Deconstructing Krishnamurti

Was K disingenuous? Why ask this? Because not just what K said, but K himself,  K the (supposed) great world teacher, is for many the inspiration.  If K was disingenuous, that is human, and we all may be to some degree until we are “pure,” but if we take as the foundation of a topic the words of a human being who in actuality was disingenuous *at the time* he was presenting a teaching about being genuine and pure, even though *in a particular context* he  was, or, better put, appeared to be pure, then there is a significant discrepancy factor fot which the teaching being given does not in itself, include a check and balance.  In the future I would like to go into detail about this, so, technical case in point,  though K said the futue is now, the future is not now, as I am not going to do this now.

I understand that speaking about K possibly being disingenuous appears to some to be nitpicking because it does not cut to the chase of love and truth,  very beautiful experiences  (much like a sunset?) we all have had in relationship with K,  but if” K” is functioning for us as a golden cow,  ie. a symbol of an evolved human being, then there is behind this veil a  mental obscuration with no way to correct it, so here we come to the the subject of second order impressions, which could in some way be another term for thought.

What IS thought? Are there certain kinds and qualities of thought, and do we need thought to discriminate such?  I guess it is pretty easy to intuit where I will be going with this topic.

Happy holidays to all! It has been great, really wonderful!  Did you feel the spirit of Christmas (and maybe you/we still feel it)?  You do not have to have a Christmas tree or any of the other trappings to experience the spirit of Christmas.  Of course for some people the concept of Christmas is in so associated with commercialism and false values that they are unable to look past that.  So,  could this be said about experiencing the spirit of K’s teaching? Can we experience the spirit of that without being caught up in various other stuff, such as– did K lie? What IS stuff and how does it function in terms of the brain making distortions?

You know we do like inquiry here:-)

And thank you so much Niko for all of the time and effort you have put into making this blog!

So what does it mean to say that someone is disingenuous?  Basically it means that a person is dishonest, but imo not in the sense of presenting a false picture in order to help someone, such as it said that the Buddha sometimes lies; an example of the latter might be telling a child there is a Santa Claus. An example of the former would be to present oneself as having a certain kind or level of understanding and/or character that one knows in ones heart one does not in actuality have. Of course sometimes we tend to tell ourselves stories and deeply believe in them; I am not sure if this would be lying or not.

And what would be the point of asking this kind of question about K? Personally I would not be doing so if I did not perceive there to be a significant functional value, and here we come to the possible approach of inquiring into K or ‘K’ with the intent to use this topic to also speak about something else,  such as human brain function. It is natural for people to make a golden cow or false image which they idolize, and K was well aware of this, as again and again he warned people not to make him into an authority;  but it would be extremely obvious to anyone who was so smart that saying  this, though it might have a minimal effect, would in no way keep a vulnerable person from inadvertently doing the particular thing he was again and again being cautioned not to do.  In short, saying not to do something is not the same as building into a certain approach various checks and balances which will actually keep this something from happening.

Deliberately building into a teaching certain kinds of checks and balances could be similar to fighting fire with fire, so, for example,  to make an actual golden cow,  either object and/or mental image, but instead of encouraging people to literally believe in it,  using such an object or image consciously to negate the truth of its perceived being as ultimate, which is, as many readers know, the approach of the Prasangika Madhyamaka (Middle Way Consequence School) of Buddhism, whose main identifying characteristic is its particular approach to the two aspects of truth.  So did K deliberately build in such checks and balances or did he (k)not?  This is a really interesting question in that what if in some ways and to some degree he did do this, but in other ways he did not? Is it possible to go half way with such an approach, or does going only part of the way negate or weaken the inherent potential to actualize transformation?

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.

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/print.php?tid=937&chid=642

“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?

Intro:

My apologies for disappearing; got deeply involved in another project but am still dedicated to writing here.  As some know, one of my final disillusionments with Krishnamurti came when reading his book “The Ending Of Time.”  Oddly, and even sadly, many people feel this is his most significant important work and that there is some kind of brilliant revelation regarding the nature of the universe hidden therein.  Imo that is false, but I am going to look at this book again before I make that my final conclusion, and, by the way, there is such a thing as functional certainty, and some conclusions do need to be, in a sense, final. If human beings were completely open to being wrong about anything and everything and consciously in that mode and only that mode of processing data, humanity would not survive. I do acknowledge that a fixed-in- stone way of processing data can also be a downfall, so is there a middle way?

For one thing, if we try to do away with what Krishnamurti (sometimes:-) called psychological time. which is not even possible, then there could be no middle way,  as we would be merely mechanical clock-referencing robots. As many of us reading here know, Gurdjieff referred to time as “the unique subjective.  This seems very profound—at least it did to me when I was younger,  but actually, if you really take the time to think about it, the sense and feeling of time is and forever will be intricately interconnected with each individuals subjective contextual experiencing of perceived pain and pleasure. There is a proverb, perhaps the best know of all English language proverbs, or, better put, riddles:  “a stitch in time saves nine.”  Hmm:-)

First, if there is one person perceived to be at the top of the ladder or seeming to encompass by his own expressed understanding the entire spectrum, it is natural to follow that person. As children we are culturally conditioned to follow all kinds of ideas given to us, and we do tend to accept a lot of things as true without questioning. This is partly because there is some kind of perceived survival value related to doing so. Much of the material is actually true, but intertwined with false material, and a false way, or, better put, mode of processing data which arises from this has become ingrained in most any person’s thinking and habit patterns to such a degree that it is very difficult to sort things, especially because much of the material of a person’s daily experiencing unconsciously has come to represent to him something else, and of this mode of making various mental and emotional associations due to representation he is generally unaware.

So a person reads Krishnamurti whose very skillful use of language affects the reader’s brain function, causing him to focus in a specific way, due to which there is a very intense quality of experience which is pleasurable. This happens many times, and such a person keeps reading K because, plain and simple, he desires to have this kind of pleasurable experience again, and also because he desires to “be free,”  so he continues being manipulated by K’s seductive use of language, but without realizing he is being seduced; rather the conclusion he comes to is that his own new emerging understanding is causing this kind of affect;. so he tries to think in this new way again, but in actuality he is remembering the quality of vivid past experience and recreating it though memory by mental association. For instance, I look at something, anything in the (perceptual) field) with the conscious or unconscious intent to perceive it in the same vivid way I perceived something, anything I was looking at before, tosimply see it without the process of thinking about the problems of my day distracting me and clouding my perception. Obviously when I look at something in this way the experience will be more intense and have a certain clarity to it. This mode of perceiving may even extend to the entire field and I will think that this is what K called meditation, and actually such an experience which has a very flowing and vivid quality,  is what he called meditation. Then I will tell myself that this meditation just happened, and as he said, is effortless, (which it kind of is in that this amplified experience was an affect of previous events which mechanically caused it, one thing following after the other which stimulated it, but I do not realize this,  Wow! .Of course all of these conclusions are false. Nothing just happens in that the entire world and everything in it functions in some way by cause and effect.  How intense and vivid can such an experience be? Very! It is a form of infatuation connected to dopamine receptors in the brain. This is very hard for me to write about as I was hooked into K for so many years….. and then if you read him he goes on from seeing the beauty of a rose or a sunset to talk about love.

So how does the golden cow metaphor fit in here? It is because the picture, name and words of Krishnamurti, as well as any subject relating to Krishnamurti comes to unconsciously represent to oneself this past seductive experience, and so triggers the desire to have such an experience again. It is so simple but I never saw it, as I did not understand my own brain function, so I told myself a false story to make a bridge between my everyday life and this other fantasy world.  Of course the impression of a rose is more vivid if you really look at it, but there is a limited functional value to looking at a rose, and eventually we come to the question, what is the functional value of observation, of looking at oneself?  K said that if you really look at yourself and understand yourself you will see everything about yourself and then you will be free. Is this really true? Of course it sounds true,and he makes it sound so simple. But oh, he says it is very difficult:-)

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.

On Jan 24, 2013 12:11 PM Wry wrote:

“Just sent this to a Gurdjieff list where participants have started talking about Krishnamurti, and people here might like to see it. What I wrote may sound to some like I am anti-Krishnamurti and pro Gurdjieff, but that is not really true on either end, nor am I pro neither:-)– that would kind of make no sense in that we are dealing with concepts here, not icons, and so the enquiry goes on. To those who are on the same K lists I am on and so are getting multiple copies of this, sorry….wry

Commentaries on Living: First Series
J. Krishnamurti Commentaries on Living Series I Chapter 47 `The Spiritual Leader’

“He said that his guru was too great a man to be described, and that he had been a pupil of his for many years. This teacher, he went on, imparted his teachings through brutal shocks, through foul language, through insults and actions that were contradictory; and he added that many important people were among the followers. The very crudeness of the procedure forced people to think, it made them sit up and take notice, which was considered necessary because most people were asleep and needed to be shaken. This teacher said the most awful things about God, and it seemed that his pupils had to drink a great deal, as the teacher himself drank heavily at most meals. The teachings, however, were profound; they had been kept secret at one time, but now they were being made available to all…”.

And from the last paragraph:

“…It is an odd fact that followers like to be bullied and directed, whether softly or harshly. They think the harsh treatment is part of their training – training in spiritual success. The desire to be hurt, to be rudely shaken, is part of the pleasure of hurting; and this mutual degradation of the leader and the follower is the outcome of the desire for sensation. It is because you want greater sensation that you follow and so create a leader, a guru; and for this new gratification you will sacrifice, put up with discomforts, insults and discouragements. All this is part of mutual exploitation, it has nothing whatever to do with reality and will never lead to happiness….”

You can read this entire fascinating piece here:

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/print.php?tid=25&chid=61641

Krishnamurti wove a story out of his own limited context with the deliberate aim to present material from his own particular, and, in my opinion, limited point of view, and so in this respect he spoke as an authority in that he really did not know. Is there some truth in what he wrote? Yes, but the black and white way he worked with material so as to create a certain affect or state—be it of what he called “meditation” or whatever is not really the truth. Moreover, if a person says ‘the truth’ is not the truth (such as his famous quote “Truth is a pathless land,” this also is not the truth.

For those here who do not know, I have been very interested in Krishnamurti for well over forty years, have heard him speak, led Krishnamurti inquiries in my home, and at one time left the Gurdjieff teaching because of him, but then later went back to it. It is also interesting to note that at the end of his life Krishnamurti said that not one person understood what he was saying. Some people consider this comment to be allegorical, but I have evidence (in some biographical material I read in which, when asked if anyone got his message, he mentioned one girl he spoke to once who he thought really did understand him) that he meant this literally.”

(I wrote the above four years ago, and since then have there has arisen some kind of question in my mind as to whether he really did exactly mean his dying words to be taken literally.)

Wry wrote -“To me it means believing in and/or grasping at something that simply isn’t true and then holding up this belief in front of oneself as an idol or an ideal….”   So what is it that K was saying that was simply not true? Actually he said many things that were blatantly not true, and many other things that were true, but, in short, he presented a so-called approach with the implication that such an approach would lead to inner freedom. He also seemed to put forth an image of himself (though he pretended not to do so) as someone who knew, a person with knowledge of how to be free. So how to be free? According to him it is effortless, as effort implies conflict and desire, but then he tells you to observe yourself, and, according to him (and me and presumably anyone who has ever tried to do so) this is very difficult to do.  He says it is  very difficult.

So lets take something that is true: a a tree is beautiful (generally speaking). Is such an observation wholistic or fragmented?  Imo it is fragmented. if you really see a tree, if you deeply look at it. you do experience a moment of integration which can be really profound, and if you have just read K and then looked at a tree or even as you are reading K talking about a tree. you may experience what K called meditation which state is extraordinarily flowing and beautiful, but interestingly and sadly it took me many years to realize that such a moment of integration is of little if any functional value in terms of human survival, which is why deep tree seeing (and probably deep anything seeing) is not written into ongoing daily human perception.  (There seems to be some kind of contradiction here in terms of what I just wrote, and I will go into this later).

But secondly, this tree is presumed to represent human relationship—he frequently segues into the subject of relationship after a tree seeing or sunset seeing soliloquy,  so if you are really attentive, if you watch your own responses “like a  cat watches a mouse, ”  then ultimately (but probably not right now), even though you may after reading K be experiencing some kind of release of tension, you will be able to be in conscious relationship, and there will be love, especially if you conveniently leave out the people part. The problem is that he conveniently skips the steps of the work a person will have to do\, ads why make an effort to go anyplace since you are already there. So go home, get in a fight, and then pick up a K book because alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Just keep reading K books and quotes and releasing energy until your imprinted drive function becomes corrupted ,and then anything you do will subsequently be effortless.  Of course when you pick up a K book, you do not desire anything. That is why you keep reading him over and over again until one day you get it, except you do not. This is a Zen koan:-)

Re the sarcasm, just letting off some steam in order to break the ice here, but do not intent to continue in this vein.