Krishnamurti and Buddhism

[Dharmakara]

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.

Really? Then best of luck to Ven. Dharmakara and his discussion.

Please, no "venerable" is necessary, as there are certainly monastics who are more worthy of such... at this point in my life I'm a hopeless cynic of most things related to institutionalized Buddhism, pretty much running on auto-pilot

[Astus]

Dharmakara,

I've seen that discussion with Walpola Rahula before. That is obviously Rahula's take of JK's views, so it'd be difficult to discuss how JK actually relates to Buddhism when there's hardly anything from Krishnamurti himself. What is apparent is JK's refutation of all forms of organised doctrine and practice, quite opposing perspective to the Buddha's Dharma and Vinaya.

[Dharmakara]

I wonder what JK's thoughts were in regard to the Kalama Sutta and the Atta Dipa, about whether such a discussion or dialogue ever occured in comparison.

Just checked and BuddhaNet seems to have quite a bit on this and other subjects related to him:

http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk_preface.htm


You Are Your Own Master
Be A Light Unto Yourself

You must know for yourself, directly, the truth of yourself and you cannot realize it through another, however great. There is no authority that can reveal it.

-J. Krishnamurti , Authentic Report of Sixteen Talks
given in 1945 & 1946...p. 85


You must understand it, go into it, examine it, give your heart and your mind, with everything that you have, to find out a way of living differently. That depends on you, and not on someone else, because in this there is no teacher, no pupil; there is no leader; there is no guru; there is no Master, no Saviour. You yourself are the teacher and the pupil; you are the Master; you are the guru; you are the leader; you are everything.

-Talks by Krishnamurti in U.S.A 1966 p.73


If you are very clear, if you are inwardly a light unto yourself, you will neve follow anyone.

-Krishnamurti's Talks ,Benares - India 1949
(Verbatim Report) p.38.


The Buddha said :

Atta hi attano natho atta hi attano gati

-Dhammapada - 380

You are your own master,
you make your own future .

Attadipa Viharath Attasarana Anannasarana, Dhammadipa Dhammasarana Anannasarana
-Digha Nikaya, maha parinibbana sutta

Abide with oneself as an island, with oneself as a refuge.
Abide with the Dhamma as an island, with the Dhamma
as a refuge. Seek not for an external refuge.

(Dhamma is 'The Teachings' and taking refuge in Dhamma is 'going into' theTeachings)

[Aemilius]

Have you seen this discussion of Trungpa Rimpoche with Krishnamurti ?

[Lhug-Pa]

That's very interesting ^^^.

I've only watched part of it so far. It was funny when Chogyam Trungpa laughed when Krishnamurti said something like "and then here comes the whole gang".

Anyway, apparently Krishnamurti's Inner Being had acheived Buddhahood at some point, however that Krishnamurti wasn't able to convey his message in a way that people could "get", which was due to a trauma that Krishnamurti had, related to his experience of some of the Theosophists arguing about him:


The Krishnamurti Case

[gregkavarnos]

Have you seen this discussion of Trungpa Rimpoche with Krishnamurti ?

I got to the 6.30 mark and Chogyam still hadn't even batted an eyelid! Hardly a discussion, more like a rambling monologue.

Anyway... "Truth is not experienced".

Hmmmm... I don't know about that one. It seems to set up a false dualism between an object "Truth", and the experiencer of the object, the "Self" that he posits. "Truth" definitely does not arise from the notion of "Self", but it is experienced by mind. Mind, though, is one aspect of the "Self", but really the experience of "Truth" is nothing other than the experience of the true nature of the mind itself. Dharma (or wisdom) does not exist seperately from the mind.

Maybe that's what he is saying anyway, but his presentation is so long winded and rambling, that it makes no impression on me that nobody got it (from him anyway).

[ronnewmexico]

It's probably been said...but I will say it again .

Many peoples have found spiritual purpose and useage from Krishnamurti's teaching.
That no one has fully got it, as in becoming a fully enlightened being....well, really what relevence that?

Being fully enlightened or awakened as human, does not mean one is necessarily a buddha, able to provide a emenation of perfect teaching. I find no claim of krishnamurti that he was one of those.

Some only required a flower for a teaching. Should we then discount those so inclinded to be so taught their teaching and method....I say no, we should not.
It is not for us, perhaps but of use to them...yes certainly it was.
Was he claiming to be a buddha and spreading then dharma...no.
Is all spiritual teaching then dharma....yes and no.
In a sense that all is spiritual yes. In a sense that formal dharma is the word of the buddha...no. K makes not a statement of spreading formal dharma.

Should we then espousing buddhism say all spiritual other than buddhism has not value as it may have fault of not leading to full enlightenment as human....no I would not do that.
YOu may.

[Aemilius]

Have you seen this discussion of Trungpa Rimpoche with Krishnamurti ?

I got to the 6.30 mark and Chogyam still hadn't even batted an eyelid! Hardly a discussion, more like a rambling monologue.

Anyway... "Truth is not experienced".

Hmmmm... I don't know about that one. It seems to set up a false dualism between an object "Truth", and the experiencer of the object, the "Self" that he posits. "Truth" definitely does not arise from the notion of "Self", but it is experienced by mind. Mind, though, is one aspect of the "Self", but really the experience of "Truth" is nothing other than the experience of the true nature of the mind itself. Dharma (or wisdom) does not exist seperately from the mind.

Maybe that's what he is saying anyway, but his presentation is so long winded and rambling, that it makes no impression on me that nobody got it (from him anyway).

Three times I have tried to watch it through, at 9min 30 sec Trungpa coughs and says," I think so ".
At the time of the discussion Krishnamurti had existed as a public spiritual figure from the beginning of 1900's, his first book was published 1908, and it was immediately translated into several languages, etc. There is that kind of tension in the situation, he regards Trungpa a newcomer, a youngster or even a nuisance. He certainly isn't polite towards Trungpa. If there was any kind of plan for the conversation beforehand, Krishnamurti didn't respect it.

[Will]

Have not read the full thread, but since I have heard Krishnaji speak in person, I will toss in my impression - not good.

HIs mind is brilliant and subtle, yet his teachings are a flavor of Vedanta, not Mahayana. His hostility to gurus, sadhanas, and so much that makes up a traditional path (of whatever religion) does make his teaching worthless for nearly every aspirant. Many intellectuals find his verbiage (written or spoken) exciting.

I heard him under the oaks in Ojai, CA one of his favored spots, many years ago. He does have presence & charisma, yet his contempt for humanity in general and a few "fools" in the audience were obvious. He sneered or scoffed at some questioners, not just the question. That, plus reading the Rajagopal (forgot title & author) book where his encouragement to his lover to have several abortions over the years, plus his other worldly vices and an often vicious temper led me to bypass him.

There was no bodhicitta heart visible to me in Krishnaji.

[Lhug-Pa]

plus reading the Rajagopal (forgot title & author) book where his encouragement to his lover to have several abortions over the years

Hi Will

That book sounds like it's full of hearsay.

Jiddu Krishnamurti may not have been perfect, but I very much doubt that about the abortions thing.

Although just for the sake of investigating, during what time-period was this supposed to have occured?

[Will]

plus reading the Rajagopal (forgot title & author) book where his encouragement to his lover to have several abortions over the years

Hi Will

That book sounds like it's full of hearsay.

Jiddu Krishnamurti may not have been perfect, but I very much doubt that about the abortions thing.

Although just for the sake of investigating, during what time-period was this supposed to have occured?

Do not recall the time-period, but K. had the same lover for many years, thus more than one abortion.

"Hearsay"? - hardly, the author was the daughter of K.'s lover and all three lived together for many years.

Read it yourself - Lives in the Shadow With J. Krishnamurti by Sloss

[Lhug-Pa]

Well it's possible that she's making it up in order to slander Krishnamurti.

People make stuff up all the time to slander people they dislike.

It's also possible that she's not making it up, but I doubt it.

All I'm getting at here is that we don't have all the facts, so it could go either way.

[Mr. G]

A long time ago I read the book "Star in the East: Krishnamurti--the invention of a Messiah". Supposedly it was supposed to be an objective account of Krishnamurti's life and told of some of the scandals around him.....barely remember anything about the book though.

[Blue Garuda]

Is the TS activity in relation to Krishnamurti any different from the identification of Tulkus?

In the end, the person 'chosen' has free will to reject his/her selection.

Unfortunately, they are unable to control the accusations of others, whether proclaiming him as saint or sinner.

[Lhug-Pa]

Krishnmurti himself dissolved that Star in the East organization that Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater had built up around him because they assumed that Krishnamurti was the Reincarnation of Yeshua Christ.

Rudolf Steiner left the Theosophical Society, because Besant and Leadbeater couldn't accept that Krishnamurti wasn't the actual Reincarnation of Yeshua even though Steiner knew better.

Not that Rudolf Steiner necessarily had anything against Krishnamurti. He simply knew that he wasn't Yeshua Christ's Reincarnation (and obviously Krishnamurti didn't think that he himself was either).

Speaking of hearsay and slander by the way, C.W. Leadbeater got falsely accused of showing youths how to masturbate, when apparently C.W. Leadbeater was teaching them a version of the Vajroli Mudra which, although it seems similar to masturbation, is actually the opposite of masturbation because it is a way for the Yogin to achieve Vajroli.

[Will]

Well it's possible that she's making it up in order to slander Krishnamurti.

People make stuff up all the time to slander people they dislike.

It's also possible that she's not making it up, but I doubt it.

All I'm getting at here is that we don't have all the facts, so it could go either way.

Among possibilities let us not forget prejudice in favor of K. based on liking what one has read or heard.

Even if this book never existed I see K. as a cranky, hypocritical intellect with little sympathy for helping all sentient beings.

[Caz]

Have you seen this discussion of Trungpa Rimpoche with Krishnamurti ?

Wow Krishnamurti is full of it.

[Lhug-Pa]

Then it seems that we now have both sides to consider Will; so unless some more evidence (or lack thereof) about the abortion thing comes to light, we'll just have to agree to disagree for now.

I've already said in my first post in this thread that I agree that Krishnamurti probably wasn't necessarily capable of leading others to Enlightenment, that is according to the way he taught. Although I could be mistaken in my said agreement; and I do doubt that Krishnamurti was a only a mere dry intellectual.

Also, even though I doubt that he would have encouraged abortions, I don't particularly have much interest in reading many of his books and watching a lot of his lectures, etc. His book called something like The Awakening of Intelligence was pretty good though. It was, I believe, in this book that Krishnamurti made reference to Dream Yoga, but without using those words; which I thought was interesting, and may show that Krishnamurti had more than mere intellectual knowledge. Then again, I've heard a story of a girl who could astral project very easily, yet she had very little interest in actual Enlightenment.

Anyway, Best Regards.

[catmoon]

Wow Krishnamurti is full of it.

Well yes and no. He seems to have had some realizations, but as near as I can figure somewhere along the line he lost the thread of compassion and bodhicitta and tried to pursue truth in a very academic sort of way.

He once did an experiment where he took a rock from the garden, put it on a windowsill and tended to it each day, just to see what would happen. It wasn't very long before he started regarding the rock as first, special, and later, holy in some sense. When that started to happen he put the rock back where it came from, and was surprised to discover the level of attachment that had arisen.

So, the stories he tells are not without value. But they do tend to trap the reader in a net of - oh say, soulless academia.

[Will]

Here is an excerpt from a book I am not familar with. It gives a short survey of Krishnamurti:

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsam ... amurti.asp