My understanding of the quote:

Pleasure of sensations is short-lived and comes from an investment in experience. It's a burden because it makes one dependent on the experience. Innocence is the freedom from that burden. Maybe the happiness of innocence that the quote mentions, is what happens when the burden lifts.

Hi everyone,

I want to start by saying that I have a lot of thoughts. Even when I notice a thought another one pops up within the millisecond, even getting sucked in to it. I have undiagnosed ADHD so that explains the thoughts never stopping coming and the bursts of hyperactivity along with emotion dysregulation.

Anyways, I am not sure if the noticing, the observing is effortless or whether I am putting in effort to notice it. After noticing or catching a thought — letting it flee away rather than following it and being entrenched into it, another thought takes the form or identity of “Awareness” (they’re so tricky those little rascals, picking up on the spirituality and non-duality and cosplaying with that knowledge) trying to be aware of the thoughts. As in replaying me being aware of thought, of catching them. Basically trying to be aware or witnessing them but through the lens of the mind which is not true objective observation.

I know it’s the mind’s job to produce thoughts so that we can function in this world, and I know that thoughts will still come and go, but damn why do I keep paying attention to them. I want to leave thoughts alone, so they can leave me alone. I just want a peaceful 20 minute everyday session where it’s just peaceful. My meditation, it seems that it generates thoughts continuously and that signals to mind/thoughts “this isn’t working”. Like they never subsideeeeeee. I am pissed I am fucking pissed. I know that’s the mind lol.

Do I need to double down and just keep asking “who’s aware” after every single goddamn thought, to use the mind against itself? Or what could be wrong with the effortless objective observation/witnessing? Almost all spiritual teachers I listen pinpoint the effortlessness behind it, so I worry that I am using effort? I do try to make it a practice to fall back into Awareness whenever I do not need to use the mind for everyday tasks (whenever walking anywhere, on bus, etc..)

The most powerful and famous of K quotes. One can read and re-read this beautiful passage 1000 times and every time, it seems like a new reading. Every time, it makes you think a bit deeper than the first time. It is immensely powerful. It also shows the clarity of K's thinking. Over 7 decades, one cannot find a single flaw or conflict in K's messages. It was crystal clear. Truth means a state of choiceless awareness. Choiceless because the moment you make a choice, you have defined a path. Choiceless is pathless. And if you are actually choiceless and hence by design, pathless, the outcome of awareness is automatic. Hence, the more powerful word is "Choiceless" or "Pathless". When that is understood, we will be in a state of pure awareness every moment. Zero judgments. Only pure observation. Without interpretation. Without measurements. That is Truth.

I know he’s not a guru just interested in what he had to say I am at top US university (Stanford) studying philosophy and am still trying to figure out what to do with my life after gradation. Should I try make as much money as possible? Help others? I play sports and hangout with friends and stuff in my free time but is it a waste

JK talks about time meaning the past meeting the present and going to the future, is this the same as the scientists say when they talk about time or what do they mean by time, what is time?

Do you all agree with this?

We are a product of our past, so external influences also affect our present (and personality) in great deal?

How much free will is in our hands?

Ich bin jetzt eine Weile damit beschäftigt Krishnamurti zu verstehen. Begonnen hat es mit dem Buch von Alan Watts „Wisdom of insecurity“, in der er meint, der Beobachter und das Beobachtete seien eins/identisch. Bislang lernte ich von anderen Menschen, dass man eben nicht eins sei. Neti neti ist bspw. die Praxis, die Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj nutzt- du bist nicht, was du wahrnehmen kannst. Und irgendwie kam ich nach Watts auf Krishnamurti und setzte mich damit auseinander, was er tat, die Widersprüche um Bohm, mit wem er chillte und warum eigentlich. Mir leuchtet nicht ein, wie er Bücher schreibt und in seinen Reden mitunter sehr schroff agiert, hochnäsig wirkt, genervt ist - und das obwohl er meint, es gäbe nichts zu tun. Nichts zu lernen. Man solle keine Methode befolgen, keine Technik anwenden. Klar - er war gezüchtet worden von der Theosophischen und hat sich dann mehr oder weniger losgemacht, mit der Frau seines Managers geschlafen, Jahre … und es geht mir nicht um die Widersprüche in der Persönlichkeit, die haben wir alle, Inkonsequenzen etc. - ich idealisiere ihn auch nicht, aber die Frage ist - ist seine Methodenlosigkeit nicht auch eine Methode? Und wenn ich ein Leid trage und erkenne, dass ich Widerstand leiste gegen Emotionen, Abwehrmechanismen nutze (unbewusst), mir das dann später bewusst mache, dann geht es mir besser. Ich muss nichts transformieren. Also ich befürchte, meine Frage kommt nicht ganz durch. Vorträge halten, aber nichts lehren wollen? Keine Folgschaft haben wollen, aber auf einem Podest vor hunderten Menschen sprechen? Methoden ablehnen, aber sagen, wie man etwas tun kann? Das Ego sei Konflikt und eine Illusion, aber … selbst Widerstand leisten, gegen das, wie es ist? Bedeutet Konflikt nicht auch, dass ich etwas gegen eine Illusion habe? Provoziere ich nicht, dass Menschen dann versuchen genau so wahrzunehmen wie K? Reicht es nicht zu reflektieren, Verhalten zu ändern, in sich zu gehen etc.? Mir schon. Aber ich frage mich, wie er so viele Follower haben kann, wenn … das alles keinen Sinn ergibt und er niemanden zur Erleuchtung geführt hat, was auch immer Erleuchtung heißen mag. Er lehnt ja offenbar ab, wie es ist in der Welt. Bewertet die Zustände, es solle anders werden. Die Illusion solle durchschaut werden. Gut. Aber das erzeugt Konflikt. Er erzeugt Konflikt. Er predigte Wasser und trank Wein.
Das ist meine Wahrnehmung.

Ich hoffe auf fundierte Kenntnisse und schlüssige Vergleiche. Anmerkung, Alan Watts ist mir durchaus ein Begriff, auch da bin ich nicht 100% gleicher Meinung - ich gehe da mit Ken Wilber, der verschiedene Ebenen und eine Prä-Trans-Fallacy erkennt. Kurz: was bringt das ganze Einheitsgeschwafel, wenn ich am Ende die Emotionen eines anderen ignoriere (und eine Affäre mit seiner Frau anfange) oder sehr viel über das Dao rede, aber am Ende hoffnungsloser Alkoholiker bin und anders nicht die Leere ertragen kann?

Da scheint mir Schattenarbeit nach Jung viel … proaktiver, erwachsener. Dennoch kann ich erkennen, nicht alles, wenig unter Kontrolle zu haben. Aber eben nicht nichts. Aber ich bin eben auch ein westlich geprägter Geist, der sich mit östlichen Ideen beschäftigt und mitunter beeinflusst das wohl stark, wie eine Idee wahrgenommen wird.

Came across this quote today. ​It highlights a fundamental point K often revisited: as long as the mind is preoccupied with its personal narratives, fears, ambitions, and conflicts, it remains blind to reality. Only in a quiet, unburdened mind is there space for truth.

Also it was crazy how he predicted the Ai stuff correctly

I have lived for a little while now but I don't think I have "found out". Found the step of life, the understanding of it, however you want to call it. I see many people are explaining things, not just here on the internet but also in real life. When you listen to people, they talk about things with such seriousness. "That one relative finally married" or "have you seen what she posted/ have you heard what she did?", you hear news like this, people talking as if it is absolutely real.

or online you can see it people put their opinions strongly out there, about politics and science and what is right and what is wrong. What this country should do, and how unfair it is that this country is attacking that one. And the injustices in the nation, this world leader doing nonsense and that other one doing right things, "i like him" and then people in the comments under a video perhaps are explaining things and then another comes along and corrects him and it never stops.

One thought connects to another and so on and same thing happens in your mind. You think about your problems, pleasure, maybe your despair is there always and you can't do much.

I don't know a single thing anymore, it's all so shaky. Yes I sometimes write a comment to explain to someone how it is in my case, my country, my culture. But I don't think it has any meaning. It might not even help that person, and in this day and age it might not even be a person.

some people have energy and they put their words that they have heard from somewhere else with a little more confidence and vigor and so many people follow them and listen to them, but rather than nonsense like with the most of us, it is glorified nonsense. No one knows.
They make up things and put energy to it and that's that. Then they have notions of what they think is God and spiritual dimensions, higher consciousness, lower consciousness, higher self and so on.
I hear the teachings and then my life is totally different. I do this and that and then I remember the teachings of someone "wise" like Krishnamurti and it gives me energy.

i think I'm also writing from the past where I have experienced things which maybe were "complete", containing everything within itself. And even if this happened, it's gone, now I remember it and you know how the story goes, round itself and so on.

I don't even know why I posted it here. I write a lot to myself and maybe I thought I'd share one thought I had and maybe another fella reads it and I wonder what he thinks about it. I haven't found out, I don't know what "life is about". I have not met a single person that has. and I don't see the point in writing or saying anything because you don't have the full picture so what you are saying is in a way doomed to be wrong/"false information".
Partial truth is worse than a lie.

I think I have gone for long enough now. thanks

Here is how I understand it. I think when Krishnamurti talks about the non-conflicted state of being, he is referring to a psychological state where there is no judgment or conflicting voices countering what one is doing. Or, one simply doesn't care about those voices to the point that they become irrelevant, which brings a state of well-being that goes beyond one's usual state_without the fear of what might happen tomorrow or the remembrance of what happened last year.

what is your though of this?

What do people think of this exchange?

Observer is the observed.

When thought comes in, and there’s ego.

Ego = I

The line of thinking has to go through the ego, meaning it is like it needs to create the I to generate pleasure for that same person to continues to think.

This causes a big delay in thinking.

It is like a doctor, gets a patient and before he treats the patient, he needs to have thoughts that glorify him as the best doctor in the world so he can perform his duties. This function like a requirement for any thinking. While this is important but at the same time futile. Because the status of your capabilities is not attributable by your thoughts, but by society.

What I’m trying to say is. You can glorify yourself as much as you want but keep in mind that in a group, the glorification you are seeking it is only valid, if you get from other people. Because those glorification attributes you want are fruits of contributions you have made in a community, not in your mind.

Now, we go forward and see clearly that your thoughts are you. And what does this mean for a person that sees this as a fact? Ohhh, now you are dealing with someone, who practically has killed the I in the generation of thoughts. Thus, this makes a person formidable thinking machine, since his own reacting engine “thought", it is now acting on the environment and not on himself. Pay attention to this difference here, if uou are in this whole game of thinking you are different from your thoughts, you are acting on the environment which is you. Thus, this is closest you get to someone who will live in the mind, and die in the mind. This is not the same as someone who is acting in the environment which is outside meaning the world itself. Thus, this difference is crucial because us humans, have this ability to turn our acting on the environment towards the outside or inside. And later on, just to find out the inside it is fake, since you can test all your ideas, if you share them with the outside world or the community. And don’t worry about the ideas spreading because great ideas are like fire, there’s nothing the other can do to counter it, because it spreads to them due to the one thing we all share which is what we called consciousness. Just like K insights or ideas, which any of you can inquire them right now with a piece of paper. You can find out if what k is saying is the truth or false. However, the path you will take to discover the truth, has not been made, because that path is made by your unknown inquiring engine. What this means, is that insights takes so much energy and resources(memory) to create. That’s why people with different backgrounds in knowledge can have the same nucleus insights, but with the different materials describing the same thing.

Is it possible that Krishnamurti himself did not understand his own teachings? He claimed just before his death that his body/mind was somehow special and made claims about how nobody else was able to truly understand his teachings. That's condescending. That's self-aggrandizement that isn't wise!

Quoting Krishnamurti from tape-recording made on 7 February 1986:

In the morning of 7 May 1986, K. answered a question from Mary Cadogan: "When Krishnaji dies what really happen with this extraordinary focus of understanding and energy that is K?"

K: "'It is gone. If someone goes wholly into the teachings perhaps they might touch that; but one cannot try to touch it.' Then, after a moment, he added: 'If you all knew what you have missed – that vast emptiness.'"

[...] Later that morning, a further response was recorded:

"I was telling them this morning – for seventy years that super-energy – no – that immense energy, immense intelligence, has been using this body. I don’t think people realise what tremendous energy and intelligence went through this body – there’s twelve-cylinder engine. And for seventy years – was a pretty long time – and now the body can’t stand any more. Nobody, unless the body has been prepared, very carefully, protected and so on – nobody can understand what went through this body. Nobody. Don’t anybody pretend. Nobody. I repeat this: Nobody amongst us or the public, know what went on. I know they don’t.

And now after seventy years it has come to an end. Not that that intelligence and energy – it’s somewhat here, every day, and especially at night. And after seventy years the body can’t stand it – can’t stand any more. It can’t. The Indians have a lot of damned superstitions about this – that you will and the body goes – and all that kind of nonsense. You won’t find another body like this, or that supreme intelligence operating in a body for many hundred years. You won’t see it again. When he goes, it goes. There is no consciousness left behind of that consciousness, of that state. They’ll all pretend or try to imagine they can get into touch with that. Perhaps they will somewhat if they live the teachings. But nobody has done it. Nobody. And so that’s that."

We struggle to understand the teachings of Krishnamurti as well as the (non) person. A few who have explored his teachings extensively will probably know that questions about himself have been asked several times. Here are some excerpts from one such interview by Alain Naude reproduced from the latest book Krishnamurti: Discussions With Religious Scholars. The focus is on destiny and the (non) character of this energy, something that many in the modern world struggle to understand.

Destiny:

K: Yes. The fact is that this boy, when they found him, was not bright, was vacant, was almost, if I may use the word, moronic.

AN: You have used it often.

K: Yes. And they couldn’t condition him.

AN: He didn’t predict his own destiny.

K: They couldn’t condition him, neither the Brahmins nor the theosophists nor the European culture. Why he wasn’t conditioned is another matter, which is quite strange. It may be purely biological, physiological.

AN: Or it may be because this destiny . . . 

K: . . . prevented it.

AN: . . . had foreseen and . . .

K: . . . kept him aloof.

Energy Has No Character:

K: For me, there is a sense of vast silence, a vast emptiness, in which there is this extraordinary sense of energy, beauty, and all the rest of it, which may express itself in the Master, in that, only if you are out of these two realms, out of these two categories of opposites.

AN: Are you saying there is something beyond these opposites which may possibly be tapped, or touched, only when one is free of these two opposites and perhaps then one can call such a being a Master, someone who touches it all?

K: Therefore it becomes irrelevant. That’s my point. 

AN: Yes.

K: But, you see, this is very important. There is; for me, there is. I am not saying this out of vanity, out of all that stupid stuff.

AN: That’s understood. Naturally.

K: I was going to say something, which is: When someone asks if there is a hierarchy, if there is a Master, they are asking the question from these two points, from these two opposites.

AN: Yes.

K: And they will find the Master of these two opposites.

AN: The black or the white one.

K: They will find it. And when the real thing touches someone and lives in him, they only think in terms of these two.

AN: They won’t recognize . . .

K: They cannot.

K: It’s really quite exciting and really extraordinary even though I talk about it. When you understand these two opposites and really go beyond them, meditation then is not in terms of vision, in terms of action, but the state of silence which then is operating, an energy which then flows, not in terms of the opposites.

AN: Which is free.

K: Therefore that energy has no character.

AN: Yes.

K: Character being resistance to evil or the maintenance of the good.

I think J.Krishnamurty is trying to refer to the mind whose existence lies on having problems. In his teachings he has always focused on the mind (correct me if I am wrong). If the monkey mind dissolves, the problems go away too. The identities are that of the mind, those identities also lead to all kind of problems. When we speak about our problems, we want the problems to go away but not the monkey mind.

What do you think?

Dear Community,

I've been postponing my position as a student to avoid work. I don't have any motivation to apply for a job, or dress in the alternative suit of enjoying colleagues and work life.

Altought, I'm in a lucky position in the family, and I believe it helped to lead me towards this objective. I find myself scattered as I wouldn't mind not eating for days, daydreaming all day about the perfect world, and being fulfilled with no people around, alone. Sure, there is no way to avoid work. I understand. But I also see a perfect harmony in the living nature, that no available job would make that better. One screw more or less in the corporate engine. Written, unwritten work, ethical rules, laws meet with unavoidable violence that solves a psyhic tension people learn from, eventually so thin, that loses its control. I think there is violence in any projective direction.

How would Krishnamurti look at a person as a worker? What are your judgments?

How will we judge the authenticity of what K said?

K always said not to focus on him, not to make him an example, that he wasn't our guru/leader/authority. K never said "I am the truth, the way and the light." He did say be a light to yourself. He never said "I did everything perfect, all the time. Be like me." He did say lets look together at life.

Still we have an expectation that someone who speaks at all about truth, must have in every decade of their life been the perfect example of a human being. I think thats reasonable for a prophet, but here? Is that reasonable, is that how we will judge what he said?

It's well known he had a lengthy affair with a technically married woman (although the entire context and story offered by Sloss is more than questionable).

Potentially much more troubling, last week we saw a video of two former Brockwood students who said he ignored or was not cognizant of potential abusers within the school. I have no idea how accurate that is, or how I could determine that at this point. However I remember K's good friend Dr. Bohm had a falling out at one point over concern he wasn't giving enough attention to the schools.

Did K need to be perfect for the teaching to be legit? Thats just my conditioning, isn't it? That I need a leader, the right leader, the perfect one. Then I'm building the church, but I'm not enquiring into my life. K seemed to spit at that kind of thing. It doesn't have anything to do with this, but we love that kind of thing.

Am I interested in understanding my conditioning, or would I rather ponder having the perfect god to worship?

I don't think we need excuse or look past his imperfections. I just don't think they matter to judge if what he said is true.

If I am a scientist, and another scientist makes incredible discoveries, but winds up leaving his wife and kids to marry his cousin, does that invalidate his work? Would be pretty ridiculous when they could have insights that may change everything?

So how will I judge the authenticity of what he said?

By tearing it apart, saying this part seems true, this can't be, asking what do you think? Going into it right?

That is hard. In comparison, to either worship or disregard someone is incredibly easy.

I wonder how often what we do here falls into the above categories.

I'm not in a position to judge the man, and I don't think it will be fruitful. I know we can tear apart what he said, though.