re: “nobody got it”,
did a search on google, and came up with the following:
- "I believe the correct statement might be found in the book “Infinite Potential” (by F. David Peat):
"Shortly before his death the Indian teacher had declared that no one had ever truly understood his teaching; no one besides himself had experienced transformation.
"Anyway, this is the one most quoted. had to have been a bummer, to say the least.
"Also found this citation:
“A few days before his death, in a final statement, he emphatically declared that “nobody” among his associates, or the general public, had understood what had happened to him (as the conduit of the teaching), nor had they understood the teaching itself. He added that the “immense energy” operating in his lifetime would be gone with his death, again implying the impossibility of successors. However, he offered hope by stating that people could approach that energy and gain a measure of understanding “…if they live the teachings”. In prior discussions he had compared himself with Thomas Edison, implying that he did the hard work, and now all was needed by others was a flick of the switch. In another instance he talked of Columbus going through an arduous journey to discover the New World, whereas now, it could easily be reached by jet; the ultimate implication being that even if Krishnamurti was in some way “special,” in order to arrive at his level of understanding, others didn’t need to be.”
citation is at: “nobody got it”
One does not have this book, nor the means to purchase the book to check if above source is really in Peat book is correct. It may not be… dunno.
Charley is not K, and only can say that one has approached this energy, or more correctly that this energy approached Charley but in no way like what K lived… One understands that there may have to pass a few hundred years when these Dark Ages have passed that someone like K with the same conduit of energy will come again on this planet… Charley is still on a journey…
Thank you for your work .
Do you logically think that a man who talked for seventy years would deny his work or is that merely a negative propaganda for a well known atheist krishnamurti?
K said that in the next 200 years people will appreciate the teachings.
There could be another reason, [chuckles]… that there weren’t any willing to live the teachings…
You believe he was an atheist, what is your proof that he was an atheist???
We don’t want to speculate at all or truth will be distorted between us( if it hasn’t happened already).
Wow, this guy can read between the lines!
Yes ,that makes sense.
An account of Krishnamurti’s final weeks and days can be found in the third volume - titled, The Open Door - of Mary Lutyens’ biography of K. During his last weeks (spent in Ojai) he continued to deal with problems and questions that surrounded the various foundations, including an ongoing issue with KFI (India) over publications. Because of his physical condition there was a concern from some quarters that he was no longer in a fit state to make decisions on these matters. However, on the 3rd February (he died on the 17th) he held a meeting with various trustees to resolve these publications issues, and said
My brain is very clear. I had a very good—I won’t go into it—I couldn’t sleep last night but marvellous meditation was going on for me
On the 5th February K held another meeting with various trustees, even though his physical condition was acute. During this meeting he said
As long as this body is living … I am still the teacher. K is here as he is on the platform. … I am still the head of everything, the schools, the Foundations … I am still the head of it. I want to make this very, very clear. As long as the body is living K is there. I know it because I have marvellous dreams [i.e. his mediations] all the time—not dreams, whatever happens.
On the morning of the 7th February, K requested to be tape-recorded making a final statement. Scott Forbes (who was looking after K) was concerned that this statement would create confusion or dismay among those interested in K, but K told him categorically that he had “not right to interfere” in the matter. Here is the statement as it is recorded in Lutyens’ book:
I was telling them this morning—for seventy years that super energy—no—that immense energy, immense intelligence, has been using this body. I don’t think people realise what tremendous energy and intelligence went through this body—there’s twelve-cylinder engine. And for seventy years—was a pretty long time—and now the body can’t stand any more. Nobody, unless the body has been prepared, very carefully, protected and so on—nobody can understand what went through this body. Nobody. Don’t anybody pretend. Nobody. I repeat this: nobody amongst us or the public, know what went on. I know they don’t. And now after seventy years it has come to an end. Not that that intelligence and energy—it’s somewhat here, every day, and especially at night. And after seventy years the body can’t stand it—can’t stand any more. It can’t. The Indians have a lot of damned superstitions about this—that you will and the body goes—and all that kind of nonsense. You won’t find another body like this, or that supreme intelligence operating in a body for many hundred years. You won’t see it again. When he goes, it goes. There is no consciousness left behind of that consciousness, of that state. They’ll all pretend or try to imagine they can get into touch with that. Perhaps they will somewhat if they live the teachings. But nobody has done it. Nobody. And so that’s that.
This was K’s last official statement, and he passed away 10 days later.
Quite an extraordinary statement that is. And makes a lot of sense too. Given that lot of charlatans or even deluded people who feel they have got it abound in K circles.
It does seem most people who think they have got it have got it only at an intellectual level. And from the above statement perhaps an encountering of immense energies, through passive awareness, is also essential to actually GET IT as per K.
If you are interested, the Columbus analogy occurred during a series of 12 discussions between K and David Bohm in 1975 (held at Brockwood Park). They discuss the meaning of the analogy several times, but the first time it comes up (as far as I can remember) is in their 6th discussion (Perceiving without the perceiver), the audio of which can be found on Youtube (where one can listen to it for free).
The specific part of the dialogue where the analogy occurs is part of a discussion that begins part way through the audio (at 30 mins 50 secs) when Bohm asks K some questions about the (then) recently published first volume of Mary Lutyens’ biography, including when (or if) a moment of transformation occurred, K’s process, “kundalini” energy, and the importance of meeting one’s suffering.
The Columbus analogy itself comes up during this more ‘personal’ passage of dialogue at 48 mins 30 secs, at 52 mins 20 secs; and then again (after a more ‘philosophical’ passage of enquiry concerning the effect of truth on the movement of thought) at 1 hr 32 mins 30 secs.
I’d like to know how this makes sense - what’s the story you (and @Drax) are seeing?
Personally, I am always reticent to give my interpretation, as its completely outrageous. (ie unscientific, with ghosts and spiritual energies and possesion etc)
Superstition is nothing but belief. Even disbelief is a belief, isn’t it. Why dismiss summarily what we don’t understand.
If you read the notes of Mary Zimbalist about K( even his biographies), a completely different facet of K is revealed, replete with mystical connotations , mysterious beings and even a other worldly committee which oversees his teachings etc,
I think understanding this mystical element of K is essential to get a better understanding of his teachings which otherwise degenerate to dry intellectual arguments as happens so often.
By saying I don’t like to speak of what I don’t even have a model for - not understanding what I have not the slightest understanding of - I don’t feel like I’m dismissing anything.
On the other hand, I do think it can be useful to dismiss what I do understand (eg. chairs, hats and subatomic particles etc) as merely conceptual models.
PS - I also don’t see how ghosts and ghoulies help us understand the Teaching better
PPS - Actually, the idea that the Teaching has some “independant” identity, would be a weakness from the point of view of “freedom of intelligence” - meaning that true union with death/the void (parinirvana/dissipation of identity) has somehow not been achieved.
A good thing really which means we should not venerate every word of the K authority and instead be alert for errors.
By labelling something as outrageous haven’t you already rejected anything beyond your understanding as non existent?
It is like someone,says I believe in God. Other says I don’t believe in God it is outrageous and unscientific. Is there any difference between the two? Both have closed their minds.
PS… Mystical elements is not just about ghosts and ghoulies, but also about the operation of the immense intelligence/ energies through the body which causes the mutation.
PPS… It is not a question of veneration of every word of K but being open to every word of his without agreeing or disagreeing.
Yes - Freedom from the known is what is being explored - but we (Drax and macdougdoug) might well be opposing 2 worldviews (claims and beliefs) that might be interesting to explore (if only to be free of them) :
Question : do we want some of that mutation?
I am afraid I have no supporting or opposing world view in this. All I am saying is an understanding of the teachings and consequently ourselves does not exclude the element of mysticism in his teachings. It rather complements.
Yes - I follow what you are saying. I’m asking whether you want to look at our ideas about mysticism - what we think the words mean - their hold on us.
See how falsehood generates in the internet. K talked about that energy he never ,never said that nobody "got " the teachings.
A circular journey…