The fallacy of " krishnamurti said at the end of his life that nobody got it"

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.

True . It may only be delusional to say one gets it . There’s something always missing and unknown in a much deeper level.

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.

Totally agree with this.

Dan: As I see it it takes one kind of energy to hate and another to see the ‘hater’. The self is the hater and self knowledge, is watching the hater without judgement. Patricia put it well, can we watch the movement of the self and not the movement of the ‘other’?

The hater watches the movement of the ‘other’. The hater criticizes, judges, the movement of the ‘other’. Self knowledge is the watching of the hater reacting, hating, judging the ‘other’.

Is it a different energy? The ‘hating’ comes effortlessly,

the watching of it ‘choicelessly’ , not so.

1 Like

I just wanted to make a limited point wrt the topic of the thread. Perhaps some other time.

Internet can be a corrupted place to learn from…

Okay - I’ll just address something you said earlier then :

If something is outrageous or misunderstood, this does not mean it does not exist.
So when I say that I find my own beliefs outrageous, because they are claims about stuff I do not understand - this is merely a statement about belief.

One claims to have knowledge about the unknowable, and the other doesn’t. Whether they are open to seeing the fallacy in their reasoning, is not apparent.

Usually when a term outrageous, unscientific etc is used it is associated with bizarre, incredulous etc. Which indicates a summary rejection based on one’s conditioning. An open mind would neither accept not reject it but be willing to examine the phenomenon.

One claims not knowledge but belief of unknowable and the other dismisses the existence of unknowable. Same to same.

Not sure if its even slightly similar.
Please consider the following :
I claim that something that I do not understand and have no way of investigating, exists (a mysterious unknown flurblevork, for example) - I believe in Flurblevorks (a sort of multidimensional glurble-wave that appears when no ones looking in subtheta orbits around gas giants, in a different multiverse from ours)

You don’t believe in Flurblevorks (you don’t claim that they do not exist - just that you are not convinced, have no reason to believe that Flurblevorks exist)

One person believes in something unknowable, for no reason. The other doesn’t believe in something unfalsifiable without reason.
These might actually be opposites - am I making sense?

What is “IT”?
In English as far as I know “it” refers to something. See how foolish it would be if K started a session by saying has anybody got the teachings yet? :slight_smile:

1 Like

Believers always have a reason for believing, as do skeptics for not trusting belief.

For the insecure mind, belief is relief from uncertainty. For the open mind, belief is provisional, tentative, at best.

1 Like

In the sense that fear is a reason - conditioning, habit etc. are reasons for why we might do something.
I was trying to inquire into whether the reasons were reasonable - as in rational. Does the belief make sense at least? Does anything indicate that it might at least have a slight possibility of having some basis in reality (outside of being a vague concept in my mind)?

Ok. I will try to put it in a simpler manner.

A firmly says there is Flurblevorks
B thunders…I don’t believe in Flurblevorks, it is outrageous, there is no Flurblevorks.
C is not sure. Says I don’t know, let’s see.

So who has the closed insular mind and who has the open mind which has doubt and can discover something new.

Thank you Drax - C looks like they’ve got the open mind.

That doesn’t have anything to do with our previous discussion. We were simply saying the ‘it’ is far comprehensible for the human mind …doesn’t have anything to do with starting a teaching and not the way to start a teaching either .

here is something from David Bohm about “IT”.


Words and their meanings are never more than abstractions, which cannot substitute for that to which they refer n(e.g. using the word for “dinner” and thinking about what it means to us cannot provide the kind of nourishment that comes from actually eating a meal ). Moreover, words cannot abstract all that is to be known about any given thing.
Indeed, they do not even abstract all that is essential to the function of that thing
(e.g. the word “chair” abstracts what is essential for the function of supporting a person who sits on it,
but not what is essential to its functioning at the atomic or nuclear level).
So, it is necessary to recognize that all language has essentially negative and partial relationship to that to which it refers.
A. Korsybski has put this relationship very succinctly in the assertion: “ Whatever we say it is, it isn’t .”

This statement is not a metaphysical assertion about the basic nature of “ what is.“
Rather, it is a very deep challenge to the entire structure of our communications,
both external and internal ( which latter are called “thought”).

To understand this challenge, let us begin with the fact: “ We are always talking about it “
( “ It “ refers to anything whatsoever). When we read Korsybski’s statement, our first response is to see that we have already begun to say something about “it” (whatever “it” may happen to be).
And than, noticing that “it” is not what we say, and that what we say is at most incomplete abstraction even from what is to be known, we assume that “it” must be something else, as well as something more.
But “something else” and “something more” are also what we say “it” is.
As we do this for a while , we begin to be struck by the absurdity of the whole procedure.
For whatever we say it is it isn’t.

What is the appropriate response to such situation ?
Evidently, one has to stop saying anything at all, not merely outwardly, but also inwardly.
It is suggested here that if all the “chatter” of thought can really stop, then something new can happen.
But even to say this much may be going too far.
For if this means that “it” is will be something new, “ then the novelty that we say “it” is will be what “it” is not.
The paradox with which the reader has to be left is
“ What is it when there is no saying at all, neither outwardly nor inwardly ?”

So simple and to the point and yet one realizes " this are only the words "

Dr Bohm makes “it” more complected. We know the word is never the thing and words are mere symbols. (By “we” I mean those who are somewhat familiar with the teachings).

Charley is not on a circular journey, she is on a spiral journey. I am on a circular journey.

You may be better off. You could be spiraling down.