The philosophy of J. Krishnamurti

J. Krishnamurti’s philosophy

Krishnamurti is not the kind of philosopher whose teaching can be put into a system, the reason being that he himself abhorred all systems of thought, philosophical as well as religious. His point was that they take you away from life as it is here and now, and they are the roots of countless conflicts between people. Organised religion and rituals were heavily criticised by Krishnamurti, and the same criticism hit the worship of gurus and other individuals who seem to believe that they are sent by God to lead people to enlightenment or salvation. Such views inevitably bring him in opposition to the societies we know and have known so far, but one should not mistake him for being irreligious, rather he revalues the meaning of the word religious. To some people this will be refreshing, to others a cold shower.

The issues taken up by Krishnamurti in his many talks and books are focused on the fundamental conditions of life such as death, love, time and consciousness. The mind as it is with most human beings is limited, but also, in a way, illusory. However, there is another state of mind which is without limits and eternal. The so-called normal state of mind is merely regarded as bad programming and a set of malfunctions.

Meditation is also viewed from a different perspective from what we are used to. The issue is not to reach higher states of consciousness. Meditation is rather a form of pure awareness, in which one refrains from all techniques and efforts to obtain a goal, in accordance with the words of truth being a pathless land. This awareness he often characterises as a peculiar state of mind in which all phenomena are dealt with in what he calls an “inquiry” without prejudice. It is not, however, an analytical thought process, where definitive answers to definitive questions are looked for, rather it is a form of mind presence, in which all questions eventually disappear and leave the mind in a state of creative emptiness.

One of the most obvious features of Krishnamurti is that he completely rejects all authorities: Man is left to himself in existence, a fact which need not be terrifying as there is always the possibility of freedom and insight. At a deeper level we are not alone anyway, according to Krishnamurti. To him it is a fact that humanity is closely connected through a common consciousness regardless of all cultural and ethnic differences.

A practical consequence of Krishnamurti’s teachings has been the establishment of centres and schools in a number of countries, in which Krishnamurti’s thoughts of an entirely different way of living can be freely developed. Krishnamurti very much emphasised a holistic approach to schools and educational institutions, where the acquisition of knowledge should only be a part of the whole and more important process of constant inquiry and questioning all aspects of life. In young people the gradual conditioning and fossilisation of the mind have not yet progressed to such an extent that meeting new things becomes painful or impossible.

In the course of his long life Krishnamurti significantly influenced quite a number of people through his many talks. Among the more well known people who felt strongly inspired by the teachings of Krishnamurti were Aldous Huxley, Henry Miller, Iris Murdoch and George Bernhard Shaw, to mention just a few. In his later years Krishnamurti had a series of thought provoking dialogues with prominent research workers in science and philosophy, notably the talks with the physicist David Bohm and the philosopher Alan Anderson. The meetings with Bohm were particularly interesting, because they are a rare example of a bridge between the most advanced branches within the empirical sciences such as quantum physics and cosmology and an entirely intuitively founded knowledge. The talks have been published in video and audio formats, and as a book entitled “The Ending of Time”.

The life and work of Krishnamurti are well documented, as almost everything he said in large or small gatherings is accessible in one form or the other, as verbatim reports or as audio or video tapes. Apart from the fact that he was a prolific writer himself, the people around him were always very keen on taking notes about virtually everything, which has resulted in several comprehensive biographies.
The collected works of Krishnamurti have been published in English in book form, and as a CD-ROM, which contains material amounting to 200 printed volumes. On top of that there are videos, even biographical films, which all together gives a pretty good picture of the man Krishnamurti and his life.

For a summary of Krishnamurti’s teachings in his own words, please take a look at what is called The Core Of The Teachings
at kfa.org/coreofteachings.php
Regards,
jbji

I agree.
The opportunities of man are limited only by his imagination. But so few have imagination that there are ten thousand fiddlers to one composer. -Charles F. Kettering

Interesting read, my friend.

Why should I care about other so-called “esteemed” philosophers unless they’re speaking directly or indirectly to me?

I’ve actually been wanting to read some Krishnamurti for a while now. I probably first came across him in Bohm. I just read a short dialogue about the concept and the actual. The concept is an ideal, something we try to attain. We try to overcome the gap between the real and the symbolic and this is because of the unpleasantness we are experiencing. This creates conflicts and causes us to waste energy trying to flee away from what is.

And I do think in many ways those who do philosophy are kind of ill. They try to create concepts to brighten their existence. Through concepts philosophers try to grab a piece of the real and become alive. This brings an interesting dimension into the conflict between some philosophers and the religious. Though the religious might be looking for an “absent absolute” they do actually have some intense experiences of living and some philosophers who sit in their rooms all day do not experience this kind of intensity. Sometimes we need to stop trying to conceptualise that in the face of which we fear or feel unpleasantness about. We must face it resolutely, head on and experience the full intensity of being-there-in-the-world.

K. was groomed by the theosophical society (Anne Besant, et.al.) to be the prophet or seer of our age. I’ve read him and have found in his statements more ego than useful charisma. Case in point. During the 70’s K. was asked to contribute to a discussion on reality between physicists and Eastern religionists. His contribution was to appear offended by the idea of such a discussion.
Please spare me from the egocentricity of prophets!

Is he one of these guys?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Krish … ie_culture

Views/opinions are steered by unconscious inclinations of the mind,
which determines selectively
(and therefore based on bias - and so the False - and not as comprehensive insight)
what form one’s conclusive-stance takes.

A piece of glass, might be considered to be a genuine jewel,
and an actual jewel, might be tossed into a mud-pool,
…by a mind, which
does not know its self-deceptions.

You are invited to inquire
and check it out.

¤ “His contribution was to appear offended by the idea of such a discussion.”
…“was to appear offended…”
to Whom
Ierrellus?

Dalai Lama stated Krishnamurti as being ‘one of the greatest philosophers of our time’.
According to Ierrellus’s logic:
both, DL and K. are “egocentric prophets”.

Yes, as a child he was taken care of by Theosophical society.
What you choose -not- to mention, is that he disbanded (in 1929)
the organization created to worship him, as he did not want to be a ‘messiah’ or guru,
not did he want to be a part of a traditional dogma/ceremony based group.
Even so, he continues to talk/inquire with people around the world, for the next 60 years.

I should underline that I have no interest in gossip,
debates in the spirit of arrogance/sarcasm and other agressions in the name
of a superiority complex, often found in the proud mentality of the ‘philosopher’.
Philosophy means ‘love of life’
not ‘love of battling, winning arguments’.
You can naturally do as you please, but I shall not contrubute to that kind of activity,
which is no inquiry at all, but mere one-up-manship.

Regards,
jbji
beyondthemind.net/krishnamurti-index.html

No, he was this guy:

kfa.org

no, this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

no, this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

Aren’t they pretty much the same?

I don’t know what it was, but I once read a small bit of Krishamurti describing what today I would call just pure being-there and not thinking. It reminded me of someone sitting outside on a stomp near the beach with the hot sun beating down on him just staring off into the distance seemingly unconscious and lazy to an outsider, yet this is the stillness that we must experience to come to the natural state and connect with all that is.

jbji,
Nah, I think highly of the Dalia Lama, just not Krisnamurti. Offended is K’s tone in the symposium. Bohm was clear and communicative.
And, if I were here to win arguments or inflate my own ego, I wouldn’t be wasting my time in fora such as these. I offered you no personal insults, just a skeptics take on your idol. Carry on without me.

Yes, I see the same:

  • ‘those who do philosophy are kind of ill’ – of course, with exceptions
  • ‘try to create concepts to brighten their existence’ – this seems to be a subtle motive, which one would rather be unconscious of. Also, the mind creates a pseudo-meaning with life, and reinforced the self/ego, being afraid to discover that actually one is -nothing-.
  • ‘the religious more intense that the philosopher’— I would say it depends what one means by ‘religious’. Assuming we mean the traditional/dogamtic kind, then I would say that yes, the religious seems more intense than the philosopher.
    The religious has more emotional-energy, while the philosopher is more intellectual.
    The religioius looks aupon the phil. as a dead dry and useless word-monger.
    And the phil. looks down upon the religious as brainless idiots addicted to fanatical emotions, while actually worshipping themselves.
    But, it seems to me, that -both- are basically the same.
    Both are functioning in the field of Thought. There is not emotion without Thought-form(image behind it, is there?
    So both are trapped in that field, creating their ‘truths/realities and gods’;
    but in essence there is nothing -new- happening; the same old cocktail of cerebral-muscles-flexing and emotional attempts to escape from oneself into Thought-created images/Ideals and worshipping them.
  • yes ‘to stop conceptualizing’, seeing the necessity of that (exept for where it/thought practically belongs in daily life) might open the door to a reality, which is not created in -man’s Image-.

Q.: Are your: “spare me” and “Carry on without me”,
expressions of ‘ego-centricity’ belittling jbji?

If yes, then you are like K.
If not, and you are merely not interested, then perhaps K. should be able to say no too, based on no interest.
No?
Dalai Lama is a lecturer with conditioned knowledge.
No trace of the Awakening fire Now, on which K’s spontaneous talks rest.

Some facts, Ierrellus:

A friend has seen Dalai Lama getting very angry
at someone wanting to talk to him.
Is getting angry, less of an indication of ego-centricity,
than ‘sounding offended’?

“Offended is K’s tone in the symposium.” you say.
‘Offended’ is in the ‘ear of the beholder’.

Dalai Lama often reads from the scriptures when giving sermons, and pours out a lot of
intellectual Ideas, info and names of Tibetan scriptures.
A lecturer.
Krishnamurti, speaks out of the Living Seeing of the moment
and the here-now fire of Awakening.

Some Buddhists do think of DL though a good man, but as rather boring,
of low intelligence, and not enlightened.
Some Buddhists think of Krishnamurti as being an ‘enlightened Buddha’.

-Mentioned these facts - not to win an argument - but to perhaps show that
the mind’s evaluatiuon/conclusion machinary,
is quite unreliable.
Up to you to question yourslef and look,
or look away.


But, a bird tells me, you turn you back on our dialogue, so the above is merely a monologue.
impolite, but that’s the what-is of it.

jbji
groups.yahoo.com/group/J-Krishnamurti_andLife/

Stuff & nonsense. What immaturity often reigns here! Both mine and yours! A good debate could be beyond such claptrap. Bye.

“Debate” is ‘immature’.
And aggressive.

Friendly joint inquiry, is true philosophy.

Ierrellus,
Do you suffer? -
That’s an actuality worth while investigating into…
but you simply, drop a bit of poison,
and run away.
Good luck.