Jiddu Krishnamurthy vs Traditional Vedanta

[Guest guest]

I was wondering if someone could do a comparison of what Jiddu

Krishnamurthy said and what our traditional vedanta talks about.

 

Some of his talks are very misleading for a truth-seeker, but he

seems to be very clear about his expressions at the same time. It can

be very disturbing to hear that a Guru is not necessary and that one

need not go in search of one.

 

Comparing it with our traditional Guru-parampara, we find that

without a Guru one's life is useless. From Bhagavatam, we find that

without putting the dust of the feet of Lord's true devotess,

spiritual progress is impossible (Vina Mahat Pada Rajobhishekam

5.5.12)

 

It would be really nice if there could be a discussion where some

people share their opinions on this.

 

thanks

 

-- Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I have read only some chapters of a book by J

Krishnamurthy. He does not appeal to me also. Compared

to the simple and straightforward teachings of Thakur

and His disciples, Krishnamurthy seems to go around in

circles. I think he stresses on the mind and its

experiences as a Guru but what he doesn't touch upon

is that to train the mind unto such a level requires a

Guru. As Thakur says as the spiritual aspirant

progresses a time comes when the mind itself becomes

the Guru.

 

Regards

Jagannath

 

--- pradeepjanakiraman <pradeepjanakiraman

wrote:

> I was wondering if someone could do a comparison of

> what Jiddu

> Krishnamurthy said and what our traditional vedanta

> talks about.

>

> Some of his talks are very misleading for a

> truth-seeker, but he

> seems to be very clear about his expressions at the

> same time. It can

> be very disturbing to hear that a Guru is not

> necessary and that one

> need not go in search of one.

>

> Comparing it with our traditional Guru-parampara, we

> find that

> without a Guru one's life is useless. From

> Bhagavatam, we find that

> without putting the dust of the feet of Lord's true

> devotess,

> spiritual progress is impossible (Vina Mahat Pada

> Rajobhishekam

> 5.5.12)

>

> It would be really nice if there could be a

> discussion where some

> people share their opinions on this.

>

> thanks

>

> -- Pradeep

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

Dear Jagannath

 

Its not a question of whether Jiddu appeals to us or not. He was a

great philosopher and also had attained the highest state, just as

Ramana Maharishi or Sankara or Ramakrishna.

 

The problem really lies in the fact that his talks only appeal to

those who want to neglect traditions, Guru, Bhakti etc. But they dont

seem to get to the bottom of what Jiddu said. They think he's talking

against tradition and Guru, and consider him to be some kind of a neo-

philosopher.

 

Jiddu's talks basically point at " Self-Inquiry " or Atma-Vichaaram

which Ramana also spoke about throughout. For example if there was a

Vedic-recital at a place and Jiddu was there, he wouldnt walk out of

that place. He was not against Vedas. His opinion was that all Vedas

etc. are not useful to attain the highest state.

 

Unless mind is destroyed and thoughts evaporated, there is no

realization of the truth.

 

I had in an earlier mail written about Yogi Ramsuratkumar. There was

a very interesting meeting between him and Jiddu around 1950. I shall

write about that a little later.

 

-- Pradeep

 

Ramakrishna, Jagannath Chatterjee <jagchat01> wrote:

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I have read only some chapters of a book by J

> Krishnamurthy. He does not appeal to me also. Compared

> to the simple and straightforward teachings of Thakur

> and His disciples, Krishnamurthy seems to go around in

> circles. I think he stresses on the mind and its

> experiences as a Guru but what he doesn't touch upon

> is that to train the mind unto such a level requires a

> Guru. As Thakur says as the spiritual aspirant

> progresses a time comes when the mind itself becomes

> the Guru.

>

> Regards

> Jagannath

>