Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: skumar@smdvx1.intel.com (Sitanshu Kumar)
Subject: Re: J. Krishnamurti
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 16:15:34 GMT
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Microprocessor Component Group, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, CA
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Message-ID: <1991Jun15.161534.8226@nas.nasa.gov>
Lines: 234

>****** 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

What kind of gurus were they?? did they tell there followers do this and
this, and you will become enlightened?? I know about the Buddha  rest else
I do not know. Is truth relized by depending on authority?? Then it 
depends on the personal whims and fanccies of all individuals and 
groups. What is involved in having a guru?? A guru has experienced
something ( you may call it enlightenement or rubbish) and want the follower
to experience the same thing?? and what is an experience?? a dead memory??
experience is time (or creates time) and through time you want to become
timeless?? and who is the experiencer?? is it not memory itself?? do not
invent the "self" as the experiencer, if it is really the expereincer than
why have these gurus?? why spend money and time in reading books and
prostate to someone. How do you know that someone else has perfect insight.
Do you really know what perfect insight is?? if you do then why bother
about these ghosts from the past. If you dont, then your comment is 
quite arbitrary is it not ?? 
>  it funny how they didn't "vehemently attack" the idea of a guru? (Many
>  of them had gurus, too!)

why is it funny??? 
> 
>>>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? 

All right. there are a thosand possibilities. What is one supposed to do,
speculate about them?? or toss a die and decide one of them is true??
or is it more logical to examine what any one is saying presently??
and what is wrong and what is right. You may see the sky blue today and
decideit is always blue, you may see it red the day after and decide it
is either red or blue and continue like this for eternity. That is not
intelligence ,is it (or you can keep jumping gurus)??
>
>>> 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

Who has defined thought?? you shankara or the budhha. I do not quite understand
that first two sentences are garbled, a spelling mistake or grammatical mistake.Or is it that you have not observed the birth of a thought and death of a thought. That I can understand, if the mind is jumping like a monkey, one may be
completely unaware of thought. I do not quite believe this to be the case
with any body from birth to adulthood. Even if it is, you can try right 
away.     

>   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
Of course it does not. I dont think you understood the first point I made.

>  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

Is watching a practice?? then it is not watching. Only watching with a
motive could be a practice. Then you are not watching, because you
will see only what interests you. That is not choice-lessness. 

>  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.

whom are you calling bhudhha-come lately?? and do you know what the bhudha
himself said?? I hope you do , any way i am going to tell you right away.

Beaware O monks. when walking be aware that you are walking, when sitting
beaware that you are sitting, when having wild thoughts beaware of those
thoughts, beaware of everything.

All right Mr Wheeler  i hope you get it.

I did not want to quote, but you seem to depend on authority al the time.

>
>  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."

I am sorry, but instead of listening you are caught up in ideas of what 
someone else has said. Since the some one else is your favourite, you make
this statement rather hastily.( I am not saying that your master is wrong
or right). Hui Neng or Raman maharishi may be right, but have you done
the experiment yourself?? have you carefully observed for your self??
If you have than it does not matter what they said, does it? the thing
is before you, is it not. 
>
>  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.

If man is always free, or you are free, why do you go to raman maharishi
or Hui neng? or why do they speak at all??? I don't think you understand
waht they say. 
>
>>>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

when you say common sense, surely it is the result of an individuals
upbringing , is it not?.( many things which are common sense in India
are not so here and vice-versa) 

>  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

what kind of goal spirituality can have. I you have a set goal in mind
then you have already been there some time or the other, is it not?? so
waht do you seek now?? or the goal is totally abstract and therefore 
of no use. 

>  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
what would you look for, external signs?? how would you know somebody's

internal state of mind moment by moment?? for a brief time they come
before you they may act, or may be in deep delusion about their 
being enlightened . Is it not that every body is convinced about
some idea about themseleves or others?? How is it different from some
body's idea that he is enlightened?? (like Mr. john claiming that he is
the seventh stage master??) 

>  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. 

These are just images conjured by your mind. They have no relevance to truth.
No images have any relevance to truth. You can be a fan of someone one day
and be fan of some else the other day. That may depend on the fullfillment
of your desires. Is seeking fullfilment of desires any thing to do with 
truth?? if yes what is it? All desire is the same movement, even the one
to seek the highest. 



