Compatibility of Buddha and Krishnamurti

[tiltbillings]

If you are familiar with Krishnamurti's talks and writings then you know there is hardly a page that doesn't speak of the present moment which he sets apart from everything else, i.e., one's conditioning or psychological time.

But does he use the locution "momentary awareness," which you introduced into this thread?

[Mr Man]

retrofuturist there is a very readable biography by Mary Lutyens called "Krishnamurti: The Years of Awakening" which I think gives some context.

[rowboat]

Are you being overly touchy? You introduced the locution "momentary awareness" into this discussion not based upon an actual quote of Krishnamurti, so I asked what you meant, which seems not unreasonable.

I had made it very clear what Krishnamurti meant by the present moment, and the importance of remaining aware of this. He talked endlessly, for decades, about how one's meditation should be a strict observation of the process of moment-to-moment awareness, how this leads to the other, which is not of psychological time. There's no need to quote Krishnamurti here as anyone who has even a passing familiarity with his writings knows that these terms are part of the very essence of his teachings. Of course they don't accord with the dhamma, and it's for this reason that I would warn away anyone from delving very much into the works of Krishnamurti.

You might try writing a bit more carefully, which would also be of great help...

Please don't be silly. You won't find any pretentious and unnecessary language from me. Beams and motes, my friend.

"Why do you look at the mote in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the beam in your own eye? Mathew 7:3



Here. This is for you. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

[tiltbillings]

You won't find any pretentious and unnecessary language from me.

Again, you introduced into this thread an expression -- "momentary awareness" -- which is, apparently, not used, as such, by Krishnamurti, and it is an expression that looks alot like momentary concentration and other such used to describe aspects of Buddhist practice, which is why my question to you is to the point, in my opinion, which you certainly do not need to, and obviously do not, share.

Now that we have both restated our points, back to the topic at hand.

[rowboat]

Again, you introduced into this thread an expression -- "momentary awareness" -- which is, apparently, not used, as such, by Krishnamurti, and it is an expression that looks alot like momentary concentration and other such used to describe aspects of Buddhist practice, which is why my question to you is to the point, in my opinion, which you certainly do not need to, and obviously do not, share.

It is true that "momentary awareness" probably does not appear as quoted. What Krishnamurti did stress, endlessly, was the importance of "remaining aware of the moment," and "in the moment." Choiceless awareness. It might seem like a quibble, but I will allow that because of the resemblance to a common Buddhist term, it could be argued that some clarification was necessary. If you were familiar with the writings of Krishnamurti such a thing wouldn't be necessary. Of course I don't fault you for this. To be frank, in my view you haven't missed anything. Krishnamurti was tangled in a tangle himself and probably often didn't know where he was going.

Note: "alot" is not a word.

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

Here is a small section of a dialogue from: The Wholeness of Life ( page 74 ).

K = Krishnamurti B = Professor David Bohm S = Dr David Shainberg

"S: You have got an `I' thought.

B: Yes, I think that; therefore I have a sense that I am real. I am thinking of my suffering, and in that it is implicit that it is I who am there, that the suffering is real because I am real.

S: Right.

B: And then comes the next thought, which is: Since that is real I must think some more.

S: It feeds on itself.

B: Yes. And one of the things I must think is that I am suffering. And I am compelled to keep on thinking that thought all the time. Maintaining myself in existence. Do you see what I am driving at? That there is a feedback.

K: Which means that if thought is movement, which is time, and there is no movement I am dead! I am dead.

B: Yes, if that movement stops, then the sense that I am there being real must go, because the sense that I am real is the result of thinking.

K: Do you see this is extraordinary?

S: Of course it is.

K: No, no, actually. In actuality, not in theory. One realizes thought is movement - right?

S: Right.

B: And in this movement it creates an image of...

K: ...of me...

B: ...that is supposed to be moving.

K: Yes, yes. Now, when that movement stops there is no me. The me is time, put together by time, which is thought.

S: Right.

K: So do you, listening to this, realize the truth of it? Not the verbal, logical statement, but the truth of such an amazing thing? Therefore there is an entirely different action. The action of thought as movement brings about a fragmentary action, a contradictory action. When the movement as thought comes to an end there is total action.

B: Can you say then that whatever technical thought brings about has an order?

K: Of course.

B: In other words it doesn't mean that thought is permanently gone.

K: No, no.

S: It can still be a movement in its proper place, in its fitting order?

K: Of course. So is a human being afraid of all this? Unconsciously, deeply, he must realize the ending of me. Do you understand? And that is really a most frightening thing. My knowledge, my books, my wife - the whole thing which thought has put together. And you are asking me to end all that.

B: Can't you say it is the ending of everything? Because everything that I know is there.

K: Absolutely. So you see, really I am frightened; a human being is frightened of death. Not the biological death...

S: To die now.

K: This coming to an end. And therefore he believes in God, reincarnation, and a dozen other comforting things, but in actuality, when thought realizes itself as movement and sees that movement has created the me, the divisions, the quarrels, the whole structure of this chaotic world - when thought realizes this, sees the truth of it, it ends. Then there is cosmos. You listen to this: how do you receive it?

S: Do you want me to answer?

K: I offer you something. How do you receive it? This is very important.

S: Yes. Thought sees its movement...

K: No, no. How do you receive it? How does the public, who listens to all this, receive it? They ask, ``What is he trying to tell me?''

The entire text is available here: http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/index.php

Regards, Vincent.

[tiltbillings]

Again, you introduced into this thread an expression -- "momentary awareness" -- which is, apparently, not used, as such, by Krishnamurti, and it is an expression that looks alot like momentary concentration and other such used to describe aspects of Buddhist practice, which is why my question to you is to the point, in my opinion, which you certainly do not need to, and obviously do not, share.

It is true that "momentary awareness" probably does not appear as quoted. What Krishnamurti did stress, endlessly, was the importance of "remaining aware of the moment," and "in the moment." Choiceless awareness. It might seem like a quibble, but I will allow that because of the resemblance to a common Buddhist term, it could be argued that some clarification was necessary. If you were familiar with the writings of Krishnamurti such a thing wouldn't be necessary. Of course I don't fault you for this. To be frank, in my view you haven't missed anything. Krishnamurti was tangled in a tangle himself and probably often didn't know where he was going.

Well, I am not the only one reading this stuff, and I am guessing from what I have read here that most people have not read much or anything of him. Clarification is not an unreasonable thing.

Note: "alot" is not a word.

I am inclined to reject your reality and substitute my own. I certainly do use alot quite abit, but since you have seen fit to correct my lack of hitting the space-bar at the appropriate moment, it falls to my lot not to offend your orthographical sensitivities further. I shall endeavour to do my best by putting a bit of space around the particle in question.

[rowboat]

Well, I am not the only one reading this stuff, and I am guessing from what I have read here that most people have not read much or anything of him. Clarification is not an unreasonable thing.

It's a bit of an assumption but fair enough.

I am inclined to reject your reality and substitute my own. I certainly do use alot quite abit, but since you have seen fit to correct my lack of hitting the space-bar at the appropriate moment, it falls to my lot not to offend your grammatical sensitivities further. I shall endeavour to do my best by putting a bit of space around the particle in question.

That's good. You have a fine sense of humour.

Clear writing, man! As Martha Stewart would say, "it's a good thing."

Back to the subject at hand.

[AnDuAn]

In his book "A Quiet Mind" John Coleman describes a chance encounter with Krishnamurti in 1958 on a flight from Benares to New Delhi. Coleman had never heard of Krishnamurti.

Exerpt from page 52 of my copy:

Since you don't follow any of the established religions" I asked "which of the great religious leaders came closest to teaching and realizing the ultimate truth?"

"Oh, the Buddha," replied Krishnamurti without hesitation and somewhat to my astonishment. I had expected him to mention one of the Indian gods or even Christ. "The Buddha comes closer to the basic truths and facts of life than any other. Although I am not myself a Buddhist, of course."

"Why not?" I asked, as politely as possible to make up for my directness.

"No organization, however old or however recent, can lead a man to truth. It is a hindrance, it can only impede. It blocks a man from sincere study. The truth comes from within, by seeing for yourself. The conventional way of acquiring knowledge, it's true , is by reading or listening but to understand you have to penetrate directly, by silently observing. Then you understand.

[Krishnamurti describes the function of the intellect for a couple of paragraphs]

"...you must understand by direct experience, without interpretation and without intellectualization. The thought and the word are not the thing but a distortion of the reality."

(For those that have not heard of him John Coleman is one of a handful of westerners authorized to teach by U Ba Khin who was S.N. Goenka's teacher.)

My sense is that if one can park JK's aversion to organized religion for a moment, there is much of value in what he had to say. I have not performed the sutta research but it would appear that some 'overlap' as suggested/asked about by the original poster would not be difficult to find.


With much gratitude to all from a long time lurker.
A

[Prasadachitta]

I think that Krishnamurti was anti-buddhist, very prejudiced against buddhism. Obviously he did not understand or confuse some traditions with buddha dhamma. Seems as if his approach has been based on thought only.
Once saw him talking with Chögyam Trungpa and he appeared like a child full of fantasies, babbling all the time while Trungpa kept silence most of the time. That was very revealing.

kind regards

I do not know much of Krishnamurti but having watched the Video I must concur with TMingyur.

[Viscid]

Krishnamurti observed, I think, that students of Buddhism could delude themselves into beliving they had right view by simply projecting how someone of right view would behave.. a person who memorizes all the suttas, understands them intellectually and behaves in accordance to what is described as 'wholesome' and 'wise' and an example of being 'well-instructed' may see themselves (and others may see them) as being the perfect Buddhist. However, they may not truly have right view-- may not see things as they really are. They are simply allowing themselves to be conditioned through the authority of the texts and/or their teachers.. This is why Krishna rejected prescribing such institutionalized instruction. Krishnamurti was trying to tell people that right view (right understanding) is gained through ardent observation, not just respectful adherence to rules and methods. When we are honestly observing what's going on, we begin to understand it: how we are conditioned, what causes stress, etc. Once we have that right view, everything else starts falling into place.

What Krishnamurti rejected is not the intent of The Buddha, but rather one's reliance on any particular religious institution to get what The Buddha was pointing at. Krishna pleaded for us to simply look at the whole state of things in order to understand it.

[Kim O'Hara]

Krishnamurti observed, I think, that students of Buddhism could delude themselves into beliving they had right view by simply projecting how someone of right view would behave.. a person who memorizes all the suttas, understands them intellectually and behaves in accordance to what is described as 'wholesome' and 'wise' and an example of being 'well-instructed' may see themselves (and others may see them) as being the perfect Buddhist. However, they may not truly have right view-- may not see things as they really are. They are simply allowing themselves to be conditioned through the authority of the texts and/or their teachers..

I can agree with K on that.

... Krishna rejected prescribing such institutionalized instruction. Krishnamurti was trying to tell people that right view (right understanding) is gained through ardent observation, not just respectful adherence to rules and methods. When we are honestly observing what's going on, we begin to understand it: how we are conditioned, what causes stress, etc. Once we have that right view, everything else starts falling into place.

What Krishnamurti rejected is not the intent of The Buddha, but rather one's reliance on any particular religious institution to get at what The Buddha was pointing at. Krishna pleaded for us to simply look at the whole state of things in order to understand it.

This bit reminds me of a bumper sticker I have seen:

If you can read this, thank a teacher.

No-one learns *any* significant body of knowledge without being taught, whether formally (in a school or religious institution) or informally (at home as an infant, on the sports field as a teenager, etc), so K's advice to seekers that they should avoid teachers seems ... unwise? short-sighted? peculiar?
And you can't even say he (secretly) meant they should avoid all teachers other than himself, because he didn't teach, IMO, but (I will use the word that others used above) babbled.


Kim

[Viscid]

so K's advice to seekers that they should avoid teachers seems ... unwise? short-sighted? peculiar?

You're right. Krishna's mistake may have been that he had overestimated the capacity for the student to teach himself. Krishnamurti himself was exceptional in many ways: exceptionally intelligent and exceptionally educated. He may have believed that, as his insight was not directly attributable to any particular teacher, one was not required. He, ironically, may have not been fully aware of precisely how he was conditioned to distinguish truth.

[cooran]

Hello all,

This is what Krishnamurti said was the Core of the Teachings:

The Core of the Teachings
Written by Krishnamurti in 1980 at the request of his biographer Mary Lutyens.

The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said, “Truth is a pathless land”. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.

Man has built in himself images as a fence of security—religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man’s thinking, his relationships, and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all humanity. So he is not an individual.

Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not choice. It is man’s pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity.

Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge, which are inseparable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution. When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts, he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep, radical mutation in the mind.

Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence.

Copyright ©1980 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd.
http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-kris ... chings.php

with metta
Chris

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Chris,

Thanks for that very useful summary.

It gives some interesting thoughts to relate back to "sīlabbata-parāmāsa" (the fetter of attachment to precepts and practices - aka rites and rituals).

It also reminds me (unsuprisingly) of the Theosophical Society's motto "There is no religion higher than truth", which I definitely sympathize with.

Metta,
Retro.

[Will]

From the Coleman book earlier: [Krishnaji]: "No organization, however old or however recent, can lead a man to truth. It is a hindrance, it can only impede. It blocks a man from sincere study. The truth comes from within, by seeing for yourself. The conventional way of acquiring knowledge, it's true , is by reading or listening but to understand you have to penetrate directly, by silently observing. Then you understand.

[Krishnamurti describes the function of the intellect for a couple of paragraphs]

"...you must understand by direct experience, without interpretation and without intellectualization. The thought and the word are not the thing but a distortion of the reality."

Does not one see the arrogance here? Any traditional guru worth his salt would teach the very same thing. Even after suggesting a practice for his disciple or if one followed any traditional practice text it all comes back to our "direct experience" "from within". What else is new?

K. had nothing to offer except charisma & a good penetrating mind.

No one but a dope would think an organization or tradition (old or new) would lead to truth or impede the knowing of it.

[Prasadachitta]

Hello all,

This is what Krishnamurti said was the Core of the Teachings:

The Core of the Teachings
Written by Krishnamurti in 1980 at the request of his biographer Mary Lutyens.

The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said, “Truth is a pathless land”. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.

Man has built in himself images as a fence of security—religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man’s thinking, his relationships, and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all humanity. So he is not an individual.

Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not choice. It is man’s pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity.

Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge, which are inseparable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution. When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts, he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep, radical mutation in the mind.

Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence.

Copyright ©1980 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd.
http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-kris ... chings.php

with metta
Chris

Thanks for that Chris.



That is an interesting read and it creates a bit more clarity out of the video posted above. It seems to me that Krishnamurti is adept at dissecting and analyzing what freedom and bondage are. I think the core of Buddhist teaching is the bit where we find a way from one to the other. We can delight in seeing how religious structures fail, standing by and declaring how we think success looks, but the Buddha in his infinite compassion did much more by providing precise direction and structured practice.

Take Care

Prasadachitta

[mikenz66]

"...you must understand by direct experience, without interpretation and without intellectualization. The thought and the word are not the thing but a distortion of the reality."

Does not one see the arrogance here?
Any traditional guru worth his salt would teach the very same thing. Even after suggesting a practice for his disciple or if one followed any traditional practice text it all comes back to our "direct experience" "from within". What else is new?

That's my impression. Not that Krishnamurti didn't have some useful points to make, but the message of: "don't follow other stuff, but listen to what I'm saying" is inherently contradictory.


Mike

[Mr Man]

Will & Mike
I personally wouldn't worry to much about the arrogance and contradictory nature of some of what he said. Those are just the details
I think he was a catalyst for positive change but possibly not the great mesiah.

[Tyler]

Krishnamurti is an interesting fellow. It seems that his followers took him much more seriously than he took himself and this is why his teachings are so powerful.