Effort or no effort?

September 23, 1998

Namaste.

I went to the book store and bought a book of J.Krishnamurti's

conversations The awakening of intelligence. I have just read the first

conversation and mixed feelings already. He is talking against 'cult

of effort' and against making effort about anything - 'to reach

God, enlightenment, truth'. And it is not the same as in Gita 'to see

action in non-action and non-action in action', it is looks for me as a

complete negation of action in sake of non-action. And at the same time

if he would really profess that I understand he does, he would not be so

hostile to effort because this hostility is an effort itself, and so I did

not understand that he says although I think I do understand and I presume

I am wrong somewhere.

Did I understand his position about effort or I drew too much conclusions

from too little reading? What place his writings have in the whole system

of teachings - is it one-man theories whose light is maintained solely by

the light of that man or they have some deep roots? Too much and

too condenced negation of too much for me personally at this

stage at least.. With all due respect to him, I did not intend to voice

more than my unqualified opinion, and I did not do much reading. What are

views of more learned people from the list on works of J.Krishnamurti?

Thanks to Sadananda for his letter about his experience with his works,

and thanks to all members of the list for kind attention.

Lilia

*************

"Chitrapu, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.chitrapu

That was a rather touching letter.

I would only like to point out, if you are not already aware, the works of

J. Krishnamurthy. He repeatedly and emphatically says that one should be

one's won light and guide. I think he is quite clearly 'against' the

traditional notion of a Guru. At one point, however, I remember him

clarifying/elaborating: that his idea in negating the notion of Guru is that

one should not centralize all learning into one source/person, as it is

likely to happen with an adopted Guru. On the other hand, one should be open

to learning from all and any source. This would open one up and make the

search a inclusive rather than an exclusive one. For it seems that only then

can renunciation be 'true' conflict free one. And it is a traditional notion

that the Truth is left behind to see once the obstacles drop off.

Good luck

Prabhakar Chitrapu.

September 24, 1998

>Lilia Stepanova <ls691035

>

>Did I understand his position about effort or I drew too much conclusions

>from too little reading? What place his writings have in the whole system

>of teachings - is it one-man theories whose light is maintained solely by

>the light of that man or they have some deep roots? Too much and

>too condenced negation of too much for me personally at this

>stage at least.. With all due respect to him, I did not intend to voice

>more than my unqualified opinion, and I did not do much reading. What are

>views of more learned people from the list on works of J.Krishnamurti?

>Thanks to Sadananda for his letter about his experience with his works,

>and thanks to all members of the list for kind attention.

>

>Lilia

Effort or no Effort? - How about effortless effort!

I remember, my teacher used to advice people not to read JK until one

understands the fundamentals of Vedanta clearly. My experience exemplifies

that. Once one has through grasp of the nature of the problem, one can

appreciate JK in the right spirit. I do echo Sri Prabhakar's understanding

of JK's writings. But that deduction from his teaching comes only after lot

of reading of his books or deeper analysis of his works. In his later

years, I found he jumps from one topic to the other, many times with very

loose connection, between the topics. The central theme that he wants to

drive gets packaged with lot of, what I think, overemphasis on anti-

traditions, cultures etc. as warning of how one gets conditioned. But that

discussion too, if one is not careful, can get one conditioned too. But

the essence is the same, as Sri Prabhakar noted - be your own light. - For

that one should be in a position to look at in the light of oneself.

>From my point, looking back, of course, that confusion and frustration that

I was in, was exactly what I needed at that time to appreciate the beauty

of Vedanta. In a way, I must say it prepared my mind, just as I feel the

JK's training and the upbringing in Theosophical society, was what he

needed to get out of the 'Star of the Order' that formed around him.

I donot know how many have read the biography of Ammachi - She comes to

this country quite often and she comes from a very poor uneducated

fisherman's family, and when she was young, she was severely discriminated

by her own parents, brothers and sisters. She was beaten and abused. It was

a moving experience. Someone asked her if she has any bitterness against

her family because of the ill-treatment she received. She smiled and

answered in her sweet way - "I am thankful to them, for, because of that I

came closer to the Lord". I advice everyone to read her biography - For me

it was a wonderful experience.

My sincere advice to you is to familiarize your self with vedantic

terminology and the essence of vedanta. In our study groups, we take the

introductory text" Self Unfoldment" by Swami Chinmayanandaji, which is

helpful to clarify the definitions. The book can be obtained from the

distribution center in Philadelphia. Study of Peace pilgrim writing is also

good and simple.

After understanding the beauty of Vedanta, one can appreciate all other

teachings including JK's writings. This atlest is my experience.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

September 24, 1998

>Lilia Stepanova <ls691035

>

>Namaste.

>I went to the book store and bought a book of J.Krishnamurti's

.......

>Did I understand his position about effort or I drew too much

conclusions

>from too little reading?

The latter. In your case, it would have been better to start with his

conversations with Swami Venkatesananda. I believe it occurs somewhere

in the middle of the book.

What are

>views of more learned people from the list on works of J.Krishnamurti?

Ramana described his teachings as "beyond expression". Enough said.

--Viswanath

>Lilia

>

>*************

>"Chitrapu, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.chitrapu

>

>That was a rather touching letter.

>

>I would only like to point out, if you are not already aware, the works

of

>J. Krishnamurthy. He repeatedly and emphatically says that one should

be

>one's won light and guide. I think he is quite clearly 'against' the

>traditional notion of a Guru. At one point, however, I remember him

>clarifying/elaborating: that his idea in negating the notion of Guru is

that

>one should not centralize all learning into one source/person, as it is

>likely to happen with an adopted Guru. On the other hand, one should be

open

>to learning from all and any source. This would open one up and make

the

>search a inclusive rather than an exclusive one. For it seems that only

then

>can renunciation be 'true' conflict free one. And it is a traditional

notion

>that the Truth is left behind to see once the obstacles drop off.

>

>Good luck

>Prabhakar Chitrapu.

>

>------

>Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or

>service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit

>/advert.html for more information.

>------

>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning,

profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality

between mind and matter

>

September 24, 1998

Dear Hari,

I have tried to address your concerns.

>

>"Tadepalli, Hari K" <hari.k.tadepalli

> Though I have not followed well all the conversations on Advaita &

>Sankara, I have followed all about Jiddu Krishnamurthi. Having read him

>quite an extent & his emphasis on 'deconditining' one's mind,

I don't recall K ever suggesting any system let alone 'deconditioning'.

You must mean his emphasis on being aware of one's conditioned mind.

> I am inclined

>to say that JK clearly negated whatever the Hindu scriptures had to say

>about 'striving' to attain self-realization.

Hardly. Hindu scriptures also ultimately get to "neti neti", perhaps in

a more long winded manner. Ramana says "there is none born, none in

bondage, none liberated. Know this to be The Truth Supreme."

> While not denying his own

>spiritual experiences (vide his biography), he wanted to make a clear

>delineation between them & the Hindu notions of self realization,

Moksha &

>advaita-siddhi. Jiddu's recommendation is to stay away from not only

the

>pop-variety gurus & organized piety in the name of religion, but also

those

>who are genuinely revered for their spiritual accomplishments &

teachings -

>though not very explicit, his generalization of 'non-gurus' would

include

>even people like Ramana Maharshi, Ramakrishna & Gandhiji.

Yes, it would include all of the above. More importantly it would

include himself also. K's teachings are noteworthy not so much for his

emphasis on change which other scriptures also emphasize, but rather for

his equal emphasis on the immediacy of that change. His demand is

"change now" rather than the traditional "change at your own pace" or

"change will come as per your prarabdha". Unfortunately, this also makes

his teachings most uncomfortable.

I remember an

>essay in which he seeks to explain that the notion of 'non-violence'

itself

>is fraught with self contradiction.

>

> There is no notion of 'gradual sadhana' in Jiddu's teaching - only

>this notion of persistently aware enquiry. In difference, most of the

Hindu

>saints Ramakrishna, Saibaba & Lord Krishna in the Bhagawadgita

prescribe the

>need to follow a path of progression from a Tamasic to a Rajasic to a

>Sattvic state of living & mind as the primary means to self

realization. In

>other words, mechanical practice of a virtuous life & observation of

>related religious practices do a have a useful role in the their

teachings.

It is important to realize that K also spoke at two levels. At the

higher level, his awareness can be academically translated as sahaja

samadhi by Indian traditionalists. But we have to understand that K was

a World Teacher. A mechanic in France or a businesman in the US would

not be able to understand his teachings if he had spoken in foreign

terms and reading tons of sanskrit scriptures, practising alien

austerities and practices etc. had been a prerequisite. Yet, in certain

ways his teachings are very gradual and systematic. He would not, for

instance, talk about Death, Sacred before emphasizing that one must be

free of psychological divisions, fear, and desire before enquiring into

them. So, there is indeed an implicit path/progression, though not in a

traditional sense.

---Viswanath

> T. Hari Krishna

>

>------

>To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription

>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and

>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.

>------

>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning,

profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality

between mind and matter

>

September 24, 1998

Greetings Lilia, you wrote:

->I went to the book store and bought a book of J.Krishnamurti's

->conversations The awakening of intelligence. I have just read the first

->conversation and mixed feelings already.

Jiddu is actually referring to *Inner Intelligence* or Awakening from

the Sleep of conditioned thinking and behavior when he uses the word

"intelligence" and not mere intellectualization. This could lead one

astray when one first encounters Krishnamurti's work, that is why I mention

it.

->He is talking against 'cult

->of effort' and against making effort about anything - 'to reach

->God, enlightenment, truth'. And it is not the same as in Gita 'to see

->action in non-action and non-action in action', it is looks for me as a

->complete negation of action in sake of non-action. And at the same time

->if he would really profess that I understand he does, he would not be so

->hostile to effort because this hostility is an effort itself, and so I did

->not understand that he says although I think I do understand and I presume

->I am wrong somewhere.

Krishnamurti was not hostile toward the Scriptures of his native

home-land, he was opposed to organizations and individuals who profess that

they hold the Keys to the Wisdom found in those Scripture and thus profit

by this profession. Which reminds of an elderly man, in idol

conversation, who said that he had The Word of God. After a bit, hoards

of people would travel great distances to offer him gifts and ask for his

Wisdom in having The Word of God. And he would talk to them, and they

would hang on every word and take them to heart as profound. One day a

sceptic asked, "How do I know that you have the Word of God ?" To which

the elderly man replied, "Come into my room and I will show you the book

that I have with the title _The Word of God_". Our conditioned thinking

most generally lends our focus to *False Prophets*, even those who do not

intend to deceive us but still do. His message was that we do not put

forth effort toward Awakening, that our effort should be toward emptying

our conditioned reservoir of ideas and images and meanings and Dwell IN the

Direct Experience of the Moment, form Moment to Moment. That our effort

is wasted on games of religion and conditioned perceptions of the Wisdom

found in the Scriptures and therefore should be better utilized. Jesus

said that he came not to condemn the Scriptures, but rather to Explain a

Truer meaning of them. Jiddu was actually doing little more.

->Did I understand his position about effort or I drew too much conclusions

->from too little reading?

Bear in mind that the writings of Krishnamurti and the Gitas are

thousands of years apart, so his presentation will not be the same. The

Bhagavad Gita speaks much of the conditionings that Arjuna must overcome.

In more modern terms, did not Krishnamurti say the same thing ? His

writings do not conflict with the Scriptures, but rather puts them in more

modern terms so as to be more readily understood. Is this not the essence

of a True Guru ? I would only add that a more in depth study of his

writings is necessary to get an accurate Understanding of what he Really

said.

->What place his writings have in the whole system

->of teachings - is it one-man theories whose light is maintained solely by

->the light of that man or they have some deep roots?

I would say, not much more than a Pointer like so many others who have

endeavored to Help greater Humanity out of their Suffering. For the

Wisest testimony or even the Scriptures themselves can be but Pointers.

For no one Saves us but ourselves, no one can and no one may -- others can

point to the Path, but we ourselves must Walk the Way.

->Too much and

->too condenced negation of too much for me personally at this

->stage at least..

Yes, his work is quite shocking and disturbing to most. But perhaps

that is what he tried to do -- grab us by the shoulders and shake some

sense into us. Or perhaps shake some of our conditioned notions out of

us. Or perhaps shake us so that we would Wake-Up from the Causes of our

Suffering.

Just some Food For Thought. The only reason that I post this here is

that misconceptions should not prevail in any study of Scripture or the

writings of those who may have some Insights to offer us floundering in our

own Awakening.

____

}^ ^{

~~~~~~~~~oo0(_)0oo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A person asked Buddha:

"Are you a God ?"

Buddha's reply was "No."

"Are you an Angel ?"

"No."

"Then what are you ?"

"I am Awake."

Let There Be Light -- Always In All Ways, }'-'{

http://www.Light-Mission.org

"A mighty oak tree was once a nut that stood its ground"

September 24, 1998

Though I have not followed well all the conversations on Advaita &

Sankara, I have followed all about Jiddu Krishnamurthi. Having read him

quite an extent & his emphasis on 'deconditining' one's mind, I am inclined

to say that JK clearly negated whatever the Hindu scriptures had to say

about 'striving' to attain self-realization. While not denying his own

spiritual experiences (vide his biography), he wanted to make a clear

delineation between them & the Hindu notions of self realization, Moksha &

advaita-siddhi. Jiddu's recommendation is to stay away from not only the

pop-variety gurus & organized piety in the name of religion, but also those

who are genuinely revered for their spiritual accomplishments & teachings -

though not very explicit, his generalization of 'non-gurus' would include

even people like Ramana Maharshi, Ramakrishna & Gandhiji. I remember an

essay in which he seeks to explain that the notion of 'non-violence' itself

is fraught with self contradiction.

There is no notion of 'gradual sadhana' in Jiddu's teaching - only

this notion of persistently aware enquiry. In difference, most of the Hindu

saints Ramakrishna, Saibaba & Lord Krishna in the Bhagawadgita prescribe the

need to follow a path of progression from a Tamasic to a Rajasic to a

Sattvic state of living & mind as the primary means to self realization. In

other words, mechanical practice of a virtuous life & observation of

related religious practices do a have a useful role in the their teachings.

At the other extreme, the Hindu religious orders also prescribed the

complete surrender of one's will & ego to a qualified Guru & one's preferred

personal deity. Jiddu negated this latter idea in no uncertain terms.

There is considerable discussion on the role of Guru in this group.

Somehow, most Hindu religious saints & scriptures emphasize the

indispensability of a Guru in one's efforts for self realization. So much

that, even great saints like Sri Ramakrishna, although born as 'Jivanmuktas'

(those who are liberated even from their birth) are supposed to have gone

through Gurus to fulfil this requirement. The same is said about Sri

Saibaba. My reasoning about this goes like this: I remember reading at some

point of time (psychologists & physiologists can correct me) that our

faculty of seeing is a matter of persistent training acquired by us as

infants & that our parents play a crucial role in training us to acquire

this faculty. The mere presence of the physical organ (i.e. eye) does not

endow us with the faculty of seeing. In this sense, I can liken the role of

a Guru to that of parents.

I have added a few notes from what I have known. I hope the readers

of this list can read my thoughts rather than my words & correct me if I

wrote some nonsense.

Regards,

T. Hari Krishna

September 25, 1998

>Lilia Stepanova <ls691035<ls691035>

>

>He is talking against 'cult

>of effort' and against making effort about anything - 'to reach

>God, enlightenment, truth'.

>

>And at the same time

>if he would really profess that I understand he does, he would not be so

>hostile to effort because this hostility is an effort itself, and so I did

>not understand that he says although I think I do understand and I presume

>I am wrong somewhere.

>

Greetings Lilia,

The sincerity of your search and your open mind to assimilate other opinions

is a beauty to behold. Sadananda and some others have brilliantly related

their experiences. I can only supplement but a little more information about

Krishnamurti, hoping that this will not be an intrusion and confuse you more.

Krishnamurti advised strenuous effort for his follower, in his own words:

"The 'I' is the limitation of separateness... by continual concentrated

effort, every moment of the day, you must remove this wall of limitation, and

thus establish yourself in true freedom of consciousness. That is immortality"

At the same time, as you related, he was against making effort about anything

-'to reach God, enlightenment, truth'

So he was against effort for a goal that is attractive and has definite

meaning and substituted that goal for a hazy abstraction, sometimes called

'Life,' sometimes 'Completeness', 'Freedom of consciousness', but never

conveying any sense of wonder or delight. In his logic, definite and

attractive goal is created by conditioned mind, so faulty goal. Any path, any

ladder to reach the goal also is created by conditioned mind, so faulty path.

Hence, "Truth is a pathless land". By this kind of logic the only effort that

should be exerted is to destroy the conditioned mind and all its attachment

without any other goals in mind.

So what is left?

Krishnamurti lost almost all memory of his childhood and much of his later

period. In words of Mary Lutyens who wrote his biography, "He wouldn't be able

to tell you what happened a fortnight ago..He is very fully alive in the

present and excited about what goes on inside himself from day to day. What

that is it is impossible to say, for he lives in a world and state of

consciousness so different from the normal that one can scarcely glimpse it"

Krishnamurti was against almost all traditional qualifications to realization

including chastity, he himself was not celibate and was openly against it.

"So-called holy men have maintained that you cannot come near God if you

indulge in sex, therefore they push it aside although they are eaten up with

it. But by denying sexuality they put out their eyes and cut out their tongues

for they deny the whole beauty of the earth. They have starved their hearts

and minds; they are dehydrated human beings; they have banished beauty because

beauty is associated with... The vow of chastity is not chastity at all, for

below the words the craving goes on and trying to suppress it in different

ways, religious and otherwise, is a form of ugliness which, in its very

essence, is unchaste."

Cyril Scott, an English Composer, gave an interesting opinion on Krishnamurti

by one of his Gurus in "The Initiate in the Dark Cycle". Here are some

excerpts:

"He who attempts to teach Advaita, and omits all Sanscrit terms, courts

failure. Sanscrit words engender an occult vibration which is lost when

translated. Western words not suitable to describe subjective states of

consciousness, because their associations are mainly mundane... Krishnamurti

had destroyed all the many stairways to God, while his own remain

incomplete....Also, being incomplete, it may lead to dangers unforeseen by

those who attempt to climb it. Danger Number One : Krishnamurt's casting aside

of time-honoured definitions and classifications leaves aspirant without true

scale of values. Danger Number Two: climbing his particular stairway

necessitates constant meditation, which in its turn necessitates constant

protection from Guru-and Guru not allowed by Krishnamurtiâ€¦.Another flaw in

this pseudo-Advaita which Krishnamurti is giving out, is that he addresses the

personality, the physical plane man [personal self], as if he were the Monad

[Atman] or at least the Ego [higher self]. Of course the Monad , the Divine

Spark, is the Absolute Existence-Knowledge-Bliss, and hence eternally free,

but that doesn't mean that the personality down here, immersed in

endless-seeming Karmic difficulties, can share its consciousness, or even that

of the Ego--the link between the personality and the Monad. Krishnamurtiâ€™s

Advaitism, which is not to be confounded with the recognised form of that

noble philosophy, will, I fear, lead his followers no where except perhaps to

hypocrisy and self-delusion."

My own conclsion is the same as Sadananda that only after understanding the

beauty of Vedanta that one can truely appreciate Krishnamurti's philosophy.

Alex

September 25, 1998

At 07:28 AM 9/24/98 -0400, sadananda wrote:

>Effort or no Effort? - How about effortless effort!

>

>I remember, my teacher used to advice people not to read JK until one

>understands the fundamentals of Vedanta clearly. My experience exemplifies

>that. Once one has through grasp of the nature of the problem, one can

>appreciate JK in the right spirit.

Effort or no effort? I agree with Sri Sadananda that understanding the

fruit or essence of JK's teachings is easier after one has studied Vedanta.

After you have a certain grasp on Vedanta, you will be able to recognize

JK's anti-establishment views as besides the point of the true teaching,

and the essential teachings will flow to you quite naturally. JK distills

the fruit of volitionlessness and effortlessness, but he is, in my

experience very unclear about HOW to reach this understanding. As to HOW

to reach this understanding, the teaching of Vedanta excels. After you

learn a certain amount of Vedanta, you will be able to read JK and confirm

and celebrate the understanding.

>My sincere advice to you is to familiarize your self with vedantic

>terminology and the essence of vedanta. In our study groups, we take the

>introductory text" Self Unfoldment" by Swami Chinmayanandaji, which is

>helpful to clarify the definitions. The book can be obtained from the

>distribution center in Philadelphia. Study of Peace pilgrim writing is also

>good and simple.

Let me second this recommendation. The Chinmaya Mission has wonderful

study groups, perhaps one near you. You can call the Tri-State Center in

Pennsylvania at 215-396-0390 if interested, and ask about the closest

group. Also, the intro text SELF UNFOLDMENT by Swami Chinmayananda

mentioned by Sadananda is the best and clearest one-volume introduction to

the formal Advaita Vedanta I've ever seen. Also available at the same

phone number.

--Greg

September 25, 1998

I find the quotation from Buddha most beautiful ! Thanks.

Prabhakar

> ----------