Deconstructing Krishnamurti

Welcome to Deconstructing Krishnamurti

Niko

July 27, 2017

According to Wikipedia, more than 75 books have been published which were either written by Krishnamurti, or else which contain records of his talks or his dialogues, with an estimated total circulation of at least 4,000,000 volumes. In addition to the books, there are a great number of sound and video recordings; also available to the public. In 1929, at the time of his break with the Theosophical Society, Krishnamurti declared that his new intention in life was to “set man free”. To that end came the thousands of talks and dialogues, the books and the Krishnamurti schools. Surely, he lived an amazingly productive life in terms of the sheer volume of his talks and other projects up to his death at the age of 90. The sincerity of his intention appears to be indisputable given the evidence of his unwavering commitment to his cause of freedom for mankind.

Yet, in spite of the efforts he put forward through his speaking tours, writings and educational endeavors, the question must still be asked: has “humankind”, or even any individual been set free on account of Krishnamurti’s message? Many people intuit in Krishnamurti a seeming connection to a higher truth: his words were often beautiful and powerful. He attracted many well-known people into his orbit as seekers, acolytes and collaborators. But in the end, the question of lasting change must be addressed.

Among Krishnamurti’s many associates throughout his life, a few reservations have been expressed. Of these, perhaps the most notable came from David Bohm. Bohm is unique because his considerable standing in theoretical physics is independent of his work with Krishnamurti. We know from at least two sources that Bohm once experienced a crisis of faith regarding Krishnamurti’s teachings. One of these sources is Bohm’s biographer, David Peat, who published a series of critical letters pertaining to Krishnamurti which Bohm had written to a colleague. Another reference concerning Bohm’s doubts can be found in a book written by David Moody in 2011. The Unconditioned Mind: J. Krishnamurti and the Oak Grove School (Quest Books), is an account of Moody’s experiences as a staff member and later as the director of the school. In chapter 15, Moody recounts a conversation he had with Bohm regarding the latter’s assessment of possible snags within the teachings. Bohm related that he believed the problem originates in K’s explication of “consciousness”:

“I asked if Krishnamurti’s work was lacking a kind of “fine focus” that would depict the dynamics of consciousness with a greater degree of detail and nuance. Bohm accepted that manner of characterizing the situation. He clearly believed Krishnamurti had made an enormous contribution but also that important work remained to be done.” – David Moody, The Unconditioned Mind, chapter 15

Given Bohm’s closeness to Krishnamurti and status as an intellectual in his own right, his remark concerning “the dynamics of consciousness” may warrant more attention than it has received until now. Although the Krisnamurti Foundations have continued to sponsor gatherings, publications and also an online forum since their founder’s death in 1986, there has not been a formal recognition from these organizations that aspects of his teachings are not clear to those who are interested in them. According to David Moody, Krishnamurti himself acknowledged that his schools had not produced a “new human being”, nor had any adult associates or listeners demonstrated a radical shift in consciousness – what K called “transformation”.

Deconstructing Krishnamurti has been created in order to examine the problems that many of us have encountered in our attempts to actualize Krishnamurti’s teachings; or even to comprehend them. Although Krishnamurti appears to have said and written many profound things over the course of his life, the Krishnamurti foundation of today does not seem to be offering a coherent framework for those who are interested in human transformation. In a dialogue ( now available from the website of P. Krishna) during a 2016 retreat which was sponsored by the foundation, David Moody observed:

“I don’t see in the Krishnamurti community an acknowledgement that certain areas of the teachings are not clear, and a concerted effort to focus on those areas. Maybe this is taking place and I am unaware of it; I’m not fully involved in the Krishnamurti community; but I don’t see it happening.”

In the same dialogue, Moody stated:

“…there are many points that are intriguing, but their meaning is not fully clear. When he says, for example, the future is now, or time is thought; one has a rough idea of what this means, but not a full comprehension. And finally, there is another 25% which is even more obscure. And the points in this last category are not only difficult to grasp, but in addition, Krishnamurti indicates that these points in particular have special meaning and significance. And so the inability to understand this part of the teachings becomes doubly frustrating.”

Moody’s hopes of elucidating and thus resolving the “obscurity” of the teachings is seemingly not a high priority within the various K foundations. Although these organizations sponsor numerous dialogues and informational sessions, the participants never seem to arrive at any fundamental agreement as to the meaning of certain key aspects of the teachings. A consensus about the foundational elements of the teachings would appear to be essential in moving them forward to their stated purpose of “setting humankind free”; yet it seems likely that the meaning of the teachings has become even more obscure over the years since Krishnamurti’s death in 1986.

If we use Bohm’s observation regarding a lack of focus on the dynamics of consciousness as a starting point for an exploration, where might that lead? One possibility is to define with greater precision key phrases which are used in the teachings, such as “content of consciousness” and “observer is the observed”. Clarifying the meaning behind these concepts would be helpful as Moody observed in his dialogue. We should also not assume that K’s understandings and definitions are to be accepted at face value, but should also examine the subjective responses that his words may trigger in listeners, and whether these are impeding insight rather than facilitating it.

Furthermore, there has been a reluctance in many quarters of the K world to look at Krishnamurti’s own background for insight into his teachings. Krishnamurti himself deflected such interest, yet there are aspects of his life that remain puzzling or obscure due (at least in part) to his own claims of having a poor memory and his insistence that his personal details didn’t matter. It is the intent of the authors of this blog not to shy away from material relating to Krishnamurti’s life story. Its inclusion, after all, is an integral component of “deconstruction.”

A central tenet of most Krishnamurti dialogues is that Krishnamurti’s formulations are to be encountered within a framework which was proscribed by K himself. Although he exhorted his listeners to “question everything”, he did set limits by suggesting we look only at his words and leave out various contextual elements. These involve not only the person of Krishnamurti, but also information about where he stands in relation to other traditions. Although K’s approach no doubt has its place, it also invites an assumption that his observations were always correct because he limits what is being looked at. The aim of this web site is to take a different approach. We are not seeking to understand Krishnamurti on his own terms, but rather to examine his work within a wider framework.

The Two Aspects Of Truth: Toward A Comprehensive Understanding Pt. 2

wry1111

no comments

August 26, 2025

This lengthy series of messages may only be for a few, but if it is not your cup of tea, for the sake of suffering sentient creatures, at least try to read and ponder it as I will be laying out my entire understanding of the approach of the Middle Way (Madhyamika Prasangika) School of Buddhism in a way that is a a hopefully still true to form but also a little original. Sometimes we need to try something new:-) Most reading may not know that this particular Buddhist approach both Gurdjieff AND Krishnamurti were on some level trained in, (G very comprehensively beginning in St. Petersberg — more on this later — and K to some degree superficially by Annie Besant. I say superficially because imo her own understanding though a little advanced was kind of limited. and also this exposure was presumably not under the conditions of The Three Jewels, Buddha, Dharma and Sangha (though, and just speculating, possibly at one point or another she may have taken him to this or that Middle Way School teaching. I will maybe write later about how I have come to these various conclusion. Also this Middle Way approach was obviously not suited to K’s mental/psychological capacity. I will qualify that it is said that the Buddha, not to imply K was a Buddha, turned the wheel three times for three different capacities of people (much more on this later), and the question does arise of how a person presenting a basic life approach to a broad spectrum of people would go about this. Obviously a lot of generalization would be involved. So how would that work,and could it even work? K said again and again he failed, and I agree.

So,, in simple language, the two aspects of truth are conventional and ultimate truth. Conventional truth is the way we ordinarily perceive reality as subject and object, so the object of knowledge, what we are looking at, being separate from the perceiver. This is functional, natural; there is no way to ever do away with it. For obvious reasons which I will not even bother going into, it is simply how a person (and I think any sentient creature) perceives in order to be able to navigate. A key point which I will be using as a foundation for much of my presentation is that this is *nature,* and we are creatures of nature. So, when K said, “the observer is the observed” he was in his own limited way imo simplistically parroting the basic approach of the Middle Way School, which is that everything is ultimately interdependent. Interestingly, what they consider lower, ie, limited scope Buddhist schools see ultimate truth as being literally ultimately true. so they try to do away with the conventional aspect, and here it is very easy to get stuck. So, looking ahead, a basic gist of this ongoing analysis, as I touched on in the previous message, is solving, ie, working through the conundrum of ultimate truth being or not being what is called ultimately true. There is an answer here: upcoming:-)

The Two Aspects Of Truth: Toward A Comprehensive Understanding

wry1111

no comments

August 24, 2025

Imo (in my opinion) the two aspects of truth is the single most important topic and is the basic foundational approach of the Middle Way School of Buddhism. Niko kindly posted some material I wrote on another website many years ago, and that has been helpful, but it should be noted that this material was written after I had only a beginning exposure to this subject; I said this is a topic not to be presented to everyone, but that was a mechanical error of memory, as in actuality it is considered very adventitious for as many people as possible to be exposed to this concept. What is not helpful is to be prematurely given the concept of emptiness as this can cause a person to fall into a nihilistic state. I think the rest of the material in the previous post or posts was basically accurate, so it may be helpful to read them, but — how to present this concept of the two aspects of truth in such a way that it will be literally transformational and not just fodder for a pig (pig being a symbol for a connection point). Think about this. Though previously I was not capable of doing so, I will now in an ongoing series be going over the two aspect material in such a way that anybody reading, with a little focus and effort, *if* dedicated, will be able to apply the basic approach of the Middle Way School in a way that is visibly life changing.

To begin. there are two aspects of how we perceive information — conventional truth and ultimate truth, and these ways of perceiving always go hand in hand, the aim (not so easily actualized but technically possible) being to consciously perceive both aspects at the same time. In order to do this it is necessary to understand that so called ultimate truth always has a conventional aspect. Speaking from this angle, the concept of ultimate truth which is somewhat easily understood intellectually (but not comprehensively) is not ultimately true as there is always a conventional aspect to perception. This is the sticking point which many people are presumably pondering re how to reconcile, so it may take an ongoing series, perhaps quite lengthy, to little by little, go into the functional value of the two aspect approach in such a way that it ‘ultimately’ 🙂 makes sense.

Is The Gurdjieff Teaching As it Exists Today A Cult? *Part 2

wry1111

no comments

July 9, 2025

To put it kindly, there are quite distinct cult-like “characteristics” in the Gurdjieff groups I am aware of, and probably in many others, if not even all. This said the people I know and have worked with and/or have met from various groups are in my experience good people. Please read the first message on this topic, as though I didn’t go into the cult aspect, I began to lay the foundation for the presentation of key material.

It is necessary to mention the cult aspect because after reading messages here some may consider joining one or another of these groups, so it is by my conscience necessary to give a warning. Also, if you are a member of a Gurdjieff group, I acknowledge that because of your participation you may from various angle have a greater level of understanding than the average person though imo in terms of the possibility of a more comprehensive individual development, this could be a downfall. The group I was in I sadly and reluctantly qualify as an actual cult, though it took me decades to begin to little by little realize this and then consciously face it. Btw this group is not the Gurdjieff Foundation. I have a somewhat limited familiarity with the approach of that group of good people who have always been welcoming to me, and I will maybe later share my understanding about this group, which group I do not recommend to join. This said, finding the Gurdjieff teaching at age twenty was the single most significant experience of my life. I am infinitely grateful I was exposed to the teaching of Gurdjieff and will be sharing A LOT more about this.

A question arises: was this teaching as Gurdjieff himself originally presented it also a cult? The answer is very probably, even definitively, yes, BUT, this is a yes, but:-) 🙂 To go deeper and glean, it is necessary to first explore the question of what actually IS a cult.

Is The Gurdjieff Teaching As it Exists Today A Cult?

wry1111

no comments

May 20, 2025

(Edit: Sorry The cult part is coming up in the next message. Ran out of time and went ahead posted what I already wrote.)

As previously written, I intend to use a comparison between the so-called teachings of Gurdjieff and Krishnamurti to convey somewhat subtle material re my present understanding of the Middle Way School of Buddhism. This is the aim: To look at the teaching of the Prasangika Madhyamika School of Buddhism in a fresh way, a simple way. though it may not at first glance appear to be so simple to readers whose first language is not English, especially when I go into word comparisons (and I will try to help with that). This comparison is a good way to milk the cow/co of what I will call the discrepancy factor between the approaches of these eclectic individuals (or, imo, in K’s case, so called-individual). So what is the “co” (co-operation, co-dependent, co/n/tribution, co/re)?

Years ago I wrote a message here, “The Golden Cow. Cannot remember what I wrote; will look at it again, but, in short, the golden cow does not give milk. We will be discovering how to use everyday material in a new way. So, going sideways and/or even toward the center a bit, the discrepancy factor between Krishnamurti and Gurdjieff is in areas where their approaches do not correspond, and when we approach from this angle and hoe that ground (mixed metaphor as we are both farming and milking here:-), this can create an opportunity. Interesting to me, the areas where their paths in some way crossed can be seen as kind of just happening. Attributing meaning is not necessarily the same as making new and hopefully greater meaning, though this can be an aspect. Shit happens, but from the shit pile grows (can grow) a rose — this does imply a gardener. Let’s use this material, but then,does the meaning we make become a golden cow? There is a possibility to keep the living milk alive, even as we make various milk products. This possibility could be called the “whey, ” which by the way, is one form of nurturance along with bread the protagonist/hero carries with him on his quest in certain fairy tales.

(

What Is The Third Force?

wry1111

no comments

May 19, 2025

The post yesterday got a few likes and am assuming this is because people are encouraging me to share what, if anything, Gurdjieff wrote about Krishnamurti. Well, he did write something, an entire chapter in one of his books, obviously not because he was inspired by Krishnamurti, but as a kind of compassionate warning as well as a precursor to what came afterwards, and, as said, there needs to be a set-up, in this meaning arranging preceding information in such a way that the readers unfamiliar with G’s quality of material and his particular style of writing will be able to grasp the inner nuance.

Ancient or not so ancient riddle: “Why is 6 afraid of 7? Answer “:Because 7 – 8 – 9,” which could be taken to imply that the material which proceeds other material does on some level function as a framework for what is not necessarily consciously intended but often just happens to be mechanically elicited response/movement (thought being also seen as a form of movement), which reaction can devour potential, Anyway, it is unlikely the case but am hoping the likes are because people are encouraging me to write about using the study of word construction to increase understanding.

The plan is to write more frequently, which material I encourage the reader to ponder, as it is designed to, if actively assimilated, produce an inner substance which can be a rare kind of food. And yes, Krishnamurti did talk — imo give lip service to — using thought as a tool. Actually people already are using thought as a tool but often not in the most comprehensive way. So what is a more effective way/weigh? Sometimes it is necessary to wait/weight. So, since stopping can be seen as a form of measurement/containment in that movement is involved, how would this work in relation to time, tie/m or tie/em? How can it possibly be used?

Gurdjieff talked about what he called a third force, and what is the possible meaning? I will at present postulate — something to do with the middle (way) :-)….

What if Gurdjieff wrote something about Krishnamurti?

wry1111

no comments

May 16, 2025

Stay tuned. Am about to begin doing some serious writing, but sew/sow *as* to use the material rather than have the material use us, there needs to be a special set-up. The devil really can be in the details, and later let’s look at how this works. To consciously use information is potentially of another order, and a construction which in its simplicity lets the light shine through can on one level be quite elaborate. Am not exactly into dimensions/planes, but, interestingly, “plane” has the same consonant base as “plan.” The framing of this material is admittedly contrived, and there are several reasons: for one, we need to experiment with using language in a new way and in this process also possibly rediscover what some call the language of the ancients: how ancient people coded material, and why, can be played into an exploration.

When a friend and I were discussing language in reference to the New Testament, I mentioned that the consonant base of the word “lamb” is the same consonant base as the word “limb,” and also, “sheep” is the same consonant base as “shape” (and “ship.”) He replied, “but in ‘shape’ the “e” is at the end.” Well, this is to some degree irrelevant in that the consonant base of a word does not include the vowels –but– if in the study of word construction we are also studying vowels, then here is an opportunity to ponder the intended (presumably by some ancient language creator or creators) the inner meaning/affect of the letter E, so in this context we can also begin to look at vowels.

Reply To Niko: Was David Bohm Right About Krishnamurti and How Could we Know? pt. 2

wry1111

no comments

December 19, 2024

A very important question — how could be know? People are going to have various ways of categorizing new material, but whatever the so called ‘gold’ standard, it will be automatically folded into previous context in such a way that makes seeming sense. and if the experience is pleasurable and new, there is a tendency to just go with it, as, plain and simple, people want to feel good. Well, how about other people? What if it does not result in them feeling good? Again, plain and simple, they aren’t here right now, or if they are, there is disagreement, even war, though if we are in some kind of family/tribe/social system which helps us survive, we would tend to keep that system in mind, but still, it is a subjective muddle which may seem to be working but from several different angles is breaking down. We can appropriately call this pattern “nature”. On a localized simplistic level it may seem seem to be working, but that is an illusion, which is easy enough to point out. Krishnamurti did say (again and again and again) that people are not really happy and there is war, and when we hear this it makes sense, but doesn’t comprehensively factor in; he created an enhancement of sensation (by so-called letting go) which sensory experience people understandably cling to, as by nature and for practical reasons from that angle, this is how the brain works.

There is a Biblical saying, “Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.” So what is new wine? If, by the device of neti neti, not this, not this, we take away our previous way of thinking, if that is even possible, is what we come to new wine? And is beauty new wine, such as, for example, Krishnamurti harped on a tree or sunset being beautiful though he did try to qualify — don’t get stuck on that. People, and I include myself, are suckers for the short cut, and, again, this is how the brain works. by taking away so-called seemingly unnecessary (in a particular context) information. Interestingly any kind of transformation is affected by making various correlations, which process could be called thought, and this place of correlation, where two things come together, in some way correspond. is where it is so easy to get stuck, get caught. I would call this the golden cow, but then there is something looked at by some people as the holy cow. Is the golden cow the same as the holy cow? I am seeing the holy cow (co) as a realm of possibility in that ultimately we are all interconnected, so thinking from this angle, consciously using the correlation factor rather then unconsciously being used by it, can open a door.

In terms of the actual measurement of value, there is a way to test for real gold. So …. from a psychological perspective, what is real gold? Under various conditions it does not turn into gross metal, such as lead in that for me one day the sun was shining and what Krishnamurti was saying seemed to really make sense, but then when someone was rude to me I got angry and the entire scenario degraded. I believed in what he was saying as a viable approach because I got certain results which at the time felt like gold, but in actuality was not gold. Krishnamurti knew his approach did not really work. There is plenty evidence that he was aware of this well before the end of his life, but did he ever experiment with his approach, try to test it or even fine-tune it? The answer is no, which is very sad, and his situation is the human situation. It is how the brain works. So where can we go with this material? Is it possible to consciously use it? What could be actual new wine?

(11/26/24) Reply To Niko: Was David Bohm Right About Krishnamurti and How Could we Know?

wry1111

no comments

November 28, 2024

Selected content here. For greater context, please go back and read the previous post(s)..

.(Niko)”So much to ponder about this post, and I have to confess that I’m trying to ease my way back into these kinds of enquiries again after having spent a lot of time participating in everyday life and some of my more conventional and mundane interests. So please excuse me, Wry, and other possible readers if my response seems somewhat out of touch or “rusty.”

(Wry) Thanks for a wonderful message. When I resumed writing here two months ago I also started researching K, which I haven’t done for many years, and discovered so much new material about K (and G, also) that it has sent me into a kind of spin, sometimes utterly thrilling (mainly from the G angle) and sometimes devastating though ‘enlightening’ (from both angles,). A whole new realm of insight is emerging.which is giving a better defined direction/orientation as to how I want to approach. So is this using thought as a tool in order to go through the doorway into another room, and when I get into the other room or dimension, do I leave thought behind? Interesting in deed. The way to approach is now clearer, er/or is it actually? Btw, (by the way), interesting word, errOR. From Wikipedia re G’s book, All And Everything: “Beelzebub relates his past experiences in a solar system called Ors (our solar system) where he had been banished for rebelling against His Endlessness. He spent his exile in observation of the solar system, and of Earth and humans in particular. He visited Earth six times and observed it from just after its creation until 1922. Because of his help in the eradication of animal sacrifice on Earth, Beelzebub was pardoned from his sentence.”.

(Niko) “The notion of the “ultimate harmfulness of K’s teaching (mentioned above) ((wry: see previous message for greater context)) did instantly grab my attention, though. I guess that in a way this is a question that has been functioning as a kind of backdrop for all these years of enquiry…”

(Wry): I had a concern, and this was very distressful to me, that it might keep people who got hooked into it from developing, but, oddly, it never occurred to me until a few days ago how it could to a much greater degree possibly negatively effect larger humanity. Will be writing on this topic in more specific detail later.

(Niko) “…When taken seriously, the online groups had a lot to offer, and I participated in three or four of them. To me, taking K’s ideas apart and really examining them critically and putting them up against other frameworks is what lead to any progress in understanding “The Teachings” that I ever might have made….)

(Wry) Yes. Putting it up against other frameworks. Personal Inquiry and group enquiry into the discrepancy factor can be like mining for jewels. Now when we do this do we need to ask why jewels are valuable or if it really even matters or why we want jewels? In short, all of this is built in by a process which is mainly though possibly not entirely mechanical. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff or the jewels from the earth and is it necessary or even possible to effectively do so? To K nature was a jewel.but imo he did not really understand how nature works. For me and probably many others this is and probably on some level even to K was about a clinging to so-called jewels or anything. Also, let’s not forget to look at what “jewels” can represent, and do we know how to consciously make and use representation or does this process happen mechanically in a way that life, ie nature uses us? Can we make greater meaning from the mining for jewels by using our jewel money to buy food for poor people? Or maybe just give them the jewels? That would be quicker and more practical then making a whole farm. But what is farming? So much metaphor and allegory is about farming, such as, for example, tilling the soil. Or, actually, is that even a metaphor? Well, someone just made it into such.

Getting tired now as have been up since around 3:45 this morning for more than six hours, so will reply later to what you wrote re Bohm’s comment re fine-tuning, and also his quoting of Hegel’s aphorism about the owl.

Was David Bohm Right About Krishnamurti and How Could we Know? Reply to Wry

Niko

no comments

November 18, 2024

Wry wrote (on November 16th):

Niko wrote: “In an earlier post on this blog, I talked about David Bohm’s doubts concerning the ultimate usefulness of Krishnamurti’s teachings.” This may be kind of dark, though it could be said that in order to see the light there must be contrast. Anyway, just musing, it occurs to me that, as far as I know, no one, including myself, has ever talked about the ultimate (?) harmfulness of K’s teaching. Again, just musing, as this is not the topic of this response now right now, even though, at least according to K, the future is now.

….. “Krishnamurti encouraged this “questioning” as long as it was set up as a sort of Koan in his listeners’ minds. There were boundaries set as to what the questioning could be. For example, questions about K himself were off limits. K seemingly knew where he wanted people to go with their “questions” and David Bohm was unable to get there.” Yes, and it all comes down to the topic of framing and, I suppose, whether it is subjective or objective, but in order to understand this better it may be necessary to delve into the (objective?) meaning of “subjective” and “objective.”which brings us full circle back to the topic of the two aspects of truth, so is it (even) possible to square that circle? Something to ponder.

(To those who are following the dialogue that is from many different angles beginning to unfold , you can go back and find and read or reread Niko”s original messages, as I am and probably mainly will be responding to selective comments.) So, as you said, Niko, it is a matter of discernment re what is the meaning of enlightenment or most anything except certain definitive topics, such as the sun comes up every day and/or this is the specific literal path I take, ie, have chosen to take, in order to get home, and we know this does not jell with the statement K made, “Truth is a pathless land.” He sure did (try to) take a great big short-cut in order to get so called home, whatever that meant to him, and that is sad in that according to himself he felt he had wasted his life as he did not actualize his aim to help people.

Am getting tired as it is 4 am, so will continue later re the–subject of framing and so called enlightenment. In the meantime (interesting word:-), here is some food for thought: Search: “the doorway effect.”

(Niko)

So much to ponder about this post, and I have to confess that I’m trying to ease my way back into these kinds of enquiries again after having spent a lot of time participating in everyday life and some of my more conventional and mundane interests. So please excuse me, Wry, and other possible readers if my response seems somewhat out of touch or “rusty.”

The notion of the “ultimate harmfulness of K’s teaching (mentioned above) did instantly grab my attention, though. I guess that in a way this is a question that has been functioning as a kind of backdrop for all these years of enquiry. It’s been many years now since You and I (Wry) began interacting and enquiring online. Probably more than twenty years which is almost hard to believe. And in that time, I found that delving into K’s signature phrases and aphorisms critically to be very useful. I also first encountered K in my twenties, but as I recall the first book I read was one of the Lutyens biographies. The specific content of what K was saying didn’t interest me at first. I felt a vague interest in how a purportedly “enlightened” person was living his life. I wondered how that life was different from the comparatively mundane lives that most people, like me, were living. There was a mystery in all that. I think at that time in my life K had already died, and that disappointed me; that I would never get to see him in person. I read about K on and off for quite a few years, and I did read some of the “content” books like The Awakening of Intelligence, and others. Certain things he said intrigued me and sometimes created the mental states that Wry talks about, but I didn’t get too deeply into any of this material until somewhat later, when I had the time to actually do it, and then I discovered the online groups.

When taken seriously, the online groups had a lot to offer, and I participated in three or four of them. To me, taking K’s ideas apart and really examining them critically and putting them up against other frameworks is what lead to any progress in understanding “The Teachings” that I ever might have made. This, combined with various examinations of K’s biographical details, which I have always thought to be part and parcel of any serious look into his body of work, in spite of all the objections to this which I continuously encountered. So the different online groups were useful in this way, but they could also be disturbing, because it seems that there were a lot of repetitive conflicts and some individuals who were trying to manipulate others in a way that was deceptive and even malevolent. This soured my interest in participating, and I am no longer a member of any K groups. I think that the K Foundation has come to a similar conclusion about online discussions, being that they have abandoned their Ning group and allowed it to be erased after several years of deterioration in quality. To my mind this is at least partly due to their employment of ineffective moderators who in a predictable way exemplified the “pathless land” aesthetic.

So something about the “harms” that K did (whether intentional or not), can maybe be deduced from experiencing what goes on/went on in these groups, not to imply that there was not ever anything genuine happening there. But to me the genuine things were the products of insights into where and why the teachings are incomplete, ineffectual, and vague; in other words in pinpointing the short-cuts that you refer to above.

But coming back to the gist of the original post, and your post – Was David Bohm right about there being some kind of deficiency in the teachings? In David Moody’s book, he wrote that Bohm had once told him that Krishnamurti’s work lacked a “fine focus” that would “depict the dynamics of consciousness with a greater degree of detail and nuance.” I guess detail and nuance could also be expressed as “framing,” or maybe even framing the nature of the observer in such a way that the meaning of consciousness and thus of truth and actuality is as clear as it is in the Prasangika Madhyamaka teachings. I’m not sure if David Bohm ever looked at these, but I feel he would have been intrigued.

I was just rereading the chapter about David Bohm in David Moody’s book. In it, Moody relates that David Bohm was very fond of the quote by Hegel, “The owl of Minerva flies at Dusk.” Bohm liked to joke about this phrase to David Moody, because they would often take walks around Arya Vihara in the evenings, but the aphorism from Hegel is often taken to mean that wisdom takes flight only at the end of the day, when it’s too late. Maybe Bohm came to some sort of realization of this kind regarding the teachings after Krishnamurti was gone. In his own humble way, perhaps he was trying to impart this insight to David Moody.

Was David Bohm Right About Krishnamurti and How Couod We Know? (Part 1): Reply To Niko

wry1111

no comments

November 16, 2024

Niko wrote: “In an earlier post on this blog, I talked about David Bohm’s doubts concerning the ultimate usefulness of Krishnamurti’s teachings.” This may be kind of dark, though it could be said that in order to see the light there must be contrast. Anyway, just musing, it occurs to me that, as far as I know, no one, including myself, has ever talked about the ultimate (?) harmfulness of K’s teaching. Again, just musing, as this is not the topic of this response now right now, even though, at least according to K, the future is now.

Am getting tired as it is 4 am, so will continue later re the–subject of framing and so called enlightenment. In the meantime (interesting word:-), here is some food for thought: Search: “the doorway effect.”