It’s been quite a year, and a lot of perspectives have surely broadened, including my own, so just to get started, here’s an interesting take on Krishnamurti which I found the link to a few days ago: Uh oh. Just now discovered that apparently this other blog site, Medium, does not allow its articles to be linked to on WordPress which makes some kind of sense. Anyway, the name of the article from Medium is “Krishnamurti, the lonely Hollywood Star” by Jules Evans, and maybe you can find it. Some of the perspective given by this author is not very flattering, to put it mildly, but the point I am going to make is that different people can have different takes when they interpret various material according to their their own subjective past experience and in present subjective contexts, the latter presumably according to where they are GOING with it. I don’t believe that Niko and I are intending to discount anything of value that K had to contribute, and there’s much of value, but rather we’re trying to kind of separate for ourselves the wheat from the chaff by looking at the material a little more comprehensively and at the same time perhaps encouraging and maybe even in some way inspiring others to take a deeper look.
So, from this perspective, is it in some way possible to entirely separate the message of this particular person from the story of this person? Am not really sure, and kind of winging it, but it’s very obvious that looking at a particular story is interconnected with understanding the meaning of the story, so the question comes up — when we find deeper meaning, what do we DO with it? Is there simply an on the spot one time internal reorganization or is there or at least can there be an ongoing process of reorganization? And this all does have to do with time, as it happen over clock time, but Krishnamurti brought up the concept of “psychological time.” Now many people have a problem with this particular terminology. We can grasp the basic idea, I think, but find it difficult, or at least I do, to understand the functional value of giving such a presentation. In short, there was some line of reasoning involved in using this particular terminology, but looking from a different angle, what could be the actual reason for it? In other words, is it of value to understand exactly why I am processing data from a certain angle or is this simply a story, ie, contrivance of psychological thought to be eliminated so that we can get to what Krishnamurti called “truth,? – Wry
Well, the article you referenced can be read as a discourse on the “psychological time” of Krishnamurti, a subject that many of his readers seem to be in denial about. I think this denial is, in a way, the seed of much that is wrong with Krishnamurti’s approach. Meaning that people tend to take the concept of psychological time (or the observer) and think that this biographical self has no connection to “truth” or whatever other terminology Krishnamurti used to refer to the transformed state. It seems to me that it sets an unnecessary complication, and this complication is/must be of Krishnamurti’s own making. Perhaps somehow his own suffering in life is the reason he created it, because his manner of doing away with psychological time must have been a useful device to Krishnamurti himself.
Deconstructing Krishnamurti 