Niko wrote in the intro:

“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.”

Niko thank you very much!. Imo from this perspective, which is how I, too, am seeing it,  virtually everything K wrote and said was disingenuous in that he pretty obviously was leaving himself out of his tabulations and therefore was, for others, functioning as an authority, so the center, and in some psychological as well as physical way he was feeding off of this. He talked about eating meat, and I read someplace, though cannot now find the quote, that he said he would rather die then eat meat, though I did find a mention of eating meat in the quote below. So the implication is that not eating meat is not a habit? That has to be false in that people can eat meat or not eat meat either consciously or unconsciously.

“If I may point out – not that you must obey or follow or conform – but if one may suggest, don’t please just merely accept and say: ‘Yes, we do live in a habit, what about it, what shall we do?’ But rather, be aware of it, be conscious of it, be alive to the habits that one has – not only physical habits, like smoking, eating meat, drinking, which are all habits, but also the deep-rooted habits in the psyche, which accepts, which believes, which hopes, which has despair, agony, sorrow. If we could together go into this problem, not only of habit but also of fear, and perhaps thereby come to the ending of sorrow; then there may be a possibility of a love that we have never known, a bliss that is beyond the touch of pleasure.”

Actually if looked at in context, he was mostly talking to young people (such as myself) in the sixties and seventies, and this is the kind of over-generalized material that people at that time were very prone to fall for, especially if they had, when listening, the kind of very strong experience his talks were designed to create (which kind of experience I surely did have).  Actually,  “…what shall we do?”  is an intelligent question, and sure enough, after denigrating  it, he then does proceed to tell people what to do….

So was talking to all of these crowds of young people and repeating with various wrappings the same set pattern over and over, which he did with very limited modification until he died, was a habit?  Once you see through it then it is over.  Does it happen all at once? I suppose that is technically possible, but for me I had to think about it as I was very heavily conditioned by all of the strong experiences I had in relation to K.

At this point for me all of his talks are filled with glaring inconsistencies. The major question that comes up is–can over-generalization be a form of deceit? I think we already know the answer as it is a no (know) brainer,  at least in overt instances, but on a subtle level, how does that work, and more importantly, if it is happening, what is a possible antidote?



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: