← Back to Kinfonet

I am struggling living Krishnamurtis Teachings

In hindsight “acceptance” is a poor choice of words. Neither is it a matter of resignation. Thought and struggle must be seen for the bedfellows they are. I was trying to get at what @Huggette put so clearly above.

As I see it, the teachings can be only “lived” in a single moment.

Thanks for the replies, much appreciated. Right now I am watching Shainberg, Bohm, and Krishnamurti in the Transformation of Man series. I feel like David Shainberg myself, right now, as he was in the discussions, totally lost and confused trying to understand Krishnamurti or put into effect what K was asking him to do. Shainberg was stuck in thought, and I seem to be similar. I just am not able to watch or observe anything and hence my struggle.

This comment by Peter kind of bothered me, I feel sorry for him if this is what is happening on a Krishnamurti site, or even if he feels this in his head. There is no need to ridicule or put another down, anywhere but especially on a Krishnamurti site. Even the most basic person who has read or watched Krishnamurtis teachings knows that right relationship is one of the most important things. Buddhism stresses right action, right behavior, right morals, to treat everyone with loving kindness. I hope if even a Traditional Religion like Buddhism can preach this and practice this, most on here can too, without the precepts.

This is part and parcel of Krishnamurtis teachings, he wants us to radically change, transform. It is what he says in every one of his talks. I agree with him, we need to fundamentally radically change.

Interesting, but I am different, I have a strong interest in Buddhism and like to combine the teachings of the Buddha with that of Krishnamurtis. I think Buddhism complements Krishnamurtis teachings quite well. Yes, the organized religion part might be full of beliefs and not some good things, but the actual teachings of the Buddha minus the religion are quite wonderful I feel and helpful.

Yes, thanks for sharing Huguette, it did not add any confusion and is nice to hear more perspectives.

Yes. A confused mind doesn’t know what to do next. So clutches at what it thinks is the best available option, method.
But, a confused mind cannot know what is the best option precisely because it is confused.
Whereas if the confused mind is put under observation a clarity emerges as to where/what the obstacle is.

If I think that observing or ‘listening’ to ‘my ‘ thoughts will get me ‘somewhere’, that will become my method. Thought is always on the lookout to enhance itself, to be more secure. It has foiled all attempts to end it by turning those ‘insights’ into dogma, rituals, methods…it is, as k has said, “cunning”.
It says, in order to be free, you must
‘struggle ‘.

A problem begs for a solution. I am frightened, I must not be frightened. I am jealous, I must not be jealous. Etc. why are these feelings treated as ‘problems’ that must be solved, ended, and replaced with more acceptable feelings? Thought says ‘fear’ is wrong, weakness, “don’t be afraid”. “Don’t be ‘jealous’ don’t be lonely’…but what are these emotions without the label of ‘problem’?

That wouldn’t be observation then but concentration to achieve something. True observation is motiveless, just to find out, whatever be the outcome.

I agree. So the ‘motive’ of why you’re doing whatever you’re doing has to be seen. Each time. All the great religions began probably with an insight into our situation, our conditioning. And then that insight was corrupted, organized…that is probably inevitable and K’s message will be no different. Thought as he said, is cunning. It seems that if something can be made into a ’racket’, it will be.


I am still reflecting on your “struggle”… on why there is struggle for anyone at all…

Without going into details - I do not know specifically what the details of your particular struggle are, not that it matters - I understand that where there is struggle, there is effort; and where there is effort, there is resistance. Usually, the resistance is there because of an effort to align one’s life to some kind of ideal. And, so, there is conflict - between who one really is and who or what one desires to become. When the contradiction between these two is great, there is a sense of struggle. Living up to an ideal is quite the burden !

There may also be elements of choice involved in all this (which always puts a strain on anything one does), as well as elements of identification. As you are quite most likely aware, David, both K frowned on choices (as a means of life) and identification. Identifying with a particular religion (even seeing the “teachings” of K as a “religion” will cause enormous tension between the life one is actually living and trying to live up to the words of someone else). Of course, there are always issues that add tension, which leads to resistance, and hence, a sense of struggle - when what one is actually living (one’s lifestyle), one’s friends, and/or companions are not into what one is doing.

If we are struggling to live K’s teachings, perhaps we need to examine the very concept of “living the teachings”. What does it mean? Does it involve an image of what it means to live the teachings? If so it is really the image, that is, something projected by the mind that concerns us, that occupies our energy, is it not?

Is there imitation involved in the idea of living the teachings? Are we trying to make ourselves conform to some pattern of behaviour, that pattern being something we have concluded from reading kK - or reading anyone If this is the case, surely this is not “living the teachings”? That is the subtle acceptance of authority, is it not?

Probably K has made some reference to “living the teachings”, But I doubt if he was advising anyone to conform, to imitate, to try to “become” in any way, but is this what we have been actually doing, in our desire to change ourselves by “living the teachings”? And is it such doing that actually gets in the way of change?

The ‘I’ is comprised of many personas that only exist in thought and memory and they are addictive.
Instead of going forward you have gone backwards by creating yet another persona, the seeker.
By applying K’s teachings one must dismiss the thoughts of ‘I’ and delete the memories of the personas.
This, to ‘I’ and the personas is their removal so they fight to remain.
Your problem is that your ‘I’ does not want to change because for your ‘I’ it’s not change, it’s death.
You (‘I’) want to change … but (“I”) you want to change without changing.

Are K’s ‘teachings’ any different from your daily life?
You see David, unfortunately, we have separated K’s teachings from our daily life have we not?
Is it possible to observe our daily life as it actually is?
Or do we want to ‘change’ it to something else, something more noble, more ‘spiritual’ …you follow?
In other words our observation always has a motive behind it and part of these ‘teachings’ is to become aware of them …the obvious ones and the much more subtle and hidden ones…
So there has to be a certain quality of quietness or space in which the motive can begin to reveal itself no?
This quality of quietness or space can only come into being when there is no desire to change anything.
Does all this make sense so far?

Dear all,
is the question not
How do we know that what K says is truth? If we want to achieve what he says we must take it as truth and already know what he might have meant. But how do we know? First of all everything what K has said and which we read or listen to are just words. And words are never truth. They might reflect something that was truth for K or not. But the words are not truth to us. Otherwise we would not ask for change. We simply do not know if Ks words are reflecting truth or not. We only think his words are truth but it is not a fact for us. Should we therefore not put the conclusion that his words are truth aside and start with the exploration if they are reflecting truth? Should we not start with the not knowing? And the only place to start this exploration would be ourselves.
best wishes, Erik

James, I am not sure if you are responding to my mail or the original questioner, but no matter.

By saying “one must” have you not created a problem? Perhaps an insurmountable problem. How can one dismiss the thoughts of I? What is the entity that can do such dismissing? What is the entity that can “delete the memories”? Is there a controller of thought at all? As you suggest, is it not the attempt at control that creates struggle, conflict, and fundamentally wastes the energy that is needed for the observation of the whole problem?

I feel this is right. What drives the self is its desire for security, for permanence. but how can the self be secure when it is always just on the point of ending, dying? - because the self is actually composed of impermanent thought.

I am wondering what it means to to “apply Krishnamurti’s teachings”? At the moment I can’t make the words mean anything. When K says “you are the world”, can those words be applied to our life? First of all, do we understand what the the words are pointing to? If we do not, how can we apply it? And if we do understand, if we have seen the truth of it, that seeing will have acted, will it not? And then what need is there to apply it?

As long as we are attentive, listening, watching our selves, responsible, sensitive, be aware, be present, not respond from past, not indifferent in our interactions with fellow human beings. All those moments are free of conflict. Those moments can be milli second, second, minutes, an hour, a day, a week, a month , a year and for years.

And all the rest of moments are riddled with conflict, which is a direct result of thought interfefence during our interactions with fellow human beings.

Now why thought interfere in our human relationship interactions? Because not being aware of the thoughts role or place in daily life in physical acts(for a living) or/and psychological acts(takes place in human relationships using thought, conditioning, etc like I am good he is bad, I know he does not know, I am not selfish, he is, I have no ego but he has, I get angry but he is not and so on basically filling the garbage meterial in memory of Brain(recording) for future regular and frequent use, almost all the time), we feel it is normal for us to use thought, even in our human relationships.

Actually every action without the trace of thought in human relationships is the right action.

When one knows life is nothing but human relationships ( and also with nature) without the role of thought, life becomes meaningful or living becomes life.

What is total energy?

Using all faculties of human sensory organs fully at same time is total energy. Meaning, using simultaneously ears, eyes, nose, smell, touch, taste, at the same time. It should not be when eyes are working and ears are not or touch is not etc. One can try this while walking or watching a tree or bird, in human interactions. Full attention to receive direct perception as much as possible. There should not be distraction of one sensory organ while other sensory organs are working. It must be collective action of all sensory organs together at the same time. This would result in different dimension of experience which is beyond the words of description.

Yes, it all makes sense so far, what you all have shared, thanks.