The Religious Mind Does Not Believe in a Religion?

[Sunstone]

Jiddu Krishnamurti somewhere says:

"The religious mind is something entirely different from the mind that believes in religion. You cannot be religious and yet be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist. A religious mind does not seek at all, it cannot experiment with truth. Truth is not something dictated by your pleasure or pain, or by your conditioning as a Hindu or whatever religion you belong to. The religious mind is a state of mind in which there is no fear and therefore no belief whatsoever but only what is."

What do you make of his statement? In what way(s), if any, is it true? In what ways(s), if any, is it false? Why?

 

[LuisDantas]

I take issue with his statement that one cannot be religious "inside" a specific denomination.

That said, I have long felt that religion is not about truth as much as about inspiration. Despite his own wording, it seems to me that he is saying as much.

Religiosity as I understand it is about accepting what would otherwise be acknowledge as risks, due to a firm commitment to a goal perceived as valid.

 

[Falvlun]

It sounds like he's defining "religious" to only encompass the particular endpoint of his religious beliefs.

I'm not a huge fan of redefining terms to mean something else, but sometimes it's clever or makes a good point. I'm not really seeing the good point here.

 

[Sunstone]

I take issue with his statement that one cannot be religious "inside" a specific denomination.

That said, I have long felt that religion is not about truth as much as about inspiration. Despite his own wording, it seems to me that he is saying as much.

Religiosity as I understand it is about accepting what would otherwise be acknowledge as risks, due to a firm commitment to a goal perceived as valid.

Krishnamurti drew a sharp distinction between belief and experience. He was very reluctant to use such words as "you should experience god, rather than merely believe in god", because such words seem to imply some kind of belief about what god is or is not. That's why he instead speaks of experiencing "what is". But his distinction between belief and experience stands nonetheless.

If I understand him, Krishnamurti is saying that belief in religion -- in so far as it is belief -- is not based on experiencing what is. Thus, it is not, in Krishnamurti's language, a product of the religious mind.

 

[Sunstone]

It sounds like he's defining "religious" to only encompass the particular endpoint of his religious beliefs.

Krishnamurti persistently drew a sharp distinction between experience and belief. He advocated experience -- finding out for yourself what is -- rather than belief, which he saw as largely accepting what someone else tells you is.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I fail to see why his description of the religious mind is labeled as such.

 

[Sunstone]

I fail to see why his description of the religious mind is labeled as such.

I think that was just a matter of his following the conventions of his time. But I could be wrong about that. At any rate, if I'm right, I think he might have used a different phrase, had he been born and lived later that he did.

 

[Quagmire]

Jiddu Krishnamurti somewhere says:

"The religious mind is something entirely different from the mind that believes in religion. You cannot be religious and yet be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist. A religious mind does not seek at all, it cannot experiment with truth. Truth is not something dictated by your pleasure or pain, or by your conditioning as a Hindu or whatever religion you belong to. The religious mind is a state of mind in which there is no fear and therefore no belief whatsoever but only what is."

What do you make of his statement? In what way(s), if any, is it true? In what ways(s), if any, is it false? Why?

By "religious mind" I think he's talking about a mind in what he would have considered a true state of "worship", ie., one that merely observes and experiences reality directly, rather than sifting it through the filters of dogma/expectations/prejudices/opinion or any sort of active thought process.

A mind that functions as a passive receptacle for experience, as opposed to one that attempts to define, measure, or qualify it.

 

[Sunstone]

By "religious mind" I think he's talking about a mind in what he would have considered a true state of "worship", ie., one that merely observes and experiences reality directly, rather than sifting it through the filters of dogma/expectations/prejudices/opinion or any sort of active thought process.

A mind that functions as a passive receptacle for experience, as opposed to one that attempts to define, measure, or qualify it.

In my opinion, that's a fairly good explanation of his meaning, Rick.

 

[sojourner]

The exception I take with the statement (and it sounds plausible at first glance) is that I don't think he understands either Christianity or Islam. Both of these religions are far more rooted in action and experience than they are in belief. (I think I'm not misrepresenting Islam here -- "submission" is more a set of acts and experiences than belief, yes?) Therefore, to immerse oneself in the Christian religion is to experience religion, rather than simply to predicate one's spiritual disposition upon adopting certain beliefs.

 

[Sunstone]

There's an analogy to Krishnamurti's "religious mind" that might help here (although it might also confuse some of us). At any rate, D.T. Suzuki somewhere discusses Zen trained warriors and their experiences in battle. He notes that some of them report losing all conscious thought when going into battle. That is, they would fight -- and fight effectively -- without being self-aware of themselves, so that, after the battle, they could not tell you what they had done during the battle.

Their state of mind during the battle is, I think, what Krishnamurti is calling "a religious mind". That is, a mind that is not aware of itself, that is not consciously analyzing, that is not "thinking" in the normal sense of that word. But one that is nevertheless aware in some other sense of what is going on, of what is.

 

[Sunstone]

The exception I take with the statement (and it sounds plausible at first glance) is that I don't think he understands either Christianity or Islam. Both of these religions are far more rooted in action and experience than they are in belief. (I think I'm not misrepresenting Islam here -- "submission" is more a set of acts and experiences than belief, yes?) Therefore, to immerse oneself in the Christian religion is to experience religion, rather than simply to predicate one's spiritual disposition upon adopting certain beliefs.

I find yours a very interesting perspective, Sojourner. I think, however, that Krishnamurti might ask whether the immersion in religion is not, in fact, an immersion in beliefs about religion? Can you immerse yourself in Christianity or Islam without believing anything about them? For Krishnamurti, I'm pretty sure the religious mind is one that is immersed in what is, rather than one that is immersed in beliefs about what is. Does that make any sense?

 

[sojourner]

There's an analogy to Krishnamurti's "religious mind" that might help here (although it might also confuse some of us). At any rate, D.T. Suzuki somewhere discusses Zen trained warriors and their experiences in battle. He notes that some of them report losing all conscious thought when going into battle. That is, they would fight -- and fight effectively -- without being self-aware of themselves, so that, after the battle, they could not tell you what they had done during the battle.

Their state of mind during the battle is, I think, what Krishnamurti is calling "a religious mind". That is, a mind that is not aware of itself, that is not consciously analyzing, that is not "thinking" in the normal sense of that word. But one that is nevertheless aware in some other sense of what is going on, of what is.

isn't that what goes on, though, when one "dies to self" and "lives for Christ?"

 

[sojourner]

I find yours a very interesting perspective, Sojourner. I think, however, that Krishnamurti might ask whether the immersion in religion is not, in fact, an immersion in beliefs about religion? Can you immerse yourself in Christianity or Islam without believing anything about them? For Krishnamurti, I'm pretty sure the religious mind is one that is immersed in what is, rather than one that is immersed in beliefs about what is. Does that make any sense?

Of course. But I think what Xy "is" is loving your neighbor, feeding the hungry, and living the gospel -- that is, living as one reconciled to the Divine. Everything else is construct and fluff.

 

[Sunstone]

isn't that what goes on, though, when one "dies to self" and "lives for Christ?"

I wouldn't know from personal experience, but the phrases themselves suggest to me that they may have been inspired by the sort of experiencing Krishnamurti was talking about.

 

[Bismillah]

By "religious mind" I think he's talking about a mind in what he would have considered a true state of "worship", ie., one that merely observes and experiences reality directly, rather than sifting it through the filters of dogma/expectations/prejudices/opinion or any sort of active thought process.

Disagree and I think the author does as well.

The religious mind is something entirely different from the mind that believes in religion
You cannot be religious and yet be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist. A religious mind does not seek at all, it cannot experiment with truth.

The author is saying that you cannot be religious and be a Hindu etc because there is no attempt at greater understanding. You do "not seek at all" and rather than understanding the meaning, implication and truth in a religion (whether it be Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism) the "religious mind" is "dictated by your pleasure or pain, or by your condition". The "religious mind" does not experiment, experience, and grow with a religion until it holds a meaning specifically to you. Rather the "religious mind is a state of mind in which there is no fear and therefore no belief whatsoever but only what is." There is no fear because the "religious mind" does not take religion as a personal spiritual journey, but rather has the meaning of a religion dictated to him from the outside and because of this the religion loses its meaning (this is why a religious mind cannot be a Muslim because he has not taken it upon himself to experience the faith).

Ultimately what I think he is saying is that the religious mind is a pliable mind with no oppinion of its own, but instead molds to the experiences, idea, and external pressures. The religious mind can never experience religion because of this, but instead experiences someone else's religion. We should instead strive to be a mind that believes in religion so that we can be bona fide believers ourselves.

 

[Quagmire]

In my opinion, that's a fairly good explanation of his meaning, Rick.

Thanks Phil. I'm basing that on the fact that Krishnamurti's main theme (from what little I've read of his work) seems to be centered on awareness.

I think he'd have been better off using some term other than "the religious mind" though (way too much baggage).

 

[Sunstone]

I think he'd have been better off using some term other than "the religious mind" though (way too much baggage).

I agree.

 

[Quagmire]

Disagree and I think the author does as well. The author is saying that you cannot be religious and be a Hindu etc

I think what he's saying is that being a Hindu, ect, means that you have a pre-packaged set of beliefs and that you're going to be interpreting reality through the filter of those beliefs.

Or put it this way: if you already think you understand something because you have a set of doctrine explaining it to you, you wont make any attempt to understand that thing. You might attempt to understand the explanation thereof, but that isn't the same thing.

Krishnamurti is constantly telling us to "just look at what is". A mind using doctrine or dogma as a map is going to be looking for something in particular, which creates a kind of tunnel vision.

because there is no attempt at greater understanding. You do "not seek at all"

To "seek" is, again, to be searching for something in particular. Krishnamurti is saying to "just look at what is". Then you will see what's actually there.

and rather than understanding the meaning, implication and truth in a religion (whether it be Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism)

I think his point is that it's better to understand the meaning, implication and truth of reality itself.

the "religious mind" is "dictated by your pleasure or pain, or by your condition".

That's not actually what he said.He said: "Truth is not something dictated by your pleasure or pain, or by your conditioning as a Hindu or whatever religion you belong to."

He's putting religious conditioning in the same category with pleasure and pain: something that influences and hinders your perception.

The "religious mind" does not experiment, experience, and grow with a religion until it holds a meaning specifically to you. Rather the "religious mind is a state of mind in which there is no fear and therefore no belief whatsoever but only what is."

A "belief" is a pre-set, subjective opinion. It's something your mind already holds that may or may not mesh with your observations of reality in any given moment. He's advocating unobstructed observation of the moment.

If those observations happen to correspond to any given religious doctrine, then that doctrine is unnecessary. If they conflict (whether through flawed doctrine or flawed interpretations thereof), then that doctrine is like a false map.

There is no fear because the "religious mind" does not take religion as a personal spiritual journey,

The mind he's talking about takes life as a personal spiritual journey.

but rather has the meaning of a religion dictated to him from the outside

He does include his own religion: the religion he was raised in.

and because of this the religion loses its meaning (this is why a religious mind cannot be a Muslim because he has not taken it upon himself to experience the faith). Ultimately what I think he is saying is that the religious mind is a pliable mind with no oppinion of its own,

I think he's saying it's an open mind with no pre-conditioned expectations. That allows it to see things as they are, not as they "should be", or as they once were, or as they appeared to someone in another place and time with their own experiences.

but instead molds to the experiences, idea, and external pressures. The religious mind can never experience religion because of this, but instead experiences someone else's religion.

I think he's saying the exact opposite.

We should instead strive to be a mind that believes in religion so that we can be bona fide believers ourselves.

Again, I think he's saying the exact opposite.

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

Krishnamurti was a heretic...

What chu say? Oh, yeah...I just did!

...:run:

M.V.