Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening

Kinfonet Interviews - Question


Are there any aspects of Krishnamurti's teaching that you find implausible or difficult to accept?


Displaying answers 1 - 25 of 276 in total

Good god, it all seems implausible or difficult to accept. I don't try to accept or reject what K is saying. Being open to it and questioning every bit of it is all there seems to be to do.

Have you every been reading K and suddenly become aware that you are trying to find a way to "do" all of this and "become" all of this? And that is when you lay the book down and realize that you have hit the wall again. There is nothing to do but we are so conditioned to want to do something, anything, to become something else. That is the trap. K often said "Time is the enemy". And becoming is a movement in psychological time.

The paradox seems to be that the "I", the center created by thought can never "know" the unknown, the eternal, truth, whatever you want to call it.

David Loucks (account deleted)
Wed, 03 Jun 2009

Everything is easy to accept but nothing is easy to implement

Francois Bresson
Thu, 04 Jun 2009

No

Husain Sangrar (account deleted)
Thu, 04 Jun 2009

yes: " all children are lovely"....
the humanity won't see such a body for 500 years!
it is good to have money!
and more

daniel moru (account deleted)
Thu, 04 Jun 2009

What Krishnamurti is talking about is really very simple, very "natural." We ourselves have made it difficult through the concept of "trying."

max greene
Thu, 04 Jun 2009

There is only one aspect to Krishnamurti's teaching. And it is crystal clear, to anyone who can look.

Randal Shacklett (account deleted)
Fri, 05 Jun 2009

To make judgements, assessments, comparisons, is what the teachings show to be a reaction. This openness, alertness, attentiveness, is what is implausible, and difficult to accept, because I live in reaction.

Peter Stephens
Fri, 05 Jun 2009

There is nothing yet I have come across but there remains only fascination and exploration into my own centre/"I"

Krishnan Srinivasan
Fri, 05 Jun 2009

When Krishnamurti says that in the old days such a sensitive body (as his) would be looked after by a group of disciples, I feel that there could be the seed of a new (ancient) division between people: the priests that live a protected life and all the rest.
Is it that with an enlighened person everything has to be so perfect that he can't work? Working would destroy his fine tuned sensitivity. In that case we can only hope that the machines will take over.

Rasmus Tinning
Fri, 05 Jun 2009

I have not red every thing that K has written, I have come across concept that was
difficult to understand but so far I have not come across anything that was difficult to accept.

jean-m girard
Sat, 06 Jun 2009

No, pero para la mayoria de la gente lo mas inaceptable es la verdad!
prefieren un mundo virtual!

No!, but for the most of people the truth is the most inacceptable thing!
and the prefer a virtual life, a virtual world!

sergio silva
Sat, 06 Jun 2009

Not really. The teaching underwent its own evolution throughout K's life, as he discovered the loopholes for thought (as the self) to find security in what he said, or in the manner in which he expressed the teaching. By the end of K's life the teaching was at its most austere, and at its most clear.
It is important to embrace the wholeness of the teaching, along with an awareness of K's life journey, which clarifies any perceived inconsistencies if one is prepared to do the work.

Patricia Hemingway
Sat, 06 Jun 2009

I question K's insistence on human inheritance of a "violent" or "aggressive" animal nature. I also contend that the visual aspect of our conditioning and its reinforcement as the patterns of the self was not gone into by K...this factor does not undermine the teaching...K was after all more verbal it would appear. I also state that K's insights are not about "accepting" or "denying" anything but finding out first-hand.

Michael Berry
Sat, 06 Jun 2009

There are a lot of aspects of Krishnamurti's teaching that are difficult to accept. In fact almost everything, for the teachings drag us into something we dread, namely change.

Pierre Hudon
Sat, 06 Jun 2009

No

J L
Sun, 07 Jun 2009

I sometimes wonder if anyone really got it.

Stephen Smalley
Sun, 07 Jun 2009

"Future is now"

Dappling Light (account deleted)
Mon, 08 Jun 2009

No.

Jaime Aramburo
Mon, 08 Jun 2009

No

daniel brady
Mon, 08 Jun 2009

To answer your question, ...... :

The difficult aspect of K teaching I find is how NOT to accept what he says! That is because, in "accepting" there is an "acceptor", who is the "I" whose ending is the core essence of his teaching!

Regards
Jyothi

Jyothi Prakash Hegde
Mon, 08 Jun 2009

None.

srinivasan varadarajan
Tue, 09 Jun 2009

NO.

Eric Paris-Martel
Tue, 09 Jun 2009

living without desire, choiceless awareness? how the system is working without not knowing the desire(s)

dibyendu dey
Tue, 09 Jun 2009

The need to maintain integrity of the Self in the real/social world is problematic.
Difficulties of this nature are not neccesarily in conlict with K.'s teaching.

David Rink
Tue, 09 Jun 2009

I haven't found any aspect of the teaching to have holes in it. Maybe I am deluded; I am sure several people who know me would say that I am. As I keep looking and listening the depth of the teaching continues to be revealed.

David Post
Tue, 09 Jun 2009

Displaying answers 1 - 25 of 276 in total