Guest guest Posted April 10, 2001 Report Share Posted April 10, 2001 Hi List, For what it's worth (nothing at all) -- I see J. Krishnamurti as a great philosopher/thinker. He churned out so many books, it makes one dizzy. Unfortunately he never seemed to get his message across too well. Philosophy can be like that... it appeals to the head... it never really affects 'the heart'. He attracted large audiences to hear him speak, but I'm not sure anyone understood very well what he was trying to say <grin>. To his dying day he complained 'nobody ever got the message'. I never heard of Nisargadatta saying anything like that. I don't know if I would categorize J. Krishnamurti as a 'Sage', per-se. Maybe " Sage-Philosopher. " I know someone personally (well, on the Net) who got a lot out of J. Krishnamurti's writings. Also, J's 'evil twin', U.G. <grin> could be called a disciple, I suppose -- although from all accounts, it appears that if U.G. " got anything from " J. Krishnamurti, it was that all philosophy, all head knowledge is empty. He likes to denounce him as a fraud :-). Other than that, a philosopher is a philosopher. Was J. Krishnamurti 'Realized? " There's no judging, but Cathy's writing speaks volumes. He was a thinker. He claimed an appreciation for the beauty of nature, but I wonder if he wasn't lost in dreams of 'setting mankind totally free'. Namaste, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2001 Report Share Posted April 11, 2001 Hi Tim, I have heard and seen J. Krishnamurti, at several of his talks in Switzerland/England. I've heard lots of thinker-gurus before. Listening to them, I would be loaded with Thoughts, or stimulating conceptual terminology.. (Brahman, Atman, Shakti, True Self etc.) not to speak of those stimulating emotions and hope. Leaving after hearing a talk by K., I've never felt any acquired luggage.. on the contrary. His kind of simplicity, it seems to me, is very rare. That might be one of the reasons why many people do not 'get it'. I am mentioning this, not as a 'my guru is better than yours' argument (such as the one, I felt present in 'Meetings with Maharaj, 8).. but I thought to supplement, just in case of interest. I have some comments to your mail, below.. Nisargadatta, " Omkara " <coresite@h...> wrote: > > Hi List, > > For what it's worth (nothing at all) -- I see J. Krishnamurti as a > great philosopher/thinker. He churned out so many books, it makes > one dizzy. # Yes there are many books around, -but the fact is, that very few of those (like his 'Notebook' and 'Commentaries on Living' which was a record of some of his dialogues with visitors) are _written_ by him. They are all transcripts of his recorded-on-tapes talks and dialogues. Unfortunately he never seemed to get his message across > too well. Philosophy can be like that... it appeals to the head... > it never really affects 'the heart'. Yes, I've heard that evaluation before.. mostly from mpeople who wanted to be uplifted emotionally or get a 'buzz'. He called 'philosophy' as 'love of life', and not thinking about it. Because one could not relate to his simplicity, one categorizes it as 'intellectual/heady'. To me, N. has a much more developed intellect than JK. ... not to speak of all the hindu & cosmological terminology he uses (not in 'I am That' but in some other books). And What is the 'Heart' ? Is it something to be 'Affected' ?!.. To me the Heart Is, when one starts where one is..(as most of us are, including the anti-intellect ptreachers).. in the head .. and the Mr. Awareness the Surgeon, cuts thru. To me, there was hardly anything appealing to the head in it. But neither to the emotions. It was a 3rd thing. N.'s words, though 'mind blowingly' direct and clear, appeals to my 'head', because it is so definite.. clear to the intellect and so gives great hope or at least a feeling of 'aha, I got it'. But there is a danger in that. With K., I never felt I had really much to get a hold of, and incorporate in my conceptual structure. He did not serve any clear-cut goodies, to grasp and hang onto,.. so many felt they did not 'get it',.. When you see that, there is only one 'clear'-cut thing of value, that remains.. the light of awareness.. and that is also the heart (not 'pink' colors) which belongs to no one and cannot be 'affected' by another. I belive JK. said (paraphrase): 'If your light is lit by and borrowed from another, it is like a candle, .. it can be blown out very quickly .. so much better to start with your own light, however small/dim it might be' > He attracted large audiences to > hear him speak, but I'm not sure anyone understood very well what he > was trying to say <grin>. > > To his dying day he complained 'nobody ever got the message'. Correct. But what did he exactly mean by that ? You Think you know. Anyway, I know of several examples/persons, that understood. But since there is no hierachical 'Lineage' there, they don't mention him much. Even so, most of the newer teachers (including Buddhists and Vedantins) talk of him with great respect. > I > never heard of Nisargadatta saying anything like that. I don't know > if I would categorize J. Krishnamurti as a 'Sage', per-se. > Maybe " Sage-Philosopher. " .. 'Categorize' ... .. it might be better to listen (?!).. if one is interested. Anyway, why a thinker/philosopher ?.. because he pointed out the state of the world, and said 'You are the world and the world is you' ? To me that is Facts,.. nothing to do with playing around with thoughts. > > I know someone personally (well, on the Net) who got a lot out of J. > Krishnamurti's writings. Also, J's 'evil twin', U.G. <grin> could be > called a disciple, I suppose -- although from all accounts, it > appears that if U.G. " got anything from " J. Krishnamurti, it was that > all philosophy, all head knowledge is empty. He likes to denounce > him as a fraud :-). > > Other than that, a philosopher is a philosopher. Was J. > Krishnamurti 'Realized? " There's no judging, but Cathy's writing > speaks volumes. He was a thinker. He claimed an appreciation for > the beauty of nature, but I wonder if he wasn't lost in dreams > of 'setting mankind totally free'. .. are you assuming .. 'non-'judgementaly ? .. 'Cathy's writing speaks volumes'... so ?.. must it be the truth ? 'K. was fidgety', she writes... so what ? N. looked to me (on a Video) very restless and impatient to the point of being angry.. and he smoked (what for ?.. to calm his nerves?).. so what ? Sorry, but we're so childish and gullible and comparative.. Now, THAT, to me, is 'heady'. I do not know what 'Namaste' means, I am not a Hindu/Buddhist.. so I'll limit myself to a merely 'temporal useless blah': Have an enjoyable day ! JB > > Namaste, > > Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2001 Report Share Posted April 11, 2001 Hi JB -- Resonating enjoyably with what you wrote here. Helps balance the scales, which never really require balancing. Regarding where to start -- where " here " meets " there " , yet neither " here " nor " there " ... Regarding namaste -- usually taken as " the god in me salutes the god in you " sometimes taken as " meeting you where there is neither 'you' nor 'I' to meet " -- haven't found an English equivalent ;-) Namaste, Dan Hi Tim, I have heard and seen J. Krishnamurti, at several of his talks in Switzerland/England. I've heard lots of thinker-gurus before. Listening to them, I would be loaded with Thoughts, or stimulating conceptual terminology.. (Brahman, Atman, Shakti, True Self etc.) not to speak of those stimulating emotions and hope. Leaving after hearing a talk by K., I've never felt any acquired luggage.. on the contrary. His kind of simplicity, it seems to me, is very rare. That might be one of the reasons why many people do not 'get it'. I am mentioning this, not as a 'my guru is better than yours' argument (such as the one, I felt present in 'Meetings with Maharaj, 8).. but I thought to supplement, just in case of interest. I have some comments to your mail, below.. Nisargadatta, " Omkara " <coresite@h...> wrote: > > Hi List, > > For what it's worth (nothing at all) -- I see J. Krishnamurti as a > great philosopher/thinker. He churned out so many books, it makes > one dizzy. # Yes there are many books around, -but the fact is, that very few of those (like his 'Notebook' and 'Commentaries on Living' which was a record of some of his dialogues with visitors) are _written_ by him. They are all transcripts of his recorded-on-tapes talks and dialogues. Unfortunately he never seemed to get his message across > too well. Philosophy can be like that... it appeals to the head... > it never really affects 'the heart'. Yes, I've heard that evaluation before.. mostly from mpeople who wanted to be uplifted emotionally or get a 'buzz'. He called 'philosophy' as 'love of life', and not thinking about it. Because one could not relate to his simplicity, one categorizes it as 'intellectual/heady'. To me, N. has a much more developed intellect than JK. ... not to speak of all the hindu & cosmological terminology he uses (not in 'I am That' but in some other books). And What is the 'Heart' ? Is it something to be 'Affected' ?!.. To me the Heart Is, when one starts where one is..(as most of us are, including the anti-intellect ptreachers).. in the head .. and the Mr. Awareness the Surgeon, cuts thru. To me, there was hardly anything appealing to the head in it. But neither to the emotions. It was a 3rd thing. N.'s words, though 'mind blowingly' direct and clear, appeals to my 'head', because it is so definite.. clear to the intellect and so gives great hope or at least a feeling of 'aha, I got it'. But there is a danger in that. With K., I never felt I had really much to get a hold of, and incorporate in my conceptual structure. He did not serve any clear-cut goodies, to grasp and hang onto,.. so many felt they did not 'get it',.. When you see that, there is only one 'clear'-cut thing of value, that remains.. the light of awareness.. and that is also the heart (not 'pink' colors) which belongs to no one and cannot be 'affected' by another. I belive JK. said (paraphrase): 'If your light is lit by and borrowed from another, it is like a candle, .. it can be blown out very quickly .. so much better to start with your own light, however small/dim it might be' > He attracted large audiences to > hear him speak, but I'm not sure anyone understood very well what he > was trying to say <grin>. > > To his dying day he complained 'nobody ever got the message'. Correct. But what did he exactly mean by that ? You Think you know. Anyway, I know of several examples/persons, that understood. But since there is no hierachical 'Lineage' there, they don't mention him much. Even so, most of the newer teachers (including Buddhists and Vedantins) talk of him with great respect. > I > never heard of Nisargadatta saying anything like that. I don't know > if I would categorize J. Krishnamurti as a 'Sage', per-se. > Maybe " Sage-Philosopher. " .. 'Categorize' ... .. it might be better to listen (?!).. if one is interested. Anyway, why a thinker/philosopher ?.. because he pointed out the state of the world, and said 'You are the world and the world is you' ? To me that is Facts,.. nothing to do with playing around with thoughts. > > I know someone personally (well, on the Net) who got a lot out of J. > Krishnamurti's writings. Also, J's 'evil twin', U.G. <grin> could be > called a disciple, I suppose -- although from all accounts, it > appears that if U.G. " got anything from " J. Krishnamurti, it was that > all philosophy, all head knowledge is empty. He likes to denounce > him as a fraud :-). > > Other than that, a philosopher is a philosopher. Was J. > Krishnamurti 'Realized? " There's no judging, but Cathy's writing > speaks volumes. He was a thinker. He claimed an appreciation for > the beauty of nature, but I wonder if he wasn't lost in dreams > of 'setting mankind totally free'. ... are you assuming .. 'non-'judgementaly ? .. 'Cathy's writing speaks volumes'... so ?.. must it be the truth ? 'K. was fidgety', she writes... so what ? N. looked to me (on a Video) very restless and impatient to the point of being angry.. and he smoked (what for ?.. to calm his nerves?).. so what ? Sorry, but we're so childish and gullible and comparative.. Now, THAT, to me, is 'heady'. I do not know what 'Namaste' means, I am not a Hindu/Buddhist.. so I'll limit myself to a merely 'temporal useless blah': Have an enjoyable day ! JB > > Namaste, > > Tim Sponsor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.