Krishnamurti advocated that self-consciousness, individuality and barriers that separate the “You and I” be dissolved. In K’s personal life, he was trained to do exactly that by the Theosophists so he could become the “vehicle of the World Teacher”. Did K’s personal life alter the teachings throughout his lifespan? Another example is that in his younger years he spoke enthusiastically about love and happiness, not so much in his senior years.
Are you saying that the theosophical training in order to dissolve his self succeeded? That the teaching was thus able to speak through this vessel?
And the early talk of love and happiness, was this before or after the teaching had taken hold?
Apparently so according to Krishnamurti: His Life and Death by Mary Lutyens. In February 1927 K wrote in a letter, “I know with certainty that I am blending into the consciousness of the one Teacher and that he will completely fill me.” Lutyens continued in her book for the year 1927, “K’s own philosophy was at last beginning to emerge, to the consternation of most of those at the gathering, especially members of the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society who were accustomed to being told what to do and what steps they had taken on the Path. He was saying, in effect that the Masters and all other gurus were unnecessary, that everyone had to find truth for himself.”
What is the question ? And where dose the question come from ?
The answers are not important.
If the answers are not important, why did you ask two questions?
Another example of K’s personal life/relationships having an effect on the teachings: " the “before Mary” and “after Mary” pictures of Krishnaji’s life and the reach of his work are so dramatically different that in many ways they seem like the lives and works of two different people."
The question is important!
The conversation between Scott and Mary Zimbalist is interesting, and I don’t doubt that Mary was very helpful to K, but how did her presence in his life change the teaching? Please give some examples of how the teaching became “dramatically different” after Mary.
From the article: “Krishnaji’s life and the presentation of his work changed dramatically because of Mary. Not only did Mary make it possible for Krishnaji to have a much more comfortable lifestyle, but because of Mary, Krishnaji could finally escape the clutches of Rajagopal and company (as Krishnaji called them). In the first instance, this resulted in Krishnaji recovering his copyright and the formation of the Krishnamurti Foundation Trust in England to look after new publications. Soon after, Mary helped start the Krishnamurti Foundation of America. With Mary’s support, Krishnaji’s talks and discussions expanded enormously and his contacts with universities and special interest groups (e.g., psychologist, scientists, etcetera) developed. Mary also carried most of the costs of the legal case against Rajagopal, which resulted in the developments discussed above, but also in the return of Vasanta Vihar to what would become the Krishnamurti Foundation of India, and which became their headquarters.”
So the title of this should be: What bearing did some persons have on the teaching?
What about David Bohm’s curiosity for the teaching?
Did he not open the door for the more expanding of it?
What about Mary Lutyens who, by threatening to withdraw from everything, prevented the publication of the first series of conversations between Bohm and Krishnamurti?
I framed the question around K’s personal life because it included not only his relationships but his aging process. Indeed the introduction of dialogue, and Bohm being a key player, helped expand and change the teachings. As an example (Pre-dialogue) . (June 8, 1932, Ojai Camp Talks): “Now through this intelligent watchfulness there is also the loss of distinction between thought and love. You are accustomed to think of thought and love as apart, and so you make an intellectual path and an emotional path, intellectual action and emotional action. Whereas when you lose all distinction, thought is love, to feel is to think; every thought becomes completed in emotional awareness, and every emotion is wise, rich in thoughtful awareness. This is true harmony in mind and heart….To think is to love and to love is to be supremely intelligent.” Post dialogue, thought seemed to get more demonized.
Krishnamurti was asked by different people at different times (by Mary Lutyens, by Mary Zimbalist, by Pupil Jayakar, by Bohm, among others) whether his teaching had changed in fundamentals since the early days (or at least from the 1930s), and he said that in essence it had not changed, even though the language had significantly altered.
However, he advised people to begin at the end of the teachings and work their way back - suggesting that he was happier about the language he was using towards the end of his life than the language he had employed at the beginning.
In terms of his own process of ‘awakening’, there is an interesting conversation that Krishnamurti had with Bohm in 1975 where they touch on this issue.
There seem to have been several key moments in the early years where Krishnamurti’s process underwent an expedited intensification. These included:
- the three day period of awakening in 1922 (which was followed a few weeks later by the beginning of a strange ongoing physical ‘process’ that lasted for the rest of Krishnamurti’s life, and which he linked to the movement of ‘kundalini’ energy);
- his brother Nitya’s death in 1925; and
- Krishnamurti’s insight in 1929 that “truth is a pathless land”, after which he completely broke away from the Theosophical Society.
In the conversation with Bohm (from 1975), Krishnamurti says that the way he remained with the sorrow of Nitya’s death was deeply significant. He says that he didn’t avoid it, suppress it, escape into belief in reincarnation, etc. He faced “the truth of death” with complete non-resistance. He then goes on (in the conversation) to generalise that
If I don’t escape from suffering, if a human being doesn’t escape from suffering… that very suffering brings about a great energy… The very word ‘suffering’ has its root in ‘passion’… [Therefore] suffering in the field of reality has a meaning in the sense that it can give - if a human doesn’t escape - a certain quality of energy… If he faces that suffering, and doesn’t deceive himself, there is a certain kind of energy.
As Pupul writes in her biography, there were other periods of intensification of this process (particularly during the 60s and the 70s, for instance), but the essence of his teachings - for Krishnamurti - remained unchanged to the end.
Thank you, James, for filling in more of the timeline.
I agree, Viswa. In his younger years he spoke a lot more about love and the kingdom of happiness. I wondered if it was because of his youth or that he was in love. " To think is to love and to love is to be supremely intelligent." What a beautiful expression! In 1932 he was in love (we read years later). The only tenet of Krishnamurti’s I subscribe to is :Find out for yourself; be a light to your self; This forum and discussion groups are great venues for that.
Apparently, Viswa removed his post. It was a good one!