Hi Everyone. Am going to start writing here again, and I hope Nico will be writing, too. So, how to start? The most common question and seeming interest on this and other K groups I have been in has been regarding the two aspects of truth, which happens to be the main distinguishing characteristic of the Middle Way School of Buddhism, and I think this will be fruitful to inquire into, but probably the best way to start is by looking at the basic styles of data processing. Just checked the stats, and, as before, the most read post besides the Intro and some other of Niko’s interesting messages is “What Krishnamurti Wrote About Gurdjieff.” So what is the common thread? I think it is that many people are looking for a way to sort things out so as to live a life that is conscious, happy and free, and the approaches of both of these teachers have received a lot of attention in the sixties and following decades, though not as much now in that different trends and tendencies around human development have emerged, the main focus being on meditation from a Zen Buddhist angle, and this said, I and very many others are seeing distinct cult like characteristics around many of these meditation approaches; also, as we know, many people have said this about the teachings of Gurdjieff.
So, what, if any, is the relationship between the teaching of Krishnamurti and the teaching of Gurdjieff? Firstly there was at the time K was givings talks in Switzerland a strong locational relationship, and I would not discount the significance of location in regard to strength or weakness of affect, as there is a strong scientific evidence of this, but we do not need a scientific study to know it. So the Gurdjieff teaching was centered in France at the same time Krishnamurti was giving the teachings (which he did not call teachings:-) in Switzerland, and some Gurdjieff students attended K’s talks and spoke to Krishnamurti of their Gurdjieff experience, one of them being Madame De Salzman, who was very intrigued with Krishnamurti, and, from what I’ve read, they had a deep rapport Did what was conveyed about the Gurdjieff experience influence the approach of Krishnamurti in some way? Imo almost surely, and I will go into that. Admittedly my conclusion is based on speculation and extrapolation, which, interestingly, is a main aspect of how we process information by making various correlations, and then come to certain tentative conclusions. To be continued.
Deconstructing Krishnamurti 
There does not seem to be very much information about any interactions between Madame De Salzmann and Krishnamurti, though I have read that she did attend some of his talks. I am not sure how each may have influenced the other, though I have also read that some of the individuals who are involved with the Gurdjieff teachings have criticized Madame De Salzmann as being too “mystical.”
I would assume this to be in reference to some of the (pared down compared to Gurdjieff) terminology she used about the descent of “higher energy,” and so forth. I also recall reading in Ravi Ravindra’s book that (like K), she was very concerned about the deteriorating state of the world and said that something bad is going to happen to the earth if there are not enough people “working.” I wonder whether the two (K and MDS) found some commonalities about that when they interacted. I’m sure that while her specific language is quite different than K’s, it would be very possible to find that some of her terms bear equivalents in K’s nomenclature.
By all accounts Madame de Salzmann had a very different personal style from Gurdjieff, maybe in some ways more similar to K in terms of having a simplicity of demeanor, elegance of language, and a kind of intellectual bent? Maybe this has something to do with the affinity she felt with Krishnamurti, though I will be very interested to find out where you are going with this enquiry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Niko. As I recall, I got the information about K and MDS (great abbreviation:-) from the book Asking For The Earth by the Canadian diplomat James George, and I just found this book on my G (:-) bookshelf, so will reread what he wrote and share that part when I get a chance. Re the comment about MDS and the (so-called) “higher energy”, I commented on that on the JK email list on Yahoo many years ago, and you and some others reading here perhaps read it. I may even still have that message. Personally I do not find her use of language elegant, but I get what you’re saying.
So, I am thinking of factoring various material into a kind of running dialogue, hopefully so that a possibility of seeing things in an entirely new way will begin to emerge. I want Io start from the angle that the Buddha turned the wheel three times for three different kinds of people (regarding their data-processing styles or propensities). This is the teaching of both the Middle Way School and also the Chittamatrin (and the Yogacharia school that trained K), though I forget exactly how they frame it — something to the effect that hey consider themselves to be the larger scope, whereas the Middle Way, Prasangika Madhyamikas consider the Chittamrins/yogacharies (similar to Zen) to be the middling scope (and the approach of the Hinayana Buddhists who now call themselves Theravedas to be the smaller scope. I will go into this later. Btw, for anyone interested in politics, you can (very loosely but effectively apply these ways of categorizing to different kinds of political groups or parties, as there are these same various styles or modes of framing. Hope this was not too much of a rant. I do not know if ir will automatically post. If it doesn’t, please post it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems to me that G and K had similar understanding of human psychology and shared the idea of awareness as the bases for knowledge. The difference I would note is that G presented an understanding of the universe that described everything as it is, including a way out for some people, whereas K saw his teachings as being a avenue to change the world.
LikeLike