also has this center or ‘I “ active? So would the hallmark of an orderly brain be the absence of a ‘center’ or ‘self’?..That seemed to me to be what K was getting at, a brain so quiet, so empty, so alert to itself in sleep, that it was partaking of a different ‘realm’?
It seems that you have a conclusion that Jiddu will not say anything without analysis. This shows that you are valuing his words.
I think, after enquiring from many different perspectives, I started feeling that he is a great teacher.
Yes, in most situations things will not happen as I intended. After learning this fact, I feel uncertain for most of the time deep inside my thought processes.
One of the indications of disorder is that there will be a division between thought and action for a person. If the mind is silent then there will be no division but only attention. Jiddu said that the end of disorder is naturally an order.
Yeah, in a silent mind there is no room for thought. Therefore, in such a state there is no “I”.
The topic of “ORDER”, deserves a separate thread.
Definitely! The words and the energy, intelligence, and spirit behind them.
It is good that you are learning something form his words.
Hey, @DanMcD asked about Order. Share something which you know about order.
Well, let’s see, there is the order of the thinking process: clarity, reason, logic, objectivity, etc. But the order that Krishnaji is talking about is of a deeper level, it is not of thought, it is “the action of the new, which is intelligence.” As Inquiry’s postings often remind me, I don’t know from direct experience what this deeper order is. Perhaps I’ve touched it from time to time, perhaps it’s touched me … but it is not something I am familiar with.
For example, while cooking if we are thinking about some past incidents, in such case chances of ruining the food is more. In this case, thoughts are interfering the intended activity of the person, which is a disorder. In a simple way, we can say that we think something and do another thing. Therefore, there is a division between thought and action.
If my analysis is not making sense please ask questions.
I don’t think it’s a matter of “room” for thought, but of need for thought. If intelligence is more than thought, there’s always time for thought when there’s need for it