J.Krishnamurti

[Mani_Chennai]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

It needs deep meditation and a real Guru to show how to understand things and realize the futility, otherwise it is s wishful thinking and ideal Philosophy. But if you have achieved them then it is good for you and about 1% of enlightened people like you. he majority are still struggling based on the discussions that is taking place here. Jagan mithya is a philosophical idea and even Shankara our Guru could not let go of his mother and was present when she was in her death bed. Did he not realize futility or acted as a normal human being for a short while (this is the story we hear).? So, when one is old, all these philosophical ideas may make sense (if at all), otherwise it is of no use.

That is why we lament about the current generation, though we are the last generation.

That is why Krishna says to Arjuna do your Karma (Sankya) and dedicate it to me, but philosophical way is too difficult to follow. But what do I know?

 

[Iyest]

If that much understanding is there, no one will ask these questions too. It is just a trial

Understanding is not an idea or philosophy. It is realizing and acting in daily life. Many had intellectual understanding and continued to ask these questions.

 

[Iyest]

It needs deep meditation and a real Guru to show how to understand things and realize the futility, otherwise it is s wishful thinking and ideal Philosophy. But if you have achieved them then it is good for you and about 1% of enlightened people like you.

Assumptions are best avoided.

 

[Iyest]

Question: You speak about wearing down the wall of separation between the individual consciousness and that pure being which the individual is trying to realise. Does this mean that, when totality is realised, the individual, as a unit of consciousness in totality, ceases to remember his efforts towards that attainment, and the loved ones of his separated existence?

KRISHNAMURTI: Surely that question is put, if I may suggest it, in a wrong manner. You are again looking at that which is totality, from the individual point of view. When you become the totality, all things exist in you the living and the dead. There is no question of separation. The question of separation only arises when you, as an individual, are self conscious, are in limitation. When you are united with life, there is no longer a question of birth and death, of separation, pain, effort you are everything, you have become that totality. These questions arise because you are looking at life with a finite mind, always from the personal point of view, with the desire to cling to this separateness, afraid to lose those whom you love; whereas, if you regard love as its own eternity, irrespective of persons, then, in that, all persons are included. It is all inclusive, not knowing separation.

- 1930.

 

[Iyest]

Truth to me is life, the life of everything, from the highest to the lowest, both animate and inanimate. Though life may express itself in a tree, in a man, in a flower, in a bird on the wing, though the expressions of life may be divided, yet life itself has no division. When you have discovered that life within yourself, when you are united to that life, you will know that it has no special facet, that it is not many sided. It is the totality, the consummation of all experiences, of all facets.

-1930.

 

[Iyest]

If you pass on through the meadows with their thousand flowers of every color imaginable, from bright red to yellow and purple, and their bright green grass washed clean by last night’s rain, rich and verdant–again without a single movement of the machinery of thought–then you will know what love is. To look at the blue sky, the high full-blown clouds, the green hills with their clear lines against the sky, the rich grass and the fading flower–to look without a word of yesterday; then, when the mind is completely quiet, silent, undisturbed by any thought, when the observer is completely absent–then there is unity. Not that you are united with the flower, or with the cloud, or with those sweeping hills; rather there is a feeling of complete non-being in which the division between you and another ceases.

The woman carrying those provisions which she bought in the market, the big black Alsatian dog, the two children playing with the ball–if you can look at all these without a word, without a measure, without any association, then the quarrel between you and another ceases. This state, without the word, without thought, is the expanse of mind that has no boundaries, no frontiers within which the I and the not-I can exist.

Don’t think this is imagination, or some flight of fancy, or some desired mystical experience; it is not. It is as actual as the bee on that flower or the little girl on her bicycle or the man going up a ladder to paint the house–the whole conflict of the mind in its separation has come to an end. You look without the look of the observer, you look without the value of the word and the measurement of yesterday. The look of love is different from the look of thought. The one leads in a direction where thought cannot follow, and the other leads to separation, conflict, and sorrow. From this sorrow, you cannot go to the other. The distance between the two is made by thought, and thought cannot by any stride reach the other.

As you walk back by the little farmhouses, the meadows, and the railway line, you will see that yesterday has come to an end: life begins where thought ends.

- From, The Only Revolution

 

[Iyest]

Question: Why do you say "Life is creation" instead of "Life is creative"? Is not creation the thing formed, and is not life the principle of that formation?

KRISHNAMURTI: To me, life is both the creator and the created, both the subject and the object, both the unmanifested and the manifested. From the point of view of the totality of life there is neither object nor subject. That in which all individuality, all separateness exists, cannot be aware of object and subject. It is everything. It is not aware of the thing created apart from itself. The man who is separate knows the subject and the object; but that which is both object and subject cannot be aware of either object or subject.

-1930

 

[Iyest]

Question: My desire is to be always with you. I have consciously suppressed it and unconsciously repressed it. How may I learn to control it?

KRISHNAMURTI: I think this ought to be put into poetry! Control what? The desire to be with someone? When you make your love personal, there is sorrow, there is pain, struggle, limitation imposed on that eternity which is Love itself. While you are separate, and know that separation, sorrow awaits you. This thing which embodies me, the "I", dies, and if you rely on that, there is sorrow. But if you realise the life itself, which is embodied in everything, in every human being, and love that life, then the change of forms, the change of manifestations, of expressions, will not entangle you in their sorrow.

-1930

 

[usaiyer]

Jk 's ideas are they his philosophy or are spiritual inferences.
They seem to be bordering on both. His outpourings are they the result of deep reflection or due to divine grace?
What are his views on Self realization?
Baghavan Ramana,is supposed to be a manifestation of Lord
Karthikeya.
Is there any such association of ideas with J.krishnamurti.?

 

[Iyest]

Jk 's ideas are they his philosophy or are spiritual inferences.
They seem to be bordering on both. His outpourings are they the result of deep reflection or due to divine grace?
What are his views on Self realization?
Baghavan Ramana,is supposed to be a manifestation of Lord
Karthikeya.
Is there any such association of ideas with J.krishnamurti.?

Dear usaiyer sir, I generally avoid discussing individuals especially in a public forum. You can discern my general feeling when I post on Ramana Maharshi and Krishnamurti. Some of the questions you have asked were also raised nearly a century ago. Krishnamurti's answers are self explanatory and you can come to your own conclusions. I will post a few of those passages.

 

[Iyest]

Truth is not of persons; it is of no class; it does not belong to a set of people who can interpret it; it does not belong to the chosen few who can transmit that knowledge to others. Truth, and its attainment, is purely individual and it has nothing to do with any person. It has lately been the fashion‑‑especially among Theosophists, who are, I suppose, more complicated than others‑to say that the personality of Krishnamurti is getting in the way of the clear enunciation of truth. As I said, it is not my intention to discuss this matter, not because I am not capable of it, but because it is absolutely valueless. It is for you to judge for yourselves; not merely to accept what you are taught, to be told who is speaking and who is not speaking. Surely, it is worthier, greater, nobler to think for oneself and then act, whatever the consequences may be. Because when you have that capacity to think for yourselves, you are living, you are in contact with life, you are in love with life. The moment you put that aside and allow yourselves to be utilised by another, you are betraying the very thing for which you are seeking. So it is a grave matter that you should examine what I say, forgetting your complications, your childish inventions, if I may say so, as to who is speaking and who is not speaking, because it is of very little value. None can know except yourselves. Do not listen to anyone but only to your own minds and to your own hearts, for there lies greater wisdom than in all the prophets. What you think and the consequences of your actions born out of thought have a greater value, a greater strength, a greater immensity than to obey and follow blindly, even to follow openly, anyone. In spiritual matters there is no Christ nor Buddha except yourselves. For it is the self that must be purified and ennobled and set free in the individual, and in giving that freedom to the self lies liberation and eternal happiness without variation.

-Adayar, 1929

 

[Iyest]

In the search for the truth there are neither prophets nor seers, sacred books nor ceremonies, religions, Christs nor Buddhas. There is only the self, and in purifying that self, in liberating that self, lies the freedom of the self. If you put anything in comparison beside it, the self must deny all things to attain. It cannot take comfort in the shelter of other people's authorities, other people's wisdom. Of what value is it to you if I am happy and you are unhappy? Of what value is it if I am surfeited and you are hungry? Of what value is it that others have attained if you have not attained? Of what value is it to worship another if you are struggling? Worship, piety will only lead to forgetfulness of the self, to the domination, to the repression of the self, and the self can only attain greatness by its growth, by its fulfilment, by its fructifying contact with life.

-Adayar, 1929

 

[Iyest]

That state of reality, that living thing which cannot be annihilated at any time by the death of a body, is only realisable through the perfecting of oneself, by constant watchfulness of one's actions, of one's thoughts and emotions. To find that living reality, in which all things live and which each one desires, there is no question of going away or of arriving at some place, but the removing of layers of ignorance and so finding that reality which abides in all things, which dwells in the mind and heart of every human being.

-August 5, 1930

 

[Iyest]

Just as we make effort to survive physically, so also we make effort to continue as the ‘me’. As long as I want to survive spiritually, I must make an effort towards the attainment of that which I call reality. Now, what is the ‘me’ which is making this effort? What are you? Surely, you are a name attached to a bundle of memories, experiences, you are an accumulation of hidden motives and outward pursuits, of various qualities, passions, fears, and virtues. All that is the ‘you’ is it not? And that ‘you’, you want to continue in a direction which will lead to reality; so you make an effort, you meditate, you practice some form of discipline. Surely, only when the mind ceases to make this effort and is completely still without being induced or compelled to be still; only when it does not want anything, and is therefore not seeking any experience - only then is there a possibility of the coming into being of the unknown.

- Bombay, 1956

 

[Iyest]

And in that silence the entity who experiences has completely ceased. But what most of us want is to experience, to gather more. It is the desire for the more that makes us meditate, that makes us do spiritual exercises and so on. But when all that is understood, when all that has dropped away, then there is a silence, then there is a tranquility of the mind in which the experiencer, the interpreter is absent. Then only is there a possibility for that which is not nameable to come into being. It is not a reward for good deeds. Do what you will, be as selfless as you like, force yourself to do the good things, the noble things, to be virtuous- all those are self-centred activities; and such a mind is only a stagnant mind. It can meditate; but it will not know that state of silence, quietness, in which the real can be.

- London, 1956.

 

[Iyest]

You are merely a thought, are you not? You are the thought of a name, the thought of a position, the thought of money; you are merely an idea. Remove the idea, remove the thought, and where are you? So, you are the embodiment of thought as the "me".

- Bangalore, 1948

 

[Iyest]

The very noise of the self prevents its own dissolution. We consult, analyse, pray, exchange explanations; this incessant activity and noise of the self hinders the bliss of the Real. Noise can produce only more noise and in it there is no understanding.

- 1946

 

[Mani_Chennai]

The very noise of the self prevents its own dissolution. We consult, analyse, pray, exchange explanations; this incessant activity and noise of the self hinders the bliss of the Real. Noise can produce only more noise and in it there is no understanding.

- 1946

You mean Neet exam and suicide?

 

[Mani_Chennai]

Intelligent people don't need advice, stupid can not undersand, so keep quite - Dakshinamurti tells the world.
Swami Sarva jernandanda

 

[Iyest]

Can thought which is incessantly active, come to an end? And if thought does come to an end, will this not be a complete death to the mind? Are we not therefore afraid of thought coming to an end? If thought should come to an end, what would happen? The whole structure which we have built up of ‘myself’ being important, my family, my country, my position, power, prestige - the whole of that would cease, obviously. So, do we really want to have a quiet mind?

- Hamburg, 1956

 

[Iyest]

When a machine is revolving very fast, as a fan with several blades, the separate parts are not visible but appear as one. So the “self”, the “me”, seems to be a unified entity but if its activities can be slowed down then we shall perceive that it is not a unified entity but made up of many separate and contending desires and pursuits. These separate wants and hopes, fears and joys make up the self. The self is a term to cover craving in its different forms. To understand the self there must be an awareness of craving in its multiple aspects. The passive awareness, the choiceless discernment reveals the ways of the self, bringing freedom from bondage. Thus, when the mind is tranquil and free of its own activity and chatter, there is supreme wisdom.

- Ojai, 1946

 

[Iyest]

Question: Is the mind different from the thinker?

Krishnamurti: Now, is the thinker different from his thoughts? Does the thinker exist without thoughts? Is there a thinker apart from thought? Stop thinking, and where is the thinker? Is the thinker of one thought different from the thinker of another thought? Is the thinker separate from his thought, or does thought create the thinker who then identifies himself with thought when he finds it convenient and separates himself when it is not convenient? That is, what is the ‘I’, the thinker? Obviously, the thinker is composed of various thoughts which have become identified as the ‘me’. So the thoughts produce the thinker, not the other way round. If I have no thoughts then there is no thinker.

- Bangalore 1948

 

[renuka]

Question: Is the mind different from the thinker?

Krishnamurti: Now, is the thinker different from his thoughts? Does the thinker exist without thoughts? Is there a thinker apart from thought? Stop thinking, and where is the thinker? Is the thinker of one thought different from the thinker of another thought? Is the thinker separate from his thought, or does thought create the thinker who then identifies himself with thought when he finds it convenient and separates himself when it is not convenient? That is, what is the ‘I’, the thinker? Obviously, the thinker is composed of various thoughts which have become identified as the ‘me’. So the thoughts produce the thinker, not the other way round. If I have no thoughts then there is no thinker.

- Bangalore 1948

Its like this I guess.." if there is an undersea earth quake, there is a Tsunami..its the earth quake that produces the Tsunami ...no earth quake no Tsunami"

 

[sravna]

Thoughts are the effects and the thinker is the cause. The thoughts separate from the thinker as he thinks. Without the thinker there can be no thoughts. Thoughts do not separate when the thinker reaches perfection. In that case his thoughts are in sync with every thinker.

Perfection is perceived by everybody. It happens when all the effects inhere in the cause.

 

[Iyest]

Thoughts are the effects and the thinker is the cause. The thoughts separate from the thinker as he thinks.

The existence of an independent thinker is an assumption which is again another thought. The thinker is a creation of thought.