Was Jiddu Krishnamurti Right?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 окт 2024
- "Over the last few years, a number of people have asked me about the teachings of Jiddu Krishnamurti and about how these teachings relate to the practices of yoga. Basically, Krishnamurti taught that meditation is not something that you can do, but a state of being where the mind is silent and there is no "centre". I have recorded this short video for RUclips on this subject, including how we can know if we are ready to make use of Krishnamurti's teachings."
__________________________
The book: "Kundalini Awakening: Questions and Answers" by Tristan is now available here: www.aypinterna...
The online video course: "Deep Meditation - The Cultivation of Samadhi" by Tristan is now available here: www.advanced-y...
More than 400 free lessons on Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP) are available here: www.aypinterna...
For upcoming AYP residential retreats and yoga teacher training courses, see here: www.aypinterna...
Other online video courses on Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP) are available here: www.advanced-y...
To join the private AYP International Facebook group follow this link: / advanced.yoga.practice...
Instagram: / tristandorling
Auto-translate is available on the video. To make it work, first, turn on the subtitles in English (cc), then go to -Settings - Subtitles - Auto-translate - (Select the language). You can then drag-and-drop the subtitles around the screen.
This channel is free for everyone, and is not supported financially by RUclips. If you would like to support this channel, the donation page is here: www.aypinterna...
I admire Krishnamurti and he speaks truth most of the time. He also tends to speak in extremes - all or nothing. He says "We have no love" while i say "We have love, but there are selfish elements; it's impure, limited." The fact of the matter is that we can genuinely care for people, even though we may be attached to them, or have vested interests. There are shades of grey; we're complicated, multi-faceted. He focuses too much on our negative aspects. It's fine to acknowledge and go into them, provided one is willing to admit we have redeeming qualities, however limited - including the capacity to inquire, to examine our psyche.
Moreover, he keeps stating that we are memory, anger, and so on, not mentioning the fact that we're not only those since we can observe them coming and going. If we were only memory or anger, we couldn't begin to examine those; we'd be trapped. He neglects to point out that in addition to being anger, we are also the intelligence that can inquire into anger. We are not merely our egoistic tendencies.
My approach toward memory is nuanced. While it's true that being dominated by memory is an obstructing factor (where love is concerned), it can also serve love. Imagine for a moment that you couldn't remember your beloved, due to an accident or brain damage. Not only would you fail to recognize your beloved; your love for that person would be effectively gone. That person would be a stranger. Perhaps not quite a stranger; you might still be instinctively drawn to him/her, though the love would be undeveloped, due to a lack of personal history. Or alternatively, memory can play the following role (in a different context): part of the history, for example, is that the beloved once had saved your life by donating one of her organs to you. So you remember that, the memory of which enhances your love for that person. In other words, a shared history can be both limiting (constricting) AND a source of richness, depending on what that history is and/or how it's approached.
Or consider it this way. You love someone and have been physically apart from that person for, say, a week. That person went on a business trip to Chicago, while you're sitting in your sofa in Florida. So you remember that person; you recall him/her frequently. Clearly love and memory are playing off of each other; they are intimately connected. You remember so-and-so as you do precisely because you love the person; love spurs on the memory, the recollection. Were you not in love, you would probably not remember him/her, or at least would think of that individual rarely or infrequently. The point is that memory is not merely functional; it gives love a sense of direction. Question: how do you know you love him/her without memory (of that person)?
You can be wholly immersed in the moment, to the point that an egoistic sense of identity is not. But that doesn't mean the whole past is wiped out, nor should it be that way. You're perfectly aware of what you and your partner did a year ago, and that memory, as a part of a story, can be truly beautiful and a contributing factor to the love you have now. Yet memory can become rotten too; yes, it can prevent one from living fully in the present. However, not necessarily.
Let's look at memory in a different context. A judge or jury wouldn't, in the manner of Krishnamurti, say of someone found guilty: "But we're not meeting him now; our decision is based on what he did in the past; we're tethered to the past; we have no relationship to what he is NOW." Do you see what I'm driving at? It's not merely a pragmatic point I'm making. In a very real sense, the past actually MATTERS where our relationships are concerned. People respond to us in part, quite naturally, on the basis of our past acts. If we're open-minded and generous, we see that a person can change; a person isn't bound by the past. But still the past matters - and it matters with regards to love as well.
I have often heard Krishnamurti claiming that we're the rest of humanity, all basically, essentially the same. Well - yes and no. He would make out the differences to be superficial or just minor variations. This is where I disagree. Sure, we all suffer hardships, we all experience sorrow and anxiety at some point, we're born alone and we die alone, we all fall ill and die eventually. However, degree and context matter. The fact is that some people are much happier than others, or some are much more miserable than others. The situation of a person who loves his job, who has a beautiful caring wife, and many material comforts is very different from the situation of a homeless person or someone living in a 3rd world country. The latter may be fortunate to get just one decent meal a day. My point is that this gap is not minor; it's a yawning chasm. Although the one with a great job and beautiful wife suffers, his suffering cannot be compared with that of one about whom no one cares and who winds up dying in the gutter.
Another point of contention with Krishnamurti. Traditional gurus have long made the claim (among them Ramana Maharshi) that we need to remove the obscurations and the Self is naturally there. Krishnamurti calls this a theory merely, and goes about negation only. It's a commendable approach for the rigorous few, but it won't work for the majority of seekers. It's not enough to state what one takes to be true; one must be sensitive to the individual needs of the seeker. In other words, one must see where the seeker is emotionally, and find a way that most resonates with him/her if progress is to be made. Most people need the reassurance that the Self is already there; without that assurance, that hope, they won't proceed. That's just the way it is; you can't simply fault them for lacking in seriousness. That's why, as a teacher, Ramana was more effective in a way: for he considered where the student was psychologically and emotionally. His approach was multi-faceted.
🙏
That was great ❤
Listening to Krishnamurti is heartwarming... because I feel not so alone.
🙏
❤
very informative. I read him for years and found him interesting, but somehow out of reach, though calming. You filled a lot of blanks for me and it was well delivered. thank you
I read so many of jiddu krishnamuti's books especially the freedom from the known book ,i think i read it about four or five times when i ran out of books that didn't go into repeating what i read or came to discover, more than three times.Soon my mind got so quiet by itself ,that i had to think of something.When normally in most cases the mind is always chattering about something.Then one day i had a feeling like i aways existed ,without any attachment or fear of or to anything.
🙏
Yes, yes, and yes. When that state of complete silence is present..........
Thank you very much. Those words was very necessary. 🙏 I hope you explaining mor of these subjects. I am listening only to Krishhamurti therefor I know that he is authentic and I feel his presence always. Thanks to you.
God bless om shanthi love you all be safe
Lovely. Thank you
Excellent
After reading Krishnmurti''s books for a number of yrs, the only "practice"i could find was Choiceless Awareness.
You are right , choiceless awareness is the one principle of JK that one you call as the core of his message.
It is the one I abide by till date and it made all the difference.
Refusal of JK to adopt any method or summarise his teachings made it very difficult for people to follow him.
One thing, which JK inculcated was the spirit enquiring and questioning things, not to accept or take anything for granted.
But here too, from the standpoint of Krishnamurti, choiceless awareness is not a practice. If it is then there is a practitioner, and where there is a practitioner there is choice.
As Kmty once said about choiceless awareness.If you want to escape from prison the first thing you do is study the layout.This makes sense if you are still engaged in seeking.@@sanekabc
When the observer is the observed. There is no problem to resolve.
@@sanekabc Could you kindly explain, why there is a choice when there is a practitioner.
My friend, your understanding of K's teaching is very partial. His teaching is the simplest of all. You are locked into a dualistic understanding of being human and everything you perceive shows up in the light of that dualistic understanding. I can't further explain the matter to you here but would be happy to engage in a conversation if you so wish. In the meantime I would ask you to consider the wisdom of making statements that can have the affect of putting people off engaging with K and missing a golden opportunity in life. Best wishes to you, Bernard Field
Hi Bernard, many people are firmly rooted in duality. For these people non-dual teachings are simply inaccessible. If we offer them only non-dual teachings, which they cannot understand, whilst at the same time ridiculing any spiritual practices that would actually help them, then that is not a very kind, or compassionate thing to be doing. Kindness and compassion should always be at the heart of any spiritual teaching. If it isn't, then it is not too late, as we can take the necessary steps to ensure that it is. That is what you are seeing happen here.
But nothing goes away. When people make themselves ready for non-dual teachings, the teachings will still be there. So, nothing is lost. In fact, when people are ready, they do not actually need non-dual teachings at all, as non-duality will be seen to be everywhere.
Hi. Sir it's very pleasant to hear your voice. So calm. I have seen some meditator saying they had some Darshana's. They say they Saw Krishna, Rama but all are Hindu God and godess. Why they see them , Why they dont see any non Hindu God like Any Roman or Greece God. Is Hindu God, Godess are Universal Truth? Or Darshana' are result, impact of our culture. As you are a Non Hindu origined and practiced yoga i want to know. If a person who never have any aware of hindu God, practices yoga then what will be his Darshana's. Please possible inform me. ( sorry for my Poor english and if my quistion caused any disgrace to holy yogic truths).
I believe you are right. Christian monks and nuns tend to have visions of Jesus, or of Mother Mary. Hindus tend to have visions of Hindu Gods. This is what we find if we read the autobiographies of saints and yogis. But it is not always the case. I have had people write to me to say that they grew up in Europe, in a Christian family, but had a very powerful vision of Ganesha, or of Kali for example. They could not understand how it could have happened? Possibly we have connections to who we were in previous births? Krishnamurti used to have visions of ascended masters.
Something of practical advice came to me; let’s see if I can put it into words. Two things. One, the idea of being a ‘seeker’... consider that there is an aspect of your being which is not at all a seeker; but it is the aspect of you that ‘knows’. In meditation, it is far more simple than you, as a seeker, can imagine. In my view, if we use the term ‘enlightenment’ for now, then enlightenment is something that you *are*, all the time, and all you have to do (-if there is a craving in you...), is recognize the truth of who and what you are. Two-and this is the more practical thing I wanted to mention-love is the key. Any form of love carries the pattern you ‘seek’. Indulging in love can help you remember who and what you are. At length you strip away the subject experiencing love, as well as the object. Then there is only love. If... if it make you weep, that is a good sign. It is a deep, deep relief. A letting go, combined with an infinite self-assuredness (though I might mention the ‘self’ here is beyond what you may have every experienced).
It is worth emphasizing: love is the key. Practically, if we are honest about what pleases us, we turn immediately to love. If we surrender to that fiery courage within us, it turns us into vessels of love. Kindness, cooperation, compassion, beauty-all these things hint at the greatest wealth that life affords. So my advice is, take the hint.
Definition of meditation is a free for all domains. Arguments and counter arguments are allowed to flourish. It is you against you and also for you. It is with you and without you. Centered around ME and also a centre-less journey. It is searching outside and also inside and also direction less. It is universal and eternal and also temporal and space and time bound. It is searching for truth while buried deep under a huge heap of falsehood. It is watching the Sunrise through a tainted glass painted with a picture of Sunrise. So it is like blind men looking for light outside on a pitch dark night forgetting the source of light is not where they are searching. Meditation and Jnana Yoga can be of immense help for those who understand the essence of Jnana Yoga. It is an annihilation of self, seated itself on the high pedestal of ego , decorated with falsehood.
A naturally still quiet mind absent of the movement of thought.The nature of the mind,Thought creating the thinker or the self born of experience and time as memory etc etc.
k knew the mind's capability of projections
so K's lectures happened in meditation mode.
Every knowledge from God knowledge is infinity ♾️
I am surprised at this focus upon K.
He was not particularly in favour of meditation. In one talk someone in the crowd requested that they all meditate, and he rejected that request.
I think a better summary of K position is: ‘be a light unto oneself.’
In all, seems to me, K wasn’t particularly a fan of meditation.
Krishnamurti did actually teach meditation, but not in the sense of following a structure, or method. As Krishnamurti once said: "Meditation is freedom from thought and a movement in the ecstasy of truth. Meditation is explosion of intelligence.” On another occasion he said: "“Meditation is one of the greatest arts in life - perhaps the greatest, and one cannot possibly learn it from anybody, that is the beauty of it. It has no technique and therefore no authority. When you learn about yourself, watch yourself, watch the way you walk, how you eat, what you say, the gossip, the hate, the jealousy - if you are aware of all that in yourself, without any choice, that is part of meditation.”
After nearly 50yrs of enquiry i have to admit that Ï"still aint got it. Happy seeking everybody.
What could help is to inquire into that sense of having got it or not. Are there expectations of what it will be like when you finally have got it? Are you expecting to derive something from this happy occurrence? Peace of mind, joy, freedom from suffering, etc? However, if these are derivative, what is that thing you want, in itself? If you love someone or something, do you love because of what is in it for you, or because of the being of that person or thing you love? Is it not love for love's sake itself? Likewise, with enquiry into who you are - is it for what you expect or hope to gain from enquiry (or lose through it)? Or is it for the love of the truth of your existence?
One thing Krishnamurti was quite adept at, was to inquire into the process of enquiry itself. That is, all that stands in the way to freedom, will be part and parcel of the way we conduct the enquiry. And so we have the whole thing right here when we honestly and sincerely look at how we approach ourselves in the process of enquiry. The awareness of the impossibility of conducting enquiry free from the conditioning which enslaves us in the first place, is real freedom. It is the abidance in that awareness of impossibility, without any attempt to escape from it (or seeing through again and again that escape is impossible), which turns things around. There is no necessity to escape, as real freedom is already there. And so the whole preoccupation with freedom dies away through lack of engagement.
In due time this leads to a life of peace and creative joy, as an expression of the truth of our being. The whole of life becomes a never-ending process of learning. At the root however remains this choiceless awareness (as Krishnamurti called it), this awareness of having no choice but to be aware, escape being impossible and unnecessary. That awareness is self-supporting, self-cleansing and self-creating. When we approach the teachings of Krishnamurti in this way, maybe there is no need for a long time of preparation? I guess it depends on seeing the value of what we are discussing here, not as a hope for the future, but as an insight into what actually takes place in our attempt at enquiry right here and right now?
The solution is described in the video. Use a meditation technique to cultivate inner silence. Then you can begin working with gentle forms of self-inquiry practice. If you want to use more advanced self-inquiry methods such as the one taught by Krishnamurti, then also cultivate viveka and vairagya. Then you cannot fail. Simply using more inquiry before you are ready to use inquiry practices will lead to mind creating more mind. Like a squirrel chasing its own tail.
blinded by motive, are we?
Now that we know the truth, we also understand Krishnamurti. But when I was Jung it was only Theory.
🌹🕉️🙏
When your third eye opens, you will know. I can't explain it
When K answered that no one got his teachings, he was really pointing out the flaw in the question. There is no you and there is no teaching. Therefore there is no one to grasp that which is ever changing and therefore can't be grasped.
Hi @sanekabc, Yes, in an absolute sense it is true, that there are no teachings, there are no teachers, and there is nothing to understand and no one to understand it. No mirror, no dust, no wiping the dust from the mirror. And it is quite possible this is what Krishnamurti meant when he gave his reply. But how many can understand that? My guess would be not one in a million.
@@tristandorling I agree with you. I also have criticisms of K. His teachings contain all the elements but they were scattered all over the place. On rare occasions he would lay things out in a sequence, but not anywhere near often enough in my opinion. His primary message is that "the observer is the observed" (in the mind), which is why you cannot act on thoughts or emotions because you are them. To see the truth of that statement requires an insight. If this is seen, you also see why practice makes no sense. And if seen, the collapse of subject and object (in the mind) takes place, and center-less or non-dual consciousness arises. For me, this has not been a one-off event, but something which needs to be seen again and again in daily life in real time at the moment of reaction.
Jiddu or UG? The latter helped me to find more freedom.
Jiddu. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I will change the title. And yes, both Jiddu and UG can help people to find more freedom in their lives, when they are ready.
it is never silenced, control or the illusion is very dangerous
you get to play with the volumes, nothing more (minds chatter)
peel the onion, stay out of the judgment process
Meditation is and should be in fact a mere inquiry, never a practice.
An inquiry into the nature and the dynamics of our own thoughts and our own conditioning in general.
This inquiry has to be conducted without allowing any interference coming from the thoughts (and especially beliefs) we wish to examine and has nothing to do with any type of yoga.
There is another term for it... a bit more academic and not 100% accurate... and the term is ``metacognition``.
That is one definition of meditation. It is also sometimes referred to as "Jnana Yoga" or "The Yoga of Knowledge".
😅Going through all sources,J.K stands alone.Certainly he helped me a lot.My search stopped in him.Whatever questions that arose in me J.K could answer without effort.J.K saved me not in the sense Jesus saves.
For those who were ripe, Krishnamurti was certainly a great help. And of course he still is, through his books and videos. 🙏
@@tristandorling Thanks for your response.Your channel is for goodness.
He & his words were mirror . What U describe is U & yourself not He or his words
Don't forget that he didn't have any words. No teacher, no teachings, no words. No mirror, no dust and no one to clean the mirror. But to understand this, we have to do a bit of inner house-cleaning first. We have to learn to silence our minds and purify our hearts, just as Krishnamurti did.
To this I just wanna say, ah, no. Krishnamurti missed the mark but only slightly. The whole talk here misses the point of thought. Thought is what needs enquiry. To understand yourself does not require a high level of attainment in “meditation”. It requires the simple ability to see and know when we are taking the wrong turn when what we really want is harmony in everyday living.
It would be great if that was true. But of course, if it was true, then people would not be suffering in the world and there would be no disharmony. People would simply be able to see when they are making a wrong turn, and make adjustments to bring harmony into their lives. But that is not happening. There is suffering and there is disharmony. The evidence is that people generally do not have that much control over their own minds and over their own lives, even if they like to think that they do. This is why the practice of meditation, to bring the mind to stillness, is important.
There was no teaching
That's right. No teaching, no speaker, no listeners, no mirror, no dust, no one to clean the dust from the mirror. When people are ready, nothing is there! And yet, somehow, the whole kingdom! It is a beautiful mystery.
K never taught anything he was talking with us.
This is true, J. Krishnamurti never taught anything. He wasn't a teacher and did not have any students. He did not speak, and no one heard him. But how many can understand this before they are ready? And if they are not ready, then they need to make themselves ready. They need to become ripe. And this involves the cultivation of inner silence and the witness. This can take years of dedicated practice.
No goal no practice. @@tristandorling
@@shashi412 This is true, and yet, what I wrote also remains true. This is one of the Divine paradoxes of the spiritual path.
Truth is a pathless land. Sir.
@@shashi412 I have seen many people suffer needlessly for many years because of statements like that. It is a different time now, and things are changing.