Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Pages from the Book of Life

Displaying posts 241 - 270 of 357 in total
Sat, 27 Aug 2016 #241
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

Daniel Paul. wrote:

So would not have we lost so much of what we are ?? that will be even a greater disaster than what in this case, I and some think ...

Well, Dan, yes and no.

Hello John, Before to read any further, which I did of course in fact, I meant a greater disaster right now and for thousands of year...but but but , not at all a forever one....

then you say:

John Raica wrote:
In this regard, K was both a first beneficiary and a 'freely consenting volunteer' . So my theory (as in 'point of view') is that this 'formative matrix of human consciousness' is constantly interacting - exchanging infos & energy- which each individual consciousness. Some feel it, some don't , but a 'contact' is at all time available. And again, there are those who 'know' or can figure out the practical utility of it...and those who don't. So, on the Grand Plan of Things...nothing is lost, just a lot of 'cleaning up' to be done by those who are 'consciously responsible'

I agree with're better than me to express such things, which is fine of course, the word better being a factual statement of capacity not another "bloody" pyramidal value of course ...;-)

having said that , from what I read of k, he does not know if man will leave the trap where he is, in fact he seems quite "pessimistic" ???...sometimes it seems that I see things and here well I do not know, yet as you mention it is there..

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sat, 27 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Aug 2016 #242
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 647 posts in this forum Offline

Talking abourt 'lost and found pages from the Book of Life, here's a most fascinating NDE story told personally to Dolores Cannon by her friend Meg who was recovering from some lung surgery. ...

"So anyhow, I came through the surgery fine, but I felt like
hell because I hurt. I was hurting so bad all I could think of was,
when was the next shot? I’m putting this all in because I think
I have to be honest. I was drifting in and out, and I was being
given Demerol. So for the skeptics, they can say, “Well, she was
on pain killers.” It doesn’t matter. The skeptics are going to say
what they’re going to say anyway. About the third day in intensive
care, I fell asleep.

And suddenly I was going down a very long, dark canyon. I felt very, very warm and very, very secure, but it was the blackest canyon I’ve ever seen. They were like mountain walls that seemed quite far away, and then suddenly they seemed close.
At one point I looked on these mountain
walls and instead of being all black they almost appeared orange
with dark, flickering lights against them. It had something to do
with souls, but I don’t remember what it was. But it was a very
warm, secure feeling.
As I was going down the canyon I saw a very misty place just
ahead of me. And as I came upon it, I could see that there was
some kind of a rock barrier blocking the entire entrance to this
canyon. You couldn’t go on, but there was just enough room to
squeeze around it. There was mist everywhere.
And then I saw the people standing there. There were two
men, and another shadowy figure. All of a sudden, I recognized
who that person was, and then he was no longer a shadowy
figure. This is funny, but he looked like Gene Wilder used to
look in Willy Wonka. He had that wonderful curly, curly hair
and was wearing a suit with white piping. My first thought was,
“What is this?” And then all of a sudden I realized I was dying.
I did experience a moment of fear there.

Then this man in this suit said, “You are at death.” Those
were the words: “You are at death.’’ Then I realized that he was
the “angel of death.” He didn’t say it, but I knew it. And I
thought to myself he was a little intimidating. But when he said,
"You are at death,” it was so kind that I was not afraid. I was just
not afraid at all. He was so kind. And he was so efficient. It was
And I remember pondering it; then nodding my head and
saying, “I know.” Now I’m going to say all of the rest of this in
a jumble because I was getting information simultaneously. It
was just coming in from impressions. Where someone said
something I will quote exactly what they said. My first thought
was, “There really is something after death! There really is!’’ I
was absolutely astounded. I kept saying, “But death is so easy.
It’s so easy. It’s like getting up out of this chair and sitting down
in that chair.”

These men were nodding their heads. And one of them said,
“Yes, but it is hard to get there.” I didn’t understand it, but that’s what he said. Then the man in the suit said, “And you are being given a choice.” I also got the impression that not everyone was given
a choice. That this was just at this particular time, at this point.

Then I also got the impression that this “angel of death” was not
this beings permanent position. I felt that he was just on assignment,
and that he wouldn’t always be having this assignment.
There were some other shadowy figures there, and I perceived
that they were there to help me. Because he said, “Do you
wish to stay or do you wish to go?” Now "stay" meant stay with
them; "go" meant go back. It’s not what you would normally
think. It was the reverse. “DO you wish to stay or do you wish
to go?” And I knew it was wonderful there, and I wanted to stay.
[Excited] And so I said, “I want to stay.”

I can’t remember his exact words, but he said, “There are
some things you have to know before you make up your mind.”
Then I was shown my mother and she was crying and sobbing.
And he said, “Now, your mother will be destroyed. And she, in
her destruction will destroy those around her.” And I’m sure he
was talking about my father. I perceived that her life would just
be over at that point. And in his love for her, his life would be
over. But I said, “Oh, I want to stay.” Because I perceived that
time was so fast there, that it was nothing.
They would be there
so quickly, and they would understand when they got there. I
also perceived another thing, that whatever way I chose was just
right. There was absolutely no judgment or censure, but what I
chose to do was the right thing to do.
Then I was shown my husband.
He was crying and he was saying, “I never knew I loved
her,” which fits in with the way the marriage was at that time.
I saw it would be very hard on him, but I said, “I want to stay. “

Because I knew that in just a little while everybody would be
there, and they’d all understand.
Then he said, “Now, your children will be all right, but they
will not go as far as they could.” But I still said, “I want to stay.”
I knew my children would be all right. Maybe not do as well as
if I was there; but they’d still not go under. To stay there was still
the most attractive choice. And then Death said, “Now, you will
have to stay close to your children.”
In other words, stay close
to the edge. And I was told I would have to guide my children.
I was just astonished, because that’s not what I wanted. I wanted
to go on over to this happy place and learn. I don’t know how I
knew I could learn there. It just came into my mind, and I knew.
I hadn’t seen it, but I knew the minute these people opened their
mouths, that this was a place that I wanted to be. I just knew
that there were answers there. "The" answers, I suppose. There
were studies; answers; growth. This was just instinctive, but I
knew it was a place I wanted to stay. I sure didn’t want to leave
it and go back to these problems. I wanted to be there.

But I reluctantly said at that point, “Well, if I have to stay close to the edge, I might as well go back. I’ve got these responsibilities. And
I can handle it better from that side than I can by just trying to
stay close to my children and influencing.” So I said, “Okay, I'll
go.” And they all seemed quite pleased that I had decided that,
even though there would have been no censure or judgment.

I felt as if I was beginning to pull back. And I saw those other
minor figures whispering, “She’s going to go. She’s going to go.”
I can’t remember if they disappeared or if they went around the
barrier. I think they went around the barrier. And I perceived
that they had been there to help me cross over. But they weren’t
needed so they disappeared. Then I started to pull. back, as if I
was leaving. And one of these men spoke up and said, “Before
you go, there are some things we want you to know.”

Instantly I was in another place. I wasn’t in the tunnel anymore.
It was kind of like a backyard, and there was a circle of
people. I’ve tried since then to guess how many were in that
circle of people sitting around in chairs. I would guess maybe
eight, ten men and women. I perceived that they were my council.
And I knew that every single person has a council that has
a responsibility for each soul down here. They sort of reminded
me of a country Sunday school group meeting out at the church
yard, maybe in the afternoon or something. I really couldn’t see
faces but this one person sort of "guided" me. I remembered his
bare arms and his rolled-up white shirt sleeves, very much like
men would do at a warm Sunday Bible-class type of
thing. He took me over to a girl sitting under a tree and she had
black skin, colored skin. And he kind of plucked at her skin.
[She made the motions of pinching the skin of her forearm
between her thumb and forefinger.) And he said, “This is so
unimportant-this skin. This is so unimportant. It’s just a little
covering. It is so unimportant, it’s laughable,” and then they
both kind of laughed. And I was thinking, “Why is he telling me
this? I know that.”

Then the next picture was . . . we were standing on a road, and
there was at least one of my 'counselors' with me. These two
young men of East Indian visage were walking up the road. And
they were there to show me my 'self'. Now I was standing there
and all of a sudden next to me was my 'self'. I saw a beautiful, very
large, brilliant, opaque shimmering sphere that I knew was
myself. And I walked around, and I entered myself, this sphere
of light.
(She illustrated with hand motions the act of entering
the top of this sphere and proceeding downward through it to
come out of the bottom.) And I knew that when I came out I
would have all my answers. I would "know myself".
And I did.
But when I went into the sphere I descended. It was like being
bathed in milky white, very comfortable. And I thought, “Any
minute now I will reach the center.” And soon I reached on
through and emerged out the other side, sort of at a downward
angle. I knew when I was in the center, but the center was
exactly like the periphery. In other words, the center was exactly
like the edges. Yet I perceived when I was in the edges and going
through and in the center and coming out again. But the center
was exactly like the periphery. They were just the same composition.
When I came out I knew myself. And I stood there, and
I felt embarrassed. I felt naked because I knew myself and I
perceived my good and my bad, and I made no judgment upon
myself. And I said, "I've got to work on that.” And they knew
me, too. They knew me totally. And they smiled and nodded.
And the nice thing was that there was no censure. Absolutely
none. No judgment.

This is where I get hazy. I cannot recall which came next. I
looked up and the sky was suddenly darkened, and it was filled
with stars. Some were huge and some were medium and some
were tiny, and they were of varying brilliancies but not one outshone
the other. Even if there was a very tiny one next to a huge,
brilliant one, you could still see each with equal clarity. And I
knew the "stars" were souls. I said, “Well, where’s mine?” And
someone said, “There it is.” I looked behind me and there was
my star. It had just risen off the horizon. And suddenly I was
there, in the place where my star was. And I felt like I was
interwoven into fabric. In that instant I knew that we were all
totally connected and that no matter what happened we could
not be destroyed. Even if something came and ripped the fabric,
the fabric would hold. I knew that I could not be destroyed, nor
could anyone else. That I was as I was as I am.

Then I was next back in the meadow, standing at that roadside.
And I looked out across this beautiful sunlit meadow and
there was a grove of trees. It was symbolic to me that there was
a grove, but I perceived that within it was the tree of life. And
suddenly, out of this grove of trees, came this enormous ball of
lightning. I just watched it as it flew across the meadow. And
it struck me right here. (She put her hand on her chest over her
heart area.) It was as though I had the breath knocked out of me.
It was as if every ounce of everything was sucked out of me and
I was consumed. And what came into me was total, pure,
unconditional love.
It was so incredible. It went into every cell,
and I could hardly get my breath. There wasn’t anything I could
give except love because that was all I was composed of.
It had
taken over every atom. And then I started coming back. And
someone shouted to me, and it may have been my counselor:
“Stay married. You’re meant to be married.” (Resignedly)
Which I have done.

I came back. And I woke up and I saw the nurse in the Intensive
Care Unit leaning over me with the most concerned look on
her face. She was watching me. And I thought, “Don’t worry,
I’m all right. I’m not going to die. And I won’t go away again.”
I also thought, “Oh, you don’t know where I’ve been.” I didn’t
tell anybody for quite a few days.

There will undoubtedly be debate about whether this incident
really occurred or whether it was a drug-related fantasy. But
Meg has no such argument going on within her. She knows it
was "real". There is no doubt in her voice as she relates the incident.
She knows because it changed her life forever.
As Meg said, “Maybe someone has to almost lose their life
in order to find it.”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2016 #243
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 647 posts in this forum Offline

More strange "lost & found" pages from Pupul Jayakar's K Biography

On my return to Bombay I underwent a very deep and inexplicable experience. My senses, torn from their routine, had exploded. One night as I lay down to sleep I felt the pervading touch of a presence, waiting. I was received and enveloped in a dense embryonic fluid. I was drowning, for I felt my consciousness fading. My body rebelled; it struggled, unable to accept this encompassing embrace, this "sense of death". Then the silent presence disappeared. This happened for three nights running. Each time, my body struggled; it resisted this encounter, unable to face this touch of death, which passed as swiftly as it had come, never to return. There was no fear. I told Krishnaji about it at our next meeting, and he told me to let it be, neither to hold it nor resist it.

Krishnaji had asked us to keep secret what we had witnessed at Ooty. We felt that he did not wish it to confuse the precision, clarity, and directness of the teaching. But by the 1970s Krishnaji himself started talking about it to many of the people close to him.

I asked, “Do you think that the physical brain cells, unable to contain or hold the immensity of the energy that was flowing into the brain, had to create the spaces in the brain to sustain it? Did there have to be a physical mutation in the brain cells themselves? Or was it like a laser beam operating on the brain cells to enable them to function fully and so contain the boundless?”

Krishnaji said, “Possibly that was so. After ( The Pepper Tree experience, 1922 in ) Ojai, Leadbeater could not explain the pain, nor could Mrs. Besant. The explanation given by them was that the consciousness of Krishnaji had to be 'emptied' for a fragment of the Maitreya Bodhisattva to use the body.”

When asked whether it was “Maitreya,” he ( K) neither said yes nor no. I asked, “Is it that we are witnessing the first mind that is operating fully, totally?”
“Possibly,” K said, “and that is what has to be done with the children here [at the Rishi Valley School].”

Krishnamurti, speaking in 1979 about the happenings in Ooty, said that for him the dividing line between life and death was fragile and tenuous. During the state when the body was a 'shell', the possibility existed that K could "wander away" and never come back, or some other elements that wanted to destroy the manifestation could harm the body. Therefore there could be no fear amongst the people near him at the time. Fear attracted evil.
I told him that while he was in those states, only the body was operating; there was an 'emptiness' in the body. The voice was childlike. K said, “Couldn’t you explain the two voices by saying that one was that of the body alone?”
I asked, “Only the body speaking?”
He said, “Why not?”
“Only a shell?” I persisted.
“Yes, why not?” Then K asked me, “Was the voice hysterical?”
I replied, “There was no hysteria.”
“Was it an imaginative state?” he asked.
“How could I know?” I replied.

K asked "What would happen the next morning ?" . I said we sometimes went with him for a walk. Krishnaji was alive, fresh. The pain (of the Ooty process) had left no mark, and he appeared to have forgotten what had happened. He laughed a great deal, looked at us quizzically, was affectionate, considerate, overwhelmed us with his presence, and had no answer to our questions. He said he did not know.

That same year, 1979, when K was in Bombay, some of us asked him to explain the phenomenon of the face changing. He said, “Many years ago I awoke and there was the face beside me. There was the face that K’s face was becoming. This face was with me all the time, happily. The face was extraordinary, highly cultured, refined.” He spoke as if his words related to another being. “And one day the face was no longer there.”
“Had it become one with K?” I asked.
K said he did not know. He also spoke of the need of the body to be protected. Nothing ugly should take place around it while K was away, nothing evil. In that state the body was defenseless, all kinds of elements wanted to destroy it. “When there is good, there is also the other.”

He was asked whether evil could take over his body when it was empty. His “no” was absolute.
“Then what could evil do? Destroy the manifestation?”
“Yes,” K said, “that is why there has to be love. When there is love there is protection.”

K also said that it was possible that the pain and what took place was necessary, as the brain was not ready. Traces of immaturity remained, the brain cells were not large enough to receive the energy. “When the energy comes pouring in and the brain is not capable of holding it, then that energy feels it has to polish it up. It may be its own activity.”

Speaking further of the need for two people to be with the body, K said, “Where there is love there is protection. Hatred permits evil to enter.”

When asked where does the consciousness of K go ? he replied, “I have asked myself what happens when there is no movement of the brain.” After some time he continued. “It ceases completely. Only when it has to manifest it comes. It ceases to exist when it is not there. Has air any "place", has light any "place"? Air is enclosed and so it is there. Break the enclosure, it is everywhere.”

He seemed hesitant to probe further. He said that he should not probe further. “You can ask,” he said, “and I will reply. But I cannot ask.”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Sep 2016 #244
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
What is important is a radical change in the unconscious. Any conscious action of the will cannot touch the unconscious. As the conscious will cannot touch the unconscious pursuits, wants, urges, the conscious mind must subside, be still, and not try to force the unconscious, according to any particular pattern of action. The unconscious has its own pattern of action, its own frame within which it functions. This frame cannot be broken by any outward action, and will is an outward act. If this is really seen and understood, the outward mind is still; and because there is no resistance, set up by will, one will find that the so-called unconscious begins to free itself from its own limitations. Then only is there a radical transformation in the total being of man.

Well John, it is about time to bring back this unconscious fields on the it is that which really guides our steps, and one is not aware of it...

If this is right, for me it is according to many events in that field, I must say that for me the intellect, thinking, memory etc is useless, totally useless here is what I know, I have learnt that, yet with k ways of putting things it is wrong, as when you know you don't know and when you know you don't speak...but I do not listen to k so have no problem with that...

it may be true or not at some level but not at mine...and when this weird energy is there it is so beyond all that and as it works on its own, well as a "I" one has nothing to do at all...

again can I voluntary chase something that I do not know about ..because the unconscious if I have not met is only a fantasy...

So k says his experiences with it here.....that is fine..and so what ? what is the way to that unconscious,again you are not going to like it but it is suffering, most suffering I know for myself where hidden within this unconscious ..etc

as long as suffering is perceived as a problem to run away from or to solve and not as a scream from the unconscious , well good luck to anyone...

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sat, 10 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Sep 2016 #245
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

Daniel Paul. wrote:

, it is about time to bring back this unconscious fields on the it is that which really guides our steps, and one is not aware of it...

Great idea, Dan, and indeed, why not ?
Now in the defence of K I would suggest that his use of the term un-conscious was quite literal- a lot of our racial and cultural programming (along with its huge bank of collective memory - and of which we are not 'conscious' - meaning that it does interfere in our everyday living but we just assume that it's 'us' or maybe we don't even notice it. On the other hand, the world of dreams is more 'open' to it, in fact we get immersed into this collective memory of our past.

What is un-conscious John, is probably( surely) all what you bring here as part of racial and cultural back ground and memories yes indeed..and yes it interferes with the everyday is us or we don't notice it ,yes .

the world of dreams is more opened to it yes...I would even say that the world of nightmares is opened to it, more than dreams but this is only my own experience in that matter..

the content of the unconscious I mention here is not that, there is an unconscious zone dedicated to our unsolved personal problems created by the superficial thinking,which are stored somewhere now out of reach of the thinking as we know it....even with a huge intellect and a big IQ, it is out of reach...

it is a sort of pond where all our frustrations, unreachable desires, fear, escaping, misunderstandings etc etc..are stored waiting to be solved the right way....

some roots of what is called suffering is an appeal from those zones, they say : let us do our job, we can and must solve all that, just leave this sensation of pain alone it will guide as it wishes..but you must no expect anything nor solve it, you cannot as an "I" do that...

All those unsolved matters are alive and kicking...and this is what mostly non consciously we try to escape without knowing is a disaster leading to all insanities ....

John Raica wrote:
And I can see K's point in wanting to 'conscient'-ise the unconscious since there is a vast reservoir of psy energies which are dormant there. So basically this is one of K's potential tools : when these 'unconscious' zones are awake, they act ASAP- as we all do in case of a cataclysm, fire or other emergency.

there is a matter of timing and priorities here...solving the unconscious problems by seeing them somehow is one....this needs another capacity which is usually dormant..

about this

John: So basically he would like to
bring this latent 'intensity' in the
field of our daily action and
. Which would be just great
if this very 'un-conscious' wouldn't
have assume a right to veto or to make
(ASAP) culturally biased choices. So
basically there is very often an open
or hidden conflict of interests - and
the 'observer' might also impersonate
some of these 'un-conscious' trends to
which we have identified ourselves

Yes for the first part in bold letters...As far as I know, and it is quite hard to be define here, even to be sure in fact, but something X in this unconscious zone KNOWS, has access to the roots problems , can show them to the whole being and then problem is solved,whether it is shown entirely,or partially, whether not shown at all but one feels that something was solved as it is unmissable moment of pure relief which contains sole bliss with it...not the big huge one but it has the same taste.........

When comparing to the superficial zones it is more powerful ,have more capacities, non analytical of course etc..

Recently I was back to that out of a need which was there..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Sep 2016 #246
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 142 posts in this forum Offline

This seems a good way to look at it John. For myself, contemplating this 'idea' (fact?) that we are in essence 'awareness'...and our not 'realizing' that, leads to a multitude of results. The big one as I see it is our (mis) understanding of 'death'. We think there is something 'wrong' with it and there is, but the wrongness is not in that natural process but in our 'tortured' understanding of it. So much craziness has come out of that 'ignorance'... The 'I' process is fine up to a point and very practical for us but the rigidity in the 'belief' of its actual existence (the 'self') has been a disaster; an ongoing disaster. (I watched a 'war movie' last night and it shocked me a bit to hear a lulling, sweet music being played in the background while the combatants were killing each other!)... Something I have seen in myself and perhaps is somewhat universal is that in the dream state, a need for 'recognition' seems always present when in contact with others, to be liked, to be accepted etc. Also very often, trying to find my way 'back home'(always a frustrating journey that never is successful!) Anyway, it's all very interesting...

It seems tremendous to contemplate the idea that our lives and our resultant societies, and cultures are 'escapes' from a deep, hidden feeling of loneliness, insufficiency, emptiness...that these 'exist' beneath the surface consciousness and on the surface all our 'attachments, dependencies pleasures, entertainments are all just ways to keep them quiet, hidden. In reading this last post, a 'why' question arose: why are these feelings in the 'unconscious'?, Were we born with them or did they get instilled in us in child hood? Why such 'dark' things in us?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 10 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Sep 2016 #247
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Hi, Dan, I just finished to reader-friendly edit the last post in the What are the K Teachings thread. And since it was about the 'psychological' dimension of fear I've (in brackets) stretched the concept towards our 'subliminal' fear of the unknown - and here we're joining our 'un-conscious' topic. For one thing, it is 'subliminal' - meaning that for one split second you intuit something quite destabilising at the core of your psyche and ASAP you turn away from actually dealing with that acute sense of inner emptiness/insufficiency/loneliness and focus outwardly on the 'securing' things of life (a nice cup of tea ?) . The reason (also subliminal) is that if you lose foot in this inner 'personality' ground, it seems quite improbable that you will be able to face the 'real' outer world -as it presently is (full of 'urban warriors', 'natural' exploiters, frustrated exploited and so on).

Well John possibly (surely) the relative physical secure aspect of the fact to be alive is not antagonistic of the inner when we have seen intelligently that cooperation and equal sharing is the only way...this cannot be forced to be...of course..

So not only we are not close right now to such relative security but possibly we are as totally distant as it is possible to be from such inner mental state....we have believed in evolution, in expansion, in competition etc without knowing anything about it like having the widest possible view about all the oak seed expanding into a big huge tree or is it changing of aspect..? does the seed contains the tree ?? etc

what I mean here is that one aspect of being alive is not intelligently dealt with at all, survival in our ways is fear so suffering so inadequate because we are competing so fighting so creating inner-outer violence and wars as well as destroying and mass killing..not all the time everywhere of course..,as to the other aspect which is to live what is unknown like death it has become practically non existent...

seeking security by competing is one of the most stupid and dangerous thing we could chose..yet this is our choice...based on selfish greed amplification by each one of us and the powers to keep us divided so insecure so searching for security in fight etc

John: So, I've figured out that in K's 'holistic' terminology this avoidance to face the inner facts is generally called 'escape'. So not only the 'fear' may be subliminal or 'un-conscious' but also what was causing it, the ( deeper existential) 'facts' cleverly swept under the carpet.....

well yes I see it that way too.
As long as only the superficial thinking process which is vital to survive in the instant as well as is able to project what needs to be too, as long as this is the only program at work we have, then what is unconscious for this level will not be seen...and when we know (or not), that this unconscious already have more intelligent capacities than the superficial like is able to solve pain sorrow, and much more..well we are sure to fail...

Then life is shallow ,misery, sorrow, a bit of joy here for a few seconds when having sex and attained desires and joy for possessions immediately followed by the fear of loosing it and the craving to have it again etc all that is suffering!! .... this life is competition,business ,war....the way we live in the western world and now all over the place inevitably brings war to steal what is needed for our comfort from many countries , the best way is to destroy the country..etc etc as well as because we do not want to cooperate our only option is to fight each other all the time and everywhere...etc..

And of course this is no ones fault....but it is because the bird eats the worm....

this is going on for millennium now...and despite a few awakened people, nothing seems to have change at all..

so all inner facts are under the carpet indeed...

At the global level well this is out of reach as it needs a minimum of "people" to reach a critical level where a radical change can eventually take place..

is left the personal level

back to fear, unconscious and what is subliminal..this is not a theoretical talk, it is based on facts of having this unknown for the superficial mind, this unconscious being revealed somehow,certainly not never ever revealed by active thinking so analysing as far as I am concerned....

one difficulty is that our superficial thinking does not know that, and it is revealed may be by miracle may be by the miracle to have got the pint of suffering as THE catalyst...certainly not by thinking ...

John Raica wrote:
So in terms of living skills, this incapacity or avoidance to see the inner facts was ( surreptitiously ?) translated in terms of ' We don't want to think about it' and our whole civilisation moved 'outwards'

yes for most, I keep sensing that this is a clear choice..

John Raica wrote:
Who wants to face his or her own 'insufficiency' or loneliness or again no-thingness
Of course, they may sincerely pretend to do it in forums such as these, but as no tangible 'rewards' are showing up...

So in terms of these 'un-conscious' trends in the modern human psyche, have you noticed the ever increased speed of thinking/talking/ acting/ working/ organising/producing/ selling & buying, consuming etc ? Economically we may think it's quite convenient but inwardly it looks more and more as a 'cover-up' trend for a growing violence and a solid 'existential' sorrow

yes I have..I feel it. A cover up ? yes no doubt..a running away fast as possible, I sense a state of deep untold panic all over the place..

John Raica wrote:
To sum it up, the 'active' component of our collective un-conscious is manifested outwardly as dynamic cultural 'trends' , as generating 'teen idols' and many other various modern myths . And if 'time would stand still' this whole cultural infrastructure would crumble for lack of any true basis of universality....

indeed, but this is about the collective superficial cultural unconscious, I see for myself a different unconscious zone which is not not that order and needs to be it has keys to start with for another far as I know this is suffering job properly lived which can do something about it..

this is why I insist thoroughly ....because as I see it this is unknown and escaped most if not all of the time ...

thanks for the talk..


PS: No reread so it may be .....??

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Sep 2016 #248
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
The 'superficial' thinking, Dan, is usually dealing with the facts of the 'outer' reality, and in regard to technology it is pretty 'thoroughful' And probably this is where the 'right' role of thinking should be restricted. While in terms of dealing with the 'inner' facts - which are constantly in movement & shifting, a different perceptive instrument would be required.

yes, a different instrument (s) is required and it exists, I met it like some did or works on its own, when superficial thought does its part rightfully, and unlike thought already contains when at work a light and unusual energy, but you know that, yet it is worthy to say I think

John Raica wrote:
But the inner implications of this 'new' approach is that the 'knowing' mind should learn to move along with the dynamic of the 'facts'. Or this represents a major paradigm shift, since the 'observer' itself is becoming 'relativised' rather than fixed in its 'ego-centric' position which we all took for granted (culturally ) . And if and when it starts 'moving on' ...where's the ages old sorrow of mankind? So, there's an actual possibility of recycling and making good use of that whole reservoir. And therefore the new 'directly perceptive' instrument is constantly re-creating itself through listening and learning.

I do not know all the implications of this instrument(s), how would I, but it seems to work immediately as well as on the long term, in a quit secret manner, is there a guidance around the corner ?? well it is one way of putting things..I see that happening from time to time,always out of the blue...any idea, desire ,plan or hope will prevent its functioning is my actual view..I said "actual" because all that can modifies itself ..

sorrow is only the amplified form of a tiny signal never perceived for what it is, it becomes sorrow and pain if not more because we do not we do not know...

this "old instrument",if turning itself on, this instrument deals too with what is unconscious, personal unconscious , our unsolved self created problems...each time I had this very strong presence it started each time by a gloomy repulsive sensation, a sort of sorrow-suffering so, which was properly lived and when so it disappear instantly ..then when it is so this other instrument far as I am concerned it seems to work on its own

I am not able to develop more than that nor would I this is already something which has to be personally done....

John Raica wrote:
So back to the un-conscious trends of our psyche, this 'ego-centric' presumption is possibly the deepest. And the exit from this major existential paradox is for the 'ego' to ( psychologically ?) jump into the moving waters and to learn to it goes.

Yes right..back to that. I like the way you put things here, it sounds very correct to say so in my view....this ego must learn where it is good at and where it is can it be able to teach itself to freeze its action when meeting a field which is not of its competence? yes indeed but only if it has previously seen somehow about that for itself by itself...

well too simply put but this will do for now...


Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Sep 2016 #249
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 647 posts in this forum Offline

Continuing with 'lost & found' pages from K's book of life as related by Mrs Jayakar

Creation can only be when the mind is completely empty; whatever is born of that emptiness is negative thinking. It has no root, no source.


Something new is going on of which we are not aware... You are not aware of the movement, the significance, the flow, the dynamic quality of this change. We think we have time... There is no (more ?) time,... the house is burning.


How does the religious mind enter the unknown? It cannot come to the unknown except by ‘jumping.’ It cannot calculate and enter the unknown.


(Speaking of the Unknown he said) “The mind cannot come to it; the mind that measures itself in time must wipe itself away and enter into That, without knowing That. You cannot know it. It has no color, no space, no shape. You cannot make a statement about it. All you can do is to jump out of the old, then you won’t even know, for you are part of that extraordinary state.”


The Mind is a vast thing. It is not a spot in the universe. It is the Universe. To investigate the ( Mind of the ?) Universe demands an astonishing energy. It is energy greater than all rockets, because it is self-perpetuating, because it has no center. This is only possible when there is an enquiry into the inner and outer movement of the mind (we've got ?) . The 'inner', the racial unconscious, in which are the urges, compulsions, the hidden dark fears, is the story of man. How do you observe it ? If the observation is direct, then you are observing 'negatively'. Then the mind has no conclusions, no opposites, no directives. In that looking it can see what is near and what is far away. In that there is an ending. Such a mind
is the new mind. It has exploded without direction. Such a mind is the religious mind.


The mind that explodes without direction is compassionate, and what the world needs is Compassion, not schemes.
The 'new mind' is not within the field of knowledge. It is that state of creation which is exploding. For that, all ( movement of ?) knowledge has to come to an end. The new mind cannot come into being with authority, with masters, with gurus. With a burnt-out mind, you cannot come to the new mind. You need a fresh, eager, live mind.


What releases ( the new mind's ?) energy is direct perception. The greater part of the brain is the residuary animal and the remaining part 'undefined'. We live our life in the very small part. We never investigate. Sensitivity arises when you watch a tree, bird, animal, ant. Watch how you walk, bathe, dress; watch yourself (pretending to ?) being important. If you so watch, if you so observe thought and every emotion, flowering, then the brain is very sensitive; out of that, the flowering of the Mind begins. That is mutation.


To watch, to observe everything (directly) , is to be aware of totality, never to limit any thought, to let everything flower. A mind that is completely quiet, without any reaction, is only an instrument of observation. It is alive, sensitive.


Mutation is only possible when you have brought this about through awareness,and without effort. The challenge of the present time and of every instant, if you are awake, is to respond totally to something that is new.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 18 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2016 #250
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
How does the religious mind enter the unknown? It cannot come to the unknown except by ‘jumping.’ It cannot calculate and enter the unknown.

Hello John, many dreams, actually turning into nightmares because we try to run away say such thing, such doing, so that even already in the nightmare itself something takes place..

Such nightmare like attempting to run away as fast as possible from something unknown , the runner is so slow that the unknown is always right behind and then the runner is just exhausted, usually one wakes up before the main event take place, which is when the runner stops running...because it can't run away any more..

same sort of advice brought by a nightmare where the sea level is rising up so quickly that one is submerged by it without having time to escape.....the one wakes up sweating, meaning I refuse the unknown...the jump !

same type when one falls from a high cliff, then one wakes up too before the message had been delivered...which is there when touching the ground where one should be smashed...


Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2016 #251
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
the 'dreamer's' interpretation of the 'dream situation' is changing the whole experience- no learning whatsoever but 'escaping'. But then , this is happening even in inidents of our daily life.

did you mean incidents instead of inidents?

if so yes...

John Raica wrote:
On a different note, from Mrs Z memos, it comes up that K was also having similar issues with 'negative' forces. So in one situation K is explaining Mrs Z that he is creating a '(magic ?) circle' around every new location they were supposed to stay for a while. And one morning he's telling her of a 'nightmare' in which he was followed by some 'un-holly spirits' (?) and Mrs Z (kind of jokingly) asks him : why didn't you draw the 'protecting circle' ? And he says, I was trying to do it during the nightmare but I did not have time to complete it. So, Mrs Z says- doesn't always work ? To which K replied: but it did: I woke up !

this is a situation I do not know as such because when I wake up and whatever takes place did not reach its end, well there is nothing in it but fear and I cannot say, because when I wake up there is no message delivered or vision or whatever..I just know the one when you stop running away, or allow yourself to drown without resistance or keep falling from the cliff without waking up etc

if and when it reaches its end, there is understanding ,or vision, or nothing major but a feeling of peace, relief, and that all this is really strange "good"...etc

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Mon, 19 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2016 #252
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 4 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
david sharma wrote:

john above post is from face book of j Krishnamurti
Thanks, David, and of course, 'everything goes' on this particular thread, but... maybe you can explain our readers from where did you get that K 'pilgrim book'

I searched Facebook for J Krishnamurti and came up with quite a few pages. Not sure which one David is referring to. Here's the search results:

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 19 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2016 #253
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 5 posts in this forum Offline

The Pilgrim and his Holy Pilgrimage
Part 1. The Pilgrim and his Holy Pilgrimage
Chapter 4. Krishnaji cautions about the influence of his personality.
If your search for that understanding which is based not on the charm or the grand phrases or the light of another individual, but on your own desire, then it will last, otherwise it withers away... If you are really following your understanding of the Truth, you are following me, you are understanding me.
If my authority or personality can sway your emotions and your thoughts so the authority or charm of another may upset your whole understanding...
Do not be carried away by my words but think deeply of the Truth I put before you. If you understand and are really living that understanding in your daily life, then there will be no corruption or limitation of the Truth.
You will spoil everything if you base your understanding on individuals, even on Krishnamurti. There is a much greater thing than this form which you call Krishnamurti, which is life, and of that Life I speak, and of that life I urge you to become disciples and with that life I would urge you to be in love.
Do not worship me, but worship truth. Those who worship truth will worship everyone, and have respect for everyone, including myself. Truth cannot be conditioned by a being, though that being may have attained to the fullness of truth, as I have.
If you merely worship the form which holds the truth, truth in its fullness, in its magnitude, in its greatness will vanish and you will be left with an empty shell. It is because you imagine that Truth is far away, conditioned in one being, that while looking up towards that which is far away you tread on those who lie across your path.
In the heart of everyone is the desire for happiness and liberation. If you follow that desire, you steel your heart against all petty, unessential things, you will attain your goal...
If you follow me, a time will come when you will be bound by me and you will have to liberate yourself from me. So it will be much easier if, from the very beginning, you follow yourself, because you and I are one.
I have insisted over and over again that you cannot accept what I say. You cannot follow Krishnamurti, because there is no Krishnamurti. You can understand the significance of what I am saying and you can, if you will translate that for yourself in practical life. But do not say 'Krishnamurti says this', 'Krishnamurti says that'. Do you not see that you are setting up another standard? You have thrown away other standards, put away other teachers and you are setting up Krishnamurti as another guide and another saviour. I wish you would see the vital importance of this, that to follow another is the utter denial of that which you are trying to realise.
You are caught up in your own creations, in your own half-truths, in your own gods. And a man who would show you how to be free, how to be in love with the eternal, you reject, because you say, 'That is too difficult.' I hold that when you have devotion for mediators and interpreters, it becomes more difficult and more complicated for you to have the simple understanding of life.
Do not be held in these shelters whose decorations invite you to easy stagnation and easy comfort. Stay rather outside in the open air and be in love with Life.
Please bear it in mind even while I am speaking that you should not accept anything that I say on authority, but rather examine it, analyse it with intelligence and balance.
I am speaking of the whole, the unconditioned, and if you would approach that totality of life, that fulfilment of life, you must not concern yourself with the mouthpiece, the instrument, but with what is said.
You are bound by your old traditions of teacher and disciple, the idea that the teacher gives and the pupil must accept. A true teacher never gives; he explains, he points the way. If a person of little understanding stops and worships at the shrine or a sign post, he will remain there for many lives until suffering urges him onward.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2016 #254
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 5 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
And there may not be a 'specific lesson' to learn or psycho-problem to solve , if it were not the 'dreamer's' total lack of 'freedom' in that virtual environment.

Without drawing a very precise distinction between dream and a non-dream state, the lack of freedom is the delay (not as a measure of time interval, but possibly the start of it from where it was last left out before) in grounding into the sense reality not as a matter of choice of one over the other, but out of inevitability; failing in which he/she jeopardizes not only other's life but that of oneself. Freedom and responsibility has to go together. Talking about the dream analogy, the movie Life of Pi talks of such a dream where the boy moves to an island which looks all pleasant and comforting in broad day light but turns carnivorous in the night symbolizing death; and which the essential self (portrayed as a tiger) that ensures survival stays away from.

contraria sunt complementa

This post was last updated by natarajan shivan Mon, 19 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Sep 2016 #255
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 5 posts in this forum Offline

john you might like to see this

Historical Film of Young Krishnamurti - 2.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Sep 2016 #256
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 5 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Of course his brain gave it the 'overtones'- intensely emotional at first to totally 'compassionately stern' towards the end of his life

An accurate observation imo, the risk (which runs even now) with the emotional overtone is that listeners could be carried away or get hooked by the emotions and miss discerning the element of force which moved him towards living the teachings.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Sep 2016 #257
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 5 posts in this forum Offline

john thanks for your input
Questioner: You say that your teachings are for all, not for any select few. If that is so, why do we find it difficult to understand you?
Jiddu Krishnamurti: It is not a question of understanding me. Why should you understand me? Truth is not mine, that you should understand me. You find my words difficult to understand because your minds are suffocated with ideas. What I say is very simple. It is not for the select few; it is for anyone who is willing to try. I say that if you would free yourselves from ideas, from beliefs, from all the securities that people have built up through centuries, then you would understand life. You can free yourselves only by questioning, and you can question only when you are in revolt - not when you are stagnant with satisfying ideas. When your minds are suffocated with beliefs, when they are heavy with knowledge acquired from books, then it is impossible to understand life. So it is not a question of understanding me.
Please - and I am not saying this with any conceit - I have found a way, not a method that you can practice, a system that becomes a cage, a prison. I have realized truth, God, or whatever name you like to give it. I say there is that eternal living reality, but it cannot be realized while the mind and heart are burdened, crippled with the idea of 'I'. As long as that self-consciousness, that limitation, exists, there can be no realization of the whole, the totality of life. That 'I' exists as long as there are false values - false values that we have inherited or that we have sedulously created in our search for security, or that we have established as our authority in our search for comfort. But right values, living values - these you can discover only when you really suffer, when you are greatly discontented. If you are willing to become free from the pursuit of gain, then you will find them. But most of us do not want to be free; we want to keep what we have gained, either in virtue or in knowledge or in possessions; we want to keep all these. Thus burdened, we try to meet life, and hence the utter impossibility of understanding it completely.
So the difficulty lies not in understanding me, but in understanding life itself; and that difficulty will exist as long as your minds are burdened with this consciousness that we call 'I'. I cannot give you right values. If I were to tell you, you would make of that a system and imitate it, thus setting up but another series of false values. But you can discover right values for yourself when you become truly an individual, when you cease to be a machine. And you can free yourself from this murderous machine of false values only when you are in great revolt.
Talk in university Hall, Oslo, September 5, 1933

This post was last updated by david sharma Fri, 23 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Sep 2016 #258
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 5 posts in this forum Offline

john wrote
Which again, is leading us to your 'topic of choice' - in order to 'see beyond the I' one would have to let go one's 'strong attachments' to its traditionally 'securising' role. Which in turn would imply creating ASAP a new inwardly direct-perceptive instrument- to provide for this very basic necessity of the human brain for a sense of inner well being and stability - which the 'I' was supposed to provide in the first place.
yes sir this is real problem for man to let go self and its self centered ways he wants to keep self yet go beyond he can never do that,this self as time must end ,

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Sep 2016 #259
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
in order to 'see beyond the I' one would have to let go one's 'strong attachments' to its traditionally 'securing' role. Which in turn would imply creating ASAP a new inwardly direct-perceptive instrument-

hello own experiments at this level and what is factually lived so seen from there says that this instrument(s) already is ...

what we call thought is just preventing it to acts like a dictator on the brain so like it does with others too...

This was and is there when properly living the effects of the weight, whatever the causes are, of a life spent in thought only , life with thought only being repulsive, for me on purpose, if one has or has kept enough common sense and sensitivity self...

thought is not in charge of those other functions is what I see...etc

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Fri, 23 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Nov 2016 #260
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 647 posts in this forum Offline

'So Spoke (the young) Krishnamurti'

Know Yourself by J. Krishnamurti ( printed in the May 1925 issue of The Herald of the Star magazine).

I think there is no more interesting or more promising subject, none more exciting, than the study of oneself. At the age 15 or 16, one is usually immersed in oneself. There is nothing else that interests a person so much. Later he falls in love with somebody; but still he is wrapt up in himself. There is, you find, much more intelligence shown in the study of himself, and very little thought given to somebody else. He quite willingly pays a palmist 15 Rupees to get him to tell us all about ourselves. And we feel quite comfortable in the thought that we are going to be great one day - without, apparently, having to struggle to achieve greatness. There is only one subject that really appeals to us and that is ourselves. We discuss ourselves, and in an approving sort of way consider how we behave, in what manner we evolve, and so on.

It seems to me that if we think entirely from that point of view, from the point which interests ourselves alone, we shall not understand why we exist, or why anything in the world, at all, exists. Of course it is true that one has to understand oneself first before one can find out anything about life in general. Philosophy, religion and other subjects have no real value, no real sway over an individual, or have only a modicum of influence, when they only point out how he can escape certain things, how he can avoid evil, and so on. But those of us who are Star members, or belong to such other organisations, should have some conception of a definite plan in evolution.

We are in a position to examine things roost valuable to the self - things that produce in the self the desire to evolve. In all of us there is the desire to find out for ourselves how far we can understand ourselves and what affects us. The average person is far more interested in himself than in anybody else. Luxury, comfort, happiness, everything must subserve his ends. When everything has been done to satisfy himself, then only one thinks of others. When I have had enough food and sleep, I turn to think about others. That is the average view. If you have had a surfeit of love, or of happiness, you are led to think of another.
But to achieve that happiness, we must find out how far we fit into a definite plan. We must be conscious that there is a plan in which each one of us has a role to play, and must have determination with which we shall act, with which we shall create the environment into which we shall either fit - or not; and if we are willing to look at it with the right attitude we shall be able to find out how far we shall fit into that plan. For me, I can imagine that the Gods that be have said that Krishna shall fit into a certain definite plan, and that whatever else he does, shall have no value, and as long as he fits into that plan, Krishna shall evolve and be happy. I was interested and watched myself, and I could see from year to year a definite change, a definite orientation, a definite transformation and I could see what my definite role was. And so each one of us must find out what path we shall tread and what shall be our special work.
It often happens that most of us are willing to go up to the altar and pour forth our devotion. Devotion however is, in varying degrees, in most of us, but it cannot and must not satisfy us. If I went to Dr. Besant and told her: "I am willing to serve you in any capacity. I am willing to sacrifice everything and my only desire is to work at the cost of comfort, independence, and so forth," she would say, "Oh, very nice; what capacities do you bring with you. In what manner can you render service to the Master?'' Devotion must have an outlet in physical work; and so if we have to determine what role we each one of us have to play, before we offer ourselves, we must find out what are our capacities. When to a Theosophist or a Star member or anyone, the call comes to "sacrifice everything and come to the Master," it is not enough to ask the Master merely to accept our devotion; we must give Him something that will enable Him to guide us. In other words, you must have certain capacities to bring with you to the Master and not go just empty-handed. If I can go to the Master and say "I can do this or that, I can write or paint or compose music or act," He will say: "All right, that is your way. Go and find out, discover what your talents are, and once you have found that out, you will know how to suffer and to serve." For there are very few indeed who can say, "I can do this; along this line lies my sacrifice in the work of the Master. We consider that we have sacrificed when we have done without something which we can easily give up.

If I had a vision of something particular that the Teacher wanted done, I would go about with a different mind. And if I needed wealth, I would go and accumulate it, not for myself but for the Master, and in accumulating it, I should know that I have to sacrifice, and have to put up with a great deal of suffering and misunderstanding. But it is the attitude that matters. We are afraid that our capacities may not lead us along the path laid down for us. So we have to find out before we can truly serve, in what manner each one of us can serve Him, in what manner we can offer our sacrifice, and in discovering what our path is we shall find out to which type we belong, whether to the type which goes to the world and evolves in the world, so to speak or is kept in a hot-house and evolves, like a plant, equally strongly. There are people who work in the world for a number of years, who work and do everything without finding out what the real purpose of life is. They discover what their purpose is by chance, but they have accumulated all that the world has to give, and when they come into contact with the spiritual realities they give up their all that they have gained, whereas those who have grown in the hot house apart from the world reach the goal by another path.
So it does not matter as long as you have learnt what both the war Ids can give, and not till then will you be able to serve the world. Just imagine a person who is brought up, say, in a temple where he is suppressed, where he develops complexes. When such a person goes out into the world, he has a thundering good time; and it is the same with the person who works in the outside world. You cannot evolve along one definite line. You must evolve all round and until then we shall only hinder and not help.

As I know my own path, so we must each one of us discover our own path and until that discovery is made we shall not be able or fit to serve the Master. Those of us who have imagination, who have in any degree the capacity to take an impersonal view of life, can find this out. But most of us have neither the desire to serve, nor the desire to attain our path or goal.
The trouble with us is that as in the outside world, we have our own vested interests. And as long as there is the element of selfishness, we shall not discover the path. Each one of us wants the Master to come down for us; but what we have not learnt is that even if, as we imagine, He came down from the clouds, we shall not be able to serve Him, because we have not equipped ourselves for rendering Him service.

We must find out in what way we can serve, and that means the complete upsetting of oneself, one's relations, &c. It is not that we have not the desire, not the same longing that great people have; but with us it is not constant. There is not the continuous pressure that keeps us going on and on and on. It means real sacrifice, means subjugating oneself in everything and not letting the self get on top. Then we shall not warp things to suit our prejudices, but we shall understand them in a complete way; in other words, become really simple.
We must have the courage and determination to give up; and when one has achieved and climbed some distance, one discovers how foolish is one who is struggling about what is so trivial, so common. There are so many subjects with which we are struggling in a complicated manner; but if we but let ourselves expand a little, all these subjects become simple, all complications vanish. But it requires constant watching of oneself, being on the look-out to see if one is doing the right thing or the wrong thing.

Each one of us knows these things through and through, and yet if the Teacher came and asked what each one of us could do, in what way we had acted during His absence, in what way we had fulfilled our role, what would our answer be? It is astonishing how we cannot change, as we should, like a flower. Our belief though strong, is not the belief of a man who acts with a fixed determination. Those are the people, however, that the Master wants for His service, and not those who are merely devoted, without that devotion leading to action. If one can set aside one's own evolution, and work and forget oneself in the work, then one is a true server and gets nearer to the Master. It may be that I am young, that I have not suffered as the old have suffered, but if suffering can damp out enthusiasm, it is not worth having. But what has suffering taught us?
As I said at the beginning, there is nothing so absorbing as the study of ourselves. That is the only subject that is worth thinking about; because it means change. There is nobody to force the older, and so they become crystallised. What matters is to find out what we can do and how far we can sacrifice; what our strength is and what our capacities are. When one sees people in an attitude of reverence, I often wonder what they have done by way of sacrifice.

In the coming years, either one has to adapt oneself quickly to the changing current, or go right out of it all. When you have definitely caught a glimpse of the Plan, however passing that glimpse, and know that you have to go on, you just go on, because it is much more fun than just marking time. What matters is that one must do something to change. Old age does not mean that you cannot change. On the other hand, it ought to be easier for the old, because they have had experience, and they have had suffering; and yet one goes on in the same old way of perpetual neglect. If you want to earn money, go and earn millions and offer them to the Master, and you can do it if you have the right attitude. And it is the same with whatever else you want to do - type-writing, shorthand or anything else you wish to make your special work for the Master. The attitude is what matters and when once you have attained this all the rest will follow.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Nov 2016 #261
Thumb_open-uri20161112-29145-yeg5ny-0 steve schuler United States 2 posts in this forum Offline

Very interesting to me, thanks for posting this, John. I have not previously read anything from this time period.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Nov 2016 #262
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 647 posts in this forum Offline

steve schuler wrote:
Very interesting to me, thanks for posting this. I have not previously read anything from this time period.

Thanks, Steve, I'll try to continue this 'sampling' of the Teachings in small steps - of one or a few years- just to see how K himself 'matured' along with his teachings. Here's a 1926 excerpt:



I want, if I can, to put before you certain ideas, which you should cultivate, and which would give you a definite and intelligent conception of true spiritual life. I think all of you realize that to create, as you must create if you would live, there must be struggle and discontent; and in guiding these to their fruition, you must cultivate your own point of view, your own tendencies, your own abilities; and for this I desire to arouse in each that ( special ?) voice, the only true guide that will help you to create. The noblest guide each of us has is this Voice ( of spiritual Intuition ?) and it is in cultivating, in ennobling, and in perfecting this, that we arrive at the goal. Now what is this goal? To me it is to attain the Ultimate Truth. I want to reach a state where I know for myself that I have conquered, that I have attained, that I am the embodiment of that Truth, so that all the little struggles, the little disturbances of life -though they have their (relative ?) value- do not upset me, do not cloud the vision of the Truth. And in attaining this Truth I attain at the same time what I desire -the peace, the perfect tranquillity of mind and of emotions. This is the "goal" for me, and in cultivating and in ennobling (our spiritual ?) Intuition we must learn to think and act for ourselves. The cultivation of this voice of intuition means a life according to its edicts.

I want, if I can, to rouse in each one of you this (Inner) Voice, that shall guide you along the line you want to follow, that is your own life, the path of your own making. And as long as you obey that Voice, that Intuition, you cannot err. I can lay down the ( basic ?) principles of Truth, but through your own Voice, through the obeying of that Voice, you must develop your own intuition, your own ideas, and so you will come to the 'goal' where we shall all meet (eventually ?)

This is for me the 'big thing' in life: Instead of being the ordinary and the mediocre, (if ?) you will listen to this Voice and cultivate this Intuition, to discover new avenues of life instead of being swept aimlessly along the path of another.

In realizing this ideal, as I said, you must develop your (own ) Intuition. A perfect harmony of emotions and of mind is essential, so that intuition, the voice of your true self, can express itself. Intuition is the whisper of the soul; Intuition is the guiding word in our life. The more we harmonize (integrate ?) our strong feelings and keen mind by perfecting and purifying them, the more likely are we to hear that Voice, the Intuition which is common to all, the Intuition which is of humanity and not of one particular individual. You must have strong feelings, whether of love, of intense happiness, of real kindness. A person who has no feelings at all is useless; a great lover (of Life ?) is never mediocre or small. The more feelings you have, the better; but at the same time you must learn control, because emotions are like weeds, and unless you restrain them, they will spoil the garden. If you have weak emotions, but give them nourishment day by day, they will strengthen and grow. The idea that we should have no feelings and emotions is absurd and unspiritual. The more you are bubbling over with feelings, the better; but you will find you have to control them, and if you do not, you suffer. If you do not control them you are going farther away from your Intuition, you are wandering away on the bypaths instead of walking on the main road towards your goal. Have tremendous feelings. Sport yourselves with them.

Do not be negative, but go out and be 'adventurous'. I feel this so strongly, because we all tend to become of one type (inwardly standardised ?) ; we all want to think along the same lines, we all want to flock around the same person, we all fear that if we do not belong to this or that movement we shall not advance. What is advancement? It is your own happiness -advancement is only a word. I would rather be happy than gain all the petty satisfaction that the world can give. What does it matter to which religion you belong, what glories you bear, so long as you 'feel really happy' and can keep your goal absolutely clear and undimmed? Imagine for the moment the Lord Buddha and His disciples. They were the great exceptions of their Age. They all had one Master, one goal, one ideal, and that was He. And yet they ( were supposed to have ?) had, every one of them, the spark of genius; they were not mediocre, because they followed Him who was the exception, the flower of humanity, and such examples must we all become.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 22 Nov 2016.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Nov 2016 #263
Thumb_open-uri20161112-29145-yeg5ny-0 steve schuler United States 2 posts in this forum Offline

Again, very interesting! And thanks again, John!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Nov 2016 #264
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 647 posts in this forum Offline


Imagine that you are on one side of a river and that on the other side are blue fields. The whole of humanity stands on this side looking at the beauty of the other side; very few have the desire to jump into the river. Of the few who jump, there will be some strong ones who can swim directly to their goal. Others will be carried down by the stream; they will be landed lower down and will have to walk up. It does not matter so long as one gets there. The desire to plunge into the river is the main thing. The time taken to cross may be a quarter of an hour, a life, or two ( or more ?) lives.

QUESTION: Will one who attains Liberation leap over the various evolutionary stages of growth into some formless Nirvana of bliss, to come forth no more?

KRISHNAJI: If I am a spark, as a separate individual I enter into that flame and become part of that flame; whether I return and bring others to the flame depends upon the personal desire. If I desire to come back and conquer the world of Maya again, I can do so. Once I have the centre well established in me, I can do anything from that centre; from that I can go forth, having established it as my home, as the bee which knows its hive can go miles away, certain that there is a home, that there is a flame.

QUESTION: To attain Liberation is it not essential to form a link with a Teacher who is himself liberated ?

KRISHNAJI: Liberation may be personified, as Theosophists would say, in the World-Teacher; but if you have that desire to attain Him who is the embodiment of Liberation and have an intense and tremendous desire, tremendous longing to become part of Him, then it certainly is easier to have such a Teacher to guide you and to help. There is a question as to whether Krishnamurti is the World-Teacher or not. There will be people who will say that Krishnamurti is the vehicle; others will say he is one in whom the World-Teacher will from time to time visit and through him give forth His message; some will maintain that Krishnamurti will grow into His consciousness and so become one with Him, and hence that there will be no separation between the two. Someone asked me: "Do tell me if it is you speaking or someone else". I said: " I really do not know and it does not matter". What matters is that you should understand, and not wonder what the phenomenon happening is. The desire for Liberation is all that matters. Leave all else for the complicated minds, for the philosophising mind is to wrangle over. That will come eventually. In two thousand years there will probably be another society to discover whether it was this or that.

QUESTION: Does that imply that a person without a Teacher could not attain Liberation?

KRISHNAJI: He may perhaps take longer. Suppose a man has traveled all over the world, and knows the way of the world, and comes back to tell an intending traveler where to stay and what to take with him, it makes it much easier, more comfortable. Hence a Teacher is necessary for those people who are uncertain of the goal, who are not sure, who are doubting, who have no strength, who need their purposes, their determinations, awakened and made strong. But for those people who have already seen the goal, who have already perceived, and have experienced that flame which is Liberation, to them he will act as an encouragement, he will be the embodiment -but they will get there without him.

QUESTION: For a 'practical mystic' what would be the most effective way of helping others to reach Liberation? By becoming a fit channel for love and peace?

KRISHNAJI: I think the best way of helping others to reach Liberation is by reaching it yourself. If you had not reached it, and talked vaguely about it, you would soon be found out. The moment you are liberated you do become a channel; but I dislike the word 'channel' because it implies that you are acting for somebody else, and that somebody else is master over you, which personally I do not like.

QUESTION: Do you look on the work of the World-Teacher as that of teaching individual men the way to liberation, only, or also as inspiring civilisation with new ideals in all departments -in art and religion, as well as in political and social life?

KRISHNAJI: I will explain my answer with a simile. We go into a garden and see a rose in magnificent bloom. One person who is an artist merely thinks of that rose in terms of painting; another who looks at that rose will go away and meditate; a third will translate that delight into some social activity. People approach religion in the same way as they approach that rose; it depends on the individual, on his temperament, his point of view, his idea of how best he can translate it to the outer world. For instance, say I am interested in education. I want to translate that Liberation in terms of educational ideals and to put it before young people, and children, so as to make them grow according to those ideals. Another person, seeing that Liberation, might be a keen social worker and might translate it in social terms and so help people to attain it.

QUESTION: How should suppression be used in control of the self?

KRISHNAJI: There should be no suppression. You know what happens when you kill some poison on the surface -that same poison will break out again somewhere else. If you try to cure a sore on the body without curing its real cause, it will come out somewhere else. I should never personally suppress anything, for the moment you do so it comes out in another form; but you should learn to control it and to transmute it -and translate it into activity.

QUESTION: Some of those who in life are acquiring Liberation may have made certain ties which must be fulfilled, but for the younger people who have not formed such ties, would you say it meant not incurring them or incurring them in a new way?

KRISHNAJI: I have always wanted to attain Liberation; I have always wanted to come near the Buddha so that there should be no barrier between Him and myself. I let nothing interfere with that desire: I put aside all other desires; I said, I want to arrive at a certain stage as soon as I can, and anything which interferes must be set aside, must be conquered. I incurred no responsibility, which would come in the way of my desire, and I have attained it. But do not think I mean that if you are longing to marry, longing to paint, that you should stop yourselves.

QUESTION: Is it not true that action done as duty and with detachment does not make karma?

KRISHNAJI: Yes, I think so.

QUESTION: In The Kingdom of Happiness you said it does not matter what is the degree of evolution of the individual; does that mean that at every degree of evolution one can attain Liberation?

KRISHNAJI: I am sure of it. Take a Sudra (of the lowest caste): if his desire to attain is so burning, so intense, that he throws aside everything, he will attain.

QUESTION: Do you mean by Liberation only a degree or stage of Liberation? Is it union with the Manifested Deity or with the Absolute?

KRISHNAJI: To me Liberation means the destruction of the separate 'self', the self that is so dominant in each one that creates karma, that binds. Once you have destroyed that 'self' you are liberated and it does not matter whether you belong to the Manifested or to the Unmanifested, whether you belong to this stage or that stage, for these are only technical terms.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Nov 2016 #265
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline

with best wishes from Bulgaria;-)

"Is your realization of truth permanent and present all the time, or are there dark times when you again face the bondage of fear and desire?

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day | Nov 22, 2016

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Nov 2016 #266
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 647 posts in this forum Offline

SO SPOKE (the young) KRISHNAMURTI IN (London, UK) 1928

Everyone in the world ( who is ) seeking Truth, imagines that Truth is away from the ordinary current of life, whereas Truth IS ( to be found in the actuality of ?) life. I want to show this evening that the moment you understand life as it is taking place around each one of you, then you understand Truth and by understanding Truth you will solve the problems of your own lives. Now, truth never comes through a form, or through any definite mould which has been created by the ( mind or ?) hand of man, and in order to understand Truth, which is life, you must come prepared with an unbiased and unprejudiced heart and mind - that is the first requirement.

Secondly, in order to understand life, and hence Truth, you should be ( intelligently ?) discontented. Now, it is very easy to get (mentally settled ?) into a state of so-called 'discontentment', as it is equally easy to get into a state which you call 'contentment'. The discontentment I want is intelligent discontentment, and when you are discontented intelligently you are beginning to create, and in this creation lies the solution of life.

The third (qualification) is that you should have a mind and a heart that are simple. Take a leaf and watch it. How simple it is. But behind it there lie (the steady work of ?) many winters, many springs, many summers, and many autumns. It is the production of great experience, great sorrow, great struggle, out of which simplicity is born. That is what is required for the understanding of Truth. A mind and a heart that are not prejudiced, a mind and a heart that are in intelligent revolt, and a mind and a heart that are made simple through great experience.

Now with that as our canvas let us "paint a picture". What is it that every ( serious ?) human being in the world craves for?
Every human being wants to be happy and for the attainment of that happiness he must have immense experience -not of one short life, but of many lives. Such happiness is the culmination, the apotheosis of all experience, and yet it is beyond all experience, and from the happiness comes liberation which is freedom from all things because you have learnt from all things. Now I say that I have found such freedom, such happiness. I have struggled, I have watched many people, some rich in the multitude of possessions, some who have nothing at all, people who are religious and full of dogmas and creeds and who run on every possible occasion to a church or to the temple in order to have their problems solved -and because I have watched all these things, and because of the ( past ?) lives that lie behind, I have attained, and because of that attainment I would like to show you the way. That does not mean a new creed, a new crutch, a new religion, for I hold that (organised ?) religion is the frozen thought of men, in which they are held, bound, by the 'gods' who demand special rites and ceremonies, traditions and superstitions.

Now as I said,(the creative ?) happiness which is not negative but positive, happiness which is the culmination of all experience and yet is beyond all experience, happiness which gives liberation to the mind and to the heart which is bound to a limited form of thought and feeling, such happiness is the only requirement that each one of you wants, that each one of you longs for, and the moment you have that as your goal, you need no interpreters. That is the Absolute, the final goal for humanity. Hence, because you want to be happy and because you want to be free and liberated from all ( attachments to ?) desires? Then, when you have established your (spiritual ?) goal.

Take a ship on the open waters of the sea. Imagine that there was no compass on that ship, it would be lost, it would not know which way to go or where lay its port. So, because individuals in the world have no ( spiritual ?) goal, they are lost in the confusion of thought and in order to determine their course they must establish a goal, and that goal must be of their own creation and not that of another. As I said, every human being in the word wants to be happy; it is the only delight, the only Truth, and when you have established that goal for yourself then you have the rudder which will guide your ship. Let us imagine for a moment that each one of you has fixed that goal of happiness for himself. Then, you say, what is the manner by which I can establish that happiness within myself eternally?

Within each individual there are three separate beings; there is the mind, there are the emotions, there is the body. It is like this: if you were in carriage and had three horses to draw you but had no control over them, you would not get to your destination because the horses would each be pulling in a different direction. But if you had control over them and a fixed purpose, then you would get to your destination with understanding and with harmony. There are in each one of you three separate beings, if I may so call them, the mind, the emotions and the body and each one must be made perfect in order to have perfect harmony.(a) What is the ultimate goal for the mind? That goal is the purification of the self. This does not mean the destruction, the annihilation of the 'self', but on the contrary, the development of individual uniqueness. You can never destroy the self -you can purify it, ennoble it, and hence bring it nearer to its desired end. Take a mosaic: in that there are innumerable colours which go to make up the particular form which the painter desires to produce, but if the colours in it are not each perfect, it will not be harmonious. Likewise each one has to develop his own particular individual uniqueness and when he develops his own individual uniqueness to perfection, then there is unity with everyone. Suppose for a moment that your colour is green and mine is red, and so on: if you develop your colour to perfection and I develop mine to perfection, when we meet there is no colour, for as we know, all colours eventually melt into the one white light. When they meet there is absolute unity, no division, no feeling of the separate self. That is the highest goal for the mind.

So (b) you must also establish a 'goal for the emotions'. What is it? It is to have immense affection, and yet to be detached. Watch how your affection develops. At first it is envious, narrow, limited, jealous of everything, but little by little, through sorrow, through pain, it develops, and little by little it extends and includes more and more people. So when you watch and follow affection to its ultimate goal, you will find that it has become an affection with detachment.

And for the body, what is it that is essential to bring about perfect harmony? First, beauty. Then restraint, which does not mean suppression, but understanding. And then, great simplicity.

So ( in a nutshell:) For the mind the Absolute (goal) is to purify the 'self' -which does not mean destruction of the self, but on the contrary to develop its individual uniqueness. For the emotions, for the heart, the goal is to be detached and yet at the same time to be greatly affectionate. For the ( psycho-somatic ?) body it is (outer and/or inner ?) beauty, refinement, culture and behaviour -for with behaviour dwells righteousness. When you have these three practically carried out, then there is harmony, and when there is harmony then there is ( the creative) happiness.

So when once you have established the "goal" for yourself which is happiness from which comes liberation -that ( spiritual ?) detachment from all things which is the outcome of all experience -then, as I have said, you will know the way because you have harmony within yourself.

As I have found that harmony, and have established within myself that happiness which is the outcome of liberation, so I would be as a signpost for those who desire to walk the path of happiness, for those who desire to understand ( the living essence of ?) life which is Truth. Perfection lies within the individual grasp of each one.
So (for homework ?) you must, as an individual, solve the problem for yourself and then you will solve the problem of the world. As an individual you will have to create harmony within yourself, and when once you have created that harmony, that synthetic understanding of life, then there is happiness and freedom.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Nov 2016 #267
Thumb_beautiful-nature-wallpaper pavani rao India 3 posts in this forum Offline

Wonder from which source you have gathered such marvelous talks ( speeches ) of K of his younger years, John! They are so extraordinary in their simple yet sounding very very far away messages and if one can put it in simple words ... all the above texts are treat to ones soul and reading of written words of ones life time, or may be many life times perhaps.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Nov 2016 #268
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 647 posts in this forum Offline


QUESTION: Could you kindly describe for us the feelings or reactions regarding the state of consciousness experienced in the physical body by one having attained Liberation?

KRISHNAJI: When you attain liberation, that 'perfection', you 'are', and in you all things cease and have their being. It is not a sentimental thing nor an emotional thing nor an intellectual thing, but it is as the wind, swift as the violent waters -it 'is' everything. In you there is the whole process from the very beginning until the end, and yet in you there is no beginning and no end -you 'are' (That ?) . Truth is not relative, it is absolute; and to a person that is caught in the relative, the absolute is ever escaping, so it is very difficult to understand unless you yourself are made incorruptible; and I am interested in that, not in describing to you what it is, what it feels like. ( All the details ?) of that you will know when you have attained.

The root of ( spiritual ?) immortality is understanding and the very beginning of understanding is the true discipline gathered from the final fulfilment of all life.

QUESTION: In regard to those who do not fully understand your "mission" or Teachings, can any harm result from the effort to understand?

KRISHNAJI: Sir, why do you make it my mission and teaching? Isn't it what all (subliminally ?) people want? Don't you want to be free and happy? It isn't my 'mission'. It is your mission. Bu because you are not aware of your suffering, of your narrowness, of your limitations, of your corruption of life, you give to another the authority to lead you. And as I am not accepting that authority, it is useless to say it is my teaching or my message. It is the message and teaching of life, which is in everything and in everyone; and the moment you understand that, it is yours and not mine. So, as it is yours, my purpose is only to awaken that knowledge, that desire to discover for yourself. And as it is yours, ( for your own homework ?) you must struggle to understand.

QUESTION: How can one stimulate a desire for freedom?

KRISHNAJI: What a question to ask! Is not the suffering of another, are not the tears of another, the laughter, the rejoicing, the corruption, sufficient to give you that burning desire to free others and yourself? But you want an artificial stimulation, an enticement, a reward for your good actions, and you want me to tell you of a new God, to whom you can offer for your stimulation, to build a new altar. I hope you are thinking; not accepting what I am saying, nor rejecting. The dancing shadows, the clear sunshine, the bird on the wing, the light on the waters, the suffering of a man, or a woman, the delight, the rejoicings of your neighbours -if that does not give you sufficient desire- woe to you!

As life is one, the forms of that life are many. The moment you understand that the forms have little value, then they have their place. But to come to that perfect life, you must make your own form as perfect as possible.

QUESTION: Would working for one society only tend to narrow one's view and effectiveness?

KRISHNAJI: Again, it depends on you, for if your mind is narrow, whatever you do will be narrow.

QUESTION: What is it in our nature that makes us do things contrary to our better judgment, and how may we overcome this difficulty?

KRISHNAJI: By not doing wrong. By struggling. If I have not the strength to walk up to the mountaintop, I make the effort, fall down, and make another (try). It does not mean that I am failing.

You will spoil everything if you base your understanding on individuals, even on Krishnamurti. There is a much greater thing than this form, which you call Krishnamurti, which is Life; and of that Life I speak, and of that Life I would urge you to become disciples, and with that Life I would urge you to be in love.

Ignorance is that ( inner condition ?) which is created by the individual within himself by the intermingling that which is fleeting and lasting. Therefore ignorance has no beginning, but it has an end.
That which is Real shall not bind. That which is fleeting shall bind, corrupt and put a limitation. So, the wise man, having this ( guiding principle) as his measure by which he shall judge his actions, his thoughts, his emotions, his whole life as a whole, shall begin to disentangle himself from that ignorance which is the mixture of the real and the unreal, of life and death.

You cannot 'kill the self', but you can make the 'Self' grow so enormous, so vast, that it includes all life. Then you do not rely on anything but the Truth; then you do not want comfort from anything or anyone. But from the understanding of Truth there is born strength in yourselves.

If you did not say, 'Krishnamurti says so and so', but if you realised that what I have said is the truth for its intrinsic value, it is yours and you can repeat with certainty -that certainty which cannot be shaken by any doubt or by any person. That is what I want to create in your minds and in your hearts; not the desire to follow Krishnamurti, because Krishnamurti will die. All (physical) forms are transient things; they hold within themselves their ultimate decay, but that of which I am speaking knows of no ( subject to ?) decay. The moment you adhere to that which does not die, then your integrity, your purpose, your ecstasy is lasting, fundamental, has its foundation in that which is everlasting.

QUESTION: What then is the true function of the mind?

KRISHNAJI: A sane balanced judgement is the function of the mind, but to arrive at that ( wise ?) judgement, mind must have its counterpart equally balanced, and that is affection. As I said yesterday, you cannot divide mind and heart. It is the same substance. Please realise that you ( eventually will ?) have to attain this ocean, this sea of life, without limitation, without corruption, which is free and eternally active. And you should rejoice at one who has attained and find out from him the glad news; and by discovery and by understanding, alter the very condition of your thoughts, the state of your hearts, so that you yourselves shall come in that shadow of perfection.

It is (really) a question whether you want it, whether you want to be happy, whether you want to be free and establish yourself in perfection. And the majority of you do not want it, and hence all these innumerable vain useless questions. You do not want it as a hungry man wants food. You do not want it as a thirsty man wants water. You do not want it as a drowning man wants air, or as a man that is covered with wounds wants a healing balm that shall cure all sorrow, all suffering, is to be found in that which is lasting and that which is life, and of that I speak.

QUESTION: Isn't the theory of individual freedom really ( leading to ?) anarchy and a dangerous menace to social life ?

KRISHNAJI: Sir, you call individual freedom 'anarchy'. If the individual is not happy, as he is not at the present time, he is creating chaos and anarchy around him, by his selfishness, by his cruelty. You want everyone to be ( inwardly standardised ?) of a particular kind and that is why you have all these religions, these acts of morality. But there is the other influence which, when truly understood, gives nourishment, encouragement, because each individual must find by himself and through himself that which is lasting.

What is it then that you want in life -love, possessions, or that feeling of (deep inner ?) comfort which men call 'happines's? If that is the jewel hidden in the secret sanctuary of your heart, then you will pursue it and acquire that which you desire; but if, on the other hand, you desire that happiness which is eternal, that life which is absolute, unconditioned -if that is your desire, if that is what is hidden in the sanctuary of your heart, then you will pursue that. As the lotus utilizes the mire to produce its lovely blossoms, so you will utilize the transient life to produce the perfect flower of your understanding.

Life has no technical process of fulfilment; life has no special way by which it must tread toward its glory; life has no special meditation, yoga. It is by constant assimilation and by rejection, by examining, by analysis, by careful consideration of every little event of the day that you grow to perfection. True affection is the right standard and that love is like the flower that gives perfume to every passer-by and does not care to whom it gives its delicious fragrance; so should true love be. And towards that all affection must struggle, must evolve, must progress -towards that perfect love. Now you will ask me: "How shall we do it? How shall we arrive at that perfect love?" By liking someone, in however small a way, from corruptibility to corruptibility, till you arrive at that incorruptibility of love. There is no other way than by constant struggle, by strife, by gathering great storms of love and rejecting them. Realising this great truth, it were better that you should fall from a great height than from the pavement. The mediocrity of life, the smallness of life, consists not in falling, but in falling off a small place. Were you to fall from a great height, from the house-tops, from the great mountains, then the world would rejoice and know that there is a great man, for his fall was great. For mediocrity, the smallness of mind and the smallness of emotion stifle Truth and it cannot abide with those that are fearful of their fall.

For, having a full understanding of that eternal Truth, or partial at least it may be, your love should from now on withstand that wave of corruptibility. Because if there were ten -if there were one who really was capable of pure, detached affection, that affection which gives encouragement, that points ever with clarity towards the perfection of all love, then that one individual would awaken within the hearts of many that love which cannot be tinged by corruption.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Nov 2016 #269
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 647 posts in this forum Offline


Question: Meditation and the discipline of mind have greatly helped me in life. Now by listening to your teaching I am greatly confused, because it discards all self-discipline. Has meditation likewise no meaning to you? Or have you a new way of meditation to offer us?

Krishnamurti: Meditation, for most people, is based on the idea of choice. In India, the idea is carried to its extreme. There the man who can sit still for a long period of time, dwelling continuously on one idea, is considered spiritual. I say that there is a joy, a peace, in meditation without effort, but that can come only when your mind is freed from all choice, when your mind is no longer creating a division in action.
Have you ever considered the person who meditates? He is a person who chooses. He chooses that which he likes, that which will give him what he calls help. So what he is really seeking is something that will give him comfort, satisfaction - a kind of dead peace, a stagnation. And yet, the man who is able to meditate we call a great man, a spiritual man.
If you really try to free the mind and heart from all limitation - not through self-analysis and introspection, but through awareness in action - then the obstacles that now hinder you from the completeness of life will fall away. This awareness is the joy of meditation - meditation that is not the effort of an hour, but ( attention in ?) is action, which is life itself.

You ask me: "Have you a new way of meditation to offer us?" Now your meditation has no value in itself, as your action has no value in itself, because you are constantly looking for a culmination, a reward. Only when mind and heart are free of this idea of achievement, this idea born of effort, choice, and gain is there an eternal life which is not a finality, but an ever-becoming, an ever-renewing.

Question: This is what I have gathered from listening to you: One becomes aware only in a crisis; a crisis involves suffering. So if one is to be aware all the time, one must live continually in a state of crisis, that is, a state of mental suffering and agony. This is a doctrine of pessimism, not of the happiness and ecstasy of which you speak.

Krishnamurti: I am afraid you haven't listened to what I have been saying. You know, there are two ways of listening: there is the mere listening to words - when you are not trying to fathom the depths of a problem; and there is the listening which catches the real significance of what is being said, the listening that requires a keen, alert mind. I think that you have not really listened to what I have been saying.

First of all, if there is no (open or hidden ?) conflict, if your life has in it no crises and you are perfectly happy, then why bother about conflicts and crises? If you are not suffering, then I am very glad! Our whole system of life is arranged so that you may escape from suffering. But the man who faces the cause of suffering, and is thereby freed from that suffering, you call a pessimist.

I shall again explain briefly what I have been saying, so that you will understand. Each one of you is conscious of a great void, an emptiness within you, and being conscious of that emptiness, you either try to fill it or to run away from it; and both acts amount to the same thing. You choose what will fill that emptiness, and this choosing you call experience. But this choice is based on sensation, on craving, and hence involves neither discernment, nor intelligence, nor wisdom. You choose today that which gives you a greater satisfaction, a greater sensation than you received from yesterday's choice. So what you call ( freedom of ?) choice is merely your way of running away from the emptiness within you, and hence you are merely postponing the understanding of the cause of suffering.

Thus, the movement from sorrow to sorrow, from sensation to sensation, you call evolution, growth. One day you choose a hat that gives you satisfaction; the next day you tire of that satisfaction, and want another - a car, a house, or you want what you call love. Later on, as you become tired of these, you want to reach God. So you progress from the wanting of a hat to the wanting of a God, and therein you think you have made admirable spiritual advancement. Yet all these choices are based merely on sensation, and all that you have done is to change your objects of choice. Instead of trying to understand the cause of suffering, you are constantly trying to conquer that suffering or to escape from it, which is the same thing. But I say, find out the cause of your suffering. That cause, you will discover, is continual want, continual craving that blinds discernment. If you understand that ( truth ?) with your whole being - then your action will be free from the (time-binding ?) limitations of ( craving and ?) choice; then you are really living, living naturally, harmoniously, not 'individualistically', in utter chaos, as now. If you live fully, your life does not result in discord, because your action is born of inner richness and not of poverty.

Question: How can I know action and the illusion from which it springs if I do not probe action and examine it? How can we hope to know and recognize our barriers if we do not examine them? Then why not analyze action?

Krishnamurti: When you begin to analyze (the hidden aspects of yourself ?) , you put an end to movement; when you try to dissect an intense feeling, that feeling dies. But if you are aware with your heart and mind, if you are ( becoming ?) fully conscious of your action, then you will know the source from which action springs. When we act, we are acting partially, we are not acting with our whole being. Hence, in our attempt to balance the mind against the heart, in our attempt to dominate the one by the other, we think that we must analyze our action.

Now what I am trying to explain requires an ( integrated inner ?) understanding that cannot be given to you through words. Only in the moment of true awareness can you become conscious of this struggle for (thought ?) domination; then, if you are interested in acting harmoniously, completely, you become aware that your action has been influenced by your fear of public opinion, by the standards of a social system, by the concepts of civilization. Then you become aware of your fears and prejudices without analyzing them; and the moment you become aware in action, these fears and prejudices disappear.

When you are ( non-dualistically ?) aware with your mind and heart of the necessity for a complete action, you ( will ?) act harmoniously. Then all your fears, your barriers, your desire for power, for attainment - all these reveal themselves, and ( hopefully ?) the shadows of disharmony fade away.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Dec 2016 #270
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 647 posts in this forum Offline

Here are a few 'lost & found' pages ( a full chapter) from the book 'God is my adventure' published by Rom Landau in 1936. They contain the author's first encounters with the young Krishnamurti in 1927-1928


One Sunday morning I sat in a small panelled room in one of those fine Queen Anne houses that are still to be found in certain parts of Westminster. The house belonged to Lady De La Warr, and I was waiting to meet Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, who was staying there on a short visit.This was to be my first meeting with Krishnamurti. The young Indian was supposed to be rather shy, and, in view of all the sensational reports about him in the newspapers, I did not find this in the least surprising. I had determined to come to this meeting with an open mind, but I must confess I found it hard to feel anything but the profoundest scepticism. I recalled several of the strange tales that I had read in the course of the last few days. One of them remained in my memory with particular vividness, though it described an event that had taken place almost twenty years earlier. It was an account of a convention at Benares, and its author was at the time private secretary to Krishnamurti, then aged fifteen. He had written: 'The line of members began to pass up the central passage . . . with a bow The whole atmosphere . . . was thrown into powerful vibration. ... All saw the young figure draw itself up and take on an air of dignified majesty The approaching member involuntarily dropped on his knees, bowing his head to the ground. ... A great coronet of brilliant shimmering blue appeared a foot or two above the young head and from this descended funnelwise bright streams of blue light. . . . The Lord Maitreya was there embodying Himself in His Chosen. Within the coronet blazed the crimson of the symbol of the Master Jesus, the rosy cross . . .'

I am afraid I did not read on much farther after the 'rosy cross'; but I was told that the writer of these impressive lines was not the only one who claimed to have seen this colourful performance. There seemed some justification for an attitude of scepticism, and as I sat waiting I experienced a feeling of superciliousness which we are all occasionally apt to indulge in when we know a particularly weak spot in the life of the person we are going to meet. In me this feeling had been strengthened by the fact that I had read in a newspaper only the night before that Krishnamurti's followers in Holland had finally proclaimed him the 'World Teacher'. He himself had uttered these words: ' Krishnamurti has entered into that life, which is represented by some as the Christ, by others as Buddha, by others still as the Lord Maitreya. . . .' These words had put the conscience of Krishnamurti's followers at ease and had induced them to proclaim him once and for all 'The Vehicle of the Lord'. For ordinary people this was, to say the least, alarming news. I was thinking of all these strange things while I was looking on the empty street half hidden by the heavy drizzle. I had plenty of information about Krishnamurti's life to counterbalance my scepticism. I knew that some of the people who stood behind him were serious minded and intelligent. I had come across the name Krishnamurti directly only a few weeks previously at the house of Lady De La Warr at Wimbledon, where I had met some of his most intimate friends experienced elderly men and women who were not at all the sort of people to be bluffed. The centre of the group was Mrs. Annie Besant, then almost eighty years old and a most attractive person, very bright and untheosophical, full of political and intellectual interests, which she expressed in a most lively and amusing manner. Next to her was Mr. George Lansbury, the veteran labour leader. He too was preoccupied with Indian and other political problems. There was very little to suggest a religious fanaticism in his slow, deep-voiced pronouncements. Anything more solid, more natural, could hardly be imagined. Even our hostess mentioned the subject of theosophy only casually. Then there was a member of Parliament who, I believe, was an Under Secretary of State; he was evidently a great authority on India. There was nothing exalted or mystical about the other people in the room. These were Krishnamurti's closest friends in England. It was difficult to imagine these people talking of the 'great coronet of brilliant blue' and 'the rosy cross of the Lord Jesus'. Annie Besant herself was obviously a very shrewd woman. Though at the time I knew little about her or her work, I could see that there was not much in life that had escaped her.

And then Krishnamurti entered the room. He walked towards me with an inviting smile, and we shook hands. I was immediately struck by his remarkably handsome face, and after a few minutes conversation I was equally charmed by his attractive personality. These two impressions were very strong, and I suppose they determined in some ways my future attitude towards him. I heard later from other people that their first impressions of Krishnamurti were the same as mine. My former superciliousness gave way to a feeling of pleasure. At first I thought that this feeling was due to the aesthetic delight caused by his appearance. Indeed, he was much more handsome than his photographs made him appear. He seemed no older than twenty-two or twenty-three, and he had the slender grace of a shy young animal. His eyes were large and deep and his features finely cut. His head was crowned with thick silky black hair. But it cannot have been the aesthetic impression or the musical quality of the voice alone that had put me at ease so quickly. He was obliging, though reserved; but in spite of this after half an hour's conversation he made me believe that I had known him most of my life; and yet there was nothing particularly easygoing about him, though there was a pronounced feeling of balance and proportion in his manner. And there was an undercurrent of human warmth which was responsible for the atmosphere of spiritual intimacy between us.

These were my first impressions of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti .


In 1925 the Theosophical Society considered that the moment had come for Krishnamurti to acknowledge his destiny in more formal fashion, and this official recognition accordingly took place during the celebration of the jubilee of the Society. Theodore Besterman, a biographer of Mrs. Besant, describes most effectively the central scene of the proceedings: ' ... In the shadow of the great banyan tree in the grounds of the Adyar headquarters, Mr. Krishnamurti was addressing some three thousand assembled delegates. ... A few of those present had been warned what to expect, and these communicated their excitement to those around them. The whole audience was in the sort of state in which the individual is merged in the mass a revivalist psychology The words of the speaker became more and more urgent. "We are all expecting Him", he said; "He will be with us soon." A pause, and then, with a dramatic change from the third person to the first, the voice went on, "I come to those who want sympathy, who want happiness. ... I come not to destroy but to build." . . .

And afterwards Mrs. Besant said that "the voice not heard on earth for two thousand years had once again been beard".' It was now decided that Krishnamurti should have something more than the merely spiritual sphere of influence which was provided by the 'Order of the Star', and various properties were purchased for the establishment of enormous camps in different continents. A suitable territory was bought in the Ojai Valley in California, where people from all over America could gather for yearly meetings at which Krishnamurti would deliver his message. California was particularly dear to Krishnamurti's heart, since it was here that his beloved younger brother Nityananda had died a few years ealier. For the Australian followers there was erected the Amphitheatre in Sydney; for the Indian friends a camp in the Rishi Valley. A Dutch nobleman, Baron Philip Pallandt van Eerde, an enthusiastic admirer of Krishnamurti, put at his disposal his Castle Eerde at Ommen in Holland with its old gardens and extensive grounds. Eerde was to become Krishnamurti's European headquarters, and here his European followers were to assemble at a vast camp meeting which was to be held every summer.

In January 1927 Krishnamurti spoke at a meeting in California, and concluded his speech by reading one of his recent poems, which ended with these words: 'lam the Truth, I am the Law, I am the Refuge, I am the Guide, The Companion and the Beloved.

The imaginative reporter of the Theosophist added to this a poetic summing up of the situation: 'As the last words were uttered there was a sprinkle of light rain that seemed like a benediction and, spanning the valley, a perfect rainbow arch shone out.' Meanwhile Mrs. Besant was travelling from country to country, giving lectures to packed halls and speaking in her masterly way of the new World Teacher.


Many details of this extraordinary story flashed through my mind when Krishnamurti entered that room. But after half an hour's conversation with him I was willing to forget most of the reports I had heard. The picturesque story of his life seemed to me no longer of much importance. How right I was I could not foresee at the time.

We parted friends, and I accepted an invitation to come to stay with Krishnamurti at Eerde. There I should meet his friends from all over the world; and, besides listening to his public speeches, I should also have an opportunity of further personal conversation. I actually went twice to Eerde in the course of the summer. The first time I could only spend two or three days there, so I decided to visit Krishnamurti again in a month's time, when I should be able to stay at least ten days, and witness the huge gathering of theosophists and members of Krishnamurti's own movement. There would be many visitors from the United States, from India and even from Australia.

To a writer of fiction the atmosphere at Eerde would probably offer the most attractive material I could imagine all sorts of books inspired by it psychological, devotional, religious, romantic, hysterical, lyrical, satirical. How tempting it would have been for a novelist to describe the little castle, an elegant building of the early eighteenth century rising up from a moat and connected with the 'mainland' by a delightful semicircular terrace; the romantic canal spanned by a decorative stone bridge; the long low pavilions on each side of the castle; the formal circular garden in front of it. And what opportunities were offered by the ancient park around the castle, its dignified avenues, its magnificent trees, its fields, its river, its water roses on the pond.

And then the guests themselves, wandering reverently along the garden paths, discussing under old trees the deepest problems of life, and greeting one another with smiles of forgiveness and looks of understanding. There were fair Scandinavian girls with transparent complexions, and voices so soft that they seemed incapable of saying any but the holiest of things. Some of them helped in the kitchen, others in the offices, and in the evenings they sat together and held one another's hands. Though I have not found out for certain, I imagine that they were 'disciples' who had been driven by faith to leave their comfortable homes in Oslo or Stockholm and to come to the castle to work for the common good. There were several Americans in whose mouths the Masters, gurus and astral worlds used to lose all their ethereal qualities and become convincingly matter of fact. There was a very learned French lady with at least three daughters who looked as though they preferred the Cote d'Azur to the Dutch scenery, but had to content themselves with their mother's knowledge of all sorts of devas, Chinese saints and Tibetan gomtchengs. There was an Italian countess who was always telling me of yet another dream she had had about Krishnamurti; and there were several elderly English ladies, quiet, kind, helpful, and wearing a surprising amount of jewelry, though their jewels, even if less obvious, were in a way like the taboos and charms of African Negroes, made of lions' teeth or human bones, since although they were mostly of gold and often of precious stones, their triangular or circular shapes showed clearly that they were worn for their symbolical significance and not in order to satisfy a craving after beauty. Then there were several Indians of indeterminate age but obviously higher education, who at night would sometimes appear in their attractive native coats, with tight white trousers and coloured shoes, the envy of their American, Dutch, British and Scandinavian brethren, many of whom wore homely sandals and looked altogether less picturesque. Some charming Australians and Anglo-Indians and a Scottish couple completed the house-party.

The writer of fiction would have found even better models and more vivid 'local colour' in the large camp, situated in the woods a couple of miles outside the castle. Such readers as have ever attended a theosophical or practically any sort of religious convention will know the type, and I shall refrain from describing it at length. They generally abhor the idea of meat as violently as that of wine or tobacco; they look deep into your eyes when they talk to you; they have a weakness for sandals, for clothes without any particular distinction of shape, for the rougher kind of texiles and such colours as mauve, bottle-green and purple. The men affect long hair, while the women keep theirs short. There were several workmen and farmers among them who had been saving up their money for several years in order to come here. Two German youths had walked for two or three weeks from a distant part of Germany. Indeed, the three thousand visitors would have been worthy of a much more gifted pen than mine.

The organization of the camp lay in the hands of a few Dutch followers of Krishnamurti, experienced business men, who had succeeded in turning out this model 'camp city' in the midst of uninhabited forests and fields. Tourists and journalists from many countries arrived solely to visit the camp, and organizers of similar gatherings would come from distant countries in order to learn from the organization at Ommen. There were rows upon rows of tents of all sizes; there were shower baths, attractive huts with post office, bookshops, photographer, ambulance and information bureau. In huge dining-tents excellent vegetarian meals were served; there was a lecture tent with seats for three thousand people and there was even an open-air theatre. Everywhere one found helpful guides and interpreters and a fine spirit of fellowship.

As the Dutch summer was at times trying with incessant rain and icy winds the nerves of the people must have been somewhat strained. Harmony could be achieved only by self-discipline. Ignorance of the language was, no doubt, a tiresome handicap for many people. Some of them must have come merely for the sake of a new experience and for human fellowship, for the Serbs and Russians, South Americans, Rumanians, Turks and Greeks who hardly knew one word of English could not understand much during the lectures. And yet most of them remained happily till the very last day. This was undoubtedly due, to a very great extent, to the efficiency of the organization.

As I did not live in camp, which I visited only for the lectures and an occasional meal, I knew the routine of life at the castle much better. Since the castle itself was not large enough to accommodate the twenty or more personal guests of Krishnamurti, most of us were put up in the long pavilion flanking the castle. Besides Krishnamurti and his closest friend Rajagopal, the head of the whole organization, only a few friends stayed within the castle itself. The dining-room, library, reception rooms and offices were on the ground floor. In the reception rooms there were several attractive pieces of Dutch furniture, and the main room, called the state room, contained, besides some fine panelling, four handsome Flemish tapestries specially made for the castle. An ingeniously constructed wooden Louis XIV staircase led from the entrance hall to the first floor and to the bedrooms. The former owner of the castle, 6aron van Pallandt, was a quiet middle-aged gentleman, who had kept for himself only one or two of the castle rooms. He went on administering the big estate, and all the secretarial, clerical and household work, besides that of organizing the movement itself, was done voluntarily.

I stayed in one of the two pavilions, where all the rooms were alike simple, attractive and comfortable. Every visitor had to look after his own room and make his own bed. When, however, after a day or two some kind spirit had discovered that my talent for manual domestic work was more original than effective, my services in this direction were no longer expected, and for the remainder of my stay there, whenever I returned to my room after breakfast, I found that my bed had already been made with enviable skill. In the morning we assembled in the big state room. We took off our shoes more experienced guests than myself would appear in bedroom slippers and sat down on the floor to meditate. Perhaps it was my native cynicism that prevented my enjoying the morning meditations as much as I ought to have done. It always put me into the wrong frame of mind.

There were several problems connected with the morning meditations about which I wished to be enlightened. Of course I might have asked any of the other twelve or fifteen fellow guests attending this service, but I could never summon the courage to do this, for fear lest they might find out how ignorant I really was. I wanted to ask them whether they considered it necessary to meditate in a crowd. I sincerely believed in meditation, but I always found it much more successful in solitude or with a single companion. Just when I was getting into the right frame of mind, one of the meditators must needs sneeze or cough, and thereupon all my limited powers of concentration would be dissipated.

And I should have liked also to ask whether it was essential to sit on the floor without having been instructed previously how to do it. Most of us had been brought up in the Western world, and were not used to Eastern attitudes. I found that my attention had to be directed towards my aching spine and ankles, and a good deal of the energy that was wanted for a better purpose was thus wasted. Eastern postures for meditation are taught solely by the yoga of body control, and can be learnt successfully only in the Far East. Of the eighty-four different postures for the various meditations, only the first few have ever been mastered by any European. Even the elementary 'lotus posture' which is indispensable to meditation done in the pose adopted by my fellow meditators, can only be comfortably assumed after many patient and painful exercises. How, then, could I expect all these people, most of whom had never been to the East, or undergone the essential training, to have the necessary command over their bodies? I could see for myself that hardly one of them was sitting in the correct attitude that of intertwined ankles and straight spine. Possibly the worst indication of my own immaturity was to be found in the fact that the sight of all these people sitting there in stockinged feet always evoked in me a schoolboy propensity for practical joking.

Had it not been for my shortcomings, the morning meditations would undoubtedly have provided me with a source of inspiration. Someone read aloud a few words I believe it was always one of Krishnamurti's sayings and after that we were meant to meditate upon it. The tightly shut eyes of the other guests made me feel very envious of the wonderful ten minutes they were spending on some blissful plane. From the state room we moved into the dining-room for breakfast, which was always an enjoyable meal, with excellent honey and delectable nut pastries. Lunch, too, was a very attractive meal, not only by virtue of the quality of the vegetarian dishes but equally because hunger, and the pleasure of satisfying it, induced many of the guests to cast off their reserve and to show a greater individuality of character than conversation at other times had led one to expect.

As a rule everyone attended to his own wants, but I was often permitted to wait on Annie Besant, and I several times had the privilege of sitting next to her at meals, and each time it was a joy to be near this exceptional woman. There was a childlike quality about her not the childishness of old age, but rather the essential simplicity and happy disposition of childhood itself. You felt that she knew so much more than anybody else present; but her greater wisdom and experience never interfered with her manner of treating even the youngest members of the party as her equals. The saintliness that hung over Eerde, like a pink cloud in a play, made me somewhat sceptical; and yet the first meeting between Annie Besant and Krishnamurti on her arrival at the castle had greatly impressed me. Krishnamurti had been waiting for the car that was bringing his guest, in the circular garden in front of the castle. He was by himself and we, his other guests, kept in the background. One could see that he was nervous. When the car arrived, Krishnamurti walked up to it to open the door. Annie Besant appeared, dressed in white Indian robes with white shoes, and a white shawl over her snow-white hair. Krishnamurti bowed his head and kissed the old lady's hand. She in her turn put both her hands on his black hair and whispered a few words to him. In her face there was the expression of the deepest tenderness, and I could see that she was crying. It was obvious that their welcome was an expression of their personal affection for each other and had nothing to do with their theosophical relationship. Krishnamurti took Annie Besant's arm and led her slowly towards the castle. We were introduced to her and shook hands. Her eyes were still moist and the loving smile was still lingering on her lips. Krishnamurti hardly ever came down to breakfast. Generally he remained in his bedroom. It was a very simple bedroom, and must have been the smallest in the castle. Each morning after breakfast some of his most intimate fellow workers used to walk up the staircase and disappear into a room which connected with Krishnamurti's bedroom. My curiosity was pricked by these morning processions. I imagined mysterious happenings behind the doors: special initiations or mental exercises of a higher order, reserved only for the 'inner circle'. I never found out what went on behind the doors probably household bills and questions of daily routine were discussed.

In the mornings and on most afternoons there were lectures in the big tent in the woods. Krishnamurti spoke almost every day; and then there followed speeches by Annie Besant, Mr. Jinarajadasa, the vice-president of the Theosophical Society, a Frenchman Prof. Marcault, a Dutch scholar Dr. van der Leeuw, and one or two other followers of Krishnamurti. The main tenor of Krishnamurti's talks was that the " Kingdom of Happiness" lies within ourselves, and the other lecturers spoke on very much the same lines. Krishnamurti's principal talks were of an autobiographical kind, and he tried to explain in them how he himself had found truth by giving up all conventional conceptions of life one after another.

There were several meetings at the castle in the afternoon, and often at these there were visitors, both legitimate and also of a less legitimate but more intrusive kind. Many people from the camp would come to see the home in which their prophet lived. They were taken inside the castle and along the quiet garden paths, and they often hardly dared utter a word. There were also sightseers and tourists, who had heard of the new messiah from India and who would peep through the gates a though expecting strange miracles to occur at any moment. They looked at Krishnamurti's guests, apparently convinced that we were the disciples of a magician or of a yogi. Each time I left the castle or came back, I noticed the inquisitive glances of the occupants of some motor car, and I would hear their interested chatter. This embarrassed me and made me wish that I had the power to produce white rabbits from my coat pocket or flames from my mouth, since I always felt as though the people in the cars were not being treated with that consideration to which they believed themselves entitled. In the hall of the castle there was a very large and very new gramophone, given to Krishnamurti by one of his admirers and placed here for the enjoyment of the guests. I knew that Krishnamurti was a great lover of music, and I caught him one evening sitting by himself in the corner of a little study off the main hall. It was after dinner and the room was quite dark. I can still remember the record : it was the slow movement of the G Minor Quartette by Debussy that almost unreal piece of strangely coloured cascades and sudden melancholy halts. Whenever I hear that movement I see the night over the castle and Krishnamurti sitting by himself in the little room and listening joyfully to the violins.

Several members of our house-party were fond of music, and would spend the evening listening to the gramophone. The prevailing taste seemed to be Parsifal, Gotterdammerung, and Siegfried. The listeners would sit in just those attitudes in which you would have expected to find them, when revelling in the superior boredom of Kundry's endless laments or Siegfried's narratives. Their eyes were closed, their souls no doubt very wide open, in their faces was a mixture of happiness and reverence, and you could see all the silver and mauve ethereal pictures that the music painted for them. Perhaps I was too frivolous for them, and at times I would become genuinely alarmed by my cynicism, and would decide never again to make critical comments even to myself. And yet there was one thing which gave real cause for a certain irritation.

My inability to find the true meaning of Krishnamurti's teaching led to the anxiety that my visit might be an utter failure. Krishnamurti's lectures were too vague to give me clear answers to any of my questions. I had been hoping to find those answers among the people who stayed at the castle and who must have known exactly what was to be understood. They were only too willing to help me; but it seemed to me that they had all sacrificed their personalities in order to become members of the Order of the Star in the East. I talked to many of them in the course of the day, but they left too little impression to enable me to distinguish them in my mind later on. They all met me halfway; and they would talk of reincarnation and karma with an understanding smile on their lips and as though they were speaking of the next train from Ommen to the Hook of Holland. They did their very best to copy Krishnamurti, to be kind and sincere or to make jokes and show how jolly they were. But I was not among doctors, farmers, schoolmasters, politicians, housewives; I was just among theosophists and members of the Order of the Star. I had expected that their new spiritual experience would have made them more enlightened about their former problems; that they would talk with greater understanding about the world at large. There were political and economical congresses, religious disputes, naval conferences going on all over the world; new movements in art, in literature, music, the theatre, the cinema were being experimented with; the world talked of unemployment and reparations; there were thousands of things that had to be discussed, improved upon but none of them seemed to have penetrated the woods of Eerde.

One day I was told that the moment had arrived when Krishnamurti's message would be heard by the outside world which had hitherto known it only through distorted newspaper reports. A new organ was to be founded. My opinion was sought, since I had had some experience and enjoyed press connections that might be helpful. The publications of the Order of the Star periodicals, pamphlets and news-sheets were run by amateurs. I knew that the outside world could only be reached if one were to use a language intelligible to it. Devotional poetry, accounts of personal visions were not likely to convince men and women used to a matter-of-fact world. Those lawyers, business men, theologians and scientists of the outside world would only grasp Krishnamurti's ideas if they could be presented in a clear and sober way. People must see that they were dealing not with dreamers but with men who knew the world and her needs better than others did, and who therefore might be able to solve some of the most pressing problems.

The few people with whom the plans were discussed listened patiently to my suggestions; they nodded obligingly, and assured me that this was the right way to proceed. In actual practice not one of these suggestions was adopted, and the events of the following months showed that a metaphorical and semi-theosophical jargon was still being employed for enlightening the world at large about the 'World Teacher'.

I am sure that none but myself was to blame for my intellectual disappointment. The general atmosphere of adoration had put me into a state of expectancy which simply could not be satisfied anyhow or by anyone. My intellectual upbringing had made me expect a clearer message than Krishnamurti was willing or able to offer. I had not yet found in his friends and followers that inner readjustment to life that would have allowed me to accept the new message in the form in which it was offered. I had gathered enough to see that Krishnamurti's teaching was not Eastern, that it repudiated passivity. Everyone should find truth for himself; should listen to no-one but himself; should consider unification with happiness as the final goal. But when I asked how this could be achieved I received no clear answers. It is not enough to see the summit of Mont Blanc. If we want to reach the top, we must be informed as to the most advantageous season, the best route, and such details of equipment as the most suitable boots to wear. Most of Krishnamurti's answers would be dissipated in similes and metaphors. You asked him about your personal troubles, your religious beliefs, your intellectual doubts, your emotional difficulties, and he would talk to you about mountain peaks and streams running through fields. When asked about his own road and the road along which one might find happiness, he would answer: The direct path, which I have trodden, you will tread when you leave aside the paths that lead to complications. That path alone gives you the understanding of life. ... If you are walking along the straight path, you need no signposts.' But where, exactly, the direct path lay, or how we were to find it, he did not disclose. The very same day Krishnamurti might renounce all paths and say that no one path was better than any other.

I had several talks with him, and each time I eagerly looked forward to our meeting. We would talk as we walked through the woods and across the fields of Eerde. One afternoon we suddenly found ourselves in front of a charming litlle house, flat roofed and rather modern, surrounded by high trees but with a view on one side across the fields. It was Krishnamurti's retreat, a self-contained little home, where he could get away from people, meditate and rest in solitude, He must have been very sensitive to solitude. He was not very strong physically, and though he went in for all sorts of games and was a great lover of lawn tennis, he remained rather delicate. The camp with its thousands of people, with its daily lectures, interviews and visitors, must have been a heavy strain on his health.

I found no further intellectual satisfaction either in Krishnamurti's lectures or in his books, and I wondered whether this was not due to his Eastern origin. On the other hand, I had experienced no similar difficulties when reading the writings of Eastern sages. Even if one did not grasp their full meaning, there still remained enough to provide intellectual contentment. Among the books by Krishnamurti that I tried to read were Temple Talks, The Kingdom of Happiness and The Pool of Wisdom. There were also a few volumes of poetry. I admired their oriental beauty and their deep ring of sincerity, but I was baffled by their vagueness. It is certainly unfair to judge lyrical poetry by the same rules as those by which we attempt to judge scientific books. On the other hand Krishnamurti's poetry was supposed to contain not only the lyrical confession of a sensitive youth with the gift for poetry but also the account of a deep spiritual experience. When I read:

'As the flower contains the scent, So I hold Thee, O world, In my heart. Keep me within the heart. For I am liberation And happiness. As the precious stone Lies deep in the earth, So I am hidden Deep in thy heart . . .'

I enjoyed the beauty of the poem and I felt the truth in it. But this poem, called 'I am with thee' and written in 1927, was considered by Krishnamurti's followers and even his biographer Lily Heber as of great importance. I seemed to remember having seen poems of that kind in various anthologies containing Eastern poetry. At times you would even find such poems in those slender volumes published by young men who had come down from Oxford and Cambridge and had been greeted by some of the London critics with prophecies of a splendid literary future. But we were not dealing with a talented young man whose earlier poems had been accepted by the Editor of the Oxford Outlook. We were dealing with a teacher who did not repudiate this title; who allowed thousands to come and listen to him and to expect guiding principles from him, and who must have been conscious of the immense responsibility that all this implied. I felt that I had a right not only to expect answers but even to expect them in a language that I could understand; in a language that was common to people of the Western world. I even felt entitled to expect perfection in everything he said or did. The unity between the content and the form was of great importance in a person like Krishnamurti. When I read:

' Thou must cleanse thyself Of the conceit of little knowledge ; Thou must purify thyself Of thy heart and mind; Thou must renounce all Thy companions, Thy friends, thy family, Thy father, thy mother, Thy sister and thy brother ; Yea, Thou must renounce all; Thou must destroy Thy self utterly To find the Beloved.

I could see a glimpse of Krishnamurti's philosophy, but I felt that the same truth might have been expressed less pretentiously: 'Thou must purify thyself of thy heart and mind. Thou must renounce all thy companions, thy friends, thy family, thy father, thy mother, thy sister and thy brother . . .' If we write these lines without the lineal demarcation of poetry we acknowledge at once the fine statement contained in them, but we do not maintain that they are poetry. And yet I wanted Krishnamurti to write poetry that would convince people, and such as I might show to my sceptical friends. When after a certain time I was able to perceive the main idea of Krishnamurti's teaching I understood that it was complete libera- tion, which means complete happiness. It is achieved by love and it rests within our own inherent power. Krishnamurti defined it in later years when he said: 'The goal of human feeling is love which is complete in itself, utterly detached, knowing neither subject nor object, a love which gives equally to all without demanding anything whatever in return, a love which is its own eternity.'

As far as I understand, this is the teaching of Christ, the teaching of Buddha. We all heard these words when we were given our first religious instruction. I asked myself, therefore: If Krishnamurti's teaching is just a repetition of the teaching of Christ, or of Buddha, then why all this theosophical background; why the Star in the East, that huge organisation; why the talk of a new path; why the followers, camps and labels? Would it not have been wiser to remain in our old-established Churches which give us clearer words for all these messages? Is it all humbug?

I was very fond of Krishnamurti, otherwise I should have left Eerde after the first few days. But I wanted Krishnamurti to be able to help me in my own way, and to help the other three thousand people in their own way. I wanted to be able to convince the cynic within myself that Krishnamurti was right and capable of helping, and that he had fulfilled my highest expectations. Instead, I felt uncomfortable when the Saul within myself would say to the Paul after every talk I had with Krishnamurti: 'Wasn't I right? Did you grasp more to-day than yesterday? Didn't I tell you it would be a waste of time? Why don't you talk instead to the rivers and the trees? Their language will be more intelligible.'

And yet there were people, with less intellectual resistance, who perceived Krishnamurti's message quite clearly. Looking back on those days I am particularly struck by the impression Krishnamurti made on a man brought up in the rough school of English workingclass life, a man matured in political battles. I mean George Lansbury. This is what the old labour leader wrote after one of the meetings at Ommen: 'I have seen the glorious march of the Socialists in Paris, in Brussels, in Stockholm and in our own country, and I have seen them sitting and standing round our platform. But I think that these gatherings round the camp fire . . . are somehow the most wonderful sight of all. . . . When we Socialists come together, we come together pledging oursefves to fight in order to raise the material conditions of ourselves and our fellows. Round this camp fire we were listening to one who is teaching us the hardest of all truths . . . that if mankind is to be redeemed it must be redeemed through the individual action of each one of us. ... There must be great hope for the future . . . whilst there are living in our midst those who are inspired by a great ideal to work and toil for impersonal causes.'

I hoped that Mr. Lansbury was right, and that some of the characteristics that I seemed to have found among Krishnamurti's followers were only evident when they were all together. They may have talked and behaved in quite a different manner when left to themselves in their normal surroundings. Perhaps all these people were really leaders in their various professions, efficient and capable of reforming their individual worlds in a direction that had disclosed itself to them during their visit to Eerde. Perhaps it was only due to blindness on my own part that even when I saw them later in London at one or two gatherings and in several offices, I again had the impression they had given me at Ommen.

Though my intellect remained critical, I felt that I was indeed becoming happier every day through my contact with Krishnamurti, and that only intellectual barriers within myself prevented me from accepting him as wholeheartedly as I longed to do. But even this reaction irritated me. I knew that the three thousand people who had come here were as anxious to catch his smile and were almost in a fever every time Krishnaji, as they called him affectionately, addressed or approached them. I had imagined myself more critical than they.

Only the evenings round the camp fire were really impressive. After dinner we would drive out in cars belonging to members of our house-party to the camp fire in the woods. A large amphitheatre had been built there, with innumerable circular rows of seats; in their midst was Krishnamurti's own seat. This was made of large tree trunks and suggested some huge Niebelungen throne. Each time I saw this seat I imagined that Wotan and Hunding and the many substantial valkyries must have sat in such chairs when attending a family party in Valhalla. Krishnamurti, slender, dark, rather shy, looked strange and lost on his Wagnerian throne. Most of the people who had comd to the camp at Ommen looked upon the evening gatherings, quite rightly, as the climax of the day. Krishnamurti, stepping into the centre of the amphitheatre where a huge heap of wood for a beacon had been prepared, would kindle it and stand in front of it for a few minutes watching the fire grow higher and higher. Then he would walk back slowly to his seat. Smoke would begin to rise to the sky and the flames would suffuse thousands of eager faces with a red glow. Many members of the audience were sitting with their hands resting quietly in their laps and their eyes shut, and you could see how deeply they enjoyed the moment. In the evenings there was a festive feeling, there was an atmosphere of human fellowship and spiritual satisfaction. It was a real holiday to the three thousand people. On one or two occasions the light of the flames and the last pink of a sun that had disappeared more than an hour ago would merge into each other and would produce striking colour effects in which, I daresay, some of the people present discovered symbolical meanings.

I have never heard Krishnamurti speak so well as he did in the evenings round the camp fire. On the whole he was not a very effective speaker; he often repeated himself; he often halted; and many of his sentences were too long. His hold over the masses was not due to any forensic talents. In the evening his words seemed to come more easily to him, and his voice would carry melodiously across the silent crowd, the pictures evoked by his words becoming more clearly visible and the whole atmosphere more convincing. Now and then he would begin an Indian chant at the end of the evening, and on such occasions he was even more impressive than during his speech. Though he spoke English with mastery, you could not help feeling that English was not his language. It was, I remember thinking at the time, the melodious quality of his voice that may have given that impression. In the evenings round the camp fire the contrast between his entire personality and the English language would become more striking. For he then wore Indian clothes, a simple brown coat reaching below the knees and buttoned up to the neck, tight white trousers and white shoes, and his appearance would only emphasize the emotion produced by his voice. During the Indian chants the precise meaning of his words seemed to matter little, and there was no longer a gulf between the man and his words. In the unintelligible Hindustani there was the magic sound that words assume in a strange tongue. After his chants Krishnamurti would sit silently for a few minutes, with an expression of great serenity on his face. He would then leave his seat and walk away to the car that took him back to the castle.

One or two experiences may help to show what a real influence Krishnainurti had on my life. It may be considered a mere coincidence that when I met Krishnamurti for the first time, on that rainy Sunday morning in Westminster, I gave up smoking. I had smoked since I was seventeen, usually thirty cigarettes a day, and I had become something of a slave to the habit. Nevertheless I had never tried to give up smoking, because I had never seen any convincing reason for so doing. Even to-day I cannot explain clearly why I should have given it up the day I met Krishnamurti. We did not discuss the subject; I did not know that he himself did not smoke. And yet to give up smoking at once seemed the most natural thing. Though I carried a cigarette case in my pocket for many days I never felt tempted to light another cigarette. Nor have I smoked since.

The other incident is more difficult to describe. I had been trying for a long time to meditate in the evenings on a particular subject. I used to do it in bed before going to sleep. For months on end I would reach a certain point in my meditation after which it would break up. Either my attention would falter or else I fell asleep before getting beyond the particular point. A few days after I had met Krishnamurti I succeeded for the first time. I experienced the feeling of "sinking into a deep well". Though the well seemed bottomless I had simultaneously the two opposed sensations of going on sinking and yet of having reached the bottom. This was accompanied by a very vivid impression of light. The strongest impression, however, was of receiving at once an emotional shock and a mathematical revelation. It is difficult to describe this last sensation: no metaphor or comparison represents it correctly. Though I do not claim any mystical significance for my experience, I can best translate it into words by quoting an abler pen than my own. When Dean Inge once described mystical experiences he said: 'What can be described and handed on is not the vision itself but the inadequate symbols in which the seer tries to preserve it in his memory. . . . But such experiences, which rather possess a man than are possessed by him, are in their nature as transient as the glories of a sunset. . . . Language, which was not made for such purposes, fails lamentably to reproduce even their pale reflection.' What, however, can be said is the fact that the culminating point of my experience made me unspeakably happy. It was such an acute happiness that it was almost like a feeling of physical delight or physical pain. The division between delight and pain seemed lifted. How long the moment lasted I could not tell; but I imagine it to have been no more than the fraction of a second. When it was all over, I was awake and fully conscious, and I recorded my experience to myself with a feeling of deep gratitude.

The above experiences showed me that Krishnamurti's effect upon me was vital enough to act even against my intellectual resistance. In the summer of 1929 I found in a newspaper a report which described at some length how Krishnamurti had suddenly dissolved the Order of the Star, broken deliberately all connections with the Theosophical Society and their teaching about himself, and renounced all the claims that had been made in his name. He had, then, at last summoned the courage to sever all the ties that had held back his own spiritual convictions through so many years, and that had forced him to act in the shadow of what looked like spiritual usurpation.

The recent rupture had taken place on 3 August 1929 at the yearly summer camp at Ommen. Krishnamurti decided to renounce all the authority that thousands of people had been using as comfortable crutches for their own spiritual incapacity. This is how Mr. Theodore Besterman described the critical meeting in his biography of Mrs. Besant: 'One morning Mr. Krishnamurti rose to deliver his address to the assembled campers. It could be seen at once that he was now speaking for himself and not merely as a mouthpiece; and his words confirmed the impression in no dubious manner. ... He announced the dissolution of the Order of the Star and at one blow laid low the whole elaborate structure so painfully and painstakingly built up by Mrs. Besant during the past eighteen years. "I maintain", Krishnamurti said, "that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. ... A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it." He declared that he did not want followers ... he made it unmistakably clear that his words were directed against those who had built up the elaborate structure for him during those eighteen years. Krishnamurti added: "You have been preparing for this event, for the coming of the World Teacher. For eighteen years you have organized, you have looked for someone who would give a new delight to your hearts . . . who would set you free. ... In what matter has such a belief swept away all the unessential things in life? In what way are you freer, greater? ..." Mr. Krishnamurti continued: "You can form other organizations and expect someone else. With that I am not concerned, nor with creating new cages. . . . My only concern is to set men absolutely, unconditionally free."

After this Mr. Krishnamurti gave up all the possessions heaped upon him, and gradually severed his connection with all organizations. It was not difficult to perceive what enormous courage it needed to make such a far-reaching decision. To understand its magnitude one has to remember what Krishnamurti was renouncing. There existed an organization with many thousands of members; there were platforms from which to speak in the four most important corners of the globe; there was an independent commercial organization with its magazines, its books and various publications in a dozen different languages; there were helpers among all classes of society, willing to make practically any mental or material sacrifice; there was, in short, a working machine for the transmission of a spiritual message, as powerful as any institution had ever been. To understand what it must have meant to give it all up, one has to visualize the money, the worry, the energy, the time needed for the establishment of an organization for the disseminating of non-commercial ideals, no matter whether of a religious, social, political, intellectual or any other kind. To throw it overboard as though it meant nothing required personal courage, moral integrity and spiritual conviction.

I was glad that I had doubted neither Krishnamurti's sincerity nor his intrinsic spiritual value. The events of August 1929 strengthened the impression I had received when the young Indian entered the dark panelled room in Westminster. Had I not suddenly seen that it mattered little what his life had been up till then? And had I not felt that his personality had nothing in common with the striking headlines in the newspapers?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 241 - 270 of 357 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)