Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: radams@cerritos.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Conditioning
Message-ID: <1991May16.022212.4000@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 16 May 91 02:22:12 GMT
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Cerritos College, Norwalk CA
Lines: 57
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov

In response to another poster johnw (johnw@farside.eng.r) writes:
>Thanks for your response. From the thread of your argument I presume you
>are fan of J. Krishnamurti? He was an interesting fellow no doubt, but
>his description of life, the mind, and how to attain freedom, etc. was
>actually quite idiosyncratic and considerably different from some of his
>more illustrious and (if I may say so) more enlightened Indian predecessors.
>
>I might mention Shankara and Buddha as the most notable of the ancients, and
>as for a contemporary I would propose the greatest and most famous of all
>gurus of the modern day India: Sri Ramana Maharshi.
>
>Krishnamurti's opinion that thought enslaves us, and that we are bound
>by memory, etc. was a peculiar notion of his. I do not think he had
>a clear understanding of the true nature of man, and consequently concocted
>all kinds of wild theories about suffering, conditioning, etc. Also his
>life long emphasis on sorrow, the futility of "this miserable world", etc.,
>show that he was not a man established in the bliss and freedom of
>enlightenment. If you compare this with the life of Ramana Maharshi, the
>difference is obvious. Ramana did not ever advocate that beings are bound,
>limited, conditioned. Quite the reverse. His whole life he constantly
>stated that we are inherently free, and always have been.
>
>To focus on thought, memory, and quitening the mind as Krishnamurti does
>just shows that he conceived freedom to be at the level of the mind. Ramana
>Maharshi would have said, "Leave the mind alone, realize the Self."
>
>
johnw

	I agree with most of what you say, in fact, I consider this post
to be a very enlightening comparison between Krishnamurti (who has always
interested me and bothered me at the same time) and some great Indian
masters such as Sri Ramana Maharshi who I have also read alot of.  You
put the finger on (IMHO) the shortcomings of Krishnamurti's teachings.
However, I must say that I think that K was a great man and I don't think
he was far from self-realization and may have had some glimpes of it in
his life.  His idea of being keenly attentive to everything (the flame of
attention) and his ideas on meditation were not far from the mindfulness
techniques of other systems and the idea of just being awake and attentive
that vedanta might encourage.  But after reading K, I would often be
somewhat troubled in trying to synthesise what he says with the great
masters of India past and present, but after reading Ramana Maharshi,
I always feel inspired and ready to continue with my own path 
(Self-Realization Fellowship) even though its not, on the superficial level,
the same as the atma-vichara advocated by Maharshi.  So I think the higher
the realization of someone, the more inspiring the effect on one who is
exposed to that someone (and the less troubled you are too!).


	Roger Adams

	radams@cerritos.edu               To those in whom love dwells,
	Cerritos College                  the whole world is one family.
	11110 Alondra Blvd                             A Hindu Proverb
        Norwalk, California 90650
	USA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------