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 Dharmakara » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:14 pm

How is my attachment to my opinions any different than other people's attachment to their different opinions? They're not, other than the fact that I'm not forcing them on others, not popping into other people's threads trying to derail a discussion right from the start.

In fact, one might ask how your own opinion and defense of the Ven. Huifeng is any different than other people's attachment to their different opinions and need to defend the actions of others unrelated to them, but at the end of the day this thread is not about you, it's not about the Ven. Huifeng or myself... it's about Krishnamurti and Buddhism.
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Su DongPo » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:18 pm

Luke wrote: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.


Dharmakara is ordained in both Theravadin and Mahayana traditions and probably has a clearer idea of this than most of the people on this forum. :smile:
User avatar
Su DongPo
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:20 pm
Location: Central Taiwan

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:27 pm

Su DongPo, thank you for your kind words, but as pointed out above this thread isn't about me either... don't want anyone thinking there's a double standard LOL
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Tara » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:33 pm

Dharmakara wrote:How is my attachment to my opinions any different than other people's attachment to their different opinions? They're not, other than the fact that I'm not forcing them on others, not popping into other people's threads trying to derail a discussion right from the start.


If members did not pop in to the threads that others start there would be no discussion/debate/argument/exchange of ideas. This is a Forum:

fo·rum (fôrm, fr-)
n. pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr, fr)
1.
a. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
b. A public meeting place for open discussion.
c. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.
2. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.
3. A court of law; a tribunal.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/forum

Regards

rt
It's not a competition. It's a choice.
Tara
User avatar
Tara
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:59 am
Location: Who cares!

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:38 pm

Quite correct, Rainbow Tara, but what I was referring to was that some of us are actually posting, adding material and resources we come across, and that it would be more than appropriate to hope that it remains so without other distractions.

In other words, context and content, right?
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Su DongPo » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:45 pm

Dharmakara wrote:Su DongPo, thank you for your kind words, but as pointed out above this thread isn't about me either... don't want anyone thinking there's a double standard LOL


Quite right. We needn't comment on each other so much. Just thought I'd give Luke a head's up!

Back to Krishnamurti...
User avatar
Su DongPo
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:20 pm
Location: Central Taiwan

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Astus » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:10 pm

All quotes from the text in the OP:

"In Krishnamurti's view enlightenment comes by its own accord where and when it chooses, and there is little that we can do about it."

The clearly denies the whole point of the fourth noble truth, without which there is no Buddhism. It is a form of view of no causality.

"Enlightenment is a state that is timeless which means that its chief attribute is one of no-time, meaning no involvement with ego or ego-created time."

Enlightenment being timeless against thoughts being of time is pretty much a dualistic concept unlike those of Mahayana teachers.

The only thing remaining sacred in Krishnamurti's view is that which thought is incapable of capturing or the unknowable. All thoughts are mere human creations of the human brain stem and are forever incapable of capturing that which is infinite and unknowable.

First, this is disregarding the function of methods. Second, it doesn't show any knowledge of wisdom.

I don't know JK's teachings, haven't read a single book from him. But if these represent his views I fail to see how it resembles the teachings of the Buddha.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:24 pm

Astus, those quotes are kind of specific to just the one particular video in which Rinpoche Samdhong appears (With a Silent Mind), so it probably shouldn't be taken as a total sum.

For example, there's much more reflected in the discussion between Krishnamurti and Rahula Wapola, where the latter clearly finds common ground with him.

You'll find an excerpt of that on page two of this thread, toward the middle of it
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Blue Garuda » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:33 pm

Dharmakara wrote:How is my attachment to my opinions any different than other people's attachment to their different opinions? They're not, other than the fact that I'm not forcing them on others, not popping into other people's threads trying to derail a discussion right from the start.

In fact, one might ask how your own opinion and defense of the Ven. Huifeng is any different than other people's attachment to their different opinions and need to defend the actions of others unrelated to them, but at the end of the day this thread is not about you, it's not about the Ven. Huifeng or myself... it's about Krishnamurti and Buddhism.


If we try to compare JK with an 'ism' or even advaita vedanta, what do we mean?

Astus has already raised the 4NT which I think defines in absolute terms what Buddhism must be, but what other apects are essential characterisitics with which JK is to be compared?

What of his references to 'ego' and 'personality' or the assertion that life is a 'mess'? This surely flies in the face of karma and rebirth, of dependence and the absence of atman. At times he seems confused and contradictory, but maybe he was thinking aloud rather than preaching. Here's an interesting perspective, or at least controversial:
http://allfaith.com/Religions/Hinduism/ ... murti.html


maitri

Yeshe
Left
Blue Garuda
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:38 pm

Let's see, right off the top, dukkha and samsara come to mind when one examines the statement that life is a "mess", but this might also depend on context.
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Blue Garuda » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:46 pm

Dharmakara wrote:Let's see, right off the top, dukkha and samsara come to mind when one examines the statement that life is a "mess", but this might also depend on context.


Good example. ;)

His words were meant to stimulate people to crawl out of the morass NOW, not hope that their good deeds may pay off some time in the future.

I label 'good' Buddhism as giving the same message (Shantideva for example) - get on with your practice now, you fool.

The quote from the link was :
'one says: “I hope the next life will be better”. That hope for the next life is the postponement of facing the fact now."

So here he is advocating individual responsibility and karma rather than acceptance of samsara as inevitable (inescapable).
Left
Blue Garuda
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:54 pm

Kind of like the "Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today" quote by Thomas Jefferson.
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Astus » Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:43 am

Dexing's question moved to new topic: Pre-Buddhist Chan
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Astus » Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:47 am

Is there any summary of JK's teachings? To have something definitive to compare.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:29 am

I recall coming across a critical examination of JK that seemed to cover such, though I'm going to have to look around and see if I can find it again.

Sorry, my mistake... it's actually the official repository of Krishnaturi's teachings, which includes search text feature:

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamur ... /index.php
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Astus » Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:14 am

Dharmakara wrote:I recall coming across a critical examination of JK that seemed to cover such, though I'm going to have to look around and see if I can find it again.

Sorry, my mistake... it's actually the official repository of Krishnaturi's teachings, which includes search text feature:

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamur ... /index.php


I was hoping you've got something of 1-5 pages size.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:24 pm

Came across a PDF entitled "An Instance of Dependent Origination"... it's described as a terse summary of Krishnamurti's teachings, though not sure how many pages as I don't have a PDF reader on this computer:

www.shin-ibs.edu/documents/pwj3-9/06Rodrigues39.pdf
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Luke » Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:11 pm

Su DongPo wrote:Dharmakara is ordained in both Theravadin and Mahayana traditions and probably has a clearer idea of this than most of the people on this forum. :smile:

Really? Then best of luck to Ven. Dharmakara and his discussion.
:namaste:
User avatar
Luke
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Astus » Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:59 pm

Dharmakara wrote:Came across a PDF entitled "An Instance of Dependent Origination"... it's described as a terse summary of Krishnamurti's teachings, though not sure how many pages as I don't have a PDF reader on this computer:

http://www.shin-ibs.edu/documents/pwj3- ... gues39.pdf


Perhaps it'd be the best if you could sum up in a few points what JK says.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism

Postby Dharmakara » Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:45 pm

This was posted earlier on the thread, an excerpt from the book "Questioning Krishnamurti", which contained an exchange between JK and the Ven. Prof Walpola Sri Rahula Mahathera (1907–1997), a respected Buddhist scholar and author of "What the Buddha Taught":
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?
Dharmakara
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

>