Musings

Members Lounge Area
144

Viswa, there are two main issues I glean from the above.

  1. You are saying that: a) human beings are machines of their own desires; b) will only learn through suffering; so c) there is no need for a teacher (like K) who points out a more intelligent way of living (as such a teacher will not be listened to anyway, because of point a).

Ok. This is a perfectly reasonable view. But there is no-one forcing you or another to listen to someone like K if you don’t want to.

  1. You ask why I have sometimes talked about Buddhism on this forum, when K has questioned the value of such comparisons.

Although K didn’t read religious or philosophical books, he was by nature curious about human history and culture. He was interested in the existence of ancient civilisations like Sumer and Babylon, of discoveries being made about ancient cities like Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, he was curious about what the ancient Egyptians believed, what the Vedic people believed, etc. This doesn’t mean he accepted those beliefs as his own. Similarly when he talked with Buddhists and Hindu scholars, he questioned them about the Buddha, about Nagarjuna, about their beliefs, etc, without accepting those beliefs. He was also interested in what the scientists were saying - the discoveries being made of early human remains, about computer technology, modern surgery, genetic engineering, etc - not in order to accumulate knowledge, but just out of interest.

I too am curious: I see religion as an expression of global human culture, which reveals certain things about humanity’s relationship to the world. And having studied Buddhism to graduate level, having Buddhist friends, etc, I also see some overlap with some things that K has talked about (as well as a great many differences), some of which I have shared here.

145

Krishnamurti in Ommen about two weeks before he disbanded the Order of the Star:

Unless you know the substance of the ‘I’, the purity, the strength of the ‘I’, you are dead to the ‘I’. To discover that resplendent ‘I’, to acquire that calmness, that undisturbable condition, that strength and certainty, you must go through this process of elimination. If the ‘I’ is to take on incorruptibility which is perfection, it cannot in any minute detail be imperfect, because perfection rejects all imperfection. By a process of elimination, rejection, renunciation — or any other words you like to use — you must arrive at that state of mind and heart, where the ‘I’ is calm, clear, pure, determined, energetic and enthusiastic. And when you arrive at that condition, then you can begin to educate the ‘I’. In order to train the mind and the heart in the light of the eternal, you must get rid of all the unessential things. As I said yesterday, the unessential things are caused by fear, and by getting rid of them, you come to the essential, the lasting, which is the ‘I’. It does not mean that you must leave the world, create a monastery, reject the world; but, living in the world, which is the expression of the ‘I’, you must understand the true substance of the ‘I’. And to discover this ‘I’, you must strip it of everything. That is the only direct way.

If you understand what I mean, then your actions, your deeds — because you have found the true ‘I’ — will not bear the fruits of sorrow or create limitation which is sorrow. From that cessation of all disturbance comes the freedom from illusion.

If at any time your mind and your heart are capable of being disturbed, then true comprehension, true understanding of the eternal, ceases. In order not to have the disturbance of the ‘I’, to have a mind and a heart that are pure, that are pliable, calm, strong, resolute, determined, balanced, you must eliminate all the unessential things that will at any period disturb their equilibrium. True understanding of the ‘I’, which is the ‘I’ of every one, comes through detachment from all unessentials. And the unessentials are the product of fear, of limitation, of desire that is binding. You can only free yourself from all illusion, and attain that state of certainty, by the process of elimination.

As long as there is the separation of the ‘I’ from the whole, there is limitation, pain, sorrow, life and death, time, space and illusion.

Because perfection rejects all imperfection, the ‘I’ must take on incorruptibility, to become part of that loveliness, part of the whole which is freedom. And, as the bees await the spring, the delicious flowers, so this is the time for man to discover the ‘I’. At least while you are here, you should concentrate on this one thing, so that you will for yourselves establish that certainty of the essential and reject all unessentials, for that is the pure intelligence which is the quality of the true ‘I’.

Ay carumba! :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

146

This is an interesting extract, and communicates something of the early, still Theosophically-infused language that Krishnamurti used in those days. But as has often been mentioned on the forum, K’s language clearly evolved over time. In this early period (pre-dissolution) K also wrote devotional poetry about a personalised immortal beloved, about an eternal Path that winds its way through a constant series of reincarnations, about the significance of the Masters, etc. So does one simply ignore the fact that for the next 57 or so years K rejected much of this earlier language?

K himself later asked that people start with his last talks and work their way backwards from there, rather than the other way around.

But if we take it that K’s central insight never wavered in essentials, one can see that what he later calls truth, intelligence, love, attention, the mind, etc, he is here calling “I” - the implication being that there is absolutely no egotism in it, no self-conscious sense of ownership, no possessiveness, no identification, no attachment.

Given that this is the case, what value has it to call such intelligence “I”?

Clearly K himself grew to see the contradiction of using such language, and so ceased to talk about “I” in this way.

1 Like
147

Some of my favorite composers had a gorgeous early period in which they were clearly exploring and discovering and a later tamer/duller period in which they were etching their findings in stone and preserving them for posterity. The composers might have said (probably did say) that their later works were more mature and meaningful, that they were groping earlier on before they hit pay dirt. But for (many of) us listeners, the earlier works are more powerful and beautiful.

I don’t know to what extent beauty and truth can be compared, but perhaps there is some merit in paying attention to the things Krishnamurti said in his early days that he later denounced? After all, Krishnamurti was (for me) as much a poet as a purveyor of Truth.

A good question! But only if it’s not taken as a leading question, but an open one.

148

I understand the analogy. It certainly makes sense when thinking about certain musicians and poets (the early Wordsworth, for example, was clearly more creative and daring than the later more conservative Wordsworth). But with Krishnamurti almost the reverse seems to be true. His early writings - such as they are - are often derivative (At the Feet of the Master was probably entirely so). His poetry from the 1920s is interesting, but not particularly radical or engaging. He seems to have come into his own relatively late in life - as his biography attests - and only really matured during his 30s and 40s. The greatest work of his middle life - the famous Notebook - was written between 1961-1962. And - as his discussions with David Bohm in the 1980s shows - he continued to evolve his language up to the very end of his life. So the analogy you are making doesn’t seem to hold in this case.

People are different. While Schopenhauer wrote his great work in his late 20s, Kant didn’t write the books for which he is famous until he was in his 60s and 70s. - Not that I am comparing Krishnamurti to either of them!

Ok, then at it, Rick! - What value for you does it have to call truth or intelligence “I”? What significance does this language help to convey that you feel would be otherwise lost?

149

Unsurprising given his being held semi hostage and fed Theosophy dogma up the wazoo for much of his pliable youth. So his early views are to be taken with a grain (or few) of salt, agreed. But to discount them entirely would be foolish, non?

What value for you does it have to call truth or intelligence “I”?

For me thinking-feeling in terms of I can be grounding and energizing. The all-inclusive Advaitin I, not the ego-I, though that also has value for me.

150

How does this differ in essentials from thinking-feeling in terms of ‘God’ (another word K used from the 40s up until the 70s and then dropped)?

151

Well if you think of both I and God as all-inclusive and leave it at that, they’re pretty much the same, right? Though ‘I’ might feel more directly connected with first personhood than ‘God.’

152

I think the issue is more than simply some people being energised by the word ‘God’ while others are energised by the word ‘I’ (or ‘Self’), right? - The primary issue surely is the nature of this energy being summoned by mere words.

What do people really know of ‘God’? - Nothing.
What do people really know of ‘I’ or ‘Self’ (in the Advaitin sense)? - similarly, nothing.

So there is a great deal of illusion attached to the energy summoned by these words - energy created through association, imagination, projected belief. Such energy might build temples and cathedrals, great sculptures and mosques; it might compose classical scriptures, beautiful music, great artistic works; it might inspire works of piety, mystical experiences, self-sacrifice.

And yet, much like the situation that lead to the financial crisis of 2008, this energy is based on credit rather than on actual funds: it is founded on the chemical rush that comes from the power of words, rather than on the moment by moment perception of truth (which is not a continuous temporal security, not an experience to be stored up and benefitted from, not something that can be domesticated for personal use).

The only energy that the unknown can provide, is the energy that is present in nameless unknowing. So any attachment to a particular verbal formulation of truth must be false.

I may be articulating this strongly, but do you see what I mean?

2 Likes
153

Enter my view on stories:

In story speak, you are saying words are stories that can energize. I agree!

You also say that there is something else, something presumably realer, actual money rather than credit: “the moment by moment perception of truth.” But this is also in the realm of story for me, both the notion of moment to moment perception of truth and of ‘truth’ itself.

I’m not saying all stories have the same ‘reality quotient.’ Some are (I think) realer than others, just like some symbols on a map point to actual real-world territories, and some point to fictions: There be monsters!

Are you kind of clear on what we do and don’t see eye to eye on?

154

Didn’t we reach a point (in a previous discussion) where we provisionally agreed that the metaphor of ‘stories’ (or of a ‘map’) refers to a certain configuration of feelings (or intuitions) that may exist in the mind?

This configuration of feelings (or intuitions) may be more or less correct, more or less accurate, with regards to the actual territory. But even a correct configuration of feelings (or intuitions) is still a map, correct? - it is still something distinct from the actual territory.

And, furthermore, any map, even the best or most accurate, must still be read intelligently (i.e. with sensitive awareness), right?

So it is only when a correct configuration of feelings (or intuitions) - aka the ‘map’ - is ‘read’ by sensitive awareness, that there is a possibility of a break-through into the actuality of truth (the true ‘territory’). - The territory is the “actual money” in this analogy.

But what is this true territory? - what is there, once a break-through has occurred? Mustn’t it transcend the limitations of even the best map?

It may involve feeling, or it may not. It certainly cannot be limited to any finite configuration of feelings (or intuitions) we may have.

For those of us who have not yet ‘read’ the map of our most correct intuitions with our most sensitive awareness, the territory is unknown.

And yet even if ‘read’ in such a way, the territory may remain unknowable.

I don’t know if you have come across the Christian mystics, but this is how they seem to have understood it.

All that the imagination can imagine and the reason conceive and understand in this life is not, and cannot be, a proximate means of union with God. (St. John of the Cross)

If a man will do an inward work…. he must hide himself from all images and forms…. he must come to a forgetfulness and not-knowing. (Meister Eckhart)

Do you see the point these folk are making?

155

Ah, yes, I remember. But like most ideas, unless a variant of it was already woven into my Weltanschauung, it’s pretty much in one ear and out the other! New ideas rarely stick.

This configuration of feelings (or intuitions) may be more or less correct, more or less accurate, with regards to the actual territory. But even a correct configuration of feelings (or intuitions) is still a map, correct? - it is still something distinct from the actual territory.

Ja.

And, furthermore, any map, even the best or most accurate, must still be read intelligently (i.e. with sensitive awareness), right?

Ja.

So it is only when a correct configuration of feelings (or intuitions) - aka the ‘map’ - is ‘read’ by sensitive awareness, that there is a possibility of a break-through into the actuality of truth (the true ‘territory’). - The territory is the “actual money” in this analogy.

It’s a bit far fetched, but groovey, I like it. :slight_smile:

But what is this true territory?

I’d streamline: Is the true territory? I.e. does it truly exist, is it real? Even the most exquisite map might not point to anything real.

All that the imagination can imagine and the reason conceive and understand in this life is not, and cannot be, a proximate means of union with God. (St. John of the Cross)

San Juan, yeah baybey, author of my beloved: The Conditions of a Solitary Bird.

If a man will do an inward work…. he must hide himself from all images and forms…. he must come to a forgetfulness and not-knowing. (Meister Eckhart)

Another of my favorite mystics! Not a fan of Christianity, big fan of Christian mystics (except for the Christ part).

Do you see the point these folk are making?

The Juan quote says to me: Neither imagination nor reason can deliver us unto God. The Eckhart quote says: Effective inner work must be grounded in not-knowing. Both quotes posit that God-truth are not available to us via the known. (Doesn’t mean they’re right, or wrong!)

156

While the poetry of T.S. Eliot is in the air (from the other thread), maybe I can share another extract from the beautiful Four Quartets…

I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope
For hope would be hope for the wrong thing; wait without love,
For love would be love of the wrong thing; there is yet faith
But the faith and the love and the hope are all in the waiting.
Wait without thought, for you are not ready for thought:
So the darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing…

You say I am repeating
Something I have said before. I shall say it again.
Shall I say it again? In order to arrive there,
To arrive where you are, to get from where you are not,
You must go by a way wherein there is no ecstasy.
In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
In order to arrive at what you are not
You must go through the way in which you are not.
And what you do not know is the only thing you know
And what you own is what you do not own
And where you are is where you are not. (East Coker)

157

There it is again!

158

They have directly perceived the limitation of thought.

159

One way of seeing the Jesus story is that of a questioning child, a rebellious youth, and finally an acceptation of “what is” and his example of union or “forgiveness” of original sin (aka knowledge of good & evil) as the death of the self.

1 Like
160

Eliot of course was aware of the tradition of cataphatic Christian mysticism, his words being a kind of meditative reflection on the via negativa of St John and others.

This language, which dates back to Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (late 5th/6th century) - and was continued through the 14th century by the authors of the Theologica Germanica, and, more famously, by the author of The Cloud of Unknowing - is one of divine “darkness”, “ignorance”, “emptiness”, “negation”.

In this tradition, the central requirement for true contemplation is the radical emptying of the mind of all images and ideas - both religious and personal.

For instance, Meister Eckhart (1260-1328 CE) encouraged his listeners to “overleap the worship of thy mental powers” - even negating the concepts of ‘God’, ‘Spirit’ , ‘person’ - so as to recognise a “One” in which we “sink from nothingness to nothingness.”

Or, as Eliot writes above:

“In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.”

Yes. Again, Eliot’s poem picks up this insight well when he writes that
“what you do not know is the only thing you know”. I especially like the line where he says:

Wait without thought, for you are not ready for thought

While one can argue that Eckhart, St John of the Cross, the author of the Cloud of Unknowing, etc, were not consistent in their rejection of images - because, after all, they remained Christians - they went about as far as the orthodoxy of the time allowed, and even further in the case of Eckhart. Eckhart was branded a heretic by the church authorities under Pope John XXII, with his books being suppressed for several centuries.

161

And his torture and crucifixion and resurrection as … ?

162

Tabula rasa. Makes intuitive sense: Empty the receptacle, clean out the cobwebs, and the truth will either flow into the empty space, or reveal itself as having been there all along.

Wait without thought, for you are not ready for thought

Wait without thought, for thought would be thought of the wrong thing. Hope for, love of, thought of the wrong thing, what is this wrong thing?

In the waiting for (truth, salvation, God) or the waiting itself (meditation).

163

The torture etc was the actions of the world around him (there might be some symbolism there - also with the cross - but nothing that’s touched me). The important aspect was his relationship with the phenomenon - was he suffering? What does suffering mean in the face of one’s acceptation of life & death (and other conditioned concepts)?
Resurrection of the self seems inevitable - though probably the self is no longer all that counts.

Surely there is no waiting in meditation??? Nor the holding of concepts like God etc…