greetings

[Guest guest]

List Moderators's Note: Welcome to the list and we look forward to your active

participation with insightful questions and comments.

=================

 

greetings members of the advaitin group! :-)

 

my name is rachMiel and i am new to this community. i got interested

in advaita through readings in the krishnamurti . i have

been 'working through' krishnamurti's writings for many years.

 

i have a question for those of you who have grappled with krishnamurti:

 

how much do you feel one can 'learn' from his writings and talks?

 

i ask for i have recently come to the (perhaps temporary) conclusion

that krishnamurti's writings/talks ARE ___________ (fill in the blank

with whatever word you're comfortable with: TRUTH, ABSOLUTE,

ENLIGHTENMENT) but do not necessarily 'help one' reach ___________.

which is fitting for a man who passionately denounced guru-hood.

 

and another question about advaita:

 

does advaita offer a WAY IN to _____________? or, is it like

krishnamurti, who said that 'truth is a pathless land' implying that

any attempt to find a WAY IN prevents you from being _____________.

 

seems like an excellent group; thanks for allowing me to join. :-)

 

rachMiel

[Guest guest]

Hello rachMiel,

 

I'd read/studied all of K/murti's writings many years

ago. I believe he's right about everything he says!

Ha! The problem was, for me, that I could not apply

his teachings. I believe he spoke--my own opinion

now!!--from an enlightened state and the teachings

were beautiful, comforting, " right " seeming--still,

they were inaccessible for me. HOW on earth to apply

them? Such statements as the " pathless path " , yeah,

that sounds right! Okay, what next??

 

He spoke/wrote as one who had " attained " but also as

one who could not lead or give others means to that

attainment.

 

Robert Johnson, the author and Jungian analyst, in his

autobiography, " Balancing Heaven And Earth " , describes

his time with K/murti. Apparently, K/murti was going

to designate Johnson as his spiritual heir. Johnson

could not accept it and when Johnson described why he

could not accept it, I was in complete agreement. He

said, in the book, the same thing I'm saying: K/murti

did, apparently, have a pathless path which few, if

any could follow...welcome, and best wishes, Steve.

I'm a complete and utter novice here. More familiar

with the Ashtavakrah Gita than any other, so I'm no

authority on anything whatsoever...

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " rachmiel " <rachmiel wrote:

greetings members of the advaitin group! :-)

 

my name is rachMiel and i am new to this community. i got

interested

> in advaita through readings in the krishnamurti . i have

> been 'working through' krishnamurti's writings for many years.

>

> i have a question for those of you who have grappled with

krishnamurti:

 

> how much do you feel one can 'learn' from his writings and talks?

 

Namaskaram,

 

[*venturing into expressing some (stupid)thoughts .]

 

1. i have been a student ( like many others ) for a long time. And

from a student's perspective, JK has been a great thing to happen.

Not that he was a man of miracles, but indeed a wonderful teacher,

who directs you the way ahead.

 

2. " how much do you feel one can 'learn ' from his writings and

talks? " . Don't you think, whatever be the topic

that you study / learn - you learn or study that till you understand

that. Is there something " beyond " understanding? If one has

understood what he has been telling, then there is nothing more to

" learn " or " study " . But there is also a possibility of our

*feeling* that we understood something, which may be a

*mis*understanding. Now our mind will not tell us that what we

understood is a misunderstanding until we understand our

misunderstanding. So the process of learning

continues - a) to understand

b) to make sure that our understanding is correct understanding and

not misunderstanding which is thru discussions, debates thinking etc.

 

3. Once we understood or *learned* what is being guided by JK

then what do we do? I wonder if there is such a stage at all?

Don't you think that this life is for living ? Are we not living our

life? Yes, we do live our life, but out of apprx 16 lively hours, how

much time do we spend in living, and how much time we spend in

worrying about almost everything? If we are able to reduce the time

we spend on worrying and move that to living then there is a great

change in our life that we live now.

 

4. JK to my (limited) understanding, show the route...but he does

not tell any one do this or do that. He is encouraging us to look at

things with our own eyes - educate our mind to look at things with

our educated eyes rather than conditioned eyes - . Once we are able

to do this, then rest is rather easy - i think.

 

5. There are many of my friends who disagree with me in this matter.

They say, even if we are aware or we have the knowledge, still we

will worry, we will make our life miserable , because we *want* in

some particular way, though we know the chances of it to be the way

we want is very remote and only thing that we could do

is to worry ( and pray ).

 

6. While we do worry, when we are educated, when we know the chances

of something to be the way we *want* is remote, though we try for

that, kindly note that the * education * makes a difference. If by

ignorance I would have worried for let me say 3 hrs or so; now with

education it will have a downward gradient and it may approach to as

little time as may be a few seconds!!.

 

7. Where does Advaita come in here? Again to my (limited)

understanding, to understand " Advaita " one need a mind which goes on

and on inquiring. May be JK's talks etc has helped many in this

direction - while there are many who are wedded to

( another bonding !) JK's " philosophy "

and stop with his " teachings " .

 

 

finally, all the teachings are to open our mind. I feel we are so

blessed to have such wonderful discussions in this great " Advaitin "

group and as some examples I will just ref to the ongoing discussions

on " Object and consciousness of object " and the other topic " Time " .

 

namskaram

take care

[Guest guest]

> Hello rachMiel,

 

> I'd read/studied all of K/murti's writings many years

> ago. I believe he's right about everything he says!

> Ha! The problem was, for me, that I could not apply

> his teachings.

 

bingo! ;-)

 

> I believe he spoke--my own opinion

> now!!--from an enlightened state and the teachings

> were beautiful, comforting, " right " seeming--still,

> they were inaccessible for me. HOW on earth to apply

> them? Such statements as the " pathless path " , yeah,

> that sounds right! Okay, what next??

 

yes.

 

> He spoke/wrote as one who had " attained " but also as

> one who could not lead or give others means to that

> attainment.

 

this goes along with what he (purportedly) said shortly

before his death, that no one had really 'gotten' his

message, no one had realized (fully) his teachings.

 

> Robert Johnson, the author and Jungian analyst, in his

> autobiography, " Balancing Heaven And Earth " , describes

> his time with K/murti. Apparently, K/murti was going

> to designate Johnson as his spiritual heir. Johnson

> could not accept it and when Johnson described why he

> could not accept it, I was in complete agreement. He

> said, in the book, the same thing I'm saying: K/murti

> did, apparently, have a pathless path which few, if

> any could follow...

 

sad, isn't it? krishnamurti, from what i've read, truly

loved humanity. and wanted to help. he did help to awaken

'worldly' intelligence. but 'spiritual' intelligence?

 

> welcome, and best wishes, Steve.

 

thanks steve.

 

> I'm a complete and utter novice here. More familiar

> with the Ashtavakrah Gita than any other, so I'm no

> authority on anything whatsoever...

 

hey I'M no authority on anything either ... even the

realms of my 'expertise' ... perhaps we're related?

[Guest guest]

Hello rachmiel,

 

... perhaps we're related?

 

No doubt! Think we're all far more related than NOT

related! Cultures, tribes, ethnic groups, religions,

philosophies, countries, politics...a bunch of labels

plastered over our selves. ( " My way is right, your way

is wrong! " ). Much more alike than different...maybe we

have a lot of fun in trying to come up with differences?

 

 

______________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

> Namaskaram,

 

what does the word above mean? is it sanskrit?

 

> 1. i have been a student ( like many others ) for a long time. And

from a student's perspective, JK has been a great thing to happen. Not

that he was a man of miracles, but indeed a wonderful teacher, who

directs you the way ahead.

 

i'm glad you feel this way, since most of the people i've spoken with

feel that krishnamurti WAS THE LIGHT, but couldn't communicate THE

LIGHT very well.

 

> 2. " how much do you feel one can 'learn ' from his writings and

talks? " . Don't you think, whatever be the topic that you study /

learn - you learn or study that till you understand that. Is there

something " beyond " understanding? If one has understood what he has

been telling, then there is nothing more to " learn " or " study " .

But there is also a possibility of our *feeling* that we understood

something, which may be a *mis*understanding. Now our mind will not

tell us that what we understood is a misunderstanding until we

understand our misunderstanding. So the process of learning continues

- a) to understand b) to make sure that our understanding is correct

understanding and not misunderstanding which is thru discussions,

debates thinking etc.

 

i adore words. but i'm painfully aware of their futility (even danger)

when it comes to realms of spiritual awakening. so when you say

" through discussions, debates, etc. " i get all excited (more words:

YUM!) ... and at the same time feel deflated, because i know with my

heart/MIND that words can seduce one into feeling one is HERE when one

is in fact way over there ...

 

one more for the koan bag: how can one use words to go beyond words? ;-)

 

> 3. Once we understood or *learned* what is being guided by JK then

what do we do?

 

i wonder is this possible? krishnamurti himself said (as i mentioned

in my other posting) that NO ONE got his message fully. so how can one

presume to understand or learn krishnamurti's message?

 

> I wonder if there is such a stage at all? Don't you think that this

life is for living ? Are we not living our life? Yes, we do live our

life, but out of apprx 16 lively hours, how much time do we spend in

living, and how much time we spend in worrying about almost

everything? If we are able to reduce the time we spend on worrying and

move that to living then there is a great change in our life that we

live now.

 

yes.

 

> 4. JK to my (limited) understanding, show the route...but he does

not tell any one do this or do that. He is encouraging us to look at

things with our own eyes - educate our mind to look at things with our

educated eyes rather than conditioned eyes - . Once we are able to do

this, then rest is rather easy - i think.

 

from my fairly extensive contact with people who have, to a greater or

lesser extent, 'followed' the teachings of krishnamurti ... the word

EASY does not apply. ;-) or perhaps, better said: the (pathless) path

to the state you describe is exceedingly DIFFICULT, but once you're

there, the rest is effortless. (question: can anyone get THERE by

applying the teachings of krishnamurti?)

 

> 5. There are many of my friends who disagree with me in this matter.

They say, even if we are aware or we have the knowledge, still we will

worry, we will make our life miserable , because we *want* in some

particular way, though we know the chances of it to be the way we want

is very remote and only thing that we could do is to worry ( and pray ).

 

yes. part of the task is to 'cleanse' the conscious mind. this is

RELATIVELY easy. compared that is to the other part of the task:

cleansing all layers of the unconscious mind. the latter is, in my

opinion, fabulously difficult.

 

> 6. While we do worry, when we are educated, when we know the chances

of something to be the way we *want* is remote, though we try for

that, kindly note that the * education * makes a difference. If by

ignorance I would have worried for let me say 3 hrs or so; now with

education it will have a downward gradient and it may approach to as

little time as may be a few seconds!!.

 

yes. this is very fine. instead of focusing on ENLIGHTENMENT (or

whatever similar term you want to use), and considering everything

that falls short of this to be failure, one celebrates any and all

movement 'forward' ... :-) baby steps. ;-)

 

> 7. Where does Advaita come in here? Again to my (limited)

understanding, to understand " Advaita " one need a mind which goes on

and on inquiring.

 

then i'm in the right place!

 

> May be JK's talks etc has helped many in this direction - while

there are many who are wedded to ( another bonding !) JK's

" philosophy " and stop with his " teachings " .

 

yes. like it or not, krishnamurti will be (has been and will continue

to be) guru-ized. in fact i've heard speculation about a new world

religion that could rise from krishnamurti's teachings. this would be

the ultimate irony: to create an institution around the writings of a

man who was passionately and utterly opposed to all institutionalization!

 

thank you for taking the time and energy to respond to my posting.

 

rachMiel

[Guest guest]

> ( " My way is right, your way

> is wrong! " ). Much more alike than different...maybe we

> have a lot of fun in trying to come up with differences?

 

fun, yes. we derive pleasure from fragmentation, don't we? self/other.

mine/yours. better/worse. i have moved sooooooo far from dualistic to

non-dualistic thinking over the years, effortlessly (through

understanding the futility and violence of dualism) ... and yet i

still derive great pleasure somewhere deep down from feeling SEPARATE

from. BETTER than. DIFFERENT than. i marvel at the capacity of the

human brain to harm itself (and others).

[Guest guest]

rachmiel,

 

yet i

still derive great pleasure somewhere deep down from

feeling SEPARATE

from. BETTER than. DIFFERENT than. i marvel at the

capacity of the

human brain to harm itself (and others).

 

Then we are certainly related! All I can do when this

stuff comes up is to watch it and chuckle at

myself...then it just floats on by. I've given up

thinking those separations will stop once and for all.

I just watch and wait. It passes on by.

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

> rachmiel,

 

> yet i

> still derive great pleasure somewhere deep down from

> feeling SEPARATE

> from. BETTER than. DIFFERENT than. i marvel at the

> capacity of the

> human brain to harm itself (and others).

 

> Then we are certainly related! All I can do when this

> stuff comes up is to watch it and chuckle at

> myself...then it just floats on by. I've given up

> thinking those separations will stop once and for all.

> I just watch and wait. It passes on by.

 

like clouds on a windy day ... yes. sometimes. other times,

for me, i hang onto the thoughts. for a couple of reasons.

first, i believe they give me pleasure. even if that

pleasure is pain. because pain is drama, and i am in love

with drama. makes life feel exciting to me. ;-) second

reason: i am rather severely ocd. obsessive compulsive

disorder(ed): thoughts get stuck in loops, like a switch

in my frontal lobe is stuck on ON. thus my physiology

adds a challenge to my spiritual 'quest' ... :-)

[Guest guest]

Pranams rachMiel-ji.

Let me extend you a very warm welcome to the group.

 

I have had an opportunity to read some of Krishnamurthy's works but would

certainly not consider myself completely familiar with all his philosophy. I

would hence refrain from any comments about him, other than to say that there

have certainly been intellectual giants, geniuses if you will, amongst us, who,

seem to intuitively have a feeling for the Truth, but having arrived at it by

means, perhaps unknown to themselves, are unable to artciculte the Truth in a

manner that seems coherent to the ignorant, nor provide any specific guidelines

or specific directions of their own.

 

The primary truth of Vedanta is that it is not authored by a person or a group

of persons, not even by a God or by a particular religious sect aka " Hindu " -

there is no individual-based experience or sect-based philosophy here. So if

some asks whose philosophy is Vedanta? All we can say it is sanatana - eternal.

 

Secondly the teaching is not something that is unavailable to everyone,

something esoteric, something that is out-of-body or transcendental, something

that is uniquely achievable in some undescribable trance or " state " of no-mind -

it is a Universal teaching that has a solution in the form of a Universal

knowledge, that is Universally available in the here and now. According to

Vedanta, what is " to be known " is both " known " and " unknown " . Being " unknown " it

is not cognized, and being " known " it is re-cognized to be something other and

hence " not known " . Because of this alone is a teaching possible, hence alone can

a learning be successful.

 

Thirdly, Vedanta is not exclusionary but in many ways, instead all-inclusionary.

Nothing is rejected - be it religion, prayer, yoga, values, dharma, ritualistic

worship, austerities, even work and relationships - everything is assigned a

place, a role, in the overall schema of the evolution of an individual.

 

Vedanta first defines a problem that is Universal. The problem is one of

limitation and hence fear.

I find myself to be limited, and hence in a state of " constant craving " . I am

never happy with my status quo - I find myself lacking at every stage of my

life, and whatever I gain - be it money, power, fame, relationships, - fail to

deliver me from this innate sense of incompleteness. I fear losing what I have,

I fear losing my loved near and dear ones, and most of all I fear my own

imminent and sadly inevitable demise.

Now Vedanta tells such a person a fact - You are Eternal, the Limitless Whole,

the very Substratum of this Universe.

Any rational human being with any sense of logic and a spirit of scientific

enquiry cannot but reject this startling statement of fact outright. It is the

most natural reaction. To say that I, a puny little mass of flesh, bones and

excreta, constantly decaying, trying to make two ends meet while all the time,

the shadow of Death awaits, anxious for my devourment, - am Eternal, my very

nature is Happiness, - the whole thing seems a rather elaborate joke.

BUT if the Grace of God is smiling upon you, you take a step-back, rub your eyes

and ears, and say, wait-a-minute - perhaps this is worth looking into a little

further, perhaps there is something more than what meets the eye here - perhaps

this is worth my time enquiring into.

 

Upto this point, the teaching has not really begun. Two things now are paramount

- purushartha nischaya and shraddha. Purushartha nischaya is a choice, a

deliberate choice on the part of the individual, when after experiecing life for

a certain lenght of time, it has become clear to the individual that anything

that accrues to him in terms of wordly acquisitions is not going to solve his

fundamental problem and there-in is generated a certain degree of dispassion

towards a mad hankering after things and people. An enquiry into the Self, or a

devotion towards God, becomes the overwhelming concern of life. Shraddha loosely

translated as faith, is an acceptance of the validity of the statement of the

scriptures we call Shruti, which are the eternal Vedopanishads, and in the words

or Upadesha of our Guru or Acharya.

 

Once this is in place the teaching begins. And thanks to a teaching process, a

sampradaya enunciated and established for the most part by Bhagwan Adi Shankara,

the words of the Shruti are unfolded.

Hearing this teaching is what is shravana.

Now of course during the course of this teaching, one encounters a seemingly

endless stream of doubts, most of which are answered during the course of the

teaching itself.

What is real? what is unreal? what is changing? what is eternal? What is the

self? what is the nonself? What is seen? Who is the seer? How is anything known?

What is delusion? What is real? What is apparent? Why is there delusion? and for

whom? How will it go? How can mere word-knowledge of a sentence or sentences

deliver me from Death? and suffering? What is the Universe? How did it get

created? Who is God? What is God? What is my relationship with the God and the

Universe?

 

And in this the Scripture uses various methodologies or prakriyas. The words of

the Scriptures are not fantasay tales of a Eternal Heaven nor are they

meaningless phrases about unknown words like Mu and barking dogs. The words are

very deliberate, the sentences very carefully contstructed, metaphors deliberate

and pregnant with wisdom. Often times the intellect is intentionally bewildered

by paradoxes so as to break it loose of its shackles of perfunctory

thought-processing - for example it will be said the atma is anoroaneeyan

-subtler than the smallest atom or particle and soon as the intellect formulates

some concept about this it declares the atma to be mahato mahiyan - larger than

the Universe itself, and at the same time seated in the " cave " of your

intellect! While declaring that this knowledge is beyond words and beyond the

mind Yatho Vacho Nivartante, it also declares just as emphatically that " by the

Mind alone It is to be known. " The Shruti,

[through the Acharya], in Her infinite patience and compassion, and slowly,

ever-so slowly, approaches the seeker thus and leads him or her from one rung of

understanding to another.

Inspite of this there can and do arise multiple doubts along the path - this is

where the second stage of this path comes into play - mananam - a reflection

over these areas, and getting them clarified either through repeated

self-reflections or through the Guru.

Once all the doubts have been put to rest, the third stage of nidhidhyasana or

an internalization of these teachings has to take place. Until when? Until there

is persistence of doubt of whether there is further internalization required.

There is quite simply abidance in the Self-Awareness.

 

So yes, Vedanta also says that concepts need to be discarded, but there needs to

be a method. " What is in your cup? Water. Dropt it. I did. Now what is in your

cup. Nothing. Drop it! " - this kind of an approach to teaching is quite alien to

Vedanta. Of course once Vedanta is understood, then we can appreciate the beauty

in many such cryptic statements, but Vedanta itself is very deliberate in its

approach, it is taliored to a rational intellect, and is geared towards

unfolding an understanding based on methodical and dispassionate enquiry. There

is hence great emphasis on grammar, on rules of logic, and most importantly

reverence for a teaching tradition that has been handed down over the ages.

 

Sadashiva Samarambham Shankaracharya Madhyamam

Asmadacharya Paryantam Vande Guru Paramparam

 

" I salute the Guru parampara which starts with SadaShiva, which is anchored by

Adi Shankaracharya in the middle, and is continued by a lineage of Acharyas

(including my own Guru) "

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rachmiel <rachmiel

advaitin

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:50:36 PM

greetings

 

List Moderators's Note: Welcome to the list and we look forward to your active

participation with insightful questions and comments.

============ =====

 

greetings members of the advaitin group! :-)

 

my name is rachMiel and i am new to this community. i got interested

in advaita through readings in the krishnamurti . i have

been 'working through' krishnamurti' s writings for many years.

 

i have a question for those of you who have grappled with krishnamurti:

 

how much do you feel one can 'learn' from his writings and talks?

 

i ask for i have recently come to the (perhaps temporary) conclusion

that krishnamurti' s writings/talks ARE ___________ (fill in the blank

with whatever word you're comfortable with: TRUTH, ABSOLUTE,

ENLIGHTENMENT) but do not necessarily 'help one' reach ___________.

which is fitting for a man who passionately denounced guru-hood.

 

and another question about advaita:

 

does advaita offer a WAY IN to ____________ _? or, is it like

krishnamurti, who said that 'truth is a pathless land' implying that

any attempt to find a WAY IN prevents you from being ____________ _.

 

seems like an excellent group; thanks for allowing me to join. :-)

 

rachMiel

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> rachmiel <rachmiel

> advaitin

> Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:50:36 PM

> greetings

>

> List Moderators's Note: Welcome to the list and we look forward to

your active participation with insightful questions and comments.

> ============ =====

>

> greetings members of the advaitin group! :-)

>

> my name is rachMiel and i am new to this community. i got interested

> in advaita through readings in the krishnamurti . i have

> been 'working through' krishnamurti' s writings for many years.

>

> i have a question for those of you who have grappled with

krishnamurti:

>

> how much do you feel one can 'learn' from his writings and talks?

>

 

>

> rachMiel

 

Dear rachMiel,

 

Welcome to the group. Below is a short rendition of the

one time I heard J. Krishnamurti speak. It is true that

I was fairly young at the time, and I certainly did not

have the intellectual tools available to understand him.

 

But my surmise is that very few people were ever

able to understand him, even people who had been

with him for a very long time. I believe that he may have

been what in Vedanta is called a 'mystic,' that is

someone who 'knows' the truth, (a person whom we call a jnani),

but someone who, lacking exposure and therefore ability

to use a methodology in teaching, (which in Vedanta is

referred to as 'pramana'), could not explain to others

the truth which he knew.

 

 

Seeing Krishnamurti:

 

In 1976 I was living in northern California. Several

of us decided to attend a meditation retreat that

was being held in southern California.

 

On the way back north, we stopped to spend the night with

friends in Santa Barbara, and were told that J. Krishnamurti

would be giving a public talk in Ojai the next day,

so we decided to stop off and hear him on our way home.

 

While in India I had spent some time at the Theosophical

Society in Madras. I knew very little about Theosophy,

but the grounds of the Society were very beautiful, and

I enjoyed my stay there immensely. I had read some books

about Theosophy and Krishnamurti, and knew that he had been

brought up to be a world teacher, but had left the organization.

Beyond that, I knew very little about him, and nothing

of his teachings.

 

My friends and I arrived at the orange grove in Ojai

where Krishnamurti was to speak. As we got out of the car,

I was immediately struck by the lovely scent of

orange blossoms perfuming the air. There was nowhere

this smell was not. It pervaded every place. At the

same time I was aware of a deep and underlying

silence more profoundly pervasive than the scent

of orange blossoms. It seemed as if everything was

being held by, or taking place within this stillness.

 

There were many people there, several hundred at least,

and we were not able to find a place to sit

near the small platform where Krishnamurti was to speak.

 

Without any announcement, Krishnamuri quietly appeared on

the stage. A small man, with a shock of white hair,

wearing an impeccably pressed shirt of robin's egg blue.

He began to speak. He was definitely speaking English.

I could make out the individual words, but I couldn't

understand what they meant. I couldn't comprehend the

meaning of anything he was saying.

 

At one point he became agitated and started pounding

the podium in front of him, his white hair falling

over his forehead.

 

" No, no, you don't understand! " he said,

" Why don't you understand? "

 

He repeated this statement a few times in various ways,

and appeared to be getting rather worked up. I began to

feel sorry for him. It was true that I didn't

understand, but I couldn't see why he was so upset with

everyone. Somehow it seemed sad to me. The delicious

silence, the beautiful smell of orange blossoms, and

this little dignified man in his impeccably pressed shirt,

so upset that no one understood him.

 

Many years later when I met Jean Klein, I spoke to him

about J. Krishnamurti. I knew that Jean admired Krishnamurti

and that he had travelled with him on some of Krishnamurti's

tours. " Did you like Krishnamurti? " I asked Jean on the first

day I met him. " Yes, " said Jean. " very much. He always wore

such beautiful shirts. " ---

 

Wishing all success with your studies,

Durga

[Guest guest]

> Dear rachMiel,

 

> Welcome to the group.

 

thank you.

 

> Below is a short rendition of the

> one time I heard J. Krishnamurti speak. It is true that

> I was fairly young at the time, and I certainly did not

> have the intellectual tools available to understand him.

 

> But my surmise is that very few people were ever

> able to understand him, even people who had been

> with him for a very long time. I believe that he may have

> been what in Vedanta is called a 'mystic,' that is

> someone who 'knows' the truth, (a person whom we call a jnani),

> but someone who, lacking exposure and therefore ability

> to use a methodology in teaching, (which in Vedanta is

> referred to as 'pramana'), could not explain to others

> the truth which he knew.

 

yes. it is kind of strange to have a person like this, someone

whose genius lies in his being, not in his ability to help others

attain this state of being, to spend his life 'teaching' ...

 

> Seeing Krishnamurti:

 

> In 1976 I was living in northern California. Several

> of us decided to attend a meditation retreat that

> was being held in southern California.

 

> On the way back north, we stopped to spend the night with

> friends in Santa Barbara, and were told that J. Krishnamurti

> would be giving a public talk in Ojai the next day,

> so we decided to stop off and hear him on our way home.

 

> While in India I had spent some time at the Theosophical

> Society in Madras. I knew very little about Theosophy,

> but the grounds of the Society were very beautiful, and

> I enjoyed my stay there immensely. I had read some books

> about Theosophy and Krishnamurti, and knew that he had been

> brought up to be a world teacher, but had left the organization.

> Beyond that, I knew very little about him, and nothing

> of his teachings.

 

> My friends and I arrived at the orange grove in Ojai

> where Krishnamurti was to speak. As we got out of the car,

> I was immediately struck by the lovely scent of

> orange blossoms perfuming the air. There was nowhere

> this smell was not. It pervaded every place. At the

> same time I was aware of a deep and underlying

> silence more profoundly pervasive than the scent

> of orange blossoms. It seemed as if everything was

> being held by, or taking place within this stillness.

 

> There were many people there, several hundred at least,

> and we were not able to find a place to sit

> near the small platform where Krishnamurti was to speak.

 

> Without any announcement, Krishnamuri quietly appeared on

> the stage. A small man, with a shock of white hair,

> wearing an impeccably pressed shirt of robin's egg blue.

> He began to speak. He was definitely speaking English.

> I could make out the individual words, but I couldn't

> understand what they meant. I couldn't comprehend the

> meaning of anything he was saying.

 

> At one point he became agitated and started pounding

> the podium in front of him, his white hair falling

> over his forehead.

 

> " No, no, you don't understand! " he said,

> " Why don't you understand? "

 

i wonder if it ever occurred to him that part of the reason

'no one understood' was that he wasn't communicating well?

 

> He repeated this statement a few times in various ways,

> and appeared to be getting rather worked up. I began to

> feel sorry for him. It was true that I didn't

> understand, but I couldn't see why he was so upset with

> everyone. Somehow it seemed sad to me. The delicious

> silence, the beautiful smell of orange blossoms, and

> this little dignified man in his impeccably pressed shirt,

> so upset that no one understood him.

 

> Many years later when I met Jean Klein, I spoke to him

> about J. Krishnamurti. I knew that Jean admired Krishnamurti

> and that he had travelled with him on some of Krishnamurti's

> tours. " Did you like Krishnamurti? " I asked Jean on the first

> day I met him. " Yes, " said Jean. " very much. He always wore

> such beautiful shirts. " ---

 

fabulous story! hilarious ... and kind of sad. thanks.

 

> Wishing all success with your studies,

 

i need it. ;-)

 

> Durga

 

thank you for your time and energy and patience.

[Guest guest]

I, too, remember seeing JK as a child. i.e. I was the child and he was

quite an elderly man. Thsi was in Bombay and I must have been less

than 10 years old. I remember him speaking (and my parents listening

with rapt attention). I remember being bored - but I also remember him

saying words to the effect 'Don't follow me. I am not a leader. Find

yourself on your own. Search your own path'. Remember, I am

paraphrasing and a lot of this may be what my parents and others were

saying.

 

I would suggest that JK was never a teacher. He had that status thrust

upon him. He was a self-realised soul - but never wanted to be a

leader or a teacher. It is ignorant people that placed him on a

pedestal.

 

At the end of the talk, I remember being near the gateway of the

maidan (big ground) where he talked and I even remember being thrust

forward by my parents to touch him and get his blessings. I may even

have touched him - my memory fades.

 

Sai

[Guest guest]

> I would suggest that JK was never a teacher. He had that status thrust

> upon him. He was a self-realised soul - but never wanted to be a

> leader or a teacher. It is ignorant people that placed him on a

> pedestal.

 

two things:

 

1. he had to have realized that giving talks from a podium to a crowd

listening with rapt attention to everything he said was equivalent to

teaching. how could it be otherwise?

 

2. he was strong enough to have said NO to this (as we know from his

dissolving the order of the star) had he wanted to.

 

my guess is he wanted deep down to be considered a great teacher,

perhaps even leader. towards the end he often spoke of his legacy. i'm

not saying this is a bad thing ... in fact knowing one's talents and

nurturing them is a very good thing. i just wish he had taken full

responsibility for being a teacher and done more to HELP his students.

[Guest guest]

Rachmiel,

 

Maybe the same thing as anyone born with a huge

ability, such as violin virtuosos who are 5 years old.

We can appreciate their talent, knowing we can't do

it. Maybe the same with K/murti, we can appreciate

that there are realized beings, that realization is

not just theory. Also, how do we know some people

didn't attain realization, just by reading the books

or hearing him? No teacher is going to bring out

realization in all of his/her students. Depends so

much on one's prior life/lives...all the above is

maybe.

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

> Rachmiel,

 

> Maybe the same thing as anyone born with a huge

> ability, such as violin virtuosos who are 5 years old.

> We can appreciate their talent, knowing we can't do

> it. Maybe the same with K/murti, we can appreciate

> that there are realized beings, that realization is

> not just theory.

 

yes. if there are geniuses in all other walks of life,

why not in the realm of the spiritual?

 

but isn't one of the most inviting things about advaita

that enlightenment is seen to be available to all?

 

> Also, how do we know some people

> didn't attain realization, just by reading the books

> or hearing him?

 

yes. there are said to be 1,000 (or thereabouts) fully

realized humans alive today. but who knows how many

exist in anonymity with no need for the limelight?

 

> No teacher is going to bring out

> realization in all of his/her students.

 

yes.

 

> Depends so

> much on one's prior life/lives...

 

perhaps.

 

> all the above is

> maybe.

 

! :-) well said friend.

[Guest guest]

This discussion is taking an interesting turn. And leaving Advaita and JK, now

we are trying to see if JK is a realized soul or a teacher " was thrust on him.

 

sorry, I do not understand what is going on.

 

If one learns something from another, does the other become a teacher or not? Is

there a need to " thrust " the position of teacher. What is important , imho , is

to see if we are able to understand what he said and are we able to utilize that

in our life. If we think we are not able to because that is not practicable,

may be we are right or may be we have not understood his communication.

 

And pardon me, what " full responsibility " he should have taken to help the

students? It will be interesting from our understanding point of view if this

could be explained.

 

thanks and cheers

 

 

rachmiel <rachmiel wrote: > I would

suggest that JK was never a teacher. He had that status thrust

> upon him. He was a self-realised soul - but never wanted to be a

> leader or a teacher. It is ignorant people that placed him on a

> pedestal.

 

two things:

 

1. he had to have realized that giving talks from a podium to a crowd

listening with rapt attention to everything he said was equivalent to

teaching. how could it be otherwise?

 

2. he was strong enough to have said NO to this (as we know from his

dissolving the order of the star) had he wanted to.

 

my guess is he wanted deep down to be considered a great teacher,

perhaps even leader. towards the end he often spoke of his legacy. i'm

not saying this is a bad thing ... in fact knowing one's talents and

nurturing them is a very good thing. i just wish he had taken full

responsibility for being a teacher and done more to HELP his students.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5, 50, 500, 5000 - Store N number of mails in your inbox.

 

 

[Guest guest]

> If one learns something from another, does the other become a

teacher or not?

 

it depends.

 

if there is a man who simply 'lives' and you observe him and you feel

you have learned something from his living, then there is no

teacher/student relationship implied.

 

if there is a man who has been groomed to be a world teacher and

spends a great deal of his time speaking about subjects of deep

importance to humans who are far less 'expert' that he is in these

realms, and he does so from a position of authority (the podium, the

stage, the lecture), yes the teacher/student relationship is at work.

to maintain that it is NOT at work is to be either very naive in the

ways of human beings, or to be (self) deceptive. krishnamurti could

have chosen to lead a modest and semi-anonymous life, but he didn't.

 

> Is there a need to " thrust " the position of teacher.

 

a deep human need yes. we're all desperately seeking certification.

 

> And pardon me, what " full responsibility " he should have taken to

help the students?

 

he should in my opinion have provided a more kind and loving and

inviting way IN.

[Guest guest]

Hello Steve

 

>Ha! The problem was, for me, that I could not apply his teachings.

 

 

I wouldn't be too worried about that -- appears that even Jiddu could

not apply his own teachings. At least this is what appears after

reading the book written by his (illegitimate), daughter Radha

Rajagopal Sloss- 'Lives in the Shadow with J. Krishnamurti'.

 

Rgds

IK

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " idealistkumar " <idealistkumar

wrote:

>

> ..... At least this is what appears after reading the book written

by his (illegitimate), daughter Radha Rajagopal Sloss- 'Lives in the

Shadow with J. Krishnamurti'.

>

 

 

Respected Sirs,

 

This is with reference to the words, " (illegitimate), daughter)) "

perhpas unintentionally allowed to creep in the above message.

 

I am sure this is something for the List Moderators to look into. I

do not know whether I should raise it here.

 

The message above has the danger of conveying a partial (and possibly

damaging) info re: JK.

 

The book under reference was published five years after JK passed

away, not when he was alive!

 

Secondly, it was rebutted. I am reproducing below from Wikipedia:

****

" In her 1991 book, Lives in the Shadow with J. Krishnamurti

(see " Other Biographies " ), Radha Rajagopal Sloss, the daughter of

Krishnamurti's associates, Rosalind and Desikacharya Rajagopal, wrote

of Krishnamurti's relationship with her parents including the secret

affair between Krishnamurti and Rosalind which lasted for many years.

The public revelation was received with surprise and consternation by

many individuals, and was also dealt with in a rebuttal volume of

biography by Mary Lutyens (Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals, also

see " Other Biographies " ).

 

Krishnamurti's once close relationship to the Rajagopals deteriorated

to the point that Krishnamurti, in his later years, took Rajagopal to

court in order to recover donated property and funds, publication

rights for his works, manuscripts and personal correspondence being

withheld by Rajagopal. The resulting litigation and cross complaints

continued for many years and though the verdict was eventually in

Krishnamurti's favor he did not personally benefit as this was after

his death in 1986. "

*****

 

The reason for such a suspicious accusation in 1991 could be pure

desperation after Rajagopals lost their case.

 

I hope members reading these messages can make their own balanced

assessment.

 

With best of regards,

ramesam

[Guest guest]

Ramasam - PraNAms

 

Thanks for bringing the irrelavency of the discussion to the attention of the

moderators.

 

I urge everyone not to bringin personality issues of any teacher or master. We

respect

all - our interest is only how relavent the discussion is towards our spiritual

growth.

 

The topic on conditioning and unconditioning is relavent since that is what

advaita

emphasizes as adhyaaropa apavaada.

 

Plase confirm you post to the list guidelines. Moderators do not want to step in

with

microscope. We want to assume that the postes follow the rules of posting and

maintain

the dignity of the list serve.

 

No more discussion of JK personal life.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- ramesam <ramesam wrote:

 

> The message above has the danger of conveying a partial (and possibly

> damaging) info re: JK.

>

[Guest guest]

Hello Ramesam,

 

I hope members reading these messages can make their

own balanced

assessment.

 

Yes, certainly you're right. Words can so easily

influence us if we let them. Anyone can say whatever

they want at anytime! Skepticism is a wonderful

quality in all areas of life...especially in " the

news " . What can I really know and call " the truth "

other than what I actually witness? Even then, we can

be mistaken. So, it's best, maybe, to leave off

judgment in all matters other than what directly

concerns me/us in our individual, daily lives and not

waste energy in attempting judgment...

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

Sorry, I posted my last post before I saw this

one...no more on K/murti from me!

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

 

> Ramasam - PraNAms

>

> Thanks for bringing the irrelavency of the

> discussion to the attention of the

> moderators.

>

> I urge everyone not to bringin personality issues

> of any teacher or master. We respect

> all - our interest is only how relavent the

> discussion is towards our spiritual growth.

>

> The topic on conditioning and unconditioning is

> relavent since that is what advaita

> emphasizes as adhyaaropa apavaada.

>

> Plase confirm you post to the list guidelines.

> Moderators do not want to step in with

> microscope. We want to assume that the postes follow

> the rules of posting and maintain

> the dignity of the list serve.

>

> No more discussion of JK personal life.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

> --- ramesam <ramesam wrote:

>

> > The message above has the danger of conveying a

> partial (and possibly

> > damaging) info re: JK.

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " rachmiel " <rachmiel wrote:

>

> we derive pleasure from fragmentation, don't we? self/other.

> mine/yours. better/worse. i have moved sooooooo far from dualistic

to

> non-dualistic thinking over the years, effortlessly (through

> understanding the futility and violence of dualism) ... and yet i

> still derive great pleasure somewhere deep down from feeling

SEPARATE

> from. BETTER than. DIFFERENT than. i marvel at the capacity of the

> human brain to harm itself (and others).

>

 

hariH OM! rachmiel-ji,

 

namaskaaram.

 

the whole reason for manifestation--which addresses your idea of

differentiation, and how you still derive enjoyment from it--is the

selfsame dynamic in brahman Itself(!), as revealed in the rig veda

(note the term " desire " in all three translations...*desire* as being

integral to brahman(!), as in seed form, or from seed-form to

conception):

 

rig veda: hymn of creation : book X verse 129

(below are excerpts from 4 translations)

_______________________________

 

CREATION HYMN from the RIG VEDA

 

Translation by V. V. Raman, University of Rochester

 

Not even nothing existed then

No air yet, nor a heaven.

Who encased and kept it where?

Was water in the darkness there?

Neither deathlessness nor decay

No, nor the rhythm of night and day:

The self-existent, with breath sans air:

That, and that alone was there.

Darkness was in darkness found

Like light-less water all around.

One emerged, with nothing on

It was from heat that this was born.

 

Into it, Desire, its way did find:

The primordial seed born of mind.

Sages know deep in the heart:

What exists is kin to what does not.

Across the void the cord was thrown,

The place of every thing was known.

Seed-sowers and powers now came by,

Impulse below and force on high.

 

Who really knows, and who can swear,

How creation came, when or where!

Even gods came after creation's day,

Who really knows, who can truly say

When and how did creation start?

Did He do it? Or did He not?

Only He, up there, knows, maybe;

Or perhaps, not even He.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~howarth/573/rig-veda.html

 

__

 

 

" Desire came upon that One in the beginning,

that was the first seed of mind. "

 

and the last verse..:

 

" Whence this creation has arisen

– perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not –

the One who looks down on it, in the highest heaven,

only He knows or perhaps He does not know. "

 

http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/006.htm

 

__

 

" Upon that desire arose in the beginning. This was the first

discharge of thought. Sages discovered this link of the existent to

the nonexistent, having searched in the heart with wisdom. "

 

and the last verse..:

 

" Whence this creation has come into being;

whether it was made or not;

He in the highest heaven is its surveyor.

Surely He knows, or perhaps He knows not. "

 

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/ri

g_veda.html

 

___

 

" First desire rose, the primal seed of mind,... "

 

" This projection whence arose,

Whether held or whether not,

He the ruler in the supreme sky, of this

He, O Sharman! knows, or knows not He perchance! "

" http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekanand

a/Volume_6/Writings:_Prose_and_Poems%28Original_and_Translated%

29/The_Hymn_of_Creation "

 

__

 

commentary on honest inquiry in rig veda:

 

" A spirit of fearless inquiry, astounding in an ancient, nature-

worshipping society, is evident in the Creation Hymn in the Rig-Veda,

in which no easy explanations are offered, but the very divinity of

Divinity is questioned! "

 

(fm note: exclamation point is mine)

 

http://www.gurjari.net/ico/Mystica/html/veda.htm

 

____________________

____________________

 

 

our differentials are actually universal; only their *blend* makes us

unique.

 

the Mind houses all potentialities; [and for each of us]: some it

births; some births it lingers on; some lingerings it acts on; with

some acts delivering peace, others violence. all are productions of

our [brahman's] timeless desire. (this statement appears to violate

sruti, per the definition of brahman [conceived as nirguna], only

because i'm implying desire exists in a " transcendentally subtle "

latent form in what the relative-bound mind conceives as an

attributeless realm of something that's divined to " pure, " and from

Relativity's perspective, " empty. " )

 

nevertheless, the Divine Incarnate invevitably manifests strains of

darkness; which are a vital part of Its ineffable totality. the

anthropocentric utopian ideal (the human mind's conception of a

perfect world) is not only impossible, but *undesireable*...for it

would destroy the wonder and therefore beauty in and of Life. Life

would become predictable, and therefore " mind-numbingly boring. "

 

the problem we have now in *this* kaliyug is a radical imbalance to

the dark.

 

it will soon correct; like it has infinite times in the infinite

past...as it will infinite times in the infinite future, to return

once again to the imbalanced kaliyug, to correct yet again, etc etc,

ad infinitum.

 

we are the blissful maya multitude in the THAT I AM [brahman =

atman], whose only constant is Change, dwelling in the Eternal Now.

 

OM svaha!