Interesting article

[premananda]

At least I found this interesting. Any comments on Krishnamurti´s words from a Vaishnava perspective?

----------

 

A Brief Introduction to the Work of Krishnamurti

 

by David Bohm

 

My first acquaintance with Krishnamurti's work was in 1959 when I read his book, First and Last Freedom. What particularly aroused my interest was his deep insight into the question of the observer and the observed. This question has long been close to the centre of my own work, as a theoretical physicist, who was primarily interested in the meaning of the quantum theory. In this theory, for the first time in the development of physics, the notion that these two cannot be separated has been put forth as necessary for the understanding of the fundamental laws of matter in general. Because of this, as well as because the book contained many other deep insights, I felt that it was urgent for me to talk with Krishnamurti directly and personally as soon as possible. And when I first met him on one of his visits to London, I was struck by the great ease of communication with him, which was made possible by the intense energy with which he listened and by the freedom from self-protective reservations and barriers with which he responded to what I had to say. As a person who works in science I felt completely at home with this sort of response, because it was in essence of the same quality as that which I had met in these contacts with other scientists with whom there had been a very close meeting of minds. And here, I think especially of Einstein who showed a similar intensity and absence of barrier in a number of discussions that took place between him and me. After this, I began to meet Krishnamurti regularly and to discuss with him whenever he came to London.

 

We began an association which has since then become closer as I became interested in the schools, which were set up through his initiative. In these discussions, we went quite deeply into the many questions which concerned me in my scientific work. We probed into the nature of space and time, and of the universal, both with regard to external nature and with regard to the mind. But then, we went on to consider the general disorder and confusion that pervades the consciousness of mankind. It is here that I encountered what I feel to be Krishnamurti's major discovery. What he was seriously proposing is that all this disorder, which is the root cause of such widespread sorrow and misery, and which prevents human beings from properly working together, has its root in the fact that we are ignorant of the general nature of our own processes of thought. Or to put it differently it may be said that we do not see what is actually happening, when we are engaged in the activity of thinking. Through close attention to and observation of this activity of thought, Krishnamurti feels that he directly perceives that thought is a material process, which is going on inside of the human being in the brain and nervous system as a whole.

 

Ordinarily, we tend to be aware mainly of the content of this thought rather than how it actually takes place. One can illustrate this point by considering what happens when one is reading a book. Usually, one is attentive almost entirely to the meaning of what is being read. However, one can also be aware of the book itself, of its constitution as made up out of pages that can be turned, of the printed words and of the ink, of the fabric of the paper, etc. Similarly, we may be aware of the actual structure and function of the process of thought, and not merely its content.

 

How can such an awareness come about? Krishnamurti proposes that this requires what he calls meditation. Now the word meditation has been given a wide range of different and even contradictory meanings, many of them involving rather superficial kinds of mysticism. Krishnamurti has in mind a definite and clear notion when he uses this word. One can obtain a valuable indication of this meaning by considering the derivation of the word. (The roots of words, in conjunction with their present generally accepted meanings often yield surprising insight into their deeper meanings.) The English word meditation is base on the Latin root "med" which is, "to measure." The present meaning of the word is "to reflect,to ponder" (i.e. to weigh or measure), and "to give close attention." Similarly the Sanskrit word for meditation, which is dhyana, is closely related to "dhyati," meaning "to reflect." So, at this rate, to meditate would be, "to ponder, to reflect, while giving close attention to what is actually going on as one does so."

 

This is perhaps what Krishnamurti means by the beginning of meditation. That is to say, one gives close attention to all that is happening in conjunction with the actual activity of thought, which is the underlying source of the general disorder. One does this without choice, without criticism, without acceptance or rejection of what is going on. And all of this takes place along with reflections on the meaning of what one is learning about the activity of thought. (It is perhaps rather like reading a book in which the pages have been scrambled up, and being intensely aware of this disorder, rather than just "trying to make sense" of the confused content that arises when on just accepts the pages as they happen to come.)

 

Krishnamurti has observed that the very act of meditation will, in itself, bring order to the activity of thought without the intervention of will, choice, decision, or any other action of the "thinker." As such order comes, the noise and chaos which are the usual background of our consciousness die out, and the mind becomes generally silent. (Thought arises only when needed for some genuinely valid purpose, and then stops, until needed again.)

 

In this silence, Krishnamurti says that something new and creative happens, something that cannot be conveyed in words, but that is of extraordinary significance for the whole of life. So he does not attempt to communicate this verbally, but rather, he asks those who are interested that they explore the question of meditation directly for themselves, through actual attention to the nature of thought.

 

Without attempting to probe into this deeper meaning of meditation, one can however say that meditation, in Krishnamurti's sense of the word, can bring order to our overall mental activity, and this may be a key factor in bringing about an end to the sorrow, the misery, the chaos and confusion, that have, over the ages, been the lot of mankind, and that are still generally continuing without visible prospect of fundamental change, for the foreseeable future.

 

Krishnamurti's work is permeated by what may be called the essence of this scientific approach, when this is considered in its very highest and purest form. Thus, he begins from a fact, this fact about the nature of our thought processes. This fact is established through close attention, involving careful listening to the process of consciousness, and observing it assiduously. In this, one is constantly learning, and out of this learning comes insight, into the overall or general nature of the process of thought. This insight is then tested. First, one sees whether it holds together in a rational order. And then one sees whether it leads to order and coherence, on what flows out of it in life as a whole.

 

Krishnamurti constantly emphasizes that he is in no sense an authority. He has made certain discoveries, and he is simply doing his best to make these discoveries accessible to all those who are able to listen. His work does not contain a body of doctrine, nor does he offer techniques or methods, for obtaining a silent mind. He is not aiming to set up any new system of religious belief. Rather, it is up to each human being to see if he can discover for himself that to which Krishnamurti is calling attention, and to go on from there to make new discoveries on his own.

 

It is clear then that an introduction, such as this, can at best show how Krishnamurti's work has been seen by a particular person, a scientist, such as myself. To see in full what Krishnamurti means, it is necessary, of course, to go on and to read what he actually says, with that quality of attention to the totality of one's responses, inward and outward, which we have been discussing here.

 

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON DAVID BOHM

 

David Bohm was for over twenty years Professor of Theoretical Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London. Since receiving his doctorate at the University of Berkeley, he taught and did research at U.C., Princeton University, University de Sao Paulo, Haifa and Bristol University.

 

[shvu]

 

I used to be a big fan of Krishnamurti [JK] until 2 years back, when I read UG. Now I am a bigtime fan of UG, although I wouldn't agree with everything he says. My search was destined to end with UG. Thanks to UG, I have nothing to seek anymore.

 

Cheers

 

[jijaji]

Thank you Premananda..!

 

 

------------------

PEACE NOW

[jijaji]

Originally posted by shvu:

I used to be a big fan of Krishnamurti [JK] until 2 years back, when I read UG. Now I am a bigtime fan of UG, although I wouldn't agree with everything he says. My search was destined to end with UG. Thanks to UG, I have nothing to seek anymore.

 

Cheers

U.G Krishnamurti is one heavy read for sure..!

 

 

 

 

------------------

PEACE NOW

[premananda]

"In this silence, Krishnamurti says that something new and creative happens, something that cannot be conveyed in words, but that is of extraordinary significance for the whole of life. So he does not attempt to communicate this verbally, but rather, he asks those who are interested that they explore the question of meditation directly for themselves, through actual attention to the nature of thought."

 

My suggestion is that the "new and creative"

which happens and that cannot be conveyed in words is a state of spiritual consciousness. Although J Krishnamurti doesn´t use the traditional religious terminology, from the description it seems to be a state of consciousness in which one experiences that which is higher than the material coverings, the soul. Krishnamurti spoke a lot about a meditative state of mind. In this state the thoughts and chatter of the mind are completely still, and one is aware of a higher aspect of one´s being. He didn´t go into any details about what one experiences in the meditative state though, perhaps because he felt that it could not be explained.

Sri Krishna is also described as acintya - inconceivable to the material mind. But even though He is beyond all descriptions, He can still reveal Himself to the devoted soul.

 

P d

[shvu]

 

Annie Besant of the theosophical society was into occultism. She was apparently communicating with spirits and had special powers which tld her about the coming of a world teacher. Accordingly she selected a few boys from around the world and groomed them, of whom JK was also one. With time, everyone knew that JK was the chosen one. They formed the 'Order of the star' an organization which was to be headed by the world teacher. In 1929 when it was time for JK to begin the role of the world teacher, he was required to give a speech to 3000 people, where he shocked everyone by saying "Truth is a pathless land. It cannot be organized and approached...I refuse to play the role of a teacher." Saying thus, he disbanded that organization. Annie Besant was very disappointed and she never recovered from this letdown.

 

A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do.

 

- From that famous speech where he disbanded the organization. The whol speech is available in http://www.kfa.org

 

Cheers

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by shvu:

I used to be a big fan of Krishnamurti[JK] until 2 years back, when I read UG. Now I am a bigtime fan of UG, although I wouldn't agree with everything he says. My search was destined to end with UG. Thanks to UG, I have nothing to seek anymore.

Cheers

Whenever I see the word "fan" the semantics of "groupie" arises in the Mind.

 

Noti Noti !

[shvu]

 

[uG to one his visitors]

 

If anyone says there is a way out, he is not an honest fellow. He is doing it for his own self-aggrandizement, you may be sure. He simply wants to market a product and hopes to convince you that it is superior to other products on the market. If another man comes along and says that there is no way out [1], you make of that another method. It is all a fruitless attempt to overtake your own shadow. And yet you can't remain where you are. That is the problem.

 

Sitting here discussing these things is meaningless, useless. That is why I am always saying to my listeners, "Get lost, please!" What you want you can get elsewhere, but not here. Go to the temple, do puja, repeat mantras, put on ashes. Eventually some joker comes along and says, "Give me a week's wages and I will give you a better mantra to repeat." Then another fellow [2] comes along and tells you not to do any of that, that it is useless, and that what he is saying is much more revolutionary. He prescribes "choiceless awareness," takes your money and builds schools, organizations, and tantric centers.

 

1 - UG

2 - J Krishnamurti

 

Cheers

 

[Gauracandra]

If UG followed his own advice he would never have said anything. But then he wouldn't have become well known for marketing his own philosophy, something he criticizes of others

 

Gauracandra

[shvu]

 

Exactly. That is his technique of claiming that he is different, and then doing the same thing. He should never have let his friends publish his conversations with his photographs on top of them or give interviews on TV. That directly went against everything he said.

 

Old wine in a brand new styled bottle.

 

Cheers

 

 

[jijaji]

shuv..

 

Question for ya.

 

What do you think of the NEW-WAVE of followers of Ramana Maharishi.?

I mean the whole western group that has come through Papaji, Gangaji, and that whole scene? Do you think they are representative of what Ramana said...and wanted?

 

sincerely,

 

jijaji

 

------------------

PEACE OUT NOW

[talasiga]

Originally posted by jijaji:

Question for ya.....

what Ramana said...?

 

Naan YA

 

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by jijaji:

shuv..

 

Question for ya.

 

What do you think of the NEW-WAVE of followers of Ramana Maharishi.?

I mean the whole western group that has come through Papaji, Gangaji, and that whole scene? Do you think they are representative of what Ramana said...and wanted?

 

sincerely,

 

jijaji

 

 

 

 

------------------

PEACE OUT NOW

[jijaji]

Originally posted by talasiga:

Naan YA

 

 

what's up talasiga...bored.?

 

 

 

 

------------------

PEACE OUT NOW

[jijaji]

The beauty of a lute and skill in playing its cords can bring some pleasure to people but can hardly make you a king.

In the same way, speech alone,

even a deluge of words, with scholarship and skill in commenting on the scriptures, may achieve some personal satisfaction but not liberation.

 

from *(Viveka-Chudamani)* by Sri Sankara

 

 

------------------

PEACE OUT NOW

[shvu]

 

Question for ya.

 

What do you think of the NEW-WAVE of followers of Ramana Maharishi.?

I mean the whole western group that has come through Papaji, Gangaji, and that whole scene? Do you think they are representative of what Ramana said...and wanted?

I don't know anything about these people. So I cannot comment on them.

 

As far as I know, Ramana did not want anything. He was not even interested in giving out a message to mankind or liberating anyone. If people went to him and asked him questions, he answered them at times and at other times, he was just silent. The ashram, etc were all the work of other people and he had nothing to do with it.

 

Cheers

 

[alfa1]

I have the picture of Ramana on my website at: http://knowledge.shorturl.com , because I appreciate very much his wisdom.

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by jijaji:

The beauty of a lute and skill in playing its cords can bring some pleasure to people but can hardly make you a king.

In the same way, speech alone,

even a deluge of words, with scholarship and skill in commenting on the scriptures, may achieve some personal satisfaction but not liberation.

from *(Viveka-Chudamani)* by Sri Sankara

 

Yep !

Shankara sure does know his subject.

From personal experience no doubt

 

 

boring talasiga@hotmail.com

 

 

[jijaji]

You stiil on that 'Lute Shloka' talasigaji..?

Or are you just trying to get my attention...

 

your a poet and ya know it..!

 

 

namaskar pranams ji,

 

jijaji

 

------------------

PEACE OUT NOW

[talasiga]

Originally posted by jijaji:

your a poet and ya know it..!

 

namaskar pranams ji,

 

"Well I dont want to be a" POET

"Mamaha, I dont want to dieiei" (John Lennon?).

 

Enough, enough, of the namaskaars and pranaams.

Did you bring the JELEBIS ?!

 

 

fruitarian talasiga@hotmail.com

 

[jijaji]

talasiga: Enough, enough, of the namaskaars and pranaams.

Did you bring the JELEBIS ?!

 

 

jijaji: Nice and HOT...!

 

 

 

------------------

PEACE OUT NOW

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 08-17-2001).]

[talasiga]

hot sweet jalebis

 

I will send them to my enemies

to burn their tongues

 

 

.

.

.

conciliatary talasiga@hotmail.com

[jijaji]

Originally posted by talasiga:

hot sweet jalebis

 

I will send them to my enemies

to burn their tongues

 

 

.

.

.

conciliatary talasiga@hotmail.com

 

or you could use as discus!

 

 

 

------------------

PEACE OUT NOW

[talasiga]

sweet discus stall

 

.

.

.

 

Ahhh..... Jalebijee....

Disci Jockey !