Krishnamurti - Mirror of the West

1
The change has to take place in the mind of conditioning. According to every minor conditioning the change has to take place - and when it has taken place the conditioning is not even remembered! I think that´s why K can claim that he did never have a conflict in his life, which he obviously did from an objectively point of view.

I once heard a woman talking about the pain of giving birth and when asked about remembering the pain afterwards prompted: "It´s completely forgotten!" I believe that´s a good metaphor for the change K is talking about

And if such a change can only take place in a uncorrupted body the point must be that in meeting the teachings we are remembering our own such.

2
When K understand himself as an Edison or a Columbus, I understand it as a very precise explanation of what the teachings is about. K did discover the working of his own mind and this mind, which was the object of K´s investigations is also my mind.

I am not a Columbus - but I am an America.

3
If there´s no door between the mind K is talking about and my mind there´s no point at all! He is talking about the mind of all humanity. I´m a part of that humanity so that´s why.

And why should it be so impossible to make the same discovery as K did? By doing so I do not change to become another K but another me.

4
I believe Krishnamurti himself was fairly acquainted with literature, at least in his formative years. Mary Lutyens mentions that he knew the Song of Songs almost by heart - and also in his own early poems one can feel a strong influence from this book in the Old Testament. And I think this has been important to him and helped him to identify the passion within himself.

When putting the "spiritual experience" in his youth into words he was talking of seeing a man mending the road and saying that he had an experience of being this man himself as well as the axe in his hand and also the blade of grass beside the man. Now, is this not a Walt Whitman-experience? I don´t know if K had read Whitman but probably he did and a glance would have been enough to a sensitive mind as his - and even if he did not, he lived in the same country as Whitman and so shared his experience of the country and its people. So the "spiritual experience" was not so much a spiritual as an American experience! Even if K did not read the books of western culture he did read the "book" of it. I think K was greatly influenced by western culture, and I believe he is the most fertile soil this culture has ever taken root in.

But K is the soil, he is not the plant. So from him we can not learn anything about being plants. So we have to read books about plants as well.

5
There may be a similarity between Krishnamurti´s dialogue approach and that of Socrates but I do not think there is in spirit. Socrates could really annoy people by making them look foolish, - and that´s not K´s target! He always was eager to tell that we were investigating together as friends.

But there is a point where there is even identity between the two of them, and that is in the picture of that “pathless land”. It has been astonishing for me to learn from a philosopher how Aristotele turns the approach of Socrates into a method:

A path through the wilderness is in greek ‘póros’. When there is no path the word is ‘apóros’. From here comes the aristoteliean key word ’apori’, wich means “pathless” in the sense that there is no fixed answer to a question – you have to find a way.

When K is talking about truth as a pathless land in 1929 – it is because he has picked it up.

6
So K did pick up the notion of truth as a pathless land from Aristotele and Socrates! And I think he was aware of it. Just before the introducing of the idea in the opening of the speech in Ommen 1929 he tells the story of the devil and a friend:

“You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, "What did that man pick up?" "He picked up a piece of Truth," said the devil. "That is a very bad business for you, then," said his friend. "Oh, not at all," the devil replied, "I am going to let him organize it."

I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect.”

Of course this is to picture the failure of organizing religions, but also it is a warning. He knows that when he is using the idea of truth as a pathless land as a tool to dissolve The Order of the Star, he is doing something dangerous. The devil will help him.

7
I find the point of view that “Krishnamurti's approach is free of all historical baggage” of extreme value. But only because I think it is so eminently wrong. The point may be that the approach of Krishnamurti is not burdened by any historical bagage. Then I have to apologize for misreading you, Ken! This I think is a fact. But I do not think this means that his mind has not taken root in anything tradition can offer. For me it has been a breakthrough to discover how sensitive K actually was to tradition. That the teachings in fact is not about to discard tradition but how to embrace it genuinely.

As stated above I feel it is important to say that K actually found the idea of truth as a pathless land in the greek heritage of Europe namely in Aristotle and Socrates. And also that K differ to Socrates in his approach to dialogue in that way that to K the dialogue partner was considered a “friend” which was not so openly an interest to Socrates. According to Plato Soctrates was even that careless about the destiny of his disciples that he in the face of death was looking forward to meet other great spirits in the hereafter. How different to such an attitude is not another strong structure in the European tradition known as the last supper where Christ took so much care of the loss of his disciples? This is exactly what K also does when dissolving The Order of the Star, as he says:

“But those who really desire to understand, who are looking to find that which is eternal, without beginning and without an end, will walk together with a greater intensity, will be a danger to everything that is unessential, to unrealities, to shadows. And they will concentrate, they will become the flame, because they understand. Such a body we must create, and that is my purpose.”

That is his purpose, and he continues:

“Because of that real understanding there will be true friendship. Because of that true friendship- which you do not seem to know-there will be real cooperation on the part of each one. And this not because of authority, not because of salvation, not because of immolation for a cause, but because you really understand, and hence are capable of living in the eternal. This is a greater thing than all pleasure, than all sacrifice.”

So K has also absorbed a central notion of Christianity, even to the point of using the word communion as in a speak in Bombay 1964:

”We have many problems, immense problems which cannot be solved by anybody except ourselves; and this requires not only the factual understanding of the problem, but also to be in communion with that problem. I do not know whether you has ever tried to be in communion with anything. You know if you are a great painter and you want to paint a tree, you must be in communion with the tree. There must be no space between you and the tree – not that you identify yourself with the tree, but there must be no barrier between you and that which you observe, which you paint, with which you are in communion. That is, you as an entity must be totally absent to commune with the tree. To be in communion with Nature, with the mountain, with a scene, with a human being – this demands extraordinary attention and a tremendous quality of sensitivity; other wise you cannot commune.”

In Christianity communion is about being one with the Christ through the daily bread and wine and in the approach of K it is about being one with the environments but in this act something else enters which brings a change about.

K was not a scholar and it was not his job to keep an account of the ideas he embraced. But to me it is the very point of the teachings that they enable man to change accordingly. But of course always change into something! Adapting a genuine idea if it is to be found.

8
Concerning David Bohm I think that in him another figure rose besides Krishnamurti, thinking independently face to face with the master. When I watch the videos of the dialogues between the two of them David Bohm leaves the impression of doing so. Maybe only to some extent but he gives an example and shows it is possible. So for me David Bohm has been important.

And I think one has to be careful judging K´s concern that no one ever should get involved in any interpretation of what he said. Of course he was anxious that no one should take over the platform so to speak. But on the other hand in the interview with Mary Lutyens in the biography he is very eager that she should sit down and find out the secret of his “vacant mind”. According to himself he had always felt the presence of the Buddha and I think that might be close to an answer. Such a presence he could have been almost born with as an Indian though he was a Hindu. Then what happens when this vacant Buddha mind of his encounters the post Buddha insights of the Song of Songs, Socrates, Jesus, Walt Whitman? It changes. And even the concept of change has not originated in the mind of K. According to Harold Bloom the possibility of human change is the very concern in Shakespeare and this exactly by listening “overhearing one self” which sounds surprisingly krishnamurtian but it is the other way round. So far from discarding Indian, European and American traditions Krishnamurti has reborn them.

9
I think one needs some knowledge and the ability to see that what Krishnamurti says is not that unique. It is alive! And that is what is so extraordinary about it.

10
Please be aware that I am being very specific. I do not contradict any of Krishnamurti´s criticism of tradition or religion. This critique I welcome very much. But I have found some islands: the Buddha, the Song of Songs, Socrates / Aristotle, Jesus, Shakespeare and Walt Whitman – that I think Krishnamurti has visited.

I agree that my pointing at the word communion is weak, so if you want to attack me there, do so – but I am not hurt. When dissolving The Order of the Star Krishnamurti presented another form of society. This is a very specific thing to do and it has been done before – at the last supper! And this is my real issue.

11
Nor to my knowledge there is any evidence that Krishnamurti felt attracted to any other of the mentioned than The Song of Songs and the Buddha. But concerning the others I think I have found a match and I have put an argument as to why. I think it is possible to tel the story of the shaping of Krishnamurti. This is a scientific task.

The other side of the coin is how Krishnamurti does affect ones own life. I will put it in the picture of the last supper. Since you cannot be a disciple of the Christ because he is leaving to die on the cross, you have to find his body and blood in your daily life of bread and wine. This is the embryo of the new society. And since you cannot be a disciple of Krishnamurti, you have to find the features of K in your environments: in your friends, in an artist or writer and maybe even in a political figure. And it is there - maybe only on an unconscious level if you do not identify it and shape structures to allow it to flower. This is meditation and this is work.

And I think that all true krishnamurtian things will always be different from Krishnamurti himself except from a certain touch. Also here tradition has an example to offer. When Saul from Tarsus was affected by the Christ he changed to become Paul. He did not change to become another Christ. And no one never will, and that would not be the point at all either. I think if one is truly affected by Krishnamurti one does not start to speak like him. The change must be within ones own borders.

12
I think Paul is a good example only in the respect I spoke of. He did not aspire to become the Christ. At least he understod that the change he experienced took place within his own charater – and this is what I want to point at. Also in the Krishnamurti sense of the word I think change has such a limitation.

13
Krishnamurti has almost a formula to which he returns again and again. Here is one example from the Notebook:

“Seeing the false as the false and the true as the true and the true in the false is not the result of comparison. To see the false as the false is attention. The false as the false cannot be seen when there is opinion, judgement, evaluation, attachment and so on, which are the result of nonattention. Seeing the whole fabric of non-attention is total attention. An attentive mind is an empty mind”.

Concerning the figure of Paul I do not think he was “false” altogether, but rather “the true in the false”. And before one get to much caught up in hatred against Paul I think one should consider what an extraordinary job he actually did. Only in respect to the last supper does Paul speak of Jesus – and why is that? I think because he understood exactly the point that in Krishnamurti terminology is talked upon as the non-discipleship. Paul understood that the “saviour” was a different quality than the historical figure of Jesus who had gone.

14
Thank you for chanting one of the most popular K songs. One can never hear it to often – the one claiming that the most important difference between Krishnamurti and other religious teachers in history is the amount of information about K. As if the point is not the experience he did convey but the fact that he bought a tape recorder! – I believe it was a Sony…

All this information is of course gold – but in the very materialistic sense of the word. It is very interesting, but I do not think it is a ”sine qua non”. I remember my first encounter with K. It was purely second hand and I cherish it as such: A friend told me about K and when leaving his room he gave me a book by Krishnamurti to read. And on the way home, before even opening the book, I silently understood that this was the key. Then I went on to all the entertaining stuff of his biography. It is of great value – but for scientific use only.

Also earlier times had ways to keep in mind the words and deeds of their great religious teachers. They did so in the language of rituals, dogmas and hyms. But one has to go through the trouble of learning these languages to begin to understand the gentle world of tradition.

This was fortunately not how Krishnamurti put it. He presented joyously the one half of the broken key - the other half of it we ourselves have to withdraw from our pocket. And if they are alike they doesn´t match.

15
The question is whether tradition is a disaster altogether, as Krishnamurti sometimes seems to think? But, as I have pointed out, he seems to embrace selected ideas from tradition. If anyone wants to challenge me – challenge me here.

16
I am only trying to defend some discoveries that I think I have made - that Krishnamurti was sensitive to certain approaches already existing. And I also think that Krishnamurti´s absorbing of these approaches or ideas has helped to shape the teachings. I think it is fair to say that when Krishnamurti came to California he was impressed by the lifestyle, or that when he read some of Nietzsche he also enjoyed it. Aren´t such things influences? So there are some Sabbats in tradition so to speak. And I think they are made for man and that they are to be kept only in the way Krishnamurti kept them. But I do think he kept them.

17
Krishnamurti often emphasized that no one should “translate” the teachings into something else. This I understand as a warning not to enter into a spontane misinterpreting out of fear. Of course it does not mean that Krishnamurti should not be the subject of any examination in the fields of comparative religion and literature. Through such an examination it has become clear to me that Krishnamurti is a genuine child of postmodernity. In this we can mirror our own change. Not in a tree floating in the air.

Understanding tradition was not Krishnamurtis focus. He was in the category of mystics and had a different source of insight. He did not bother much about tradition, because he did not need to. But I do think that in presenting the teachings to a western audience he did frame them in selected ideas from our tradition – and I even think that these specific ideas helped the teachings to evolve. I have pointed to Socrates / Aristotle, Jesus and Shakespeare as interesting figures to be aware of in this matter. Minor influences or partners would be the Song of Songs, Nietzsche and Walt Whitman (or America in general). So Krishnamurti did establish a genuine relationship with tradition even if it was not his focus. Let me give one more example: In Mary Lutyens Biography this piece of Krishnamurti writing about his own “Krishnamurti´s Notebook” is included:

”As far as I have come in my studies I have not found the phrase ‘the observer is the observed´ with its full meaning. Perhaps some ancient thinker have said it, but one of the most important things that Krishnamurti has found is this great truth which, when it actually takes place, as it has occasionally happened to me personally, literally banishes the movement of time. Let me add here that I am not a follower nor do I accept Krishnamurti as my guru. To him the idea of becoming a guru is an abomination. With critical examination I find this book totally absorbing because he annihilates everything thought has put together. It is a shocking thing when one realizes it. It is a real physical shock.”

So Krishnamurti thinks (or wonders if) he has brought about the idea “the observer is the observed” himself. But this idea is already present in Western thought - some ancient thinker have said it – in the understanding of the Christian concept of sin: only when one realizes that one is sin (which can only be done through the quality of Christ) a change comes about. I think it is true that no one else besides Krishnamurti unfolded this “phrase ‘the observer is the observed´ with its full meaning.” But the idea was already there. To Krishnamurti the change comes about not through the quality of Christ but through awareness. But the two go together like the riverbed and the water in the river, and there is no point in separating them. I think dealing with Krishnamurti should be rooted in a picture like this.

18
This is a very precise argument of yours, Ken:

“What Krishnamurti meant by the observer being the observed is that when you observe a state of inner turmoil, the "you" who observes the turmoil is a part of the state being observed, not separate from it. Therefore you are a part of what is being analyzed, not different from it.”

Is this not what Christianity is also about? The meaning of being a sinner in the Christian sense of the word is that whatever one does, one fails. How can the sinner raise above sin, or how can the observer raise above the observed? But if one realizes that the observer is the observed, or that the sinner is the sin – then the conditioning of the observer or the sinner is broken.

So I do not understand the next part of your argument:

“Christians are always making a division between the sinner and the sin, as though they are two independent phenomena, and this is because they believe in the soul.”

This I do not think is true. If there is any division between the sinner and the sin, there is no Christianity at all.

19
You also write that my understanding of Christianity confuses you. I was getting aware of that, but I am glad that you mention it also. It might be because we know of different Christianities.

This piece may clear things up a little:

“The standard theology of England and North America has never gone through the shock that elsewhere initiated specifically twentieth-century theology. Our theology has a decidedly museal air: “new” and “radical” theologies among us regularly repristinate some nineteenth-century German bright idea. We will not be able so to continue. As confidence in bourgeois culture dissipates among us also, our anachronistic neo-Protestantism becomes ever more obviously a play of illusions. It does not, of course, matter HOW we catch up with the twentieth century, but it might well be by the way of Barth.

A decisive element of specifically post-nineteenth-century theology is the critique of religion: It is not at all clear that by the gospel’s lights religion is a good thing. Of course Christianity is indeed a religion, but one of it’s specificities as a religion is that it is suspicious of itself in this capacity. Again it need not be Barth who teaches us this, but no one could do it better.” (Robert W. Jenson in “The Modern Theologians”, Blackwell 1997. Edited by David F. Ford)

So there is the figure of Karl Barth.


20
I am not talking about any progress from being a sinner becoming a saint. The realization that one is a sinner is only possible as an instantaneously revelation which brings about not a saint but only a new beginning. That’s it. This is exactly what Krishnamurti is also talking about. I do not think I am translating Krishnamurti into Christianity. It may be the other way round. I would agree to that. But then again. I think this has to be done. It is not merely a translating but rather a jump – into the fulfillment of a tradition. If you find I am just baffling when I am equating ‘the sinner is the sin’ with the ‘observer is the observed’, I can only say again that I find the identity between the two (as I see it) deeply satisfying.

And you will not recognize it when someone admits that modern theology has experienced a shock. Maybe Jenson smoked to much marihuana. I don't know. I am sure Bob Marley did when baffling about Haile Selassie being the Messiah. Still this idea is a wonderful jump out of a state of oppression and into a state of dignity.

Jah live!

21
I think there are two sides of the coin of Krisnhnamurti. They affect one another but are also to be paid attention to separately. One is of course the question of how one self is affected by the teachings. This is not the question I am dealing with here. I am dealing with the question of Krishnamurti as a phenomena. There seems to be a widespread opinion originating from Krishnamurti himself that this question should not be dealt with at all, that it is to big for our minds to comprehend. But there is a passage in the final biography by Mary Lutyens which deals with this question differently. Together with Mary Zimbalist she is discussing with Krishnamurti, trying to get closer to who he is? She is here quoting from Mary Zimbalist notes:

“K: (…) Is this all something which we cannot touch? We are trying with our minds to touch THAT. Try to find out what THAT is when your mind is completely quiet. To find out the truth of the matter you have to have your mind empty. Not MY mind which IS emptiness. But there is a factor we are missing. We have come to a point where our brains, our instruments of investigation, have no meaning.
ML: Might someone else be able to find out? And would it be right to inquire?
K: YOU might be able to because you are writing about it. I cannot. I f you and Maria (Mary Zimbalist) sat down and said, ‘let us inquire’, I’m pretty sure you could find out. Or do it alone. I see something; what I said is true – I can never find out. Water can never find out what water is. That is quite right. If you find out I’ll corroborate it.
ML: You would know if it were right?
K: Can you feel it in the room? It is getting stronger and stronger. My head is starting. If you asked the question and said: ‘I don´t know’, you might find it. If I was writing about it I would state all this. I would begin with the boy completely vacant.
ML: Do you mind it said that you want it explained?
K: I don´t care. Say what you like. The moment you discover something you have words for it. Like a poem. If you are open to inquire, put your brain in condition, someone could find out. But the moment you find it, it will be right. No mystery.
ML: Will the mystery mind being found?
K: No, the mystery will be gone.
Mary Zimbalist: But the mystery is something sacred.
K: The sacredness will remain.”(The Life and Death of Krishnamurti, p.162-3)

So someone could find out – and I have a proposal. I think that the teachings did not reveal themselves to Krishnamurti from above but from below – from various corners of tradition as I have pointed out. I think the great change in Krishnamurti himself was not the breaking of the theosophical condition - which he never believed in anyway. I think it was far more than that. I think he changed from being a Buddha-minded figure to become a postmodern man. The Buddha was his conditioning. Of course the Buddha knew the Eros of pain and pleasure, but it makes no sense that the Buddha should have known the Eros of love – it cannot be done away with by nirvana nor should it. That is probably why Krishnamurti felt attracted to The Song of Songs. And also, what problem would the Buddha have had being the World Teacher or the Dalai Lama? Krishnamurti had a problem, because he ran into Socrates - it is curious that there exist pictures of the young Krishnamurti standing on Acropolis with a beard – perhaps playing the ancient philosopher? Krishnamurti had the capacity to offend society, but unlike Socrates he did not leave it by that. The sensitive mind of his was affected also by the act of the last supper and so he was able also to heal the wound by envisioning a body of friendship of a different quality. And this alternative society did already exist in what Harold Bloom has called Shakespeares ‘invention of the human’ – here is the drama of life and the possibility of change depicted. The great concern for society as a whole seems to be a reflection of the poems of Walt Whitman.

So I am only saying that the sensitive mind of Krishnamurti was sensitive also to certain ideas already existing in tradition – not to tradition en bloc. And in so being he was not a vehicle to anything but to the intelligence of tradition itself. The awakening of intelligence is the awakening of tradition.

22
I see no reason to disagree with you, Dano and I also feel we are meeting somewhere in your last post unfolding some views of political character. One could ask the question why Krishnamurti did not raise as figure in all parts of the world? Even under Indira Gandhi he was reluctant to go to India and speak as Pupul Jayakar tells us. Fair laws is also an outcome of tradition - or even of wars. Approaching Durban II and knowing of the laws against criticism of religion debated in the parliments of Britain and Norway it becomes clear that this is not something we can take for granted. In another society Krishnamurti could easily have been killed for acting like he did in 1929.

Often when I am at the computer I am listening to the roots reggae station at Sky Channel. I have had two great revelatios in my life. One was when getting to know about Krishnamurti and the other was getting aware of Rastafari. Rastafari is a biblical religion extreemely conscious about tradition. I feel I have been able to detect an unconscious layer of tradition in Krishnamurti, but obviously tradition is not his strong side. Krishnamurti strong side is the nature of man.

23
There is abandonment of tradition which can only take place by discovering and creating a counter tradition. Such a counter tradition I feel I have detected in Krishnamurti. It is as if the dialogue with great minds that Socrates envisioned before his death is actually taking place in the mind of Krishnamurti. This is to say that Plato got it wrong when he thought that this was something Socrates was longing for getting away from this dark earth. On the contrary Socrates was being humble, admitting that his own approach was only a limited one concerning truth and that it needed assistance from other approaches: the approach of love for example which he probably understood that he knew only half. And even this dialogue between great minds taking place in Krishnmurti is not complete. The approach of history is lacking at a conscious state. There is in fact a counter tradition in Krishnamurti but it is unconscious. This was not a problem for Krishnamurti himself of course - it was actually the beauty of it. But it is a problem (or should be) for everyone else. Because WE do not abandon tradition by nature. So we should be aware of a counter tradition. We have to be conscious about this, otherwise we fall into the abyss of Manichaeism which I think can be a danger to the Krishnamurti circles of today. They seem not to abandon tradition but to neglect it. So by turning ones back to everything of the past one is swallowed by a dangerous creature dwelling there.

24
For a long time it was forbidden in Jamaica to preach the gospel to the slaves. Only in 1816 it was decided in Jamaica House of Assembly to do so. And still the slave owners resisted. So it was to be the independent churches who under persecution did the preaching of the gospel to the slaves. After the abolishment of slavery in 1835 these independent churches became legalized and victims to conformity and the majority of the black supporters left them. In 1860-61 a revival went across the island as a mixture of different african religions and Christianity. In this process Christianity was defeated – as Leonard E. Barret puts it: ”Since then, Christianity has been a handmaiden to a revitalized African movement known as Revival religion.” Nevertheless when Rastafari occured it managed to put the Bible forth and make the reading of it imperative. The purpose of doing so is to prove the presence of blacks in the holy book – and ultimately identifying the living God with the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie I.

This is not so far out as it seems. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church itself actually consider the emperor to be (a picture) of God. One has only to imagine what will happen when this sophisticated belief is presentet to the illiterate believers in Jamaica. Of course they misunderstood it! But by doing so they created the most wonderful religious expression which has been described as a movement ”from Quashie to lion” Here I am quoting Adrian Anthony McFarlane who is refering to Horace Campell:

”This lionized status evolved almost ex nihilo – from being weak and fearful to being assertive, strong and ”dread.” From a Rasta perspective, this is a transformation that shows the hand of Jah confounding the oppressors and the sceptics. As Campell notes, Rastas began to repair the psycological damage of centuries of imposed servility, reactionary docility, and dublicity by declaring ’their identification with the lion, its hair, its body strength, intelligence and total movements.’ … This lion metaphor is what has inspired the Rasta movement. Haile Selassie I not only had lions as pets (friends) but was crowned as ’the conquering Lion of the tribe of Judah.’ … The lion is, therefore, a symbol of unapologetic strength – moral, psycological, and social – and confidence; it asumes its role of leadership, in spite of popular disdain, as a natural consequence of Jah’s presence in the I-consciousness of Rastafari.”

This step taken by the Rastas is irreversible. It is not tentative. It is not important that they smoke to much ganja as it is not important that Churchill had a cigar.

25
One should not “translate” the teachings of Krishnamurti into something else, and I am not doing so. When referring to the heritage of Europe as the ingredients in the teachings of Krishnamurti, I am not saying that he copied anything. I am saying that he found some dead ideas which he revitalized. So one question is how to reinterpret the heritage of the West in the light of Krishnamurti. Not to interpret Krishnamurti in the light of the heritage. Another question is whether there might be a parallel somewhere to the phenomena of Krishnamurti? A phenomena that comes close is the development in Christian theology in the 20th century. And I think Rastafari is a phenomenon at the same level as Krishnamurti himself. In the very language of Rastafari a carefull evaluation has taken place. A lot of words has been changed according to Rasta perception, one of them being "I-consciousness". The I- is often used to emphazise the subjectivity of the individual – that is, the individual as someone in opposition to nobody, not the individual as the ego. The I here is also the I in the title of the Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie I, who is also God. So the I in Rastafari is a superior one. In Rasta conversation I & I is used to replace any of the pronouns: I and we. So why does Krishnamurti specify the awareness he is talking about as “choiceless awareness”, and why do the Rastafarians specify the consciousness they are talking about as the “I-consciousness”? This one and the same question.

26
Love might also be passion for someone, not only seeing without choice, but also seeing the beauty of the other. The Russian philosopher Wladimir Soloviov has this idea in his book “The Meaning of Love”, that love is not an illusion but a state in which a higher sense of beauty is revealed, so that you experience the beloved as she really is – as a foretaste of things to come.

27
The awareness of oneself as one is, that is: to discover the specific way of behaviour in oneself, not to feel forced - is the beginning of love, is it not? But also, beauty is there, passion is there - to be taken, to be swept off ones feet.

28
I think a lot of Krishnamurti´s ideas was not his own. But the eloquence with which he made them flow was original. And a similar synthesis of the spiritual achievements of mankind in someone else will be different from that of Krishnamurti himself. Krishnamurti is like a novel that you can read again and again and though you never change, it will change your life. Every encounter with Krishnamurti leaves an open door.

29
I saw an interview with the norvegian doctor on danish television. He seems to be fairly balanced - and he does not use words as "genocide" or "holocaust". He simply reports that what he experinced in Gaza seemed to him to be a terror attack on civilians. If this is true, it is more likely to compare Gaza 2009 with Dresden 1945.

What the turks did to the armenians in the shelter of World war one is concidered widely to be a genocide though the turks themselves won´t admit it. And according to what I have read, it was exactly from here Hitler got the idea to do away with the jews. Four million jews and others were killed in Hitlers concentration camps in a few years. Compare this to some other numbers of 400.000-700.000 palestinian refugees in 1948 who has now become 4.700.000 people. That is a very bad genocide.

30
At one level Krishnamurti may work as an anti-depressive drug. He is nice company! But is this the change we are talking about, or is there also a more specific change? A kind of 'aha' not in understanding Krishnamurti but in understanding ourselves in the mirror of relationship. When the mirror reveals the unknown (through revealing the 'what is'), it changes our outlook and our recollection of the past. But this is very specific. It´s creation. This creation is the entire world changed. I like the way of putting it. The world changes. Not oneself.

31
I find the question of how Krishnamurti affects ones daily life very valueable. It strikes me like a hammer! I think it is more easily understood in times of crisis. I recall such an episode 15 years ago where I brought myself into trouble, and I decided to write about it. Shortly after I wrote a little piece and a few month later yet another. Those small texts are just reflections about the place and the people and my relationship to it, and the actual conflict is not mentioned at all! Writing these pieces was a genuine act of observing in the Krishnamurti sense of the word, I feel. But then I went on to write about 100 pages of the whole story, and this labour I now think was just a failed attempt to reinvent the conflict. Only the two short paragraphs are important to me to day, and my point is that Krishnamurti affects me so gently that I might easily not discover it and go on with something else. So also today the question is crucial. How gently does Krishnamurti affects me today?

32
To put it like this: The consciousness is the Map is very precise, I think. But this is what we are. This is my map, and this is yours. Do They clash or do they meet? They might meet. Mighty meeting.

Cocoonsciousness or co-consciousness. Sorry! Beautiful map of yours.

33
When reading the Notebook one gets the impression that the otherness was some kind of force entering the room, some closed entity that could not be communicated with - or is it the gentle touch of realization easily not noticed? So that when it is written that the otherness was there it is as a reminder to the writer himself and first then an information to the reader.

34
From the movie "Vicky Christina Barcelona" by Woody Allen I remember a scene where the male protagonist is acusing his lover for her behaviour: "You tried to kill me..." "Because I was jealous!" she (Penelope Cruz) replies expressively without any obvious regret.

Is not what she is doing staying with "what is" - or the acter´s performance is. Staying with "what is" is not a tame thing. It is always experienced as a drama for those involved. The fact is not a kliche.

35
I really appreciate this double - eachother mutual disarming - idolatry of yours Ken! The only way of being a non-disciple of Krishnamurti is to be sincerely unfaithful. A prouder word than the ironic non-disciple might be the Ratafari coined Isciple.

36
Harold Bloom puts it with stunning clarity that belief is weak interpretation of poetry. He also speaks about the glory of interpretation - the point of view that interpretation is the primary achievement and the text itself the secondary. When Krishnamurti warns against interpretation of the teachings it only makes sense that he has in mind what Bloom calls weak interpretation.

37
I am glad to hear that Krishnamurti himself objected to the general understanding of his warning against interpretation. I can see the difference between to 'understand' and to 'explain' but still (strong) interpretation might be a third category added to those two. I think ones own mirror of relationship is the interpretation.

38
I would like to go into the question of interpretation, as I feel it can be of interest both in our own way of dealing with the teachings and in respect of Krishnamurtis own interpretation of what it is to be religious. I use the word 'interpretation' deliberately, because I think this is what Krishnamurti has done. He presented to the world his own interpretation of what it is to be a religious man or woman. And also I think it is up to us to establish such an interpretation in our own lives. The teachings of Krishnamurti are not a law to be obeyed but a mirror of commandments, a place to become aware of our own imperatives. Strangely there are no bridge between the teachings and our own lives.

As Krishnamurti puts it in the last paragraph of the Noteook:

"The past and the unknown do not meet at any point; they cannot be brought together by any act whatsoever; there is no bridge to cross over nor a path that leads to it. The two have never met and will never meet. The past has to cease for the unknowable, for that immensity to be."

There is a chapter in Mary Lutyens biography which discuss why no one else has changed accordingly! I find this part rather naive if not outrigth embarrassing. It is a set up of the author, but one wonders why Krishnamurti did not brush it away. How would he know if anyone had taken up the challenge of the teachings, them being out there for more than 50 years. Krishnamurti flung any discipelship off his feet - so how would he know?

In the well known talk held at Ommen in 1929 Krishnamurti uses the picture of truth being a pathless land, and then adds that it cannot be approached by any path whatsoever. So there is this double picture of which the first part is the socratic notion of not knowing anything before examinating things. But what about the sequel of the picture - that the truth is not even approachable? This is not socratic, because Socrates meant to know how to approach truth by dialogue. Krishnamurti migth be adressing the category of revelation or inspiration - by negation of everything of the mind (what the mind has put together) - in his own terms the category of the unknown.

I would state that the unknown is in itself the interpretation, not of any teaching but of life itself. The unknown does not exist if it does not mary our consciousness. Then it is not the unknown but the not known. So interpretation takes place. Everything is wiped away, even the teacher and the teachings.

Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot escape it by any path whatsoever. You are caugth in the river, and you will end up in the sea. Truth is a pathless land, and we have to travel by boat. Every man is an I-land.

39
Thank you, Jyothi for your clarification. Your approach seems to me to be pure discipleship in the good and the bad sense of the word. When listening to Krishnamurti I too feel that nothing can be more true, nothing can be more pure. But also I feel my own mind, my own imagination to be gently more powerful. And I think this is the way it should be. If I want to see God face to face, what I need is a face of my own.

40
I like to read Harold Bloom besides Krishnamurti. Harold Bloom says that every great writer became great by the act of misreading his precusors - to make room for himself. It is an advanced theory, but this is the point. So one can ask: Did Krishnamurti misread anything? I think it is obvious that he did misread tradition in general. His attitude was that 'tradition has brought us to where we are today', but this is not a valid analysis for a modern mind. Let's take the book of Genesis, the first book in the Bible as an example. Here scholars have detected four different layers of tradition, for different writers - so which one of them do you mean? They contradict eachother higly by the way. When Krishnamurti takes tradition 'en bloc' it is a rather fundamentalistic approach. It is a misreading, a 'powerful misreading' in Blooms sense of the word, and only as such it has meaning. There is nothing wrong with it, but this is what it is.

41
Chaitanya, you say that the knowing of 'what is' is not enough. It sounds true to me. And then one gets in touch with it by not making any movement with respect to it. Again I would agree. But then what is taking place here? What kind of state is it? Could it be a state of creativity, so that the becoming of 'what is' is not a thing of the past? It is created on the spot.

42
Yes, silence. The energy of silence is language.

43
“What is to be done, O Muslims, for I know myself not,
Neither a Christian am I, nor Jew, nor Magian nor Muslim
Neither of the East am I nor West, nor of the land, nor sea;
Nor of nature's quarry, nor of heavens circling above.
I am not made of earth or water, not of wind or fire;
Nor am I of the Divine Throne nor of floor carpeting,
Nor of the realm of the cosmos, nor of minerals.
I am not from India, nor China, nor Bulgaria, nor Turkistan;
I am not from kingdom of the two Iraqs, nor from the earth of Khorasan.
Neither of this world am I nor the next; nor of heaven nor hell;
Nor from Adam nor Eve nor of Eden, nor paradise or its porter.
My place is the placeless, my mark the mark less;
Not either body nor soul for I am myself the life of life.”
Rumi 1227

The young Krishnamurti wrote a piece called "The Path". As I understand it, it is a gentle reversal of the point of view in the Rumi text above. The question is beeing none of all or being them all.

"...Come all ye that sorrow, and enter with me into the abode of enlightenment and into the shades of immortality. Let us gaze on the everlasting night, the light which gives comfort, the light which purifies. The resplendent truth shines gloriously and we can no longer be blind, nor is there need to grope in the amysmal darkness. We shall quench our thirst, for we shall drink deep at the bubbling fountain of wisdom.
I am strong, I no longer falter; the divine spark is burning in me; I have beheld in a waking dream, the Master of all things and I am radiant with his eternal joy. I have gazed into the deep pool of knowledge and many reflections have I beheld. I am the stone in the sacred temple. I am the humble grass that is mown down and trodden upon. I am the tall and stately tree that courts the very heavens. I am the animal that is hunted. I am the criminal who is hated by all. I am the noble man who is honoured by all. I am sorrow, pain and fleeting pleasure; the passions and the gratifications; the bitter wrath and the infinite compassion; the sin and the sinner. I am the lover and the very love itself. I am the saint, the adorer, the worshipper and the follower. I am God."


44
It is interesting to see Rumi and Krishnamurti besides eachother - though no one seems to bother to reflect upon why this mix is done. It seems to me they are very different. Rumi a remembering mind envisioning his own capacity, so far from Krishnamurti´s rather apocalyptic approach to time and moment.

45
I think the key word for me is, what I was tempted to call the "apocalyptic" approach of Krishnamurti. No matter how wise one is, the point is to become 'what is' to end it. I am not sure there is even an orientation towards such a 'moment of nothingness' in the wisdom of Rumi. Nor do I think Walt Whitman knew of it. They are both so full of strong personality that they do not feel the need. Does Walt Whitman disparage himself? He may, but only to let this personality (of his people) unfold. The same may be the case with Rumi.

46
Sin and salvation, two christian concepts. The mediator is forgiveness.
The 'what is' and 'otherness', two Krishnamurti concepts. The mediator is awareness.

47
I see no difference between forgiveness and awareness, between (original) sin and what is. Forgiveness is not something to be forced upon one, but something to be taken over by. Sin is not just bad behaviour of some kind but everything there is - or what is. I do not se God personalized as great human being - but God became man or 'what is' in Christ - so that we can become 'what is' (what we are) without being stuck. Christ is the awareness.

48
Love is a reflection. Not an explosion.

The other day in the garden when I was cleaning the furniture for the summer my phone fell into the jar of water. I rather exploded and shouted in anger. It did not sound nice. But my neighbor came out and asked if she should dry the phone with the hairdryer. That was a nice reflection of her - or was it an explosion?

And then I had forgotten the pin-code and had to go back to the shop to get it. Now I am back in business.

49
Am I a christian? I would rather like to think so - but only if christianity is no different from the teachings of Krishnamurti. So you see Tony, if everyone withdraw in respect, I would be left to contemplate on my own. To do that is not a bad thing either - but fortunately that is not the case. Over the years I have had the opportunity several times to present a video or a book of Krishnamurti for my fellow theologians. I can´t remember anyone has reacted negatively, and the brightest minds watch for a while and then say: "That's christianity!" and then go on with their own business.

50
If one is disabled and relying on help from others a lot, one naturaly develops a great concern for ones own needs. But is this the ego Krishnamurti is talking about, and which has to be wiped away, or is it a necessary instrument to get through the day? I think there is a danger of being caugth in the ego if being disabled , and then again, becoming aware of it the same person can be generous beyond imagination - as in a novel by Dostojefsky, the author of the cronicle of disabledness...

51
By pointing to Dostojefsky I ment to say that there is no demarcation between a disabled person with an ego and a not disabled person with an ego - as a figure of this author tends to have so strong and specific a personality that it in itself becomes a burden or a handicap.

52
I read Radha Rajagopal Sloss' book "Lives in the Shadow: with J. Krishnamurti" when it came out. Or I read it almost to the end, where I found her description of a dream, she had about "Krinsh", as she calls him. In this dream everything is reconciled and in order, and she wakes up at peace. - And then she unfortunately attacks herself by thinking: Oh, but in reality! My advice would be to start from here and rewrite the whole thing. It migth become quite a different story. Not my advice to her but to myself, because me to has a confused story to tell...

53
The internet is an island, and we are lost. We can as well tell stories around the campfire.

54
And Anni´s song was highly inspiring to me. First one bird sings, then another. As William Blake puts it in these wonderful lines from his work "Milton":

"Thou hearest the Nightingale begin the Song of Spring:
The Lark, sitting upon his earthy bed, just as the morn
Appears, listens silent; then, springing from the waving Cornfield, loud
He leads the Choir of Day: trill, trill, trill, trill,
Mounting upon the wings of light into the Great Expanse,
Reechoing against the lovely blue & shining heavenly Shell;
His little throat labours with inspiration; every feather
On throat & breast & wings vibrates with the effluence Divine.
All Nature listens silent to him, & the awful Sun
Stands still upon the Mountain looking on this little Bird
With eyes of soft humility & wonder, love & awe.
Then loud from their green covert all the Birds begin their Songs:
The Thrush, the Linnet & the Goldfinch, Robin & the Wren
Awake the Sun from his sweet revery upon the Mountain:
The Nightingale again assays his song, and thro' the day
And thro' the night warbles luxuriant; every Bird of Song
Attending his loud harmony with admiration and love.
This is a Vision of the lamentation of Beulah over Ololon.

Thou perceivest the Flowers put forth their precious Odours,
And none can tell how from so small a center comes such sweet,
Forgetting that within that Center Eternity expands
Its ever during doors, that Og and Anak fiercely guard.
First, e'er the morning breaks, joy opens in the flowery bosoms,
Joy even to tears, which the Sun rising dries; first the Wild Thyme
And Meadow-sweet, downy & soft waving among the reeds,
Light springing on the air, lead the sweet Dance: they wake
The Honeysuckle sleeping on the Oak; the flaunting beauty
Revels along upon the wind; the White-thorn, lovely May,
Opens her many lovely eyes listening; the Rose still sleeps,
None dare to wake her; soon she bursts her crimson curtain'd bed
And comes forth in the majesty of beauty; every Flower,
The Pink, the Jessamine, the Wall-flower, the Carnation.
The Jonquil, the mild Lily, opes her heavens; every Tree
And Flower & Herb soon fill the air with an innumerable Dance,
Yet all in order sweet & lovely. Men are sick with Love.
Such is a Vision of the lamentation of Beulah over Ololon."

Strange how this beauty twice is described by the word "lamentation" - but that's the point is it not? The 'otherness' of 'what is'. Some weeks ago Chaitanya Nagar was elaborating this.

55
Thank you for sharing this poem. It moves me a lot, and it makes me remember one of my ovn early poems (in danish) which I unfortunately have taken out of the volume of my collected haiku-like poems in order to find a publisher. Now I will put it back in as I have come to understand it more clearly by reflecting on your poem. The point where they touches eachother is at "the ever soaring sacred fires..." at the end of yours. So much for the help you have given me by sharing this poem, and thank you!

This old poem of mine is, as I said, a bit of a haiku and it is very short. And so it is not filled with the reflections of the case of love as yours. You touches upon complicated matters f. ex. when you are talking about there being no "kings, no queens, no slaves" in this story of love. This sound like something from the Sermon on the Mount, because from an ordinary point of view kings and queens and slaves is exactly what there is in the drama of life, as in everywhere in Shakespeare an exlpicitly in this sonnet:

Being your slave, what should I do but tend
Upon the hours and times of your desire?
I have no precious time at all to spend,
Nor services to do, till you require.
Nor dare I chide the world-without-end hour
Whilst I, my sovereign, watch the clock for you,
Nor think the bitterness of absence sour
When you have bid your servant once adieu;
Nor dare I question with my jealous thought
Where you may be, or your affairs suppose,
But, like a sad slave, stay and think of nought
Save, where you are how happy you make those.
So true a fool is love that in your will,
Though you do any thing, he thinks no ill.

But your poem seems go beyond such a state entering the "ever soaring sacred fires..." of yours. A different quality of love.

And now again I get to remember the companion poem of my own forgotten poem mentioned above, and strangely this is also about remembering. It is about how the experience of love can establish itself like an unconscious and migthy memory in the body. Not a conscious memory which we are so aware of being questionable (reading K) but unconscious...

I am sorry, have not answered you earlier! But I work 24 hours shifts, and I have been too tired to sit down before now, this lovely morning.

Bless you.

56
About a year ago I came across a remarkable botle of wine, a mix of three different grapes. I do not remember the name, but I believe it came out of South Africa as the roses do of Kenya. At least a similar one, I have found in the supermarked, does. "Havana Hills. Lime Road no. 1481". A mix of cabernet sauvignon, merlot and carbernet franc - and apart from the delicious taste it is the mix thing that awakens my enthusiasm for this wine. The idea of making wine as a blend of different brews is old. To go from one grape to a blend is a small step for one man but a remarkable step for mankind. The mix is of course a metaphor for society, the blend of different conditionings which can take place when they are carefully put together. So conditioning is not a problem but properly understood the precondition for mixing with one another.

57
Hi, Stephen! What have you eaten? Making up such a story about Superman. As far as I know, he never needed anything to fly, being from another planet, no? Maybe I just have some cartoons to catch up.

58
The way of Superman was to hide behind his alter-ego, Clark Kent. When you suggest. Stephen, that there is a dialogue between these two personalities it sounds like you are thinking of the alter-ego as a super-ego - but I don´t really know if it is so. I mean: Is there a conflict between the two ego´s, or does he change from being one of them to be the other without conflict? My drug is not really alcohol or anything else; it is being creative in the broadest sense of the word but also in the ordinary art-sense of it. What makes me high is acting creatively under any given circumstances - when I succseed, that is, but it happens. I do not feel caught in harmonizing with disorder all the time - there are gaps in the wall, where I can act creatively. And here I would like to put a quotation by the russian philosopher Nicolas Berdyaev (1874 - 1948):

"There was a time when symbolism was the mode in art: that belongs to the past. But there is an eternal symbolism of art. It would be truly realistic, if human life - the life of the world could be transfigured by means of art. But in art we are given only signs which hint at a real transfiguration. The meaning of art is that it anticipates real transfiguration. Art is full of symbols of another world. Every attained beauty is an incipient transfiguration of the world. Within the limits of art this transfiguration is not yet achieved. But art may pass beyond the bounds set for it as a separate sphere of culture."

Berdyaev´s philosophy is based on Christianity in a peculiar way. In a way giving in completly to the dogmas of the past, and then in return doing something else:

"Salvation from sin, from perdition, is not the final purpose of religious life: salvation is always from something and life should be for something. Many things unnecessary for salvation are needed for the very purpose for which salvation is necessary - for the creative upsurge of being. Man's chief end is not to be saved but to mount up, creatively." (The Meaning of the Creative Act, p. 105)

Such a wonderful freedom of thought .

59
You are saying that nature is striking back, aren´t you? Hope I´m not getting it wrong. I understand that most of the time the relationship of man with nature is not in balance . But I´m not sure, I expect it to be. Why don´t we wear the glasses of the open eye in the wall?

"There is a Moment in each Day that Satan cannot find
Nor can his Watch Fiends find it, but the Industrious find
This Moment & it multiply, & when it once is found
It Renovates every Moment of the Day if rightly placed"

William Blake

I think there is such a balance, in moments, like in a haiku. The haiku of each day.

60
"Understanding comes with the awareness of what is. There can be no understanding if there is condemnation of or identification with what is. If you condemn a child or identify yourself with him, then you cease to understand him. So being aware of a thought or a feeling as it arises, without condemning it or identifying with it, you will find that it unfolds ever more widely and deeply, and thereby discover the whole content of what is. To understand the process of what is, there must be choiceless awareness, a freedom from condemnation, justification, and identification. When you are vitally interested in fully understanding something, you give your mind and heart, withholding nothing. But unfortunately you are conditioned, educated, disciplined through religious and social environment to condemn or to identify, and not to understand. To condemn is stupid and easy, but to understand is arduous, requiring pliability and intelligence. Condemnation, as identification, is a form of self-protection. Condemnation or identification is a barrier to understanding. To understand the confusion, the misery in which one is, and so of the world, you must observe its total process. To be aware and pursue all its implications requires patience, to follow swiftly, and to be still." Today´s quote, 25. of July 2009

Today´s quote made me think of my "favourite hobbyhorse" and I went to look in Harold Blooms book "SHAKESPEARE The Invention of the Human" for another quote. I found this one, which I feel touches upon a similar approach:

"What Shakespeare himself was like, we evidently never will know. We may be incorrect in believing we know what Ben Johnson and Christopher Marlowe (Shakespeare´s contemporaries, red.) were like, and yet we seem to have a clear sense of their personalities. With Shakespeare, we know a fair number of externals, but essentially we know absolutely nothing. His deliberate colorlessness may have been one of his many masks for an intellectual autonomy and originality so vast that not only his contemporaries but also his forerunners and followers have been conciderable eclipsed by comparison. One hardly can overstress Shakespeare´s inward freedom; it extends to the conventions of his era, and to those of the stage as well. I think we need to go further in recognizing his independence than we ever have done. You can demonstrate that Dante or Milton or Proust were perfected products of Western civilization, as it had reached them, so that they were both summits and epitomes of European culture at particular times and particular places. No such demonstration is possible for Shakespeare, and not because of any supposed "literary trancendence." In Shakespeare, there is always a residuum, an excess that is left over, no matter how superb the performance, how acute the critical analysis, how massive the scholary accounting, whether old-style or newfangled. Explaining Shakespeare is an infinite exercise; you will become exhausted long before the plays are emptied out. Allegorizing or ironizing Shakespeare by privileging cultural anthropology or theatrical history or religion or psychoanalysis or politics or Foucault or Marx or feminism works only in limited ways. You are likely, if you are shrewd, to achieve Shakespearean insights into your favourite hobbyhorse, but you are rather less likely to achieve Freudian or Marxist or feminist insights into Shakespeare. His universality will defeat you; his plays know more than you do, and your knowingness consequently will be in danger of dwindling into ignorance."

I have earlier put forward the idea that Krishnamurti somehow absorbed his approach from what Bloom calls the shakespeareian invention (discovery) of the human. I do not mean by saying so to minimize Krishnamurti´s originality. Quite the opposite. Krishnamurti had by doing so the ability to listen to a mind so completely different from his own. Krishnamurti has not been eclipsed by Shakespeare - but enlightened.

61
Yes. Walt Whitman or Shakespeare.

"I remember one summer, in crisis, being at Nantucket with a friend who was absorbed in fishing, while I read aloud to both of us from Whitman and recovered myself again. When I am alone and read aloud to myself, it is almost always Whitman, sometimes when I desperately need to assuage grief. Whether you read aloud to someone else or in solitude, there is a peculiar appropriateness in chanting Whitman. He is the poet of our climate, never to be replaced, unlikely ever to be matched. Only a few poets in the language have surpassed “When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom’d”: Shakespeare, Milton, perhaps one or two others. Whether even Shakespeare and Milton have achieved a more poignant pathos and a darker eloquence than Whitman’s “Lilacs,” I am not always certain." Harold Bloom in "The Western Canon"

“What theory did the great critics have? Critics like Dr. Samuel Johnson or William Hazlitt? Those who adopt a theory are simply imitating somebody else. I believe firmly that, in the end, all useful criticism is based upon experience. An experience of teaching, an experience of reading, one’s experience of writing—and most of all, one’s experience of living. Just as wisdom, in the end, is purely personal. There can be no method except the Self.” Harold Bloom in an interview that appeared in "The Atlantic".

My point is that when we listen to Krishnamurti, we do not meet an approach that should be totally unfamiliar to Western tradition. It´s more like an unconsciously approach surfacing. Until Krishnamurti showed up no one who struggled to be free had a mirror - so freedom was allways also a tragedy.

Anthony Hopkins in.

Anthony Hopkins: "Not one more Shakespeare! Let´s try something new."

62
I am for some reason not able to watch this video on this network. But I googled: krishnamurti 1928 new york, and it popped up on youtube. I´ll gladly play the fool and show it to everyone I know on my lab top. That´ll be an overwhelming way of greeting people - though last time I did so to someone with a video of an older, more stern Krishnamurti, she got really pissed off.

63
The Ommen version of the speech was more designed to the specific purpose of dissolving the Order of the Star. In this later version Krishnamurti seems to have taken the same ideas further. New are the lines about true perfection as above all law and all chaos. The bird has taken off.

64
I see the point of the non-intentinoal approach to enlightenment. What touches me most of this speech, is the part of coming naturally to the true perfection of the self. That´s what we all think, is it not? But we do ot really believe in it, before someone like Krishnamurti comes along and expresses the point without irony, distance or fanatism. Then it becomes clear, and we get to think of moments in our lives where it actually happened so, it came naturally in its particularity.

In my garden I am fortunate to have an old pear tree with a huge amount of fruits his year. But that´s not the point. Years ago a caprifolium sprung up between the tree and the house and I led it upwards by a string (as it is a climber). Now it has caugth the branches of the tree reaching in over the roof - and it is blooming from the top of the tree to be seen from the road. And from the air.

65
Krishnamurti speaks of being aware of the ways of the memory of the past as if memory is something we should not leave any space open to. But memory has it´s fair place and limited time, and it is only by allowing it to take it that a response here to can let something else come into being. Response is related to memory as memory is related to experience. And this response is not limited but adequate. This response is creative, but it does not come into being by excluding memory. Rather we should be carefull about remembering. It might even be worth a cult.

66
Yesterday I witnessed an interview with the Egyptian writer Mona Eltahawy, who had just recieved her first death threat because of protesting against the decision of the Yale Press not to include the news paper cartoons of Muhammed in the book "The Cartoons that Shook the World" by Jytte Klausen. The interviewer expressed surprice that this actually was her first death threat, because she is a well known critic of fundamentalistic islam. She nevertheless insists to present herself as a Moslem writer, not only a writer. Of course there was from the audience a question as to why. But she persisted to claim to be both a Feminist and a Moslem. This was to pave the way for having a moslem identity without being a fanatic. Was it so more a strategy than an expression of her real identity? I do not think so. She seemed to be proud of her complicated heritage. Everyone in her familiy had to fight for their own space, she said. That was her idea of democracy. It may be cats and dogs - but that is how the world is. Though sometimes cats and dogs make friends.

67
Drinking wine is definitly a christian "dogma", and wine has spread all over the world whereever the christians went. At multi-religious conferences christians often have to insist that wine is available at dinner though other religions abhor it. Also Alan Watts mentions this and he supports the christian demand. And I can´t imagine Krishnamurti would have had anything to say against it. I think in one of Mary Lutyen´s books it is mentioned that on one ocasion Krishnamurti even had a sip of wine himself. My guess is that had he been from a christian culture he hand drunk wine as naturally as he with his actual background was a vegetarian.

Nothingness, at first I misunderstood your question, as if you were asking: If the teachings of Krishnamurti and the Christian communion were to be understood as parallel phenomenas - and I thought this to be a marvellous idea! According to Martin Luther the presense of the Christ is actual in bread and wine in the sacrament of communion: It is still bread and wine but Christ is also there, we do not eat and drink just to remember him (as other denominations teach), he IS actually there! And can one think of a better explanation of the functioning of the teachings of Krishnamurti. It´s a book or a video, but the presense of Krishnamurti is also there, so that reading a paragraph in a book is actually communion, it is a ritual, it is a sacrament. In earlier illiterate times another sacrament than a book was needed. The bread and wine thing was a very elegant thing to do.

68
Dialogue may be overestimated. It has it´s place, but the road of dialogue may not lead as far as to action. It may only lead as far as to the sea of silence, the sea of communion with the fact.

Silence enters and communion takes place and then action.

And action may not be as revolutionary as expected. I like to think of Krishnamurti as the noble revolutionary, because revolutionary he was indeed, but also he was not violent - passionate but not violent.

Passion might be sleeping.

69
Nanzelela, we would not be talking about aloneness and action in the first place, if it was not because of Krishnamurti - so the revolutionary quality is also to be found in him, but it is Noble, so it can easily be not noticed.

Concerning the "structures he left behind" I can understand that you say they are not revolutionary - but as I see it, it is only because it was the very revolutionary structures already developed in society that he did pick up for himself - to explicate them with more intelligence and sensitivity than anyone had done before. So compared to already existing revolutionary structures they are of course not revolutionary though they are more acurate, but compared to traditional structures they seem to me to be revolutionary. And certainly they were revolutionary to the theosophical context in which they originated! Nevertheless I think you have a point, because the blasphemic quality of the speech in Ommen in 1929 by which Krishnamurti dissolved The Order of the Star can seem to escape. To my mind Krishnamurti did detach himself to much from tradition to meet my orientation of life. That is why Rastafari for me has become a vehicle to enter back into tradition.

70
One morning my cat entered the room with a starving howl, turning to the site where I use to feed him. At that moment also a bird landed in the open window and started to sing. This went on for several minutes and both the cat and I listened with acute awareness. When the song ended in silence, I said: "That would be todays breakfast". Immediately the cat set off and killed the bird.

71
What is it to exploit the teachings? It might be an idea to clear up what we are talking about. If it is Ken´s manipulated picture of Krishnamurti as a parrot, I do not think it is any such a thing. It is a comment to those who become Krishnamurti parrots and repeat sentences more or less out of touch with their meaning. But of course a touch of blasphemy is unavoidable, because it is Krishnamurti himself who actually is pictured as a parrot! But the point must be that he is undestand as such by those who are themselves parrots. So the picture is actually revealing an exploiting attitude to Krishnamurti and is itself not an example of it. It is a final bite to the always barking dog.

To exploit the teachings might be something else. Sometimes I feel it is taking place when Krishnamurti is quoted endlessly in socallded dialouges. Krishnamurti pursued the end step by step, and he would never quote himself repeatedly.

To keep the teachings pure I think we have to understand that they are to be "distorted" everywhere they take root. No one will keep them pure who does not also make them his or her´s own. To every person who lives there is a touch of subjectivity which is original and which is not to be thought of as a conditioning. So that in order to keep the teachings pure a certain amount of bastardising has to take place. So if someone come to understand what Krishnamurti is talking about, it will look different. The choice is between becoming a parrot or a bastard. We cannot become Krishnamurtis.

72
It does not matter whether Krishnamurti wanted to be interpreted or not. That is how we deal with things in our culture - and no one has the right to challenge this. Nor do I think Krishnamurti actually attempted to do so. His warning against interpretations of the teachings has meaning only as far as it is understood as a warning not to confuse any interpretation with the teachings themselves. I am sorry to make the point, but Krishnamurti is not Mohammed.

73
Speaking of Victor Borge, I have a remark of his in my heart that I would like to share. Not so long before he died, he was back here and he joined the Crown Prince of Denmark in the opening of the train trail on our longest bridge. The TV was there, and in the news we saw the two of them standing in the front of the train watching the railway disappear beneath them. Suddenly Victor Borge froze into ice and anxiously asked the Prince: "How do you get off the track?"

74
Krishnamurti claimed to have no recollection of the past, and I wonder what it does really mean. Did his memory disappear just like that, or did it disappear in the creative proces of producing the teachings? This last possibillity is what I would like to suggest - also implying that the teachings are to be considered as a work of art.

Few days ago I read an old article about the sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsen, who after having spent most of his life working in Rome in the year of 1838 returned to Copenhagen. He had become famous by then and everyone wanted to know about his life. When asked about his past he answered that he could not remember, because all of his experience had gone into the sculptures. So look at them, he said - or ask this or that person, who has known me in my life!

I feel I can understand this. To have no recollection of the past does not have to mean to be totally blanc, but it means that you are aware that your experience of life is used and burned out in the act of creativity. When I have a passionate or even traumatic issue in my life I usually manage to write a poem about it - or act differently in a certain respect. And I think it is wise to leave it there.

75
From: COMMENTARIES ON LIVING SERIES III CHAPTER 26 "WHY HAVE I NO INSIGHT?"
IT HAD BEEN raining continuously for a week; the earth was soggy, and there were large puddles all along the path. The water level had risen in the wells, and the frogs were having a splendid time, croaking tirelessly all night long. The swollen river was endangering the bridge; but the rains were welcome, even though great damage was being done. Now, however, it was slowly clearing up; there were patches of blue sky just overhead, and the morning sun was scattering the clouds. It would be months before the leaves of the newly washed trees would again be covered with fine, red dust. The blue of the sky was so intense that it made you stop and wonder. The air had been purified, and in one short week the earth had suddenly become green. In that morning light, peace lay upon the land. A single parrot was perched on a dead branch of a nearby tree; it wasn't preening itself, and it sat very still, but its eyes were moving and alert. It was of a delicate green, with a brilliant red beak and a long tail of paler green. You wanted to touch it, to feel the color of it; but if you moved, it would fly away. Though it was completely still, a frozen green light, you could feel it was intensely alive, and it seemed to give life to the dead branch on which it sat. It was so astonishingly beautiful, it took your breath away; you hardly dared take your eyes off it, lest in a flash it be gone. You had seen parrots by the dozen, moving in their crazy flight, sitting along the wires, or scattered over the red fields of young, green corn. But this single bird seemed to be the focus of all life, of all beauty and perfection. There was nothing but this vivid spot of green on a dark branch against the i blue sky. There were no words, no thoughts in your mind; you weren't even conscious that you weren't thinking. The intensity of it brought tears to your eyes and made you blink - and the very blinking might frighten the bird away! But it remained there unmoving, so sleek, so slender, with every featherin place. Only a few minutes must have passed, but those few minutes covered the day, the year and all time; in those few minutes all life was, without an end or a beginning. It is not an experience to be stored up in memory, a dead thing to be kept alive by thought, which is also dying; it is totally alive, and so cannot be found among the dead. Someone called from the house beyond the garden, and the dead branch was suddenly bare..."

76
Rain Pebble, this is a marvellous quotation, you have posted! And so well reflected upon by Krishnamurti himself also, as he comments that this is not to be stored up in memory and yet writing it down so brilliantly to communicate it. This is revealing that it is an expression of responsible culture to produce works of the mind and of the art to communicate with one another. Krishnamurti was an extraordinary writer. Now I wonder how the text would have continued had he gone on to describe the interaction with the person calling upon him - or did he already describe it? Is there a metaphore hidden in the piece about the river and the parrot? Perhaps there is in the very fact of dealing with both of them in one story. The river and the parrot.

77
".... and the dead branch was suddenly bare. There were three of them, a woman and two men, and they were all quite young, probably in their middle thirties. They had come early, freshly bathed and clothed, and were obviously not of those who have money. Their faces shone with thought; their eyes were clear and simple, without that veiled look that comes with much learning. The woman was a sister of the oldest of them, and the other man was her husband. We all sat on a mat with a red border at each end. The traffic made an awful noise, and one window had to be closed, but the other opened upon a secluded garden in which there was a wide-spreading tree. They were a bit shy, but soon would be talking freely. "Although our families are well-to-do, all three of us have chosen to lead a very simple life, without pretensions," began the brother. "We live near a small village, read a little, and are given to meditation. We have no desire to be rich, and have just enough to get by. I know a certain amount of Sanskrit, but hesitate to quote the Scriptures authoritatively. My brother-in-law is more studious than I, but we are both too young to be learned. By itself, knowledge has very little meaning; it is helpful only in that it can guide us, keep us on the straight road."I wonder if knowledge is helpful; may it not be a hindrance? "How can knowledge ever be a hindrance?" he asked rather anxiously. "Surely, knowledge is always helpful." Helpful in what way? "Helpful in finding God, in leading a righteous life." Is it? An engineer must have knowledge to build a bridge, to design machines, and so on. Knowledge is essential to those who are concerned with the order of things. The physicist must have knowledge, it's part of his education, part of his very existence, and without it he cannot go forward. But does knowledge set the mind free to discover? Though knowledge is necessary to put to use what has already been discovered, surely the actual state of discovery is free from knowledge. "Without knowledge, I might wander off the path that leads to God." Why shouldn't you wander off the path? Is the path so clearly marked, and the end so definite? And what do you mean by knowledge? "By knowledge I mean all that one has experienced, read, or been taught of God, and of the things one must do, the virtues one must practice, and so on, in order to find Him. I am not, of course, referring to engineering knowledge." Is there so much difference between the two? The engineer has been taught how to achieve ...."

78
Rain Pebble, I agree to the pure and loving observation. But I can´t help feeling that metaphor is also involved. The abundance of water could be reflecting the teachings themselves, and the parrot could be reflecting the lovely young people sitting on the barren branch of society.

In another, similar piece the metaphor is more obvious:

"It was really marvellous river, wide, deep, with so many cities on its banks, so carelessly free and yet never abandoning itself. All life was there upon its banks, green fields, forests, solitary houses, death, love and destruction; there were long, wide bridges over it, graceful and well-used. Other streams and rivers joined it, but she was the mother of all rivers, the little ones and the big ones. She was always full, ever purifying herself, and of an evening it was a blessing to watch her, with deepening color in the clouds and her waters golden. But the little trickle so far away, amongst those gigantic rocks which seemed so concentrated in producing it, was the beginning of life and its ending was beyond its banks and the seas.

Meditation was like that river, only it had no beginning and no ending; it began and its ending was its beginning. There was no cause and its movement was its renewal. It was always new, it never gathered to become old; it never got sullied for it had no roots in time. It is good to meditate, not forcing it, not making any effort, beginning with a trickle and going beyond time and space, where thought and feeling cannot enter, where experience is not." (From a Shambala Pocket Classic and probably from The Notebook)

Notice "the little trickle so far away, amongst those gigantic rocks which seemed so concentrated in producing it" by which the text moves from mere impressionism to a more expressionism-like style. This is clearly a metaphor. And also, meditation is by the author said to be in the likeness of the river. As the parables of Jesus are metaphors of the kingdom of God, so the observations of Krishnamurti are metaphors of meditation. And also the parables of Jesus are pure observation.

79
I saw a nuclear power station in Rostock, Germany with white steem coming up continiously into the blue sky, and it seemed to me to be the cathedral of the future. But a nuclear explosion seems to me to be nothing but a metaphor for disaster. And it is not true either that there is only one question. There are a lot of questions.

80
What the baby oranguthan learns from its mother seems to take place by mere imitating. No thought is involved. Thought is when I have to figure out if I have enough money for the next month or enough food for the winter. Here thought is necessary.

81
A squirrel may think about whether it has enough food for the winter or not. So I may be wrong in thinking that animals do only imitate. A squirrel is even aware if a crow steals its hidden food - so it cannot be only imitating.

When we speak to one another every sentence is so loaded with information that we need to think intelligently to grasp what is actually communicated. To think just for the fun of it.

82
Why is it ego stroking to share an information about the squirrel? If I am splitting anyones hair, it is my own.

83
I guess it is possible to acquire skill by imitating alone, but to develop new sorts of skill one has to think. Thinking is great. It is not love though. Nor is skill thought.

84
"In oneself lies the whole world and if you know how to look and learn, the door is there and the key is in your hand. Nobody on earth can give you either the key or the door to open, except yourself." (Krishnamurti)

"Poetry, particularly Shakespeare's, teaches us how to talk to ourselves, but not to others. Shakespeare's great figures are gorgeous solipsists: Shylock, Falstaff, Hamlet, Iago, Lear, Cleopatra, with Rosalind the brilliant exception. Don Quixote and Sancho really listen to each other and change through this receptivity. Neither of them overhears himself, which is the Shakespearean mode. Cervantes or Shakespeare: they are rival teachers of how we change and why. Friendship in Shakespeare is ironic at best, treacherous more commonly. The friendship between Sancho Panza and his knight surpasses any other in literary representation." (Harold Bloom)

Nobody on earth can give you either the key or the door to open, except yourself - with Rosalind the brilliant exception.

85
You do not seem to value the picture of Dom Quixote and Sancho Panza as a picture of anything but a mistake. But the point is not that we play the hero without a reason to one another. But that by doing so we change:

"Don Quixote and Sancho really listen to each other and change through this receptivity."

If I am the world - what do I find at the bottom of my heart? I do not find the world unconditioned - I find another persons conditioned world. And seeing this my own conditioning disappears.

86
I think my little poem about a raven or two (at the top) is about an experience equal to the one you mentioned in an earlier post: About waking up one morning with the emotional strain of a bad experience completely gone - leaving only the factual memory of what had taken place.

I think this factual memory is the raven or two. They come from Hell and they know completely about it, but the tales they tell are puryfied. They are not burdened by them, they can fly. They are not heavy but black.

The point is that they only tell a certain story once. When it is cleared, it is cleared - and one cannot enter back into the turmoil. Rather strange, not Paradise is closed but Hell.

87
A rather interesting observation. As far that I can see you´re obviously right. Krishnamurti did not use those words (the sacred, the unkovn, the other) in positive terms. But I think that is because he did not live our lives. Is it not the proces of living to identify the sacred, to make the unknown known? When that is done, it is the past - and it is no longer sacred or unknovn. But it has to be done. The unknown is the open door.

88
The psychological known has to end, the content of my consciousness has to end. When Krishnamurti speaks of moments of innocence, is that not the ending of it? But then it is immediately back again - but now it is watched by innocense and then creativity is taking place, which is transforming the known. So the unknown is transforming the known. The known is always there as the solid rock, and the unknown is the fruitfull soil and all that belongs to it. The known and the unknown co-exist. Not in the moment of innocence but in the hour of experience.

89
Chaitanya Nagar, thank´s for your quote about the first step being the last step, which strikes me right away. Also your bringing in of the "trivial" seems to me to fit into this context. But I would like to say that the first step actually is trivial, or at least it seems to be so. You take it - and turn the coin and it shows up to be also the extraordinary last step. Not for you but for someone else. "A small step for one man - but a giant leap for mankind", turns out to be a religious saying. The prophet of our time might be Armstrong on the Moon.

90
One has to be innocent to understand this. Otherwise it sounds like an endless condeming which it is not. If one is innocent responsibility is not a burden but what makes life possible at all.