Hi, I never met him personally but both my parents met K in Rome in the 60s. Not sure what you would like to know about him that is not in his books already (or even in the talks) but I if I can be of any help …
Teulada, yes not much you can share that is not already in the books. Your parents were lucky to have met Krishnamurti in the 60’s and lucky for you that you became familiar with him because of your parents.
To be anchored in K’s teaching is to have made him your authority.
Krishnamurti deplored gurus and denied being one.
Self-inquiry needs no guru.
1 Like
Krishnamurti essential discovery was that the observer is the observed. The bulk of his teaching is devoted to elucidating the sorrow that follows on from that fundamental error. Given that base premise, blindly “obeying” (or being “anchored in”) either Krishnamurti or his teaching is more perversion of judgement by authority.
It may be wholly unrelated but quantum physics has a similar principle:
The physicist Pascual Jordan, who worked with quantum guru Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in the 1920s, put it like this: “observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position.” In other words, Jordan said, "we ourselves produce the results of measurements.
4 Likes
In the article by Asit Chandmal that Viswa linked too (which set off this recent tangent), Krishnamurti doesn’t tell Asit to be anchored in the teachings - he tells him to be anchored in “the other”.
As far as I understand it, that’s the equivalent of him saying: be anchored in the truth (which is not dependent on K or on his teachings). In the same passage K says to Asit that to have “touched” the truth (“the other”) and yet not be “anchored” in it will destroy the mind.
“If you have touched the other and are not anchored in it, you will go to pieces”
2 Likes
Of what value is such a statement? Other than to generate mental speculation and stimulate imagination? What do we know of the other?
Listen, someone comes along and says that he has discovered firsthand that the observer is the observed. And not only that but generously takes upon himself the enormous burden of explaining the rationale behind this statement. How do I receive that? Either I dismiss it out of hand as fanciful or I find the explanation sufficiently rational that I now consider the possibility of there being something to it. For if there is any truth to it, the implication is enormous. Now how do I go about finding out for myself what is going on in consciousness? The penultimate problem. What to do when the entire movement of my mind is the thing needing to be scrutinized? How to look at the activity of anchoring from a vantage point of no anchor? I really don’t know. Do you? But then again, it isn’t about knowing, is it? Not knowing something in particular, More about understanding knowing I would say. To begin with anyway.
Note to the OP: Apologies for taking your thread off course. I will stop here.
Of course and then we see what we do with that.
I think the word “anchored” is used in the sense of having a sound footing in the world, effortlessly. Similarly the word truth is not meant to refer to a motive or an action, but speaks of a true, straightforward, way of living, naturally. There is a dangerous sense we give to the word freedom, meaning do anything we want, when we want, and that my actions are necessary. This is the fragmented way of thinking that we call civilization, and with what we compare our thinking.
No problem Emile, you did no such thing. All inquiry and dialogue is welcome here. What you shared, contributed is welcome and please continue if moved. Also, have you not noticed even in Krishnamurti dialogues when he was alive and participating in them, they were all over the place, they didnt stick to one thing and went off course too. Its all good.
This reminds me, Dan, of that tired joke K told on more than one occasion. Something along the lines of two friends out for a walk happening upon the truth. One bends down and picks it up and the other asks what he is going to do with it. Organize it, the friend says. I guess belief is how we absorb what we have failed to understand.
Thanks for that, David. The only dialogue I have ever been to (not with Krishnamurti) was rather conflictual. Have you ever noticed how extraordinarily difficult it is to be in conflict and yet remain vibrantly still, to not censor or control it, to not accept or refute it, to just let it be?
1 Like
Emile - perhaps you didn’t see the context of the statement in the above thread? If you did, I think you would be less scandalised:
DavidS was asking if anyone who has met K could speak a little bit about their experience of meeting him. Those who met K, etc (the title of this thread).
Viswa, who is himself extremely skeptical of Krishnamurti (because he follows a devotional path involving Krishna and reading scriptures) posted a link to an interview/article by a close friend of K’s (Asit Chandmal, who had known K since he - Asit - was a teenager), in which K had told Asit not to be anchored in K.
Viswa’s intention in doing this was clearly to sow doubts in DavidS about the value of being too interested in K (the man). But because Viswa neglected to cite the other thing that K told Asit - which was to be anchored in “the other” - it led to speculation on the thread that maybe K had intended Asit to be “anchored” in the teachings.
As Inquiry pointed out, to be anchored in K (the man) or in K’s teachings runs counter to what K taught - which was to be a light to oneself, and to reject all spiritual authority.
To correct the basic confusion created by an incomplete account of K’s conversation with Asit Chandmal, I mentioned that K had not said that Asit ought to be anchored in the teachings, but that he must be anchored in “the other”.
Now, what K meant by “the other” is a different conversation. In his journals we know that “the other” - for K - often had mystical connotations; and Asit Chandmal - as a friend (or nephew?) of Pupul Jayaker - was one of a small number of people in India who had witnessed directly the more mystical or religious side of K. So, in that sense, perhaps that is what K meant by saying that Asit had “touched the other”. He was therefore encouraging Asit to be anchored in that mystery that he had already “touched”.
Elsewhere K often said that truth can be poisonous to those who do not live it out - and this seems to have been the implication of K warning Asit that to have “touched the other” yet not be “anchored” in it could be destructive.
3 Likes
Please I apologize for saying “Anchoring” to the “teachings” and not on K’s personal life (or) the other - and for bringing chaos in this dialogue.
Here why I said Anchoring on the ‘teachings’ is - The teachings I felt is same as “the other (or) Truth (or) Intelligence”. I went against K - doubting/skepticing about K’s personal life - may be caught in self. But at the time of delivering the teachings - I always felt that - It flows from the other.
Words - which flow not from thoughts - like the teachings - is personally for me is same as the other.
So,
I’m Sorry.
James, nicely stated and summarized. As I shared before, I think this discussion is good and is all related to those who met Krishnamurti. Asit met Krishnamurti and highlights a important point, not to anchor in Krishnamurti the man, not to be dependent on him, for he is going away. However, to anchor in the teachings or to truth, that is another question that some of you have discussed, gone into. Some say dont even anchor into the teachings, and only to truth. And others say the teachings are truth. To me, it is a intuitive thing, a feeling, what is truth and what is worth latching onto or anchoring in. For me, I am content with truth being synomous with the teachings, but each person has to find their own answer. Feel free to discuss or dig deeper into this if it interests you.
3 Likes
Viswa, please dont apologize, what you are bringing here is good inquiry, and is helpful. Thank you for your contributions.
2 Likes
Not scandalized at all James. Good conversation this. Thanks to DavidS for starting this thread.
As both you and Inquiry hinted at above, the greatest disservice we can do to K is to accept what he is saying at face value, to make him into a spiritual authority. As he himself once said, “For me this is fact, for you it’s theory.” Our laboratory is relationship. And that is messy. Can’t let that deter us.
With regard to his personal acquaintances, I imagine that must have been something. He is reputed to have said once with regard to the trustees I believe, something to the effect that it was like getting too close to the sun.
1 Like
Yes, Emile, good points. Of course Krishnamurti didnt want to be accepted as a spiritual authority, he said that in every talk. However, many still look to him as a authority in such matters. It is up to us not to turn him into one and to question everything he says, which I do by the way. I think that is the only healthy way to approach him and his teachings.
The teachings, even if he says the words are not the teachings, he went to a great effort to ensure that the words last, there is even a archive in Ojai California for this purpose, the building is fire proof as much as possible I believe, so that the so called teachings survive.
2 Likes
Pondering this brings momentary silence…the “other”?
1 Like
I had asked earlier if anyone has read any of these three books? I received no answers regarding these books, so is it safe to assume that no one on here has read any of these?
Has anyone read Mary Zimbalists Unfinished Memoir?
Mark Lees World Teacher?
Michael Mendizzas Unconditionally free?
I then would like to ask if nobody has read these, do they still read Krishnamurti books? What new book would interest them to buy it and read it, or only you read old Krishnamurti books?
1 Like