• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

J.Krishnamurti

OP
OP
I

Iyest

Active member
Thought is sensation, is it not? Through perception and contact there is sensation; from this arises desire, desire for this and not for that. Desire is the beginning of identification, the 'mine' and the 'not-mine'. Thought is verbalized sensation; thought is the response of memory the word, the experience, the image. Thought is transient changing, impermanent, and it is seeking permanency. So thought creates the thinker, who then becomes the permanent; he assumes the role of the censor, the guide, the controller, the moulder of thought. This illusory permanent entity is the product of thought, of the transient. This entity is thought; without thought he is not. The thinker is made up of qualities; his dualities cannot be separated from himself. The controller is the controlled, he is merely playing a deceptive game with himself. Till the false is seen as the false, truth is not.

"Then who is the seer, the experiencer, the entity that says, 'I understand'?"

As long as there is the experiencer remembering the experience, truth is not. Truth is not something to be remembered, stored up, recorded, and then brought out. What is accumulated is not truth. The desire to experience creates the experiencer, who then accumulates and remembers. Desire makes for the separation of the thinker from his thoughts; the desire to become, to experience, to be more or to be less, makes for division between the experiencer and the experience. Awareness of the ways of desire is self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is the beginning of meditation.

- Commentaries on Living, Series II.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
Thought is sensation, is it not? Through perception and contact there is sensation; from this arises desire, desire for this and not for that. Desire is the beginning of identification, the 'mine' and the 'not-mine'. Thought is verbalized sensation; thought is the response of memory the word, the experience, the image. Thought is transient changing, impermanent, and it is seeking permanency. So thought creates the thinker, who then becomes the permanent; he assumes the role of the censor, the guide, the controller, the moulder of thought. This illusory permanent entity is the product of thought, of the transient. This entity is thought; without thought he is not. The thinker is made up of qualities; his dualities cannot be separated from himself. The controller is the controlled, he is merely playing a deceptive game with himself. Till the false is seen as the false, truth is not.

"Then who is the seer, the experiencer, the entity that says, 'I understand'?"

As long as there is the experiencer remembering the experience, truth is not. Truth is not something to be remembered, stored up, recorded, and then brought out. What is accumulated is not truth. The desire to experience creates the experiencer, who then accumulates and remembers. Desire makes for the separation of the thinker from his thoughts; the desire to become, to experience, to be more or to be less, makes for division between the experiencer and the experience. Awareness of the ways of desire is self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is the beginning of meditation.

- Commentaries on Living, Series II.
I have a question, i hope you dont mind answering.

Isnt the works of Shri Jiddu Krishnamurti a bit way too convoluted?
I do understand his teachings but at one point one starts to feel that even Shree Krishna kept things so simple and direct to the point in the Bhagavad Gita.
Adi Shankaracharya's works is totally deep but yet within the ability to grasp.

I might be wrong but JK's work do seem to be a mental exercise which could reveal or may be even conceal.
 
OP
OP
I

Iyest

Active member
Renuka ji, I can relate to your questions. I also felt that way for many years. Then it dawned on me. Krishnamurti was being extremely direct and simple. I had read the Gita, some Shankara, Buddha, Bible, and quite a bit of Ramana. But what I got from them all was a few concepts, call them Maha Vakyas if you like. May be it was due to my ignorance. With Krishnamurti I could not hide behind those traditional ideas like ‘You are the Self’, ‘ There is no duality’, ‘ Surrender and do your duty’ etc etc. Nor could I take shelter in some technique or repetitive practice. He made me face myself.

With Krishnamurti one’s daily living was the starting point (not some sound philosophy or knowledge of religious texts or even a traditional background) - Relationship, conflicts, comparison, desire, fear, anxiety and so on. Socrates and Ramana taught people to probe ‘Who am I?’. Krishnamurti was actually doing it by exposing and unraveling the contents of the mind (I, ego, self, thoughts). From any starting point he could lead to the highest. Although it may seem like a mental exercise or vichara at first, the essence of his teachings is total surrender or Para Bhakti (in traditional terms). At every step he only emphasises one central point - that thought is the root of all problems in daily life - desire, fear, conflict, suffering. And any activity or effort of thought (including spiritual practices) cannot resolve them. One has to face the complete helplessness of thought (ego, I, mind). It is only the complete understanding of this truth that can silence the mind and set one free.

Don’t know whether you find any of this useful but that is just my honest answer.
 
OP
OP
I

Iyest

Active member
The real is near, not far. We are blind, blinded by things which prevent us from seeing that which is near. Truth is life, truth is your relationship with your wife, truth is to be found in understanding the falseness of belief. You must begin near to go far. Action must be without motive, without seeking an end, and action which is not seeking an end can come only when there is love.

Love is not a difficult thing. There is love only when the brain understands itself, when the thought process with its cunning manipulations, with its adjustments, with its search for security comes to an end; then you will find that the heart is rich, full, blissful, for it has discovered that which is eternal.

- Poona, 1948
 
OP
OP
I

Iyest

Active member
Why do we insist on separating the perceiver from the perception, the rememberer from the memory? Is this not at the root of our trouble?

K: We separate it because the rememberer, the experiencer, the thinker, becomes permanent by separation. Memories are obviously fleeting, so the rememberer, the experiencer, the mind, separates itself because it wants permanency. The mind that is making an effort, that is striving, that is choosing, that is disciplined, obviously cannot find the real because as we said, through that very effort it projects itself and sustains the thinker.

- Bangalore, 1948
 
OP
OP
I

Iyest

Active member
Q: Memory, you say, is incomplete experience. I have a memory and a vivid impression of your previous talks. In what sense is it an incomplete experience?

K: What do we mean by memory? You go to school and are full of facts, technical knowledge. If you are an engineer, you use the memory of technical knowledge to build a bridge. That is factual memory. There is also psychological memory. You have said something to me, pleasant or unpleasant, and I retain it; and when I next meet you, I meet you with that memory, the memory of what you have said or not said. So, there are two facets to memory, the psychological and the factual. They are always interrelated, therefore not clear cut. We know that factual memory is essential as a means of livelihood. But is psychological memory essential? And what is the factor which retains the psychological memory? What makes one psychologically remember insult or praise? Why does one retain certain memories and reject others? Obviously, one retains memories which are pleasant and avoids memories which are unpleasant. If you observe, you will see that painful memories are put aside more quickly than the pleasure able ones. And mind is memory, at whatever level, by whatever name you call it; mind is the product of the past, it is founded on the past, which is memory, a conditioned state. Now, with that memory we meet life, we meet a new challenge. The challenge is always new and our response is always old because it is the outcome of the past. So, experiencing without memory is one state, and experiencing with memory is another. That is, there is a challenge, which is always new. I meet it with the response, with the condition of the old. So, what happens? I absorb the new, I do not understand it, and the experiencing of the new is conditioned by the past. Therefore, there is a partial understanding of the new, there is never complete understanding. It is only when there is complete understanding of anything that it does not leave the scar of memory.

- Poona, 1948
 
OP
OP
I

Iyest

Active member
When there is an interval between two thoughts, between two memories, when that interval can be maintained, then out of that interval a new state of being comes which is no longer memory. We have memories and we cultivate memory as a means of continuance. That is, the ‘me’ and the ‘mine’ become very important as long as the cultivation of memory exists; and as most of us are made up of ‘me’ and ‘mine’, memory plays a very important part in our lives. If you had no memory, your property, your family, your ideas would not be important as such; so, to give strength to ‘me’ and ‘mine’ you cultivate memory. But if you observe, you will see that there is an interval between two thoughts, between two emotions. In that interval, which is not the product of memory, there is an extraordinary freedom from the ‘me’ and the ‘mine’, and that interval is timeless.

- Poona, 1948
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
When there is an interval between two thoughts, between two memories, when that interval can be maintained, then out of that interval a new state of being comes which is no longer memory. We have memories and we cultivate memory as a means of continuance. That is, the ‘me’ and the ‘mine’ become very important as long as the cultivation of memory exists; and as most of us are made up of ‘me’ and ‘mine’, memory plays a very important part in our lives. If you had no memory, your property, your family, your ideas would not be important as such; so, to give strength to ‘me’ and ‘mine’ you cultivate memory. But if you observe, you will see that there is an interval between two thoughts, between two emotions. In that interval, which is not the product of memory, there is an extraordinary freedom from the ‘me’ and the ‘mine’, and that interval is timeless.

- Poona, 1948
Its like storing our memory in an external memory card and not in internal storage.
External memory card does not really " belong" to the system but it can provide a back up when relevant data is needed.
But since its not part of internal storage it does not form vasanas.
 
OP
OP
I

Iyest

Active member
When you understand life, you will find the unknown, for life is the unknown, and death and life are one. There is no division between life and death; it is the foolish and the ignorant who make the division, those who are concerned with their body and with their petty continuity. Such people use the theory of reincarnation as a means of covering up their fear, as a guarantee of their stupid little continuity. It is obvious that thought continues; but surely, a man who is seeking truth is not concerned with thought, for thought does not lead to truth. The theory of the ‘me’ continuing through reincarnation towards truth is a false idea, it is untrue. The ‘me’ is a bundle of memories, which is time, and the mere continuation of time does not lead you to the eternal which is beyond time. The fear of death ceases ceases only when the unknown enters your heart. Life is the unknown, as death is the unknown, as truth is the unknown. Life is the unknown, sir; but we cling to one small expression of that life, and that which we cling to is merely memory, which is an incomplete thought; therefore that which we cling to is unreal, it has no validity. The mind clings to that empty thing called memory, and memory is the mind, the self, at whatever level you like to fix it. So, mind, which is in the field of the known, can never invite the unknown. It is only when there is the unknown, a state of complete uncertainty, that there comes the cessation of fear and with it the perception of reality.

- Poona, 1948
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
When you understand life, you will find the unknown, for life is the unknown, and death and life are one. There is no division between life and death; it is the foolish and the ignorant who make the division, those who are concerned with their body and with their petty continuity. Such people use the theory of reincarnation as a means of covering up their fear, as a guarantee of their stupid little continuity. It is obvious that thought continues; but surely, a man who is seeking truth is not concerned with thought, for thought does not lead to truth. The theory of the ‘me’ continuing through reincarnation towards truth is a false idea, it is untrue. The ‘me’ is a bundle of memories, which is time, and the mere continuation of time does not lead you to the eternal which is beyond time. The fear of death ceases ceases only when the unknown enters your heart. Life is the unknown, as death is the unknown, as truth is the unknown. Life is the unknown, sir; but we cling to one small expression of that life, and that which we cling to is merely memory, which is an incomplete thought; therefore that which we cling to is unreal, it has no validity. The mind clings to that empty thing called memory, and memory is the mind, the self, at whatever level you like to fix it. So, mind, which is in the field of the known, can never invite the unknown. It is only when there is the unknown, a state of complete uncertainty, that there comes the cessation of fear and with it the perception of reality.

- Poona, 1948
Could you explain a little?
He says that the theory of " me" continuing through reincarnation is untrue.

I do get it that we as in who we think we are for eg Mr X wont continue as MR X ..in a past life he could have been Mr W and the next life as Mr Y.
But does rebirth happen or not? As in the karma takes on a new body?
 
OP
OP
I

Iyest

Active member
Could you explain a little?
He says that the theory of " me" continuing through reincarnation is untrue.

The sentence in question is: “The theory of the ‘me’ continuing through reincarnation towards truth is a false idea, it is untrue. “

Actually here the key is ‘towards truth’. In other words the ‘me’ may continue with a different form and accumulating more memories. But it will forever remain memories. Truth is when there is freedom from memory ( thought, I, ego, time).

This is confirmed by the next sentence, “and the mere continuation of time does not lead you to the eternal which is beyond time.”
 
OP
OP
I

Iyest

Active member
The mind both conscious and unconscious, is a bundle of memories, and when the mind says to itself, “I must be free of memory in order to understand reality,” that very wish to be free is part of memory. That is a fact. Therefore, the mind no longer wishes to be anything - it merely faces the fact that it itself is memory; it does not wish to transform, it does not wish to become something else. When the mind sees that any action on its own part is still the functioning of memory, and therefore that it is incapable of finding truth, what then is the state of the mind? It becomes still.

When the mind perceives that any activity of its own is futile, is all part of memory and therefore of time
, seeing that fact, it stops, does it not? If your mind sees the reality of what I am saying, that whatever it does is still part of memory, and therefore it cannot act to be free of memory, it does not act. When the mind sees that it cannot proceed that way, it stops. Therefore, the mind, the whole content of the mind, the conscious and the unconscious, becomes still.

- Poona, 1948
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
The sentence in question is: “The theory of the ‘me’ continuing through reincarnation towards truth is a false idea, it is untrue. “

Actually here the key is ‘towards truth’. In other words the ‘me’ may continue with a different form and accumulating more memories. But it will forever remain memories. Truth is when there is freedom from memory ( thought, I, ego, time).

This is confirmed by the next sentence, “and the mere continuation of time does not lead you to the eternal which is beyond time.”
Thank you..in other words we need to reset to factory settings.
 
OP
OP
I

Iyest

Active member
In that awareness there is no choice but merely seeing things as they are - red as red, blue as blue, without any distortion. In that state which is peaceful, choicelessly aware, and alert, you will find that all verbalization, all mentation, or intellection has completely stopped. There is a stillness which is not induced, a stillness in which the mind is no longer using thought to revive itself; therefore, there is neither the thinker nor the thought. There is neither the experiencer nor the experienced because the experiencer and the experienced come into being through the thought process, and the thought process has entirely stopped. There is only a state of experiencing. In that state of experiencing, there is no time; all time as yesterday, today, and tomorrow has completely stopped. If you can go further into it, you will see that the mind which was the product of time has completely transformed itself and is now without time; and that which is without time is eternal, that which is without time is immeasurable, it has no beginning and no end, it is without cause and therefore without effect - and that which is without cause is the real.

- Poona, 1948
 
OP
OP
I

Iyest

Active member
So, when this process of identification - which revives memory and gives continuance to memory in the present - when that ceases, then there is a possibility of rebirth, renewal, creativeness; and in that renewal there is no continuity. That which renews cannot continue. It is from moment to moment.

-
Ojai, California, 1949
 
OP
OP
I

Iyest

Active member
And that is what we are discussing- how to have this direct experience without the intervention of the mind. But once there is this direct experiencing, the mind clings to the sensations of it and then wants a repetition of that experience, which means, really, that the mind is interested in sensation, not in experiencing. Therefore, the mind can never experience; it can only know sensations. The experiencing comes only when the mind is not the experiencer. So, the timeless cannot be known or imagined or experienced through the mind. And as that is the only instrument which we have cultivated, at the expense of everything else, we are lost when we look at the process of the mind. We must be lost. We must come to an end - which is not despair, not fear. Know the process of the mind; see what it is, and when you see what it is, it comes to an end without any enforcement. Only then is there a possibility of that renewal which is eternal.

-
Ojai, California, 1949
 
OP
OP
I

Iyest

Active member
There was a Jain muni who had undergone many austerities, including plucking the hair of his head from its roots. He had lived this austere and ascetic life in search of God and Truth. Many years had gone into this sadhana, and he was getting on in years, having lived a righteous life for many years. He had no other purpose in life except to find Truth and God. Someone spoke to him about Krishnamurti, and so he came to Rajghat. The monk prostrated himself before Krishnamurti. Achyutji arranged an interview with Krishnamurti. As the monk only knew Hindi, Achyutji became the translator.

After a brief discussion, the monk reached a state of high energy. As the discussion went on, the monk reached a state of ananda [spiritual ecstasy] and tears rolled down his cheeks. And as he bent in front of Krishnaji, his tears touched Krishnaji’s feet. He was grateful for the great experience. The monk said he owed it to Krishnamurti. He added that the experience was due to Krishnaji’s grace, presence and blessing and he was not sure if he would have that state of bliss again. He would like to have it permanently as part of his being through Krishnamurti’s blessings and awaited an answer. Krishnaji asked him as to who was asking this question; was it the one who wanted to grab the experience? Then the monk went again into a state of samadhi [absorption of the self in the infinite], and ananda. He sat quietly for some time.

The monk recognized that it was his ego that wanted the permanence of this experience and understood that experiencing is only possible when the ego is absent. It was a moment of moksha that could not be recalled. The monk was quick to recognize this; he got up, prostrated before Krishnaji and left the room accompanied by Achyutji who was the witness to the truth and the transmission of what had happened between Krishnaji and the monk.

- G.Narayan, As the River joins the Ocean
 
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks