Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Mr. G » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:17 pm

Hi Dharmakara,

I don't think anyone in this thread is being intolerant. I know I respect all religions. I think it's that some people don't agree that the teachings and view of Krishnamurti are the equivalent to the teachings and views of Buddhism.

:namaste:
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu
User avatar
Mr. G
 
Posts: 4098
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Location: Spaceship Earth

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:31 pm

Very true, Gordo, no intolerance per se, but a concern over disingenuous statements, such as the failure to recognize that Ch'an was also described in the Ven. Huifeng statement that "people could take the content of his teachings and put another name on it".

In other words, it's about proper dialectics, that through the application of critical thought and fair-mindedness we hold ourselves to the same standards we attempt to hold others to, give credit where credit is due, ect.
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Mr. G » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:33 pm

I can see your point of view Dharmakara. I just thought perhaps Ven. Hui Feng was just restating what I and others wrote. I don't think there was any ill intention behind it.

:namaste:
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu
User avatar
Mr. G
 
Posts: 4098
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Location: Spaceship Earth

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:47 pm

Thank you for you insight into this... yes, a possibility of miscommunication.

Oh, I also came across this at BuddhaNet:

Sayings of J. Krishnamurti
Topic: Buddha And His Teachings


(1) John. E. Coleman asked Krishnamurti: ''Which of the great religious leaders came closest to teaching and realizing the ultimate truth ?'' Krishnamurti replied - ''Oh! the Buddha ..... the Buddha comes closer to the basic truths and facts of life than any other. Although I am not myself a buddhist, of course''.

-Living and dying from moment to moment by Susunaga Weeraperuma, Motilal Banarsidass,
page 108 (Appendix 4) ,Delhi 1996 reprint.



(2) ''If the Buddha talked to me I would say ''Sir, I listen to you because I love you. I don't want to get anywhere because I see what you say is true, and I love you''. That's all. That has transformed everything.''

''No body listened to Him, that is why there is Buddhism.''

-Krishnamurti. Way of Intelligence, Chapter 2 Part3, (3rd Seminar Madras 16 Jan 1981).


(3) ''I could feel the vibration of the Lord Buddha...''

-Krishnamurti's own account of the pepper tree experience in Ojai as quoted in 'The years of awakening' by Mary Lutyens Avon books ,USA 1991. Page 169.

(4) ''......and in my heart there has been a continual thought of Lord Buddha. I was in such a state that I had to sit down and meditate......''

-Letter written by Krishnamurti as quoted in 'The years of awakening' by Mary Lutyens Avon books USA 1991 Page 125.


(5) ''Look Sir, perhaps the Buddha may have seen that intelligence is not thought. The other have spoken of how to suppress thought, control it. To them that is meditation... listen the Buddha might have said there is intelligence that has nothing to do with thought. The rest of them read it or heard it, they translated that or repeated that.''

-J. Krishnamurti, Rishi valley 30 Dec 1980 (The way of intelligence Chap. 6 Part 3)


The Immortal Friend
(Poem)

I sat dreaming in a room of great silence.
The early morning was still and breathless,
The great blue mountains stood against the dark
skies, cold and clear,
Round the dark log house
The black and yellow birds were welcoming the sun.

I sat on the floor, with legs crossed, meditating,
Forgetting the sunlit mountains,
The birds,
The immense silence,
And the golden sun.

I lost the feel of my body,
My limbs were motionless,
Relaxed and at peace.
A great joy of unfathomable depth filled my heart.
Eager and keen was my mind, concentrated.
Lost to the transient world,
I was full of strength.

As the Eastern breeze
That suddenly springs into being
And calms the weary world,
There in front of me
Seated cross-legged,
As the world knows Him
In His yellow robes, simple and magnificent,
Was the Teacher of Teachers.

Looking at me,
Motionless the Mighty Being sat.
I looked and bowed my head.
My body bent forward of itself.
That one look
Showed the progress of the world,
Showed the immense distance between the world
And the greatest of it's Teachers.
How little it understood,
And how much He gave.
How joyously He soared,
Escaping from birth and death,
From it's tyranny and entangling wheel.

Enlightenment attained,
He gave to the world, as the flower gives
It's scent,
The Truth.

As I looked
At the sacred feet that once trod the happy
Dust of India,
My heart poured forth its devotion,
Limitless and unfathomable,
Without restraint and without effort.

- J Krishnamurti 'The immortal friend'
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Huifeng » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:43 am

Dharmakara wrote:
Huifeng wrote: Of course, later one, people could take the content of his teachings and put another name on it, effectively including such people, but as far as what the Buddha "declared", let's be clear with the record.


My friend, where is the wisdom in such a comment, one which echos the same criticism that is periodicly leveled at the Mahayana traditions by its critics?


Wisdom or not, you can make your own decision. I merely wished to clarify what the Buddha apparently said. You claimed that he never made such a claim, whereas apparently he did.

Also, is one to assume that you have no problem with the persona of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, as you have not commented on the contents of that thread, just this one on Krishnamurti, where once again you're declaring what "is" and "is not" Buddhism with thinly veiled sarcasm?


I have no obligation to respond to every thread, and so making assumptions about my thoughts on topic X because I do or do not post in thread X, is simply bizarre to my mind. As for sarcasm, well, I don't use it. I find it is a kind of wrong speech in a way, and it is particularly bad on the net, because we can't hear the tone of voice. So, I am not at all sure why you think that I am being sarcastic.

But, what is the need in making this personal?

I mean no disrespect, but I didn't care for that kind of behavior when it occured at E-Sangha and I care for it even less here in a thread I started.


?!
User avatar
Huifeng
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:10 am

Actually I never said that the Buddha didn't state that, but called into question your disingenuous statement ["Of course, later one, people could take the content of his teachings and put another name on it, effectively including such people"] as being Buddhist, nothing more than a put down, and yet you fail to take into account that this was the same thing Cao-xi Hui-neng did with Ch'an.

You come into someone else's thread, a person who happens to believe that tradition does not superceed historical fact, and you post in such manner... how about Chih-kuan (502-557), Fa-lang (507-581), Chi-tsang (549-623), Chih-kai (533-610), Tao-hsin (580-651), and Hung-jen (601-674), all those who came before Cao-xi Hui-neng, the forefathers of the Ch'an tradition before the label of Buddhism got slapped on.

Further more you made it personal when you made your first post down playing the importance of Krishnamurti, asking with the same thinly veiled sarcasm about whether or not any one achieved enlightenment from his teachings.

Yes, indeed you made it personal right from the beginning.

For example, Shambhala is the publisher of "Can Humanity Change?", a book which offers a meaningful discussion between Krishnamurti and practicing Buddhists... in your scheme of things, you would probablly find fault with that dialogue as well, and yet even Walpola Rahula possessed the wisdom to see the importance of such a conversation and participated in that dialogue as well.

If you can't respond in any other fashion than as you have, please just refrain from posting in this paricular thread and I will certainly extend you the same courtesy in threads where you're the OP.
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Luke » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:41 am

Dharmakara wrote:Further more you made it personal when you made your first post down playing the importance of Krishnamurti, asking with the same thinly veiled sarcasm about whether or not any one achieved enlightenment from his teachings.

Yes, indeed you made it personal right from the beginning.

Isn't it also possible that all this "thinly veiled sarcasm" which you attribute to Ven. Huifeng is just a creation of your own mind?

One disadvantage of text is that it we can't hear each other's tone of voice, so a lot of information is lost. Also, in many cases, the people talking on forums don't know each other very well, so it's often impossible to definitely know what a person implied by a certain statement.

Ven. Huifeng is a Zen Buddhist monk, so it should be no surprise that he has strong and very clearly-defined opinions about Buddhism.

Why not just acknowledge that you disagree with him and move on, instead of unfairly assuming all kinds of negative things about his character and his motivations?
User avatar
Luke
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:27 am

Hi Luke and Laura.

I'm not upset and I certainly meant no disrespect to the Ven. Huifeng, who is more than welcome to his opinion, just like the rest of us. As stated earlier, it's about proper dialectics, the application of critical thought and fair-mindedness, holding ourselves to the same standards we attempt to hold others to, ect.

It was my hope from the start that the subject of this thread could be examined with fair-mindness, especially since I'm considering the possibility of a study group for the book "Can Humanity Change?" on another forum because of Shambhala's description of it:

Many have considered Buddhism to be the religion closest in spirit to J. Krishnamurti's spiritual teaching—even though the great teacher was famous for urging students to seek truth outside organized religion. This record of a historic encounter between Krishnamurti and a group of Buddhist scholars provides a unique opportunity to see what the great teacher had to say himself about Buddhist teachings. The conversations, which took place in London in the late 1970s, focused on human consciousness and its potential for transformation. Participants include Walpola Rahula, the renowned Sri Lankan Buddhist monk and scholar, author of the classic introductory text What the Buddha Taught.

Sadly, such discussions can't be implimented when opinions about one's own understanding of the Dharma are first and foremost, of what's meaningful and worthy of discussion, ect., can't be set aside, where we try to walk the path for everyone else and fail to realize that the only person we can walk it for is ourselves.

Where does this leave the idea of a group book study? Who knows? Can't judge it's worth by what's happened here, though there's certainly been good discussion from Yeshe and Catmoon.
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:39 am

Yeshe wrote:This link expounds more on the teachings of Buddha and Krishnamurti. I could, however, find no reference to Rinpoche Sumdung by Googling his name, other than the quoted interview:

http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm

Of course, being called 'Rinpoche' does not denote infallability, nor do I have any other source to even prove his existence as such.

As his view seems to be very important with respect to JK, does anyone know of him?


Yeshe, I heard back from Bob James... Rinpoche Sumdung appears in the video below which is quite old, possibly explaining the lack of information found online, especially if he is also deceased:

Krishnamurti: With a Silent Mind (Documentary) [VHS]
http://www.amazon.com/Krishnamurti-Sile ... 6303503594

Here's a copy of Mr. James's reply itself:

Thanks for you interest,

I'm afraid I can't offer much more information than you already have. My original source for Rinpoche Sumdung comes from the Krishnamurti Association's video recording, "With A Silent Mind". About one hour 19 minutes into the video Rinpoche Sumdung appears wearing a maroon outer garment, an inner yellow garment, and no hat. He speaks, as I have indicated, and uses the word "compromise" in connection with the Buddha. I believe that Rinpoche Sumdung was at one time close to Krishnamurti, and if that is true then KFA may be the best source for finding more information related to the Rinpoche.

I wish you well in your endeavor,

Bob James



I followed his suggestion and contacted the KFA.
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Tilopa » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:51 am

Yeshe wrote:This link expounds more on the teachings of Buddha and Krishnamurti. I could, however, find no reference to Rinpoche Sumdung by Googling his name, other than the quoted interview:

http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm

Of course, being called 'Rinpoche' does not denote infallability, nor do I have any other source to even prove his existence as such.

As his view seems to be very important with respect to JK, does anyone know of him?



Most likely the lama mentioned here.

http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/autho ... poche.aspx
Last edited by Tilopa on Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tilopa
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Tilopa » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:08 am

In this fascinating book the author writes about how at a certain point in Krishnamurti's life he would fall into a meditative trance during which he would visit Tushita and receive teachings from Maitreya Buddha - each day at 6pm if I remember accurately but it's been 15 years since I read it so may be wrong about the details.

http://www.amazon.com/J-Krishnamurti-Bi ... 014019519X
User avatar
Tilopa
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:36 am

Tilopa wrote:Most likely the lama mentioned here.

http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/autho ... poche.aspx


Tilopa, thank you so very much... you're quite correct. With the alternate spelling of his name I was also able to locate this on the KFA website:

http://www.kfa.org/dialogue-details.php?id=22
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:56 am

Also came across this from another site:

"On June 22nd and 23rd three cameras were set up to film the dialogues between Krishnamurti, Bohm, Narayan and Dr. Rahula, a Buddhist from Sri Lanka. Krishnamurti invited me to participate, and I, as usual, refused. During lunch, the following day I asked Krishnamurti what did he think of the Buddhist specialist.

Krishnamurti said, 'You know there are many library mouses who can only repeat what they read, they are unable to live what they read. During the whole conversation there was not one moment of insight. He did nothing but compare the new (what Krishnamurti says) with the old (Buddhism). He compares everything with Buddha, he doesn't want to be a Buddha.'

Following is an excerpt of the beginning of the discussion (it is very long) from the book "Questioning Krishnamurti."

ARE YOU NOT SAYING WHAT THE BUDDHA SAID?

Brockwood Park, England, 22 June 1978.

Walpola Rahula, international authority on Buddhism and author of the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on the Buddha. David Bohm, in his lifetime a Fellow of the Royal Society and professor of theoretical physics at Birkbeck College, University of London. T.K. Parchure, MD, physician to Krishnamurti. G. Narayan, formerly director of Krishnamurti Foundation India's Rishi Valley School. Irmgaard Schloegel, Buddhist scholar.


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

Walpola Rahula: I have been following your teaching -- if I may use that word -- from my younger days. I have read most of your books with great interest, and I have wanted to have this discussion with you for a long time.

To someone who knows Buddha's teaching fairly well, your teaching is quite familiar, not something new to him. What the Buddha taught 2,500 years ago you teach today in a new idiom, a new style, a new garb. When I read your books I often write in the margin, comparing what you say with the Buddha, sometimes I even quote chapter and verse, or the text -- not only Buddha's original teaching, but also the ideas of the later Buddhist philosophers -- those too you put in practically the same way. I was surprised how well and beautifully you expressed them.

So to begin with I want to mention briefly a few points that are common to Buddha's teaching and yours. For instance, Buddha did not accept the notion of a creator-God who rules this world and rewards and punishes people for their actions. Nor do you, I believe. Buddha did not accept the old Vedic, Brahmanic idea of an eternal, permanent everlasting, unchanging soul or atman -- Buddha denied this. Nor do you, I think, accept that notion.

Buddha begins his teaching from the premise that human life is a predicament, suffering, conflict, sorrow. And your books always emphasize that. Also, Buddha says that what causes this conflict, suffering, is the selfishness created by the wrong idea of my self, my atman. I think you say that too.

Buddha says that when one is free from desire, attachment, from the self, one is free from suffering and conflict. And you said somwhere, I remember, that freedom means freedom from all attachment. That is exactly what Buddha taught, from all attachment -- there is no discrimination between attachment that is good and attachment that is bad -- of course there is in ordinary practical life, but ultimately there is no such division.

Then there is the seeing of truth, the realization of truth, that is, to see things as they are; when you do that, you see reality, you see truth and are free from conflict. I think you have said this very often -- in, for example, the book Truth and Actuality. This is quite well known in Buddhist thought as samvrti-satya and paramartha- satya: samvrti-satya is the conventional truth, and paramartha- satya is the absolute or ultimate truth. And you can't see the ultimate or absolute truth without seeing the conventional or relative truth. That is the Buddhist attitude. I think you say the same thing.

On the more popular level, but very importantly, you always say that you must not depend on authority -- anybody's authority, anybody's teaching. You must realize it yourself, see it for yourself. This is a very well known teaching in Buddhism. Buddha said, don't accept anything just because it is said by religion or scripture, or by a teacher or guru, only accept it if you see for yourself that it is right, if you see it is wrong or bad then reject it.

In a very interesting discussion that you had with Swami Venkatesananda, he asked about the imporance of gurus, and your answer was always: what can a guru do? It is up to you to do it, a guru can't save you. This is exactly the Buddhist attitude -- that you should not accept authority. After reading the whole of this discussion in your book The Awakening of Intelligence, I wrote that Buddha has said these things too, and summarized them in two lines in the Dhammapada: you must make the effort, the Buddhas only teach. This is in the Dhammapada that you read long ago when you were young.

Another very important thing is your emphasis on awareness or mindfulness. This is something that is extremely important in Buddha's teaching, to be mindful. I myself was surprised when I read the Mahaparinibbanasutra, a discourse about the last month of his life, that wherever he stopped and talked to his disciples he always said: be aware, cultivate awareness, mindfulness. It is called the presence of mindfulness. This is also a very strong point in your teaching, which I very much appreciate and follow.

Then another interesting thing is your constant emphasis on impermanence. This is one of the fundamental things in Buddha's teaching, everything is impermanent, there is nothing permanent. And in the book Freedom from the Known you have said that to discern nothing is permanent is of trimendous importance -- for only then is the mind free . That is in complete accordance with the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha .

There is another point showing how your teaching and the Buddha's go together. I think in Freedom from the Known, you say that control and outward discipline are not the way, nor has an undisciplined life any value . When I read this I wrote in the margin: a Brahmin asked the Buddha, how did you attain these spiritual heights, by what precepts, what discipline, what knowledge ? Buddha said, not by knowledge, not by discipline, not by precepts, nor without them. That is the important thing -- not with these things, but not without them either. It is exactly what you say: you condemn slavery to discipline but without discipline life has no value . That is exactly how it is in Zen Buddhism -- there is no Zen Buddhism, Zen is Buddhism. In Zen, slavery to discipline is seen as attachment, and that is very much condemned, but there is no Buddhist sect in the world where discipline is so much emphasized.

We have many other things to talk about but to begin with I want to say that there is fundamental agreement on these things, and there is no conflict between you and the Buddha . Of course, you are not a Buddhist, as you say.

K: No, sir.

WR: And I myself don't know what I am, it does not matter. But there is hardly any difference between your teaching and the Buddha's, it is just that you say the same thing in a way that is fascinating for Man today, and for tomorrow's Man. And now I would like to know what you think about all this.

K: May I ask, sir, with due respect, why you compare ?

WR: This is because when I read your books as a Buddhist scholar, as one who has studied Buddhist texts, I always see that it is the same thing.

K: Yes, sir, but if I may ask, what is the necessity of comparing?

WR: There is no necessity.

K: If you were not a scholar of Buddhism and all the sutras and sayings of the Buddha, if you had not gone very deeply into Buddhism, how would it strike you on reading these books, without the background of all that?

WR: That I can't tell you because I was never without that background. One is conditioned, it is a conditioning. We are all conditioned. Therefore I cannot answer that question because I don't know what the position would be .

K: So if I may point out, I hope you don't mind...

WR: No, not at all.

K: ...does knowledge condition human beings -- knowledge of scriptures, knowledge of what the saints have said and so on, the whole gamut of so-called sacred books, does that help mankind at all?

This excerpt was taken from a book called,
"Questioning Krishnamurti."


Source: http://www.jiddukrishnamurti.org/kandbuddha.htm
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dexing » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:24 pm

Dharmakara wrote:...your disingenuous statement ["Of course, later one, people could take the content of his teachings and put another name on it, effectively including such people"] as being Buddhist, nothing more than a put down, and yet you fail to take into account that this was the same thing Cao-xi Hui-neng did with Ch'an.

...all those who came before Cao-xi Hui-neng, the forefathers of the Ch'an tradition before the label of Buddhism got slapped on.


Could you explain this bit?

Do you mean to say Chan is not a Buddhist teaching, and that Huineng put the label of Buddhism on it?

This would not be the same as taking the content of the Buddha's teachings and putting another name on it. It would be mislabeling something as the Buddha's teachings.

But I don't follow you on this one.

:namaste:
nopalabhyate...
User avatar
Dexing
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:41 am

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:02 pm

No, it was a reference to an earlier statement made in the thread by the Ven. Huifeng, namely:

"Of course, later one, people could take the content of his teachings and put another name on it, effectively including such people, but as far as what the Buddha "declared", let's be clear with the record."

I was just being clear for the record, something in my opinion the Ven. Huifeng was not, because his statement not only reflected the criticism of some Theravada practitioners when it comes to the Mahayana tradition, but it also discards the academic understanding of the history of the pre-Buddhist Ch'an tradition in ancient China, where Buddhist tenents were later merged with it.

My criticism of his statement was purely dialectical in nature, namely the annihilation of one's own thesis by an unsuitable example.
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Su DongPo » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:03 pm

Dharmakara wrote:Hi Catmoon. I believe the correct statement might be found in the book "Infinite Potential" (by F. David Peat):

Shortly before his death the Indian teacher had declared that no one had ever truly understood his teaching; no one besides himself had experienced transformation.

Anyway, this is the one most quoted. had to have been a bummer, to say the least.

Also found this citation:

A few days before his death, in a final statement, he emphatically declared that "nobody" among his associates, or the general public, had understood what had happened to him (as the conduit of the teaching), nor had they understood the teaching itself. He added that the "immense energy" operating in his lifetime would be gone with his death, again implying the impossibility of successors. However, he offered hope by stating that people could approach that energy and gain a measure of understanding "…if they live the teachings". In prior discussions he had compared himself with Thomas Edison, implying that he did the hard work, and now all was needed by others was a flick of the switch. In another instance he talked of Columbus going through an arduous journey to discover the New World, whereas now, it could easily be reached by jet; the ultimate implication being that even if Krishnamurti was in some way "special," in order to arrive at his level of understanding, others didn't need to be.


I wouldn't fixate on this "no one got it" statement too much. It needn't be a deal-breaker, although we can well assume that Krishnamurti's frustration at the human tendency to idolize and hero-worship teachers and gurus was the product of a life-time's experience. Have a look at this interview on Channel 4 (Brit TV), especially in the second clip, where he addresses this pathological failing on the part of most of us too much of the time:

Krishnamurti on Channel 4 (1984)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5fSnqxLaJ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkO-dasZ ... re=related

Question: "But really, how can someone who speaks as powerfully as you, who thinks as clearly as you do, not be regarded as a leader by lesser men."

Response: "At every talk, at every discussion, I say: 'Don't do it -- be careful.' You follow? ... It's so silly. Because you're destroying yourself. Maybe what K is saying is utterly false. Begin with skepticism. Don't accept *anything*, including what I am saying. You work it out -- Let's discuss it, go into it together. So there is no 'you the leader and I the follower'. We are together in this beastly business of living."
User avatar
Su DongPo
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:20 pm
Location: Central Taiwan

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Blue Garuda » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:18 pm

I'm not sure I ever really penetrated the psychology of JK.

Maybe he was reacting to being hailed as a guru almost as a 'product' for the TS.

But then he carried on teaching, and must have known he would continue to be hailed as a guru.

Surely many gurus must feel this way, even when teaching that we should not do that very thing..

Life of Brian?
Left
Blue Garuda
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:55 pm

Su DongPo wrote:
I wouldn't fixate on this "no one got it" statement too much. It needn't be a deal-breaker, although we can well assume that Krishnamurti's frustration at the human tendency to idolize and hero-worship teachers and gurus was the product of a life-time's experience. Have a look at this interview on Channel 4 (Brit TV), especially in the second clip, where he addresses this pathological failing on the part of most of us too much of the time:

Krishnamurti on Channel 4 (1984)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5fSnqxLaJ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkO-dasZ ... re=related

Question: "But really, how can someone who speaks as powerfully as you, who thinks as clearly as you do, not be regarded as a leader by lesser men."

Response: "At every talk, at every discussion, I say: 'Don't do it -- be careful.' You follow? ... It's so silly. Because you're destroying yourself. Maybe what K is saying is utterly false. Begin with skepticism. Don't accept *anything*, including what I am saying. You work it out -- Let's discuss it, go into it together. So there is no 'you the leader and I the follower'. We are together in this beastly business of living."


Yes, I would have to agree... fixating on "no one got it" doesn't really equate with a quality found in a teacher, where holding an expectation that someone actually will "get it" might never have been an issue and it was just a somber reflection in the end.

Also the statement that there is no "you the leader and I the follower" rings true... there is no teacher who is not also a lifelong student, as no one's understanding is stagnant and unchanging, undeveloping. One need's look no further than their favorite Dharma teacher, comparing writings at the beginning (early years) to those later in life, where somber reflections often appear.
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Su DongPo » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:58 pm

Faith vs Blind Faith?

Before we can see for ourselves, we rely on those of clearer vision. But we will never see if we follow head down, eyes closed.

I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and
self-contain'd,
I stand and look at them long and long.

They do not sweat and whine about their condition,
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,
Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of
owning things,
Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of
years ago,
Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth.
-- Walt Whitman
User avatar
Su DongPo
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:20 pm
Location: Central Taiwan

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Luke » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:00 pm

Dharmakara wrote:...As stated earlier, it's about proper dialectics, the application of critical thought and fair-mindedness, holding ourselves to the same standards we attempt to hold others to...

Sadly, such discussions can't be implimented when opinions about one's own understanding of the Dharma are first and foremost, of what's meaningful and worthy of discussion, ect., can't be set aside, where we try to walk the path for everyone else and fail to realize that the only person we can walk it for is ourselves.

How is your attachment to your opinions any different than other people's attachment to their different opinions?

I don't think you're applying the same standards to yourself that you apply to others. You're just getting upset that a few people don't see things the way you do.

I can understand this because I first started to get interested in Buddhism by reading Zen books on my own. Over the years, I had developed my own personal interpretation of those books and had become quite attached to it, so I was quite depressed at first when I talked to real Zen Buddhists on forums who didn't see things the same way. That's just the way life is.

Another guy might come in here all excited after having read a book about the connections between Buddhism and science and then get depressed when he finds out that most Buddhists believe in many things which can't yet be proved or disproved by science. Expectations can't always be satisfied.

You should also realize that Buddhism isn't just one monolithic religion. There are many different schools of Buddhism and many different interpretations of them. If some Buddhists don't share your viewpoints, others might. There are also several major Buddhist forums out there, and each is frequented by somewhat different types of people.

Another stereotype people often have about Buddhists is that they don't have any definite beliefs and will just go along with anything like passive hippies: "Christ, Buddha, Krishna, they're all, like, the same energy, dude. All is one, man!" Some people are shocked when they meet Buddhists with strong, clear opinions who disagree with them.

Anyway, I hope you find a few people online who you can talk with, since this topic seems very important to you. I know nothing about Krishnamurti, so I can't comment on him. Personally, I'm more inspired by Krishnamacharya, the founder of Ashtanga Yoga.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirumalai_Krishnamacharya
User avatar
Luke
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Green5 and 8 guests

>