U.G. Krishnamurti

oscar

confusoid
Registered Senior Member
Personally, I consider him the Eastern response to Nietzsche...having lived his life around the principles and doctrines he later came to reject and debate against, now he sits quietly in his cabin while reporters from around the world ask him his views on life. He hasn't much to say, only talk about the essence of things beyond the traditional Eastern conception.

link: http://www.well.com/user/jct/

hopefully you guys would like to start a debate about his ideas, and how they contrast with Eastern beliefs...I find him interesting
 
Krishnamurti

I don't think Krishnamurti's ideas contrast with eastern philosophy at all, in fact they seem to expound them with a refreshing clarity. Put down my book and pick up your life, is what they seem to say. A subtle and profound master!
 
He says in the first book, talking about his realization about life:

So, there's nothing that you can do. It's not in your hands. I don't like to use the word 'grace', because if you use the word 'grace', the grace of whom? You are not a specially chosen individual; you deserve this, I don't know why.

If it were possible for me, I would be able to help somebody. This is something which I can't give, because you have it. Why should I give it to you? It is ridiculous to ask for a thing which you already have. ....

... it is not a question of feeling it, it is not a question of knowing it; you will never know. You have no way of knowing that at all for yourself; it begins to express itself. There is no conscious.... You see, I don't know how to put it. Never does the thought that I am different from anybody come into my consciousness.


Essentialy, he is saying that coming to his realizations is beyond anything you can do to get there. Becasue of the nature of the his realizations, all else (such as spirituality, atonment, enlightenment, liberation, heaven) are neccesarily falsities, the search for any of these does not help you in attaining happiness (which i think he is saying does not exist) and neither is non-searching going to help. Because there is nothing to gain.

So in essence: Studying his words is folly, it won't help you in any way, he has nothing to tell you, he doesn't care if you think about what he has said or not. If this fact is false (the fact that you have nothing to gain from reading his thoughts as he himself states) then everything else he says is neccesarily also false.

Conclusively either way there is not point in reading about U.G. Krishnamurti becasue, according to his own words, wether they are true or not, it is delusive to do so.

You have nothing to gain from this man, he says so himself. :)
 
It's my understanding of Krishnamurti that, simply put: he gets it. He gets it like Siddhartha got it, and like very few have ever gotten it.

Mike
 
well, the word contrast might have been a bit overrated, though I find it interesting how he talks against some of the beliefs which he was exposed to earlier in his life, just the same as Nietzsche who, as young, wanted to become a Christian theologist.

I've only read UG's "Mind is a Myth" for now, but he has other books, like the "Mistique on Enlightenment" where he speaks about the notion of enlightenment and how UG talks of this "no enlightenment" (not an exact quote by the way)

anyway, just thought I'd put this guy over here, in case you hadn't heard about him :D
 
hmmmmmmmmm...

I just noticed that U.G. Krishnamurti is not the same person as J. Krishnamurti, although their philosophies are similar.
 
Originally posted by buddhafish
It's my understanding of Krishnamurti that, simply put: he gets it. He gets it like Siddhartha got it, and like very few have ever gotten it.

Mike
gets what.? Siddhartha had atleast shown a way. what is the use of a closed library.? u don't know whether it contains anything worth reading or empty. either way it is of no use.
 
Well, I read some of UG's work and he seems to be right on. Siddhartha had nothing of use to us either, there is no way toward enlightenment, there nothing that can be called enlightenment. You can only give up your previous delusions, any "solution" is part of the problem.

Everneo,
He is not a closed library, in fact, I understand he is always available, literally 24 hours a day to answer questions. The fact that he doesn't tell you how to achieve anything should be seen as the greatest gift of all. It has the kind of elegance as buddha's famous gesture with the flower.
 
buddha's gesture

I'm not sure how the exact story goes, but someone asked buddha what it was all about (what is nirvana, enlightenment, etc...), and he just held out a flower.
 
I don't know very much about UGK but at first glance his views seem to be equivalent to Advaita Vedanta. For instance - from Wu Wu Wei

"So long as the idea of personal doership persists together with a self-identification as a seperate entity, apperception of the functioning element is not possible. Whatever is thought and said by such an entity would necessarily be polluted, and therefore cannot have any metaphysical import, significance or relevance."

Also "Spiritual seekers are lost children in a conceptual forest created by their own imagination".

"...The entire problem is that what the seeker seeks is what he already is, what he always has been, what he could not possibly otherwise BE. To apperceive this profoundly is to awaken to what is known as 'enlightenment'.

These are from 'The Ultimate Understanding' by Ramesh Balsekar. Isn't UGK saying the same thing?
 
Sounds like the same thing as Ramana Maharshi. I've enjoyed reading about him.
 
Osho died, you know...
U.G. has said some interesting things, Osho as well. Of the two, I think Osho was the more romantic, more concerned with beauty and pleasure, and quite prolific in his writings, while U.G. is fairly blunt and to the point. Sounds like they met once and didn't get along. I wouldn't follow either of them. ...but I think Osho would be more fun at a party.
 
Last edited:
Both represent opposite points of view like you said. Although speaking from my personal experience, I've read enough about naive magical mysticists. This is where UG kicks in, I'm totally in awe for his antagonism towards the traditional train of thought that these, respectfully quoting you, "romantic, more concerned with beauty and pleasure" people had been draggin along. ( Yes...antagonism quite describes it. :D )

Yes it may be more fun to run into Osho at a party. UG though, is the kind of person you go to talk to after the hangover. You might learn a bit from both.
 
Back
Top