The Last Message of U. G. Krishnamurti

I see nothing wrong in accepting money for it...
Accepting money for what???

Didn't all his supporters just claim he had *nothing* to teach?

If the guy was simply in denial of any spiritual dimension that makes him no different than millions of other nihilistic materialists crawling about...who also have nothing to teach.
 
He didn't really have 'supporters', he had those who sought him out to question. Most of the people who invited him to speak or were not supporters but those who were following vedanta and traditional eastern philosophy.

The money was for books etc.

He never claimed to teach anything yet they kept going to ask. I think if anyone really listens and understands what he says they would not seek him out for anything, it was always those who were looking for a 'beyond' that kept going back to U.G or seeking him out to begin with.

The last part about nihilism or what have you is simply your own bias. Fair enough.
 
He never claimed to teach anything yet they kept going to ask. I think if anyone really listens and understands what he says they would not seek him out for anything, it was always those who were looking for a 'beyond' that kept going back to U.G or seeking him out to begin with.
Very well then, he should have simply met them at the door and told them to go away...with an idle hand gesture.

"There is no spiritual dimension, no vedanta tradition, no beyond, ok? You're all just biochemical machines programmed by selfish genes in a universe of random molecular accidents. Go and stimulate the pleasure centers of your brain until you keel over and die. Case closed...bye!"

See how easy that was? No books, no fame, nothing to teach aside from the same line you've heard a billion times from the prevailing high priests of nihilistic materialism.
 
Very well then, he should have simply met them at the door and told them to go away...with an idle hand gesture.

"There is no spiritual dimension, no vedanta tradition, no beyond, ok? You're all just biochemical machines programmed by selfish genes in a universe of random molecular accidents. Go and stimulate the pleasure centers of your brain until you keel over and die. Case closed...bye!"

See how easy that was? No books, no fame, nothing to teach aside from the same line you've heard a billion times from the prevailing high priests of nihilistic materialism.

First of all why would he want people coming to his house?:rolleyes: But besides that what difference does it make how he went about living his life? He didn't hurt anyone, he didn't lie to anyone and he didn't scam anyone. I would hardly call him famous, I have yet to meet many people who have heard of U.G. Most hear his name and think of J. Krishnamurti, now he was famous.

And as for the last part he wasn't a nihilist.
 
What about it?

You asked about love, how could I love something if nothing has any inherent meaning. That's the miracle, isn't it? Inanimate, unthinking, meaningless matter can become animate and have the property of love, a natural human emotion. I responded with the term enjoyment, which has a broader meaning, leading you to mention the difference between pleasure and happiness. The pursuit of happiness is destructive. It can be more insidious than than the pursuit of pleasure, because it has an air of purity. Happiness comes and goes and so does physical pleasure, and they don't always coincide.

You seemed to equate pleasure with certain vices, but how about the case of enjoying a simple summer's day? Surely that pleasure can do no harm.

Meaningless things can be more poignant, for instance look at the power of surrealist art. Sometimes the images are arranged to deliberately defy meaning. I think this occupies one aspect of the conscious mind so the other might get a glimpse of the world as it really is, without any meaning, void of morality, purpose, and hardly any material substance. Considering how little there is in relation to how much there is not, it would be more proper to call it the void (nothing), rather than the world (something).
 
It can be more insidious than than the pursuit of pleasure, because it has an air of purity. Happiness comes and goes and so does physical pleasure, and they don't always coincide.
You say that happiness is pure...and then you say it comes and goes.

Again, this confuses the difference between happiness and pleasure.

UG seems to have warned people away from seeking true happiness...merely because he had no experience of it himself and was possibly too lazy to attain it.

This is the opposite of the traditional approach of Asian traditions, which also warn against seeking...although seeking of a different type.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb9LANdQQGs&feature=related
 
It does make a difference if he sold books filled with...nothing.

What he had to say was in connection to the traditional messages of Vedanta, eastern philosophy what he DIDN'T offer was newly packaged dogma. He didn't offer himself as a guru, he wasn't going to tell anyone what the 'truth' was or how they should live their lives or what they should be doing etc. which is why I said he was the 'anti-guru' guru.
 
It's not something to attain, it comes and goes like the wind. If you try to catch it, it's gone. It's an addiction to permanence. "True happiness" is the code word for enlightenment, it's not a condition of permanent happiness, more like indifference. (This is not to suggest that indifference is a virtue).
 
Muse over these and judge for yourself Carcano on what it was that U.G was saying:

"You have never let desire just stay there without tampering [with it]. That is life. What can you do without desire? The more you want to tamper with it the more it is suffering. You are always suffering because you want to be other than what you are. You just don't have the courage to be yourself. That means you have to be alone in this world -- one without a second."

"It is very difficult to understand the area between opposites. If I say I have no friends, it does not mean that I have enemies. If I say that I have no enemies, it does not mean that everybody is a friend to me.

So, how can you understand the state of being where you have neither friends nor enemies?

So, you always swing like a pendulum from one end to the other. That is the movement of thought. It is always between these pairs of opposites. You cannot conceive a state of being where these pairs of opposites do not exist at all.

Q: But why is it so natural?

U.G.: Don't say it is so natural. It is so unnatural -- the unnatural thing you have accepted as natural. That is our tragedy. You have never questioned that, because, if you begin to question, your existence is at stake. You are that. You are not different from this movement of thought.

What is necessary for you is to understand the machinery that is functioning inside of you -- the movement of thought. Supposing I tell you "This is the way," -- then where are you? You experience what I tell you. This knowledge you are going to use and create a state of being and think that you have experienced God, that you have experienced Reality or that you have experienced truth. But that is not the truth. That is not God."

"The path has to be yours. I don't want to use the term `path', because it has mystical [overtones] .... "My" path, Ramakrishna's path, Jesus's path, or the Buddha's path -- they are all worthless. Nobody can come into this unless or until all the other paths are rejected by him. Then it becomes his own path. So, only if you reject all the other paths can you discover your own path. Just look at yourself and find out what the hell you are doing with yourself, how you are kidding yourself all the time -- how you follow the path of this man, that man and the other man. You are not interested in my path. The path is not going to lead you anywhere. And the path is going to give you what that man has experienced."

"How can you understand that silence -- chaotic or otherwise? Is it possible for you to capture that silence? When that silence starts operating through you, it is something extraordinary, something vital and living. This structure which is trying to understand the nature of it, capture it, contain it or give expression to it, cannot co-exist with it.
The difficulty is you seem to know a lot about this state -- you have imagination. You imagine it to be what is described as "Silence is Brahman" and begin to think about it. This imagination must go. That [silence] is something living and the structure which is trying to capture it is a dead structure. You are all dead. You are not living human beings at all. You have never known one living moment in your life. You are living the lives of your thoughts. All thoughts are dead -- it doesn't matter whose thoughts -- whether those of Shankara, of Ramanuja or of the hundreds of sages, saints and saviors we have had and perhaps have still. It is useless to try to understand that. How can you capture it? If there is any such thing as silence, chaotic or otherwise, living or dead, it will begin to express itself. When it expresses itself you are not there. So, you will never know the nature of that silence at all. What you call silence is not silence at all."

"Q: What is your philosophy of life?

U.G.: None whatsoever. Do you need a philosophy to live? Do you need to know the purpose of life and meaning of life [in order to] live? You are not living. For only a dead person is interested in asking such questions, not a living man.

Whatever meaning you give to life, those ideas are picked up from here, there and everywhere. If it [life] has any meaning, I would never know.

* * *

Q: How do you distinguish the living from the dead? You say that we are dead.

U.G.: Any question that comes from anybody is born out of death, not out of a living thing."
 
Last edited:
he wasn't going to tell anyone what the 'truth' was or how they should live their lives or what they should be doing etc.
Well then theres no reason to write a book, or give a speech, give interviews, or indeed say anything at all.
 
It's not something to attain, it comes and goes like the wind.
Yes, what youre talking about is the traditional Asian view of pleasure. Enlightenment or true happiness, whichever you prefer, is a state attained only when one identifies with what is permanent.

Its sometimes called pure consciousness, the self, brahman, the pedestal of awareness, buddha nature, the true mind...it has a thousand names, and thousands of years of direct experience.
 
Yes, what youre talking about is the traditional Asian view of pleasure. Enlightenment or true happiness, whichever you prefer, is a state attained only when one identifies with what is permanent.

Its sometimes called pure consciousness, the self, brahman, the pedestal of awareness, buddha nature, the true mind...it has a thousand names, and thousands of years of direct experience.

You do not have this direct experience or you wouldn't be here arguing about UG. What you are doing is speaking of second hand experience that has been jotted down by others who say there is this experience. What frightens you is what frightens most about UG and that is that he brings this to your attention and then you may think that there is no such experience at all because the truth is that you 'seek' it from 'others'.
 
That is life. What can you do without desire? The more you want to tamper with it the more it is suffering. You are always suffering because you want to be other than what you are. You just don't have the courage to be yourself. That means you have to be alone in this world -- one without a second."
All hes saying here is that the frustrations of desire and isolation are the the only feelings he knows...typical nihilistic materialism huh?
 
No dear read the whole of post #70. It is only the first few sentences that speaks of 'desire'. Why don't you read it all and think about it and then respond? That would be more appropriate than your emotional punch back responses
 
"Q: What is your philosophy of life?

U.G.: None whatsoever. Do you need a philosophy to live? Do you need to know the purpose of life and meaning of life in order to live?
Philosophy is not about merely being alive, so I happen to agree. :)

Philosophy is about true human happiness...something UG is too lazy to even consider.
 
Q: How do you distinguish the living from the dead? You say that we are dead.

U.G.: Any question that comes from anybody is born out of death, not out of a living thing."
Indeed...insects never ask questions.

The culture of the anthill is what he aspires to.
 
Back
Top