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 <johnw@ready.eng.ready.com>
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. 

