Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news From: John Wheeler Subject: Re: J. Krishnamurti Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 18:08:35 GMT Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov Organization: Ready Systems Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov Message-ID: <1991Jun14.180835.8474@nas.nasa.gov> Lines: 139 ****** Dinesh, please post my repsonse to Sitanshu regarding Krisnamurti. Thank you. ********* In Article 134 of soc.religion.eastern, Sitanshu Kumar wrote: >> Sitanshu **johnw >>...Krishnamurti vehemenently attacked the idea of gurudom... **This was one of Krishnamurti's pet peeves; yet, as far as I can tell Buddha, Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, the Ch'an masters, Tibetan masters, Christ, etc., all (to the great delight of those associated with them) functioned as gurus. All of the above were undoubtedly established in highest spiritual realization and possessed perfect insight into the nature of life. Isn't it funny how they didn't "vehemently attack" the idea of a guru? (Many of them had gurus, too!) >>It is one thing to say that one has not understood what K is saying(if >>one has humility any one can understand) and quite another to say he is >>wrong out of frustation.. **Another possibility is that Krishnamurti had some erroneous views about the nature of life and spirituality. One must be open the logical possibility that he was wrong; after all, you aren't claiming he is an unfallible authority, right? >> 1. Choiceless awareness. >> >> An individual(here the word is a metaphor) of all the thoughts that arise >> in conciousness. At first it can be done by following each thought by >> another(metaphor) thought. After some close observation thought becomes >> aware of itself (first time reader may not understand this readily). >> Awareness of thought as it moves leads to the emptying of the content >> of conciousness ( not of factual memory, but psychological memory) and >> the begining of meditation. ** The first two sentences appear garbled and make no sense as written. Perhaps you could clarify. The third sentence ("thought becomes aware of itself") is illogical. Thought is by definition an object; one object cannot be aware of another. Sentence four does not appear to correlate with experience. As far as I can observe, thoughts arise and pass of themselves without leaving any content. This happens without any special effort. Also, what's the significance whether consciousness is empty or full, or partially full? The notion seems to be that our bondage is caused by the presence of some unwanted thoughts that obscure our freedom, and that in order to be free we need to get rid of these thoughts by a special technique called "choiceless awareness." Any Ch'an master would have laughed himself silly over the idea. The underlying idea is that we are inherently bound or limited by thought. This is simply a misunderstanding of the facts. This is why Hui Neng, himself a fully enlightened Buddha, repudiated all forms of watching the mind, purifying the contents of thought, and excessive sitting in the attempt to do such things. Why? Because all such practices are based on the erroneous notion that we are bound to begin with. With this built-in limitation, how can they succeed? This is why zazen, at least as it is usually conceived, is also unproductive. One more point. The distinction between "factual" and "psychological" memory seems a bit arbitrary to me. How do you distinguish between them and how does this relate to freedom? >>2. Effortlessness. >> >> At no point one should actively(by using thought) try to do anything, >> except watch . There must be no conformity at all to a set of words >> spoken words. Of course one should not conforn to the words written >> above, e.i. of trying to be effortless. **This is rather humorous and gets one into an infinite regression. "Don't conform to what I say, and don't conform to the fact that I told you not to conform," etc. At the risk of sounding rather abrupt, let me say I think the practice of "watching" thoughts is totally useless and has no spiritual value whatsoever. I know that every Buddha-come-lately and his brother says "watch thought," but it is a mistaken notion and does not lead to freedom, in my opinion. Freedom is not at the level of thought and has nothing to do with the mind at all. Whenever I see a teacher who is concerned with watching thought, stilling the mind, holding to one thought, etc. I always take this to be a sign they have not understood the nature of freedom. True masters invariably point directly to man's inherent freedom and do not rely on mental techniques, methods, practices, etc. Hui Neng referred to the practice of watching the mind as a "disease." For those who were overly concerned with the mind and imagined it to be an obstacle, Ramana Maharshi used to say (humorously), "Try to find the mind; you will find it does not exist. That's the way to 'overcome' it." Both masters mentioned above invariable pointed to our real nature which is by nature ever-free. This was one of Krishnamurti's biggest failings: the fact that he viewed the mind as an obstacle that needed to be overcome by a technique (i.e. "choiceless awareness"). He missed the simple, yet profound, fact that from the beginning we have always been free. >>3. Compassion or Love. >> >> This is the most difficult to enumerate. Without this flower one can not >> walk a step on the so called spiritual journey. Vaguley it is the utmost >> concern for the well being ( metaphor) of everything. >> **I agree! Although I don't think it's that "difficult to enumerate" or "vague," for that matter. >> End Krisnamurti's teachings. (core) >> >> I have also come to know that some of the teachers pretend to be able to >> grade others. What an ultimate hypocrisy and confusion. To attempt to >> infuse measure in to non measure is absolutely illogical business.( it >> can logically be shown by the author in case someone really wants to >> know) This Idea is rampant in Christianity( with Mr Christ at the top) >> and exist in hinduism and Bhuddism though to a much lesser extent. How >> doea any one else know how realized the other is??? It defies all >> logic. First be completely logical and then go beyond it. And what >> is the need to complile a who's who?? One wonders if this stems >> from one own self of inadeqacy of these teachers and followers?? **I think, with a little common sense, it is easy to evaluate the level of realization of those we meet, including famous teachers. This is a valuable and worthwhile exercise for a spritual seeker. It encourages us to be clear about our views of spirituality and the various forms of practice we choose to use to realize our goals. The idea that it is impossible to tell where others stand spiritually is not correct. You must use common sense and look at what they believe and how they live their lives and you can get some idea of their level of insight into life. Also, can't you tell whether someone is happy or sad? Confused or at peace? It is not that hard is it? P.S. Don't take my comments as anything personal. They are simply my own views on the matter. As those who have read some of my earlier postings know, I was once a big Krishnamurti fan myself. I read his books, saw him speak, etc. He was a nice enough old man, I guess. A little on the serious side, I would say, and loved to listen to himself talk, but other than that, he seemed decent enough for an intellectual philosopher.