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 51 - 75 of 276 in total

Not to accept. The teachings of K are precious, the most valuable ideas I have ever known, they are easy to accept. But, between accepting and living them, there is a world of difference. It's difficult to live without attachments, wishes, commitments, memory. One have to renounce to his own and very protected self-image.

No de aceptar. Las enseñanzas de K son preciosas, las más valiosas ideas que yo he conocido jamás, son fáciles de aceptar. Pero, entre aceptarlas y vivirlas hay un mundo de diferencia. Es difícil vivir sin apegos, deseos, compromisos, memoria. Uno debe renunciar a su propia y muy protegida auto-imagen.

Aura APL
Mon, 15 Jun 2009

The concept is understandable. There are a few discrepancies only in its explanations.

Prasanna P
Mon, 15 Jun 2009

yes: the methodology (or lack of same). effortless transformation through deep understanding of 'what is' feels right. but without some map/path most people are going to remain lost and eventually get frustrated and give up.

rachMiel ...
Mon, 15 Jun 2009

A very large area is yet blurred and beyond my horizon but there is also the constant reading and reference work that I have kept going at for very many years; haven't been able to discuss with many or some on the same range of frequency.
It is not merely a matter of acceptance it is more of a range of abilities to perceive.

Kingston Gilbert
Mon, 15 Jun 2009

I can't accept that some people come to this world with a center (an "I"), and others without a center (like "him"). I just think that some of us are more conditioned than others: we are all drops of the same glass of water, but a little more dirty ones than others, anyway an "I" is just something we feel, not something we can touch...

Eric Elejalde
Mon, 15 Jun 2009


Gope Earthling_Veganism
Mon, 15 Jun 2009

Truth and Love, which is what he tried and did talk about, is not a matter a acceptance. You do not accept Truth, Truth is not acceptable, you can not accept Truth, can you? Human beings in history have never come to accept Truth, they always distrusted Truth, since they distrusted and distrust themselves, a lack of trust in life itself and the fact of not understanding death. The same with Love, you can not accept Love - Acceptance here means, that something known is accepted, this is what you can accept, something known, but Truth and Love is "something" unknown and what is unknown can not be accepted, this "something" is therfore a "no-thing", nothingness, Life.

Thomas Fürniß
Mon, 15 Jun 2009

Not really. There are aspects that may be somewhat difficult to implement, but the vast scope of the teachings, in their more outward and inner delvings, is eminently understandable. It all makes sense and the whole thing hangs beautifully together.

Javier Gómez Rodríguez
Tue, 16 Jun 2009

The aspect of 'memory'. K advises us to discard the past and memory.
But we are neurologically hardwired to have our past experiences. And they interfer with our present.

There are at times when we are fully in the present and feeling alive and joyful.
But they are fleeting moments.

K has not given us a solution to help us on the path.
He said that it his duty to 'set man unconditionally free'.
He himself has revealed how the 'masters' came down to work on him.
And how painful and weakening it was to endure the ordeal.
So he had the help of the 'masters'.

How do we attain his transfromational state without the 'work' - as he described it ?

This is my only implausable aspect of his teaching.

veera balaji veeraswamy
Tue, 16 Jun 2009

Krishnamurti wanted us to get out of the psychological trap of time. This was his essential teaching. He sought to elaborate it over a span of 60 years. Hence, the huge corpus of his works. If we agree that time tends to trap us, we would find nothing implausible in his prolific talks and voluminous writings.

Venu Gopal
Tue, 16 Jun 2009

I am not very clear about his views on family. I could not comprehend how exactly he wanted these relationships to be.

Gururaj Rao
Wed, 17 Jun 2009

No, just difficult to understand!!!

The Spod
Wed, 17 Jun 2009

no every word is true.

david sharma
Wed, 17 Jun 2009

that's a whole thing to go into on it's own

Emir Camdzic (account deleted)
Thu, 18 Jun 2009

No, not really.

mike christani (account deleted)
Thu, 18 Jun 2009


slakki zi
Fri, 19 Jun 2009

'the wrong turn'..
because who are we to judge about right or wrong ?

kirsten zwijnenburg
Fri, 19 Jun 2009

he speak and speak,speak same thing. why? because we have not understanding. he say with love, with goodness, with blessgoodness.therefore i think at first i have to understand until we are really knowledge.

park chonghai
Sat, 20 Jun 2009

the truth is what it is and can not be denied; it is not a matter of accepting or not, that what is, IS.

maryse vm
Sat, 20 Jun 2009


kenny rich
Mon, 22 Jun 2009


Kamal Kalsi
Mon, 22 Jun 2009

Much of it is to subtle for me. I just like listening to it every now and then. Sometimes force is necessary - but i dont think K had any "rules" about this.

Philip Marston
Mon, 22 Jun 2009

I accept none of his teachings. I look at them, study them, and see if they have any truth to them.

David E Post
Wed, 24 Jun 2009

No. In the beginning of my study it happened more often than not. However, this was a challenge. I wrestled with the teaching by taking, say, a paragraph, writing it out, rearranging sentences, substituting words, it was a meditation. After a bit the paragraph "made sense". Now it's seldom that I come across something in the writings that's unclear. Remarkably (to me, anyway) it then became easier to understand other adepts. For instance, Meister Eckhart (14th-15th C. Dominican monk) now made sense.

Ibsen Birgers
Wed, 24 Jun 2009

None. How can we criticize a fresh innocent flower, a precious diamond or a 24 carot gold.
It is our misfortune that we discuss the teachings instead of sensing his SACREDNESS AND PURE SILENCE. K is the only HUMAN FLOWER we had on this earth and let us live his teachings rather than to discuss or ponder over at various groups.

madhusudhan rao taduri
Wed, 24 Jun 2009

Displaying answers 51 - 75 of 276 in total