Deconstructing Krishnamurti

This and the next few messages will be a prelude: So, why did we choose this name for the blog? By my assessment it just sounded right. We both were very taken with K for years and shared in many meaningful online dialogues in various K groups. For me the inquiry was very enlivening, even thrilling, and, I suppose, to create and perpetrate that vital affect could be considered a form of desire. Niko was very grounded, but I was some kind of naive K fanatic for decades and will maybe share my personal story around that. Why did we on some level become disenchanted? Speaking for myself, I began to see he was skipping steps in order to create a psychological/physiological affect. Now is that good to do? Well it could be, but in this case of being the so-called world teacher, maybe not. There is a maze of contextual subtlety, and one can get hooked on trying to sort things out, much like eating peanuts. So what is the antidote for this kind of mental addiction? Would it be to see the beauty of a rose or to have sex? I think not.

In the Middle Way school of Buddhism (according to them, the third time the Buddha turned the wheel, ie,the larger scope) this kind of approach of K would be that of the Hinayana (Theraveda) school of Buddhism, the smaller scope. The way they explain the smaller scope is that the person of this propensity wants to achieve enlightenment only for himself. So what does this even mean? Of course Hinayana Buddhists can be very kind and loving. I know this for a fact, and surely they are not doing this only for themselves. And, er, yet they are, as we all are on some level. Speaking from what I now understand, the intended meaning is that people of this data processing propensity perceive the experiences of sensation to be ultimately true, and this in some way does make sense, as on a simple level it is perceptually true, but if we go further it is easy to see that the functional value of this approach is, from the angle of comprehensive data processing, very limited. I think it is because the process of thinking is in itself substantial, ie, a substance, and the basic way the thinking process works is that one thing often represents and so functions as a bridge to something else. so if people have too many different and often contradictory meanings which they consider to be ultimately true, it is difficult to consciously do things together to help each other.

Actually if you are interested in word construction, thought is an interesting word. Th-ou-g-ht. Without going into much detail, the letters TH (theosophy and Greek theos) are related to the word, god or God, Will not go into H right now. So, at the beginning of the word thought: th and at the end, ht:-) and in the middle, ou and g. I do not know about ou, but just riffing — in this context, an interesting word is plough –pl-ou-g-h. Re what I have just written, would this be using thought as a tool *or* is this a form of eating peanuts? (And, when editing, it just now occurs to me that using thought as a tool could also be a form of eating peanuts.) Technically it could be either depending upon how one uses the so-called tool. There are many different ways to use tools. People even collect. I collect old often rusted tools and make sculptures of therm. Many people interested in both G and K are coming to this blog, to see what K wrote about Gurdjieff, so it is worth noting, from Google, re Gurdjieff’s book: “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.”

To continue, Niko and I had an interchange following part 1 of this topic, so please read that. Also, up till now, we have not made an effort to publicize this blog, so at present we are getting our readership from web referrals, though this could change; and in the future there might possibly a zoom group. We started this venture together, but she did all of the work and has paid for this over the years Thank you Niko! Interestingly, the readership has been kind of low, but consistent, even during the recent years when we have not been posting.The readers do not know this, but people have been coming here from all over the world —to give an idea– in just the last two weeks we have had readers from The United States, France, Australia, Albania, Turkey, Algeria ,Spain, India, Canada, Greece, Romania, Vietnam, Germany, Argentina, Norway, The United Kingdom and Sweden — and there have been readers from other countries in the past, somewhat recently I recall, from Brazil, South Africa and Jamaica, the point here being that people from all over the world are investigating, presumably to find an approach or to possibly amplify an already existing approach, and this touches my heart, as no matter where we are from, we share this common interest to discover how to function at a more harmonious level, so already there is a connection. I understand that if English is not your first language, some of this beginning orientation may not be easy to read, but I promise to try to simplify and get down to brass tacks the best I can.

Also, a qualifier: I never meant to imply that K and G influenced each other, in that I am 99.99999 percent certain that K in no way influenced G, This said, a connection I forgot to mention is that they both were originally influenced by Madame Blavatsy (who was a Yogacharia Buddhist) and founded Theosophy, a movement which was very popular, and with which movement both later became disenchanted. As I recall, G mentioned his attraction to the Blavatsky writings in his final book – Life is Real Only Then, when “I Am”. Another interesting similarity is that usually (or at least hopefully) people work in a group so there is some kind of check and balance against individual subjective distortions (and possibly grandiosity), but neither of these men did , which, on some level can be seen as problematic.This said, sometimes you do have to go at it on your own.

So …. where this or that teaching came from can be quite tangled, and the person trying to figure all of it out almost surely has a blind spot, as when thinking about this kind of stuff or anything, the very process of thinking generally becomes on some subtle sensory level the ground, so one is standing on ones own limited and subjective thinking processes, and, as we know, K took negating the validity of this kind of subjective thinking as a starting point. He has often been criticized as being too intellectual in his approach, which was basically, by my understanding, that of negating this and that as not being (ultimately) true, and then he would very adeptly and imo disingenuously talk the reader into another subjective state, let’s call it “beauty,” which he did subtly imply was ultimately true. I question whether it makes good sense or any kind of sense to use negation of the thinking process, however faulty that process may be, as the foundation of ones development of being. Actually he was saying there are two kinds of thinking, the second way being the (presumably conscious but I wonder:-) use of thought as a tool; the question that arises for me is if he himself was really even using another kind of thought. Now my analysis may in itself may be too intellectual for those who are reading, and this is where we come to use of language so as to create various psychological/emotional affects. And did Gurdjieff create various effects, or, better put, affects? Oh yes, but primarily not by the use of language. To be continued,,,,

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.

Scott Forbes, who was an important associate of Krishnamurti’s during his later years, and also a close friend of Mary Zimbalist, wrote a book about Krishnamurti’s last months. The book is entitled Krishnamurti, Preparing to leave. Published in 2018, it recounts Forbe’s experiences at Brockwood Park School, where he was once the principal, and also his travels and experiences with Krishnamurti in Saanen, India, and Ojai. The book is more a memoir than an explication of the author’s understanding of the Teachings. Scott Forbes was 37 years old when Krishnamurti died, and was one of his trusted companions, to the extent that he was allowed to be at K’s side during his final days.

I liked the book because it does not attempt to preach to the reader about the Teachings. It is more of a personal narrative of events. Scott Forbes is open about his admission of not understanding the Teachings; neither when he was 37, nor presumably nowadays. He was the person who recorded Krishnamurti’s deathbed statement in Ojai, and he is firm in his understanding that it was Krishnamurti’s intention to go on the record as saying that no one “got” the teachings.

All the same, Scott Forbes remains in awe of Krishnamurti, and has devoted his life to focusing on Krishnamurti’s educational efforts. He is currently involved in a project which has as its aim a kind of quantification of K’s educational philosophy. Throughout the book, Scott Forbes stresses what might be called K’s mysterious presence and power. He doesn’t claim to understand the source of the Teachings. He does seem to think that K set out a sufficient roadmap for a practical educational methodology to be developed, which has become his life’s work.

The quote in question is as follows (italics belong to Scott Forbes):

"It seems important to say that whatever effect meeting or knowing Krishnnaji had, it is absolutely clear that the effect alone did not facilitate a greater or deeper understanding of Krishnaji’s Teachings. Krishnaji maintained through his life and even to the very end, that nobody else lived the Teachings. He also insisted that people could. This is important to state, as there could be the mistaken impression that those who met or knew Krishnaji have a better understanding of the Teachings than those who are not so lucky. This is simply not true." - Scott Forbes, Krishnamurti, Preparing to Leave

Whether Forbes has encountered those people since K’s death who have claimed that K was too ill at the end to know what he was saying, and is trying to set the record straight, or if he has met self-described or self-appointed “successors” to K, he does not specify. But his motive in writing that passage seems to me to be that he wants to clarify exactly what K wanted to be understood by others involved in the Teachings and foundations at the end of his life, that nobody was “living” the Teachings. The understanding and compassion which K demonstrated and lived had not been enough, on their own, to generate transformation in others.

In another interesting passage from this book, Forbes writes, that he deliberately did not question certain things that K told him because he accepted that these things were beyond his understanding. “I don’t understand gravity,” He writes, “but I know how to follow its dictates.” This all reminded me of an important feature of Buddhism, or at least some schools of Buddhism, holding that it’s imperative that those who are studying the Dharma should do their best to live within an ethical framework. The ethics that are being put forward by such teachings are part of an important and broader scaffold which is generated by a mind of greater understanding, in Forbes’s comparison a “law of gravity.”

Whether we are talking about a comprehensive mind or about gravity, these things do function as a kind of authority or lodestar. Perhaps K would have used the term “order” in describing such a mind, or the law of gravity; but I have to wonder whether his constant needling about “authority” in the end had the opposite effect of what he intended.

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,?”

I think I need to start writing here again, and I will write more frequently this time. So what is the origin of the Gurdjieff teaching? It is Tibetan Buddhism.  How sure I am of this? About 99.9 percent. There is a LOT of evidence it is so. Though I cannot appropriately give all of this evidence here,  I will give some of it in a future message.

This said, there has been a large and still strong ongoing response to one particular message, “What Krishnamurti Wrote About Gurdjieff.”  Many people have read this message from very many countries.  Assuming it is a matter of curiosity, that is perfectly understandable. If I had not already read that material, I would want to read it, too. What I am wondering–and I do not particularly like this term, but it hits the spot–is what these people are trying to “flesh out.” I am assuming that in most or even all of these cases it is not just idle research on a topic that has caught one’s fancy, but part of an individual search.

People know I have been struggling with this, and I will write more in the future. For now:

When you keep repeating the same stuff over and over. you find different ways of saying it to make it seem original, and even make poetry,  but it is all by format. Sad. He hooked on this idea of “meditation” and stayed there until the idealized end, but little to nothing about doing and how to do it. No practicality. It took me decades to see it, imo because something was wrong with me. Thank ‘God’ I had another teaching.  And money was involved;  craving for beauty and vitality and setting up conditions to increase that for oneself is a form of currency which does involve accumulation. (This is a sticking point which may be difficult to understand.). There is a motive even though the teacher implies he does not have a motive, and that is wrong. Being poor is different. Of course all of this accumulation is held within the body. When you hold onto it, hold onto an image, you are STIFF. Look at the pictures.  Is that alive? Is it flowing? And if you take away the ‘beauty’ do not support the consensus around that, you will be shut down, at least verbally. remember, all of humanity are just the dumb masses:-)  So, in the flower is a worm, and that is subject for inquiry. There are people who actually studied this discrepancy factor within its various demonic modes of shape shifting and learned how to use it for actual and not pretend transformation.

All of this is just grist for the mill , at least for someone who is aware of the subject/oject relationship and experimenting with and studying how to turn that around and make exchanges within oneself for the sake of ones brother, but what if the teacher pretends there is not a motive? All well and fine on some level if he is not consciously aware he is doing it. But what if he DOES know he is doing it? That would be disingenuous.

 

This message from Saurab was originally posted on the email list J_Krishnamurti, and thank you very much,  Saurab.

experiencer:

K wrote the following in one of his books:

“It was not the quietness of exhaustion, or of relaxation, but a stillness that was very alert. There was no point from which the mind was still; there was no observer of this tranquillity; the experiencer was wholly absent.”

Now, if the experiencer was wholly absent, how could K talk about it later ? The recording of the experience must have taken place with reference to an entity who could later recall what was recorded…. But when K says that the experiencer was wholly absent, it does not make sense to me…..

saurab

---

Comment by Wry:   It might be worthwhile to inquire into what the “experiencer” who was reading those words was experiencing,  to look carefully at the dynamic of creating a really vivid experience,  even what what some might call (and K sometimes did use this word),   a “sacred” experience, through the use of imagery and making inaccurate correlations,  The poetry of his language in conjunction with a  distortion of physical reality was obviously in some way effective in attracting and deeply resonating with many readers,  myself at one time very much included.  Illusion (and delusion:-) can be very alluring and seductive.