JB/J. Krishnamurti

[Guest guest]

Dear JB,

 

Ultimately, not is there only no judging, but there is nobody to

judge. To judge is a 'luxury' those dedicated to 'clear seeing'

can't afford. It reinforces the concept of separation, of a

separate " me " vs. " them, " which is duality.

 

I don't judge J. Krishnamurti. My posting was only a spur of the

moment thing, a sort of 'off the top of my head' commentary. I never

met him, I only read a few of his books. I like what he has to say.

I like what everyone has to say.

 

I 'listen' only to Reality. Reality is not 'me', it's not 'him',

it's not 'you'... it isn't personal or impersonal ... it is just as-

is. Nothing more can be said.

 

I have nothing negative or positive to say about the man. He is(was)

what he is(was) and I'm content with that.

 

Love,

 

Omkara

 

Nisargadatta, JB789@h... wrote:

> Hi Tim,

> I have heard and seen J. Krishnamurti, at several of his talks in

> Switzerland/England.

> I've heard lots of thinker-gurus before. Listening to them, I would

> be loaded with Thoughts, or stimulating conceptual terminology..

> (Brahman, Atman, Shakti, True Self etc.) not to speak of those

> stimulating emotions and hope.

> Leaving after hearing a talk by K., I've never felt any acquired

> luggage.. on the contrary.

> His kind of simplicity, it seems to me, is very rare. That might be

> one of the reasons why many people do not 'get it'.

> I am mentioning this, not as a 'my guru is better than yours'

argument

> (such as the one, I felt present in 'Meetings with Maharaj, 8)..

> but I thought to supplement, just in case of interest.

> I have some comments to your mail, below..

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta, " Omkara " <coresite@h...> wrote:

> >

> > Hi List,

> >

> > For what it's worth (nothing at all) -- I see J. Krishnamurti as

a

> > great philosopher/thinker. He churned out so many books, it

makes

> > one dizzy.

>

> # Yes there are many books around, -but the fact is, that very

> few of those (like his 'Notebook' and 'Commentaries on Living'

which

> was a record of some of his dialogues with visitors) are _written_

by

> him. They are all transcripts of his recorded-on-tapes talks and

> dialogues.

>

> Unfortunately he never seemed to get his message across

> > too well. Philosophy can be like that... it appeals to the

head...

> > it never really affects 'the heart'.

>

> Yes, I've heard that evaluation before..

> mostly from mpeople who wanted to be uplifted emotionally or

get

> a 'buzz'. He called 'philosophy' as 'love of life', and

not

> thinking about it. Because one could not relate to his simplicity,

> one categorizes it as 'intellectual/heady'.

> To me, N. has a much more developed intellect than JK.

> .. not to speak of all the hindu & cosmological terminology he uses

> (not in 'I am That' but in some other books).

> And What is the 'Heart' ? Is it something to be 'Affected' ?!..

> To me the Heart Is, when one starts where one is..(as most of us

are,

> including the anti-intellect ptreachers).. in the head .. and the

Mr.

> Awareness the Surgeon, cuts thru.

> To me, there was hardly anything appealing to the head in it.

> But neither to the emotions.

> It was a 3rd thing.

> N.'s words, though 'mind blowingly' direct and clear, appeals to

> my 'head', because it is so definite.. clear to the intellect and

so

> gives great hope or at least a feeling of 'aha, I got it'.

> But there is a danger in that.

> With K., I never felt I had really much to get a hold of, and

> incorporate in my conceptual structure.

> He did not serve any clear-cut goodies, to grasp and hang onto,..

> so many felt they did not 'get it',..

> When you see that, there is only one 'clear'-cut thing of value,

that

> remains.. the light of awareness.. and that is also the heart

> (not 'pink' colors) which belongs to no one and cannot

be 'affected'

> by another.

> I belive JK. said (paraphrase): 'If your light is lit by and

borrowed

> from another, it is like a candle, .. it can be blown out very

> quickly .. so much better to start with your own light, however

> small/dim it might be'

>

>

> > He attracted large audiences to

> > hear him speak, but I'm not sure anyone understood very well what

> he

> > was trying to say <grin>.

> >

> > To his dying day he complained 'nobody ever got the message'.

>

> Correct. But what did he exactly mean by that ?

> You Think you know.

> Anyway, I know of several examples/persons, that understood.

But

> since there is no hierachical 'Lineage' there, they don't mention

him

> much. Even so, most of the newer teachers (including Buddhists and

> Vedantins) talk of him with great respect.

>

>

> > I

> > never heard of Nisargadatta saying anything like that. I don't

> know

> > if I would categorize J. Krishnamurti as a 'Sage', per-se.

> > Maybe " Sage-Philosopher. "

>

> .. 'Categorize' ...

> .. it might be better to listen (?!).. if one is interested.

> Anyway, why a thinker/philosopher ?.. because he pointed out

> the state of the world, and said 'You are the world and the

> world is you' ?

> To me that is Facts,.. nothing to do with playing around with

> thoughts.

>

> >

> > I know someone personally (well, on the Net) who got a lot out of

> J.

> > Krishnamurti's writings. Also, J's 'evil twin', U.G. <grin>

could

> be

> > called a disciple, I suppose -- although from all accounts, it

> > appears that if U.G. " got anything from " J. Krishnamurti, it was

> that

> > all philosophy, all head knowledge is empty. He likes to

denounce

> > him as a fraud :-).

> >

> > Other than that, a philosopher is a philosopher. Was J.

> > Krishnamurti 'Realized? " There's no judging, but Cathy's writing

> > speaks volumes. He was a thinker. He claimed an appreciation

for

> > the beauty of nature, but I wonder if he wasn't lost in dreams

> > of 'setting mankind totally free'.

>

> .. are you assuming .. 'non-'judgementaly ?

> .. 'Cathy's writing speaks volumes'...

> so ?.. must it be the truth ?

> 'K. was fidgety', she writes...

> so what ?

> N. looked to me (on a Video) very restless and impatient to

> the point of being angry.. and he smoked (what for ?.. to calm his

> nerves?).. so what ?

> Sorry, but we're so childish and gullible and comparative.. Now,

> THAT, to me, is 'heady'.

>

> I do not know what 'Namaste' means, I am not a Hindu/Buddhist..

> so I'll limit myself to a merely 'temporal useless blah':

> Have an enjoyable day !

>

> JB

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > Tim