• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Teachings of J. Krishnamurti

K.Venugopal

Immobile Wanderer
The religion he belonged to, or identified with.
K never ever identified himself with any religion or tradition. Also, he never used any words popular in a spiritual discourse in its traditional or popular sense. He suffused words with his own breath of freshness. However, towards the end he called all his 60 years of talks and writings as simply "the teaching" and was keen that it was passed on without any tampering and for this he formed a small group of his friends. He never claimed to be a guru and never anointed anyone as his successor or follower. At the very end, he also added for good measure - "nobody" – among his associates or the world at large – had understood him, his life, or the teaching!
 

zenzero

Its only a Label
Friend Venu,

K never ever identified himself with any religion or tradition. Also, he never used any words popular in a spiritual discourse in its traditional or popular sense. He suffused words with his own breath of freshness. However, towards the end he called all his 60 years of talks and writings as simply "the teaching" and was keen that it was passed on without any tampering and for this he formed a small group of his friends. He never claimed to be a guru and never anointed anyone as his successor or follower. At the very end, he also added for good measure - "nobody" – among his associates or the world at large – had understood him, his life, or the teaching!

Yes, what you have mentioned is true.
As mentioned before no one has anything original to offer. One is just but a medium for existence for such offerings.
The method he spoke of is to reach to THAT understanding intellectually which is what GYAN YOGA is though he never mentioned or put it that way.
However; He followed the birds *leaving no footprints in the sky*.Totally merged with existence.
Love & rgds
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
K never ever identified himself with any religion or tradition. Also, he never used any words popular in a spiritual discourse in its traditional or popular sense. He suffused words with his own breath of freshness. However, towards the end he called all his 60 years of talks and writings as simply "the teaching" and was keen that it was passed on without any tampering and for this he formed a small group of his friends. He never claimed to be a guru and never anointed anyone as his successor or follower. At the very end, he also added for good measure - "nobody" – among his associates or the world at large – had understood him, his life, or the teaching!
Thanks for the info, that's very interesting, however I did get the impression that he was religiously influenced, that he was religious.
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the info, that's very interesting, however I did get the impression that he was religiously influenced, that he was religious.

Theosophy.... a 19th century new agey occultist group...


not really a "religion"

Emb_logo.png


Krishnamurti was born into a Telugu Brahmin family in what was then colonial India. In early adolescence, he had a chance encounter with prominent occultist and high-ranking theosophist C.W. Leadbeater in the grounds of the Theosophical Society headquarters at Adyar in Madras (now Chennai). He was subsequently raised under the tutelage of Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater, leaders of the Society at the time, who believed him to be a "vehicle" for an expected World Teacher. As a young man, he disavowed this idea and dissolved the worldwide organization (the Order of the Star) established to support it. He claimed allegiance to no nationality, caste, religion, or philosophy, and spent the rest of his life traveling the world as an individual speaker, speaking to large and small groups, as well as with interested individuals. He authored a number of books, among them The First and Last Freedom, The Only Revolution, and Krishnamurti's Notebook. In addition, a large collection of his talks and discussions have been published. His last public talk was in Madras, India, in January 1986, a month before his death at his home in Ojai, California.
His supporters, working through several non-profit foundations, oversee a number of independent schools centered on his views on education – in India, Great Britain and the United States – and continue to transcribe and distribute many of his thousands of talks, group and individual discussions, and other writings, publishing them in a variety of formats including print, audio, video and digital formats as well as online, in many languages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti
 

K.Venugopal

Immobile Wanderer
Thanks for the info, that's very interesting, however I did get the impression that he was religiously influenced, that he was religious.
He must have been religious in the sense he defined a religious mind: A religious mind is a mind that is constantly aware, sensitive, attentive, so that it goes beyond itself into a dimension where there is no time at all.
 

josh.steed

New Member
The stories of K are too good to ignore- besides, stories are the best way to communicate ideas without being didactic. Self conscious allegory is the least effective mode, but the beat fiction and true stories can help us find our own path better than any other medium.

K disbanded the Order established to deify him, but went on to be as damn close to a Maitreya as the twentieth century managed to cough up. Bhagwan, Gurdjieff, Crowley - all very entertaining, but basically on HUGE ego trips.

So, paradoxically, Leadbetter was about as right as he could be in identifying K as summat pretty special!

Its worth mentioning that the Theosophists of the time regarded 'Sanat Kumara' as the highest authority- later they came to regard Sanat as the lord of humanity, his authority exceeded by none other than the Buddha.

Perhaps mankind is not just a collection of individuals, but does have a singular etheric presence? What does it matter if we call this theoretical being 'the Devil', 'Sanat' or 'YHWH'? When the Victorian egotist Westerners first looked into the mirror-like white light - is it any surprise they saw themselves?

'Magic is a mirror, wherein who sees muck is muck' crowley

'The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal name.' lao tzu

"The fiery joy, that Urizen perverted to ten commands" blake

X
 

krsnaraja

Active Member
The stories of K are too good to ignore- besides, stories are the best way to communicate ideas without being didactic. Self conscious allegory is the least effective mode, but the beat fiction and true stories can help us find our own path better than any other medium.

K disbanded the Order established to deify him, but went on to be as damn close to a Maitreya as the twentieth century managed to cough up. Bhagwan, Gurdjieff, Crowley - all very entertaining, but basically on HUGE ego trips.

So, paradoxically, Leadbetter was about as right as he could be in identifying K as summat pretty special!

Its worth mentioning that the Theosophists of the time regarded 'Sanat Kumara' as the highest authority- later they came to regard Sanat as the lord of humanity, his authority exceeded by none other than the Buddha.

Perhaps mankind is not just a collection of individuals, but does have a singular etheric presence? What does it matter if we call this theoretical being 'the Devil', 'Sanat' or 'YHWH'? When the Victorian egotist Westerners first looked into the mirror-like white light - is it any surprise they saw themselves?

'Magic is a mirror, wherein who sees muck is muck' crowley

'The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal name.' lao tzu

"The fiery joy, that Urizen perverted to ten commands" blake

X


His specialty was the subconscious. Mine is Krishna consciousness.
 

no-body

Well-Known Member
Not sure why this thread was resurrected, but I have learned a lot from Krishnamurti about NOW.

There are certain things about his personal life which are iffy but if you truly follow "the" teachings it is irrelevant what he did or did not do.
 

meditation

New Member
Krishnamurti have more scientific attitude than many others but he still use mystical,unclear notions,terms that 's the point i don't like.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Hi and welcome to RF meditation.

That's the point, that which is represented by the mystical notion can't be known by the conceptual mind. The REAL which the teacher alludes to is something to realize directly by a mind that is free from thought.

The REAL can't be confined to any space, can't be limited by any time, can't be described by any words, and can't be known by any knowledge, so how does one who understands this convey it to the one who is unaware?

By the use of metaphorical, allegory, simile, parable, mystical language that is meant to point in the right direction,..the rest is up to the aspirant!

Btw, with a name 'meditation', it seems you are on the way. Only when the mind is still, will that which is real not be obscured by your thoughts about that which is real. :D
 

K.Venugopal

Immobile Wanderer
When K said "Truth is a pathless land", he was simply rephrasing the ancient Vedic proclamation "Tat Tvam Asi" - you are that. If you are already that which you aspire, all paths can only take you away from yourself.
 

zenzero

Its only a Label
Friend Venu,
"Truth is a pathless land" also means "Tat Tvam Asi"
wonderfully explained! frubals.
If you are already that which you aspire
But in this sentence there is a deviation meaning THAT which one IS is not what he can aspire as no aspiration is required or any effort by the mind is required to be IT. Aspiration is using the mind to be somebody but when one is already That then where is the question of aspiration?
All that is required is to quiten the mind's activities. Only when the Mind STILLS one Is THAT!

Love & rgds
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
When K said "Truth is a pathless land", he was simply rephrasing the ancient Vedic proclamation "Tat Tvam Asi" - you are that. If you are already that which you aspire, all paths can only take you away from yourself.

True, so if the path may lead you away from yourself, it now then all comes down to realization of the answer to the question of exactly what and who I really am in the context of Absoluteness.

Unless this prerequisite understanding of what and who I am is present, people may be (and are) deluded by imagining that they (the persona) are THAT.

False Messiahs abound these days as the profane don't understand the underlying meaning of such esoteric teachings (which is why they were kept esoteric in the first instance and required some prerequisite initiation to prove worthiness before being revealed).

But when the who and what is understood,..what zenzero says..;)
 

K.Venugopal

Immobile Wanderer
Tat or That implies separation. But there is no separation - we are the total: Aham Brahmasmi. Words limit, separate. Only silence frees. The state is spoken of negatively: non-duality or advaita.
 
Top