The vague, vacant-minded moron
of a little boy secretly wished
and dreamed of becoming a big boy
one day!
And teach the world a lesson!
The Occult Masters heard him
Made his wish come true!
The boy became big and strong
Enough to right the world
gone wrong!
Went around the world teaching
Peace and Freedom!
Thousands and thousands
heard him!
'But nobody, nobody has done
the homework!'
Thus Groaned shortly
before his death,the Old Boy!
***************
After reading 240 or so pages of the book by
Padmanabhan Krishna,titled "A Jewel On a Silver
Platter-Remembering Jiddu Krishnamurti" which came
out in 2015, I immediatley felt an urgent need to
clarify certain things which have been created
around Krishnaji like a thick fog obscuring or
rather mystifying the man krishnamurti and his
Teachings by those well intentioned people who
were gathering around him right from the very
beginning, people who loved and revered him much
but somehow missed his Teaching.
Who am I to clarify and Demystify?
----------------------------------
Finishing my Bachelar degree (B.Sc.Mathematics) in
Annamalai University, Chidambaram, in April 1980 I
came back to my birth town Neyveli. Thereon I plunged
into my Quest, studying non-fiction works of science,
especially cosmology; psychology especially Carl Gustav
Jung; philosophy which included Rohit Mehta's "J.Krishna
murti or the Nameless Experience" and Sri Aurobindo's
works,and so on .....
In 1984, at the age of 24, as a consummation of my
Quest, one night, I underwent an ecstatically cataclysmic
experience, a strange 'process' involving rays of Energy
and Light permeating the whole of my being - through every
pore of my body, brain and all. It occurred during my sleep
and went on through(out) the night. It seemed I am deep
asleep, at the same time deeply awake, and aware.
Simultaneously a procession of millions of Insights
revealed to me all the truths leaving me endlessly thrilled
and charged me fully with Energy....
During the process, I somehow tried to identify that
'Nameless Energy', or I felt it was of the presence of
J.Krishnamurti! I don't know whether it was just an
impression or my imagination. It was strange, as I never
worshipped anyone except the deep love I felt towards them,
while studying their works. .....
It was a strange case of "Enlightenment by Overnight",
but I don't know how many years or lives it took as
preparation for this overnight culmination. . . . .
That night, I could not slip into sleep easily, so I
got up from my study-cum-bed room and went inside the
main house and nestled next to my mother and slipped
into sleep without disturbance but only to be drawn
into the vortex of the Transformational 'Process'
discribed above, but the whole'process' in a compressed
and condensed form went on inside me without disturbing
others,my mother,father and sisters who were sleeping
in the same living room.
Only after many years,slowly assimilating the meaning
of the process I understood that I was born anew that
night, lying next to my mother,once again like a child!
My Spiritual Mission had already began well before the
Transformational process, solely in the form of sharing
my interests with my friends, playing the guitar singing
rock songs of my own compositions, stories of science,
about the birth of the Universe, BigBang, and evolution
and of course Philosophy of Life and Mind and about
everything under and beyond the Sun!
What started playfully had turned into a serious Quest
of Philosophy and Spirituality involving friends and others
which continued for about 30 years which I have closed down
recently because of the participants' lack of sincerity,
seriousness and right attitude.
Well, what happened to me might have happened to other
individuals in the past and may happen to any individual
in the present or in the future, who are ready and
prepared to rise up to the Cosmic Consciousness, to the
point of No Return, to take up the Journey of the Alone
to the alone. When I read from the books about K and the
long "process" K had undergone almost throughout his life,
I am reminded of the process I had undergone just once,
like a 'one night wonder', just enough to last a lifetime
which involved no pain at all except a strange
indescribable feeling. Especially, the 'process'just did
its business, so quietly and in utter Silence and Secrecy
and it made no exibit of itself to the eyes and ears
of the world.
Well, I have no intention of drawing any paraallel with
K or Buddha or Jesus. Something profound had happened to
me, which kept me busy for 32 years non-stop and still
keeping me busy with unravelling the Triple Mystery of
CONSCIOUSNESS(GOD)-COSMOS-MAN(ME). I have written
(in Tamil) 15 or so books out of which I have published
3 books through my own 'New Humanity Publishing House'
with the financial help of my friends.
1. "2012:The Doorway of Epochal Change" in 2012.
2. "The Word of Man" in 2013.
3. "The God Mystery" in 2014.
Well, to have the 'process' I did nothing , absolutely
nothing at all. First of all, mine is not a 'brahminical'
body and except regular bathing I have done no special
cleaning or purification.These ideas are alien to me and
have no meaning for me. First of all, the 'process' has
nothing to do with the body and so the question of purity
and cleanliness does not arise! For information, Iam born
in a meat eating family and meat eating is so normal and
natural for me; only recently I stopped them all and
became a Vegan, but not for any spiritual reason and I
make no virtue out of it.
I have never meditated in my life, not even for a single
minute! I had no time for meditation and other so-called
spiritual exercises. I feel they are unnecessary!
And humility, honesty, and other such words that relates
and entangles a man with other men have no meaning at all.
For I have no business with others.For True Spirituality
begins with becoming conscious and ends in being fully
conscious, that is all! Awakening is the essence and
source of All Virtues. And everything else is an accident
except Awakening.
Well, Enlightenment, Self-Realization, Inner Flowering,
and call it by whatever name does not depend on anything,
any Teaching (which includes K's Teachings as well).
Enlightenment is an individual affair and no individual
can interfere with another. If a man lacks that Inner
Spark, no outside force, or 'world Teacher', or Teaching
can do anything to bring about that Awakening in another.
It was sensible, When Krishnamurti in his now famous speech
on 3 August 1929, declared :
"I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you
cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any
religoin, by any sect. That is my point of view,
and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally.
Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable
by any path whatsoever,cannot be organized; nor
should any organization be formed to lead or to
coerce people along any particular path. ...."
But when he failed to adhere to what he himself declared
as he himself had formed Foundations, schools, centres
and so on, it was gross violation of the Sacred Order of
Things. It was said that the 'core' of Krishnamurti's
teaching is contained in the statement, 'Truth is a
pathless land ...', but the 'core' has got corroded
by factors inherent within the core itself. Even if
K had not created any Foundation or organization and
carried on with his teaching, alone on his own, and if
he thrusted his points of view, his opinions,his teachings
as Absolute Truths, and if he imposes himself as someone
'special', inevitable, an impenetrable mystery,a rarity
and so on, then he becomes more a Hinderence than a Help
to Humanity,an Impostor!
Who Can Really Understand Krishnamurti?
--------------------------------
In an interview with Vimala Thakar Padmanabhan Krishna
asked Vimala Thakar(from P.Krishna's book,"A Jewel on
a Silver Platter", p.160) :
"Vimalaji, for all of us who have been students of
Krishnamurti,and also of course of life,both Krishnamurti
as a man and his teachings are an enigma. We don't fully
understand everything either about his life or about his
teachings. I am not sure whether even he himself understood
everything about himself because one finds him seriously
questioning why the small boy Krishnamurti did not get
conditioned during childhood the way all other people
seem to get conditioned, ......"
The above question asked by Padmanabhan Krishna appears
to be meaningfull, that is, he is asking about the enigma
of K as a man and his teachings! But I wonder why and how
Padmanabhan Krishna has failed to take himself into account?
Truly, Mr.Padmanabhan Krishna himself is an enigma, isn't it?
Who is not an enigma? Every man in the street is an enigma,
only they are not aware of it at all! And Happy and Blessed
is the man who is aware of his own MYSTERY! And to unravel
that MYSTERY is what Life is All about! Perhaps fortune
did not favor Padmanabhan Krishna as it has placed him in an
environment in which K had stole the whole show and all the
focus! Instead of pursuing the Mystery from his end,that is,
from himself, he had begun it from K, the wrong end!
If only K had recognized it in time, he would have discussed
the Mystery of MAN and could have averted the danger involved
in placing himself at the center of Attention/Attraction!
However, Padmanabhan Krishna is not entirely off the target,
as he queried about K's own state of understanding about
himself :
"I am not sure whether even he (Krishnamurti) himself
understood everything about himself because one finds
him seriously questioning why the small boy Krishnamurti
did not get conditioned during childhood the way all other
people seem to get conditioned,.... "
Perhaps Krishnamurti could not have understood everything
about himself. Not because he somewhere seriously questioned
why the small boy Krishnamurti did not get conditioned
during childhood the way all other people seem to get
conditioned, and so on. For there is no evidence that all
other children get conditioned during childhood. Perhaps
Krishnamurti was an exception, like Buddha and Jesus.But
if we emphasize and celebrate the few exceptional ones,
then humanity is doomed. That we will find only one
Enlightened Being in a billion and once in a thousand years.
The real question is not why the small boy Krishnamurti did
not get conditioned during childhood but 'how' the same
Krishnamurti got conditioned during adulthood and 'how' on
earth he failed to free himself during his advanced manhood.
And this is the reason why Krishnamurti could not have
understood everything about himself! Truly Man is a Deep
Mystery! And for a man to understand everything about himself
requires an Undistracted Mind, undistracted by one's own
enlightenment, and other Spiritual achievements and accomplish
ments. Well, here one thing must be clarified, that is,the
phrase 'to understood everything about oneself' is highly
misleading one. What on earth to understood 'everything about
oneself' except the 'Truth of oneself' which is simply
TRUTH in its Impersonal Unity ?
Well, let us return to our original question : 'Who can
really understand Krishnamurti?' Only those who cares to
understand themselves, undistracted by the Things and People
of the World, alone can understand everything, because verily
the individual is the Key to the Whole of Mystery. Not those
who worship Krishnamurti can understand; nor those who feed
on the Illusion that only Krishnamurti has got the KEY to
the Mystery; nor the care-takers or custodians of the
Foundations and the archives of Krishnamurti's works.
I have attended the Last Talk of Krishnamurti at Madras
I have twice or thrice retreated at Vasantha Vihaar with
my friends at their request some 10 or 15 years ago.In one
of our retreats I strolled alone around the lawn and I saw
someone sweeping the garden paths, then I wondered, if the
man who sweeps the garden came running upstairs to the
Study and says he has some Fresh Insights to share with,
would they, the Custodians of the Foundation recieve him
with open arms and fresh minds?
Now it all seems, what a strange world, with strange people
and their strange World Teacher!
New Conditionings for the Old Ones!
------------------------------------
Really it was Krishnaji who had erected a whole philosophy
upon one single gigantic pillar called 'Conditioning'!
Though he had been to a large extent free of Conditioning
he was infected by certain Conditionings by his own choice
such as the title 'World Teacher' thrusted into him by
Madam Besant & Co. And K was conditioned and moulded by
the idea of the 'World Teacher'. Though he uttered the now
famous phrase 'Truth is a pathless land' he himself had
become the path, like Jesus said, "I am the Way, Life,and
Truth ..... "
K often said 'live the teaching', and only he didn't say
'live 'my' teaching' as he perhaps lacked the temerity
of Kabir, who used to say at the end of some of his
poems as "Kabir says so". Really there is nothing wrong
or crazy about this! For in a direct way the Teacher
is the Teaching.
Regarding Conditioning, there are many kinds of
Conditioning; there are physical, hereditary, racial,
cultural, environmental, psychological, unconscious ones,
and consciously adopted ones and so on.
k himself declared that he did not read any books
religious or otherwise except the Bible as Besant
recommended to, for the beauty of English. But
S.Balasundaram has recorded in his book,"Non-Guru Guru
-my years with J.Krishnamurti", p.169, that K usually
has a copy of the Bible, the Old and New Testament.
K said 'he read it for the English,it is beautiful'.
'But I read only the Old Testament. The New Testament
is so sentimental'.
But Krishnaji's justifications for reading the Bible
does not hold water. For, the beauty of the language
cannot be separate from the contents of any text. And it
would be absurd to read any text that has beauty but
devoid of meaning. K also mentioned, 'I only read the
Old Testament. The New Testament is so sentimental'.
It sounds like one of Bob Marley's song, "I shot the
Sheriff, but I did not shoot the Deputy! ..."
However, Krishnaji has quoted verses from the
New Testament only:
1. "The dead shall bury the dead"
2. "What ye hear in the ears shout ye from the roof tops"
3. "You people of little Faith"
4. "I come not to destroy but to build"
5. "Unless you yourself change, your witness unto
truth is all in vain"
And in an interview Radha Burnier answered to a question
by Padmanabhan Krishna (from P.Krishna's book,"A Jewel on
a Silver Platter", p.190) :
Radhaji : "I don't think he (Krishnaji) was a scholar
at all. He frankly said he never read books, which
was not strictly accurate because he obviously had
read some books. K told me once that he read the Bible...
He certainly knew some of the beautiful phrases in the
Bible. Dr. Balasundaram for instance, gave a talk in
Adyar where he mentioned an incident in which K said
"Let the dead bury the dead."K knew phrases like that
from the Bible, so obviously he had read it well enough
for those phrases to have struck him."
Yes, as Radhaji frankly said, K's statement in this matter
'was not strictly accurate'. Also Radhaji was right in
her remark that 'K knew phrases (from the Bible)so obviously
he had read it well enough for those phrases to have struck
him'.
But those 'phrases' such as "Let the dead bury the dead."
are not just 'beautiful phrases' as Radhaji cleverly phrased
it. They are profound words of Revolutionary wisdom.
Revolutionary, not only because they were uttered by
Jesus, some 2000 years ago, but for the profound implications
contained in that one particular verse. But sadly the
Christians, even of the 'Red-Lettered Edition' had not
understood the fiery verses of Jesus at all.
Well, certainly the Bible, especially those verses (especially
uttered by Jesus) of the New Testament, must have influenced
and moulded Krishnamurti. Otherwise he would not have quoted
the verses from the New Testament aptly as when the occasions
matched exactly.
But quite unbecomingly Krishnamurti strayed into the polemics
regarding the historicity of Jesus, as one reads in the book
by Michael Krohnen,'The Kitchen Chronicles'(p.183)
'Krishnamurti addressed our guest and said boldly,
“Jesus Christ may never have existed. There is no
objective, independent document from that period
which mentions his name. All we really know is what
the apostles and evangelists wrote fifty or a hundred
years later, and they might have just invented the
whole thing.”
About the remark made by K about the 'sentimental' flavour in
the New Testament is not entirely correct.To a larger extent
the New Testament is propagandistic and cultistic, that is,
simply Jesus-centric; just like the literature of the Krishna
murtians. The apostles, particularly Paul has perfectly done
a bad job of presenting Jesus in a sentimental vein....
Even if the man called Jesus Christ had not existed, it is not a
problem at all. Even if Jesus was a fictional character created
by some anonymous crank,(like Mark, who was the first to write
the Gospel as researchers aver.) who had cleverly put all his
revolutionary ideas in the form of verses into the mouth of the
character called Jesus,the meaning and implications of the verses
won't be lost.....
The problem with Krishnamurti was his 'personality complex'
that he could not stand any other personality looming
large, seizing the day, even that image or personality is of
the dead past. So Krishnamurti was not averse to the Bible,
its precious verses of revolutionary wisdom; he was only averse
to the personality of Jesus. Otherwise he would not have
quoted the verses and it was in a way inevitable for him
and he could not desist the temptation to quote.....
So the question about the existence of the historical Jesus
raised by Krishnamurti is a non-issue used by him to distract
his listeners. Moreover, according to Krishnamurti himself,
what is important is the Teaching not the Teacher. And an
insight is an insight whoever brought it forth, whether it
is found in the Bible, or the Quran, or The Gita.....
Well, of all the Conditionings, the most subtle and invisible
and highly dangerous is the Linguistic Conditioning and
without exception all are conditioned linguistically,it begins
with learning a language, by what one hears, reads and so on.
Without knowing the terminologies of any field whether science
or spirituality or any mundane subject, one cannot be
articulate in his or her chosen field or profession.
But learning the terminologies of any field is a trap, for one
cannot merely learn the definitions, meanings without also
learning the ideologies of a particular system of thought, or
school of thought, say,Theosophy, for instance. That was what
happened in the case of Krishnamurti. He was discovered at
Adyar beach, Madras, when he was just 14 years old, and
immediately Besant & Co. converted the boy into a guinea pig
for their strange Spiritual experiment. They injected Theosophy
into Krishnamurti, in a specially controlled environment, not
without adequate care and concern and carrots (rewards).
At that young age Krishnamurti cannot deny or protest and
cannot voice his choices. Thus right from the beginning he was
brought up without choices, which perhaps launched him on
the orbit of 'CHOICELESS AWARENESS', which latter became the
corner stone of his unique Philosophy!
Well, the speed with which he has been trained, trimmed,
moulded was alarming and the perceptive boy awoke to the
atrocities done to him and secretly took stock of his
situation and courageously decided to break himself free
brooding over the matter for two long years, but not without
a trade-off....
But before proceeding any further, let us clarify certain
things. Well, what is so special and unique about 'K' which
all other kids lack? And what did Leadbeater see in 'K'?
When Leadbeater saw Krishnamurti on the beach, he found
that the boy Krishnamurti 'had the most wonderful aura he
had ever seen, without a particle of selfishness in it';
'he predicted to Wood that one day the boy would become a
great spiritual teacher'.
Well,the boy had no selfishness in him and besides,Leadbeater
saw the potential in him to become a great spiritual teacher'.
But whoelse is without potential? And whoelse is not perceptive?
Verily, all are born with the potential to become Buddhas
including Leadbeater, Annie Besant and everyone! But who are
these Theosophists, why they themselves were not ready as
vehicles for 'Maitreya' to be incarnated or manifested, instead
they somehow stayed content with the job of midwifery?
It was said human individuals are born without built-in mental
content and that therefore all knowledge comes from experience
or perception. That is, the mind of the newborn child is a blank
slate, a Tabula rasa that the mind starts blank, but acquires
knowledge as the outside world is impressed upon it. Hence
Krishnamurti is not special or unique and not an exception to
the rule. But the observation by Leadbeater that the boy
Krishnamurti had no selfishness in him is debatable because
we have no way of verifying it. But selfishness or no
selfishness that is not a big deal, only the underlying
awareness that defied conditioning.
Now we can answer Krishnamurti's 'serious' question that
'why the small boy Krishnamurti did not get conditioned during
childhood the way all other people seem to get conditioned?
But before attempting to answer it, we must correct the
question, because no one can answer a wrong question, that was
why, Krishnamurti himself could not answer it and left it
as a mystery hanging in midair.Or purposely he framed a wrong
question to mislead those who were around him! Well, the
right question begins not with the word 'why' but with the
right word 'how'. Here is the right question: How the small boy
Krishnamurti did not get conditioned during childhood the way
all other people seem to get conditioned? The answer is very
simple. That is, his family situation was such that
economically poor, socially aloof, a kind of island like,that
the factors of conditioning was so minimum, without much
distraction, Krishnamurti somehow retained his innocence intact
and his original awareness was not overwhelmed by the factors of
conditioning the way all other kids seem to get conditioned.
Yes, that was how Krishnamurti escaped conditioning and there
was no other ulterior or special reason for being not conditioned.
But if we persist on the 'why' it has one misleading answer,
that is, the small boy Krishnamurti did not get conditioned
during childhood in order to make a World Teacher out of him!
We must remember one cardinal point that ours is an evolving
species and the birth and growth of consciousness is not a
mass-phenomenon only individuals can get over the long
evolutionary stupor, just one by one!
And we are born in a conditioned society and without exception
we are all prone to conditioning. But what is conditioning
anyway? Well, lack of awareness and consciousness leads to
conditioning, mistaking the obvious for the ultimate,
identifying with survival as the whole of living. And
conditioning is not an Evil thing, neither selfishness is!
For Awareness or Consciousness can override and overcome
conditioning, selfishness and everything.
Only death will reveal with what one is conditioned all along!
"After cancer had been diagnosed definitely, he (K) said to
Mary wonderingly, ‘What have I done wrong?’ as if he had
in some way failed to look after the body entrusted by
‘the other’ to his charge. He asked Mary and Scott to stay
with him until the end because he wanted ‘the body’ looked
after as he had looked after it himself. He made this request
without the slightest sentimentality or self-pity."
(Mary Lutyens, "The Life and Death of Krishnamurti", p.157.)
Well, the question ‘What have I done wrong?’ smacks of the
'moralist' and the 'perfectionist' in Krishnamurti.
While K was in hospital,
he wanted, purely out of curiosity,to know from Pandit
Jagannath Upadhyaya what was the traditional way of
treating the dead body of a ‘holy’ man in India, and a
letter was sent asking for this information.
(Mary Lutyens, "The Life and Death of Krishnamurti",p.157.)
'By Jove', what is this 'purely out of curiosity' thing? And what
this revolutionary thinker who had transcended and had done with
the traditional has got to do with or know about the traditional
way of treating the dead body of a ‘holy’ man or 'unholy' man in
India or elsewhere?
In the last tape he (K) ever recorded, he said,
‘I don’t think people realize what tremendous energy
and intelligence went through this body...’
(Mary Lutyens, "The Life and Death of Krishnamurti",p.164.)
But I really want to know what really K wanted to convey through
these words, whether he emphasized (glorified)'the tremendous
energy' or his 'body' through which the tremendous energy went,
or both?
Yet again, when talking about the ‘vacant mind’
'K kept on returning during my enquiry to ‘the boy’s’
vacant mind – a vacancy which, he said, he had never
lost. What had kept it vacant? he asked. What had
always protected the vacancy? If he himself were
writing about the mystery he would begin with the
vacant mind. Those words he had uttered nine days
before his death are as haunting to me as anything
he ever said: ‘If you all only knew what you have
missed – that vast emptiness.’
(Mary Lutyens, "The Life and Death of Krishnamurti",p.163)
Why K kept on returning to ‘the boy’s’ vacant mind? Why this
constant bragging about ‘the boy’, about 'the vacant mind',
about 'his body'or 'K's body'(both are the same)? What exactly
he has been trying to point out through these is not at all
clear! If K is not identified with his own body, then who is
talking about the body? If he is not the body, then he cannot
even be the ‘vacant mind’, since it is vacant there is none,
so it cannot identify with anything at all; then he must be
one with the 'Immense energy' or 'the other', but what the
muddle 'the Impersonal other' must have got into by talking
(hankering) about ‘the boy’, the vacant mind, his body or
this body?
Krishnamurti is only Human, all too Human
-----------------------------------------
It was printed in black and white, in Padmanabhan krishna's book,
"A Jewel on a Silver Plater" page:168,
In one of the (love) letters K had said,
"Why was I picked up,otherwise I could have
married you?"
Well, Krishnamurti has been a strange mixture of private passions
and public projections all his life. A victim of chances, a puppet,
first in the hands of the Theosophists, then in the hands of the
Krishnamurtians( the admirers of K),then in the invisible hands
of the 'Other'. He had never been a man for himself, always torn
between contradictory factors which he could not reconcile....
Speaking of himself in the third person as he often did,
Krishnamurti recounted that:
"...And this boy, neither worship, nor flattery, nor
crowds—nothing seemed to touch him. So—he was vague,
moronic, perhaps that’s not the word, but enough to
describe a boy who was absolutely vacant. He would tell
everybody: “I will do whatever you want.” That used to be
his favorite phrase. “I’ll do what you want.” Even now
sometimes it happens."
(Evelyne Blau-"Krishnamurti 100 Years" p.31.)
Krishnamurti lived most of his life surrounded by people,
celebrities, actors, artists, musicians, thinkers, and
beautiful girls. That means he had to wade through them,
through all distractions if he were to retain his sanity
and find himself.
Well,his whole life and mission has been a Great Drama, in
which he was thrown in to play the central or an all
important role of a 'world teacher', and he somehow amidst
all the clamour played his role to the hilt. The 'script'
for the 'drama' was written by the persons K stumbled upon,
the times, the milieu (which includes all the factors of
conditioning and distracting values and so on). The
dialogues were mostly dictated by others, on rare occasions
he got the chance and he spoke the dialogues of his own heart.
And what sustained him through all these is the 'insights'.
He somehow had 'kept his intelligence enthusiastically
awakened'; to serve this end only the 'vacant mind'is for,
a gift every newborn child comes equipped with. That is, the
'vacant mind' is not really vacant, it is verily the womb
(like the 'void' in sub-atomic physics, out of which the
fundamental particles are created) bubbling with Silent
Enthusiasm, receptive or open to the entire Spectrum of
Consciousness- from the lowest plane to the highest plane of
consciousness. If it is really vacant or empty then there
would be no difference between the mind of a frog and a man.
It would seem blasphemous to say K's life is a big drama, but
the fact is K is not an exception; for everyone's life is a
drama only, that is, the life of an ordinary man in the street
is a small or petty drama, too insignificant to recount.
But, when one's life ceases to be a drama and becomes really
real is the question. Yes, When one awakens, the drama ceases
and real life blossoms
Certainly Krishnamurti had awakened at some date in 1922
but the problem with Krishnamurti was that he did not step down
from the drama-set to the very end, only his death brought his
act to a close. He even knew that he is caught in the thick of
it all and so he invented the precepts that 'one has to find
truth through the mirror of relationship and in daily life..'
'life exists in relationship...' and so on.
The man Krishnamurti and his life are a strange case of private
life exhibited on a world stage something like epoch-making and
historic, while millions were born, lived and gone without
any trace at all. If one carefully studies K's life leaving out
all the larger-than-life portraits but taking into account
whatever tiny or seemingly insignificant details available,
slowly all the pieces of the puzzle will come together to reveal
the real portrait of Krishnamurti. The predicament in which he was
caught was not ordinary. He was more like a trapped animal and to
break free he needed colossal energy and effort.
'According to Wood, he was physically so weak that his father
declared more than once that he was bound to die. (Krishna himself
was to say later in life that he would certainly have died had
Leadbeater not ‘discovered’ him.)'
And K was mentally also so weak, in the sense, his mental
faculties has not unfolded adequately and as he was not
introduced in his childhood to the wider world of people and
things, his innocence was intact and the 'vacant mind' of the
child continued in K. Speaking about the 'vacant mind',it is
not a property unique to Krishnamurti alone, on the contrary,
it is the original ground state of every newborn child.
And the 'vacant mind' cannot be understood in terms of its
vacancy. It is vacant because its "focus" had not met the right
target. In the case of K it took some thirty four years to find
its target. In the majority of cases their vacant mind was
filled and identified with 'thousand and one things' and they
never find in their lives, the only one right target: truth.
Well, we said that the predicament in which K was caught was not
ordinary. He was more like a trapped animal and to break free he
needed colossal energy and effort of a very different kind.That
is, the colossal energy needed in his case was not physical but
spiritual; and the effort needed was not of the personal but
impersonal, hence the long preparation of the 'process',assuming
that the so-called 'process' really happened in K.
As K was growing up physically and mentally and when he became
aware of the situation in which he was trapped, he was alarmed
and terrified as the task imposed on him was immense, the titles
'Messiah' and 'world Teacher' simply threatened him to the bones.
On the otherside, Besant's love and caring, the adulation and
the atmosphere of high expectations made K to succumb to the
temptation of playing the 'world Teacher', something he would
never have thought or dreamed of on his own.
Now he had no other choice than playing the proffered role of
a 'world Teacher', and at the same time he must be true to his
being, thus he was caught between the hammer and the anvil as
the 'process' of forging him, not exactly into a 'world Teacher'
but into a 'world student' began. And in the process
Krishnamurti was nearly crucified. Life had taught him its
Ultimate Lesson. He had 'known the Truth' and Truth had set
him free.
Here we must understand clearly that Krishnamurti is not a
'Saviour', not a 'messiah', not a 'world Teacher', he is not
even a local-teacher. He is not unique, or extraordinary, or
special. He was caught in a dire situation and he somehow
broke free from it, that was what happened and that was all.
He is only an example, perhaps a 'world-example', as to what
any ordinary man can become or attain against all odds and
events....
Though Krishnamurti had said,
"I want to do a certain thing in the world and I’m
going to do it with unwavering concentration. I am
concerning myself with only one essential thing:
to set man free."
(Mary Lutyens- The Life and Death of
Krishnamurti, p.66)
it can only remain in records, in his books, video tapes.
His concern and intention was good, but no one, no savior,
no God, no messiah, no Teacher, no guru can free another;
no one can save another. All his talks, or 'teachings'
had one main theme 'FREEDOM' or 'PROBLEM' because he
had solved his problem and freed himself from all the
shackles he wanted to set others free out of goodwill.
In a private conversation between Sidney Field and
Krishnamurti, Sidney Field asked Krishnamurti :
“Are you in constant touch with the reality you
call Liberation?”
“There’s no separation,” he(K) said. Then, after
a moment: “I am an example. I have cleaned the slate.
Life paints the picture.”
Yes, as Krishnamurti himself has rightly said, his 'example'
can be of some help and so do his Teachings.
The Dangerous Cocktail
-----------------------
Verily in the realm of authentic spirituality, the teacher
and the teaching cannot be separated. But in Krishnamurti's
case it is different.
'In 1929 when Krishnamurti decided to leave the
Theosophical organization, it was loudly whispered
that even though Lord Maitreya had entered Krishnamurti
(World Teacher), something of Krishnamurti's self
remained behind. In later years occasionally people
with Theosophical connection would comment that
Krishnamurti was one person on the platform and a
different one in life...'
(S.Balasundaram,"Non-Guru Guru-My years with
J.Krishnamurti" p.97)
When a man ascends in Consciousness something of the person
has to remain. Otherwise there can be no revelation, no
teaching can come forth;
In enlightenment the person is not annihilated but annexed.
Consciousness in its uppermost level soars into Cosmic Anonymity
but at its base it begins as a personolity. The 'ego' as the
dawn of consciousness is an inevitable necessity but the fiction
it weaves around itself is a limiting adversity. Even after
enlightenment the ego has to remain as a functional center with
regard to the world, and it has to remain as the basic cognitive
faculty with its thought and intellect as an interface between
the outer and the deeper inner world....
So, the problem with Krishnamurti was not that something of his
self or personality remained behind even after his enlightenment.
But unfortunately what remained intact in his case was a 'WOUND'.
It was his 'Wounded self'. He was quite unconscious about his
'complexes' and 'projections' to the extent of denying outright
the fact of the existence of the unconscious in the human psyche.
No doubt,Krishnamurti had attained Enlightenment and Immortality.
But what he failed to attain was psychological maturity. What
really captivated him was not the state of enlightenment or the
special 'benediction' he enjoyed, the Liberation he had bagged
but the vague, vacant-minded 'moronic' boy he once was who had
attained all these miraculous things. The blunder he had
committed unknowingly was his secret wish to Immortalize the
vague, vacant-minded 'moronic' boy he was. This strain in him
had contaminated and unnecessarily complicated his teachings.
To understand Krishnamurti one need not climb up to the summit
of the Mountain of Insights he had brought forth. For on the
platform Krishnamurti was all of Spirit and less of flesh and
blood, but once off the platform he was the usual infantine
person Krishnamurti. He might have looked different to
different people as they wanted him to be, but deep down he
was always the same vague, vacant-minded 'moronic' boy only,
with his 'boyishness', 'childlike laughter', 'uninhibited
laughter' intact till his death. He always saw everything
through the eyes of the moronic boy he ever was. Krishnamurti
has unredeemably got stuck in his traumatic boyhood and
infantile psychology. It was said of him that he had to relax
with detective stories! Sometimes with stupid little jokes
looking at TV with all the rubbish it showed!
He had a grudge not only against Leadbeater who beat him once
but against the whole world and that was why his talks were
tinged with a subtle harangue. And that was the reason why he
had always talked against all religions,organizations,schools
of thought, and so on. He had the 'Right-Man-Syndrome' that
everyone else is wrong except him. And he was boastful of the
one of a kind transformation 'process' he had undergone which
the inner-circle of his devotees only stood witness; of his
pure brahmanical body; of his enlightenment; of the 'vacant
mind'; of his mind without a single thought, and so on...
Shortly before his death Krishnamurti had declared that no one
had ever truly understood his teaching; no one besides himself
had experienced transformation.
The problem with Krishnamurti was that he was one person on
the platform and a different one in life. There was a split
in him, a kind of dissociation in which two personalities with
distinct behavior patterns existed in him. When one personality
was on the helm the other was subdued,a dichotomy Krishnamurti
with his vast awareness could not have missed but he had no
time to mend it, the little psychology he learnt was through
reading novels and detectives and through observing the hordes
of curious onlookers. Krishnamurti might have sensed his
problem and applied his own teaching - that is, 'without
condemning', 'without wanting to alter it in any way','without
Censorious attitudes', always 'looking at it anew', 'facing it
without escaping from it'- and somehow he co-existed with
the problem amicably till the end.
Well, when one is not consciously aware of one's psychological
problem, one's psyche will take up the problem and strive to
correct it by driving the person through a particular task or
a pursuit. In Greek mythology Sisyphus, the king of Ephyra was
punished for his self-aggrandizing craftiness and deceitfulness
by being forced to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to
watch it roll back down, repeating this action for eternity.
Like Sisyphus, Krishnamurti was made to talk all his life in
order that his problem could be transcended temporarily while
delivering the talk.
Krishnamurti had said somewhere that
'The body is here to talk; it has been brought up
that way and its purpose is to talk. Anything else
is irrelevant,...'
Well, in the above statement of Krishnamurti, the phrase
'brought up' could be substituted by the word 'conditioned'
or 'condemned' without any loss of resulting sense.
In the account of Susunaga Weeraperuma, in his book,
'J.Krishnamurti As I Knew Him' p.34
'Whenever K mounted a platform to speak, there was a
certain subtle change in his personality.His self-effacing
shyness fell into abeyance; he had the manner of an aloof
speaker who did not mind saying things that were hurtful
to the feelings of his listeners; he was indifferent
to the fact that his denunciation of gurus and their
systems of meditation was offending the religious
susceptibilities of devout followers; he talked like a man
who was possessed by a superior power of understanding...'
Well, one need not conduct any long or elaborate research to
find out the obvious fact that Krishnamurti was one person on
the platform and a different one in life. And what(ever) he was
in (his) life is not our problem but what he was on the platform
that is, what he talked, the Teaching he brought forth is our
problem. First of all we must be clear that his teaching was
not meant for us in the first place but for himself.Krishnamurti
was learning and learning, studying, observing, and talking
or teaching all his life only to keep him stabilized. He was
really free and alive only when he was giving talks, or holding
meetings, discussing things seriously, only then he was driven
to the summit of the unity of being. But once he was off the
platform like the boulder of Sisyphus he invariably hit
rock-bottom becoming the infantine vacant boy he was
psychologically.
The passage given below clearly portrays the 'ever boyish
beauty' of Krishnamurti :
'Part of Krishnamurti’s attraction was no doubt his
appearance. Except as a young boy he had been
extraordinarily beautiful, and even in old age he
retained great beauty of figure, bone structure and
carriage. But more than this, there was a personal
magnetism that drew people to him. He could speak
publicly with sternness, sometimes almost fierceness,
but with people individually or in small groups there
was a sense of great warmth and affection.
(Mary Lutyens,"The Life and Death of Krishnamurti",p.8)
Well, as we have clarified a little earlier, what(ever)
Krishnamurti was in (his) life, that is not our problem but
what he was on the platform, that is, what he talked, the
Teaching he left behind is our problem. He had put his mark
in every word, every syllable of his teaching, too impossible
to separate the Teaching from the Teacher. He somehow seeps into
his teaching contaminating it and unnecessarily complicating it.
Rarely his teaching is Pure Gold, or otherwise he gets into it
muddying it with his exhibitionistic boastfulness of his rich
inner life, of the spiritual heights he had ascended....
Though Krishnamurti had said that
'The speaker has nothing to teach you. The speaker is
merely acting as a mirror in which you can see yourself.
Then when you can see yourself clearly you can discard
the mirror.’
(Mary Lutyens-The Life and Death of Krishnamurti,p.144)
But the problem is one cannot see oneself clearly in the mirror
of Krishnamurti. For it is not really a mirror but a framed
portrait of Krishnamurti only.....
'At the Brockwood gathering after Saanen, K was asked why he
went on speaking at his age. He answered:
‘That has often been asked: “Why do you go on using
your energy after fifty years when nobody seems to
change?” I think when one sees something true and
beautiful one wants to tell people about it, out of
affection, out of compassion, out of love. And if
there are those who are not interested that is all
right. Can you ask the flower why it grows, why it
has perfume? It is for the same reason that the
speaker talks.’
(Mary Lutyens-The Life and Death of Krishnamurti,p.134)
Here again the problem is we cannot ask the flower why it
grows, why it has perfume? But at the same time the flower
cannot ask or demand or compel us to smell its fragrance
however sweet it is. Above all the flower cannot have any
commitment to do so.
When Krishnamurti dissolved the Order of the star in 1929
he said that
'My only concern is to set men absolutely,
unconditionally free'
Was his 'concern' a sort of commitment or was he conditioned
to set men absolutely,unconditionally free?
Once Krishnamurti said that
"....it will be sufficient if there were
only five people who will listen, who will live,
who have their faces turned towards eternity.”
Why one needs five people or even one? Can't one journey alone
without company,without the paraphernalia of Foundations,Schools
and all that? Clearly the above statement and almost all his
statements bespeak of his deep-rooted conditioning.
It was said that the 'core' of Krishnamurti'a teaching is
contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said
‘Truth is a pathless Land’.
" I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you
cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any
religion, by any sect. That is my point of view and
I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally...
If you first understand that, then you will see how
impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is
purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must
not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead,
crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion,
to be imposed on others...."
Good, Krishnamurti questioned almost everything put across him
saying,'I question that.'But it is a wonder how no one had ever
questioned the statement "I maintain that Truth is a pathless
land". On what authority he had said "I maintain"? Here one is
not questioning the truth of the statement which how many of us
would have understood is another question but one is questioning
the author of the statement about his qualification to say all
these things. Perhaps he had no other means to free himself from
the fold of the Theosophists,so he made a statement not sounding
too antogonistic yet securing his safer exit. Whatever his
situation was, his statement was born of a cultic crucible and it
has become the cornerstone of a strange new cult around
Krishnamuti himself.....
Also one can find in the above quoted statement phrases that
are inexact and self-centric like 'that is my point of view',
'I adhere', and an injunction 'if you first understand that'
and so on. Then he made a short preachment on 'belief'
"A belief is purely an individual matter, and you
cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it
becomes dead,crystallized; it becomes a creed,
a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others...."
Somehow conveniently forgetting the rules he himself laid
Krishnamuti had organized foundations and instituitions...
Now it is story-time:
"You may remember the story of how the devil and a
friend of his were walking down the street, when
they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up
something from the ground, look at it, and put it
away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil,
“What did that man pick up?” “He picked up a piece
of truth,” said the devil. “That is a very bad
business for you, then,” said his friend. “Oh, not
at all,” the devil replied, “I am going to let him
organize it.”
Well, Krishnamuti picked up a piece of truth, alas, the devil
had let him organize it in Krishnamuti's own name.
"you cannot and must not organize it. If you do,
it becomes dead,crystallized; it becomes a creed,
a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others...."
And in his own time 'The Pathless Land' got organized and
it became dead,crystallized; and it became a creed, a sect,
a religion, a cult to be imposed on everyone of us.
Well, not only belief cannot and must not be organized;
truth and insight also cannot and must not be organized.
And any Teaching is an imposition, an uncalled-for burden.
And a Teaching can be seen or assessed from more than one
vantage point. Usually Krishnamuti's Teaching is seen and
propagated from his devotees' point of view; the other one
is from the common lay-people or intellectual's point of
view (both are the same as far as the end result is
concerned). Well, the third one is a rarest kind but it
is there; it is the Perceptive Individual's view. But the
few who are really perceptive will not divulge their view
or assessment of the Teaching fully for reasons of decency
and not to hurt anyone......
So it would be better if we turn to the Teacher himself
for a fair assessment of the impact of his Teaching on
people. But, alas, he had only this to say:
"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.
(Mary Lutyens-The Life and Death of Krishnamurti,p.159)
Strangely, Krishnamurti himself had said it is an Impossibility,
that we won't find another body like his, or that supreme
intelligence operating in a body for many hundred years.We won't
see it again. When he (K) goes,it goes.There is no consciousness
left behind of that consciousness, of that state. Hence, would it
be vain to look for it in oneself or others? Not exactly! This
prophetic pronouncement of Krishnamurti was heavily FLAWED.
First of all, his body-centric view of his spirituality was all
wrong, as it had stemmed from his wrong conception of
Consciousness, that 'Consciousness is its contents'. But verily
it is not so. Perhaps his love for the 'vacant mind' might have
made him believe that 'vacant mind' is really vacant devoid of
any consciuosness at all and so on....
But the last three sentences of the above quoted statement are
very important.
"They’ll all pretend or try to imagine they can
get into touch with that."
Yes, whether we acknowledge it or not, almost all of us are
PRETENDERS only. Krishnamurti was absolutely accurate on this
point.
"Perhaps they will somewhat if they live the
teachings."
But this one is a tall order, the second Impossibility. We won't
do it at all. Krishnamurti himself did not live the Teaching fully.
He might have thought the Teaching that came out through him was
meant for others. And as he was busy Teaching others he could not
find time to live it himself......
"But nobody has done it. Nobody. And so that’s
that."
This last one was a hasty conclusion born out of his frustration
and disappointment with not having come across anyone who is
enlightened like himself. And of the wider world the sample he
had tested was very puny to come to any valid conclusion....
So, his assessment of the impact of his Teaching on people was
not accurate.
In an interview, Vimala Thakar answered rightly to a question
asked by Padmanabhan krishna :
Padmanabhan krishna: Some people say that what K is
advocating is inherently impossible to do, that a man
caught in the ego field cannot step out of it. What
do you think?
Vimala Thakar: No sir, it is not impossible, and
Vimala's life is a proof that it is not impossible.
It is a life of an ordinary human being in the midst
of the whole travail of human problems, challenges,
etc.,coming from the lower middle class and it could
happen. So it is not impossible. ...
(Padmanabhan krishna,"A Jewel on a Silver Plater",p.178)
Yes, Vimalaji was right, her own life is proof enough and it
could happen to anyone who gives her or his life wholly,
regardless of class, caste, creed, gender, colour, race,
religion, environment and everything. Enlightenment is a strange
beast it has no preference at all except the one who prefers it
wholeheartedly and steadfastly,without the need of any supporting
myth of any kind, whether of Theosophy or anysophy. For every
human being who is alive now is a potential candidate for
enlightenment. And it needs no special body, whether brahmanical
or otherwise. And it is not at all concerned with the purity of
the body nor even of the mind except the awakened awareness
that seeks the truth of itself.....
And things like 'the process','Mitreya-coming or manifesting' are
just woo-woo stuff.Krishnamurti and the people of his inner-circle
might have just invented the whole thing, a neat fabrication to
cheat Besant &Co., in order to escape from their fold and at the
same time to establish that K is really the 'World Teacher' but
altogether through a hitherto unknown (even to the Theosophists)
one of a kind 'process' in the whole of spiritual and occult
history....
In the epilogue of her book, "On an Eternal Voyage" Vimalaji
had stated very briefly about her Enlightenment in one single
sentence:
EPILOGUE/THIRTY YEARS AFTER
"Friends ask me to write an Epilogue to the book
‘Eternal Voyage.’ An Epilogue is the concluding
part!
I do not know if this is the concluding phase of
my physical life. But the voyage found its
consummation long ago. Perhaps twenty or thirty
years ago. The voyage ended in home coming."
'The voyage ended in home coming'. Her epilogue ended sincerely
wishing them who happen to read her book without any conditions
or strings attached :
"May the home coming occur in the lives of those who
happen to read this book."
Vimala Thakar
25/07/1994
It was said that Vimala Thakar was influenced by the teachings
of Krishnamurti. She had attended many of his talks in Rajghat
and in Madras and had private interviews with him, which deeply
affected her consciousness, catapulting her into profound
silence. Which finally consummated in her enlightenment. Well,
she could have been enlightened even without the influence of
Krishnamurti. Or perhaps Krishnamurti's Teachings might have
acted like a potent catalyst hastening the process of her
enlightenment to an early consummation.
Even Krishnamurti seem to have acknowledged Vimala Thakar's
inner state of things and even pleaded her to preach right
away:
“But why don’t you explode? Why don’t you put bombs
under all these old people who follow the wrong line?
Why don’t you go around India? Is anyone doing this?
If there were half a dozen, I would not say a word to
you. There is none. . . . There is so much to do.
There is no time. . . . Go—shout from the house tops,
‘You are on the wrong track! This is not the way to
peace!’. . . Go out and set them on fire! There is
none who is doing this. Not even one. . . . What are
you waiting for?”
(source: Sat Sangha Salon/ 'Set Them On Fire')
Like Vimalaji, another example was Dr.Ruben Ernesto Feldman-
Gonzalez (from Argentina), whom Krishnamurti acknowledged
and encouraged to speak publicly as Dr.Ruben expressed his
wish to speak publicly.
Dr.Ruben :" what will we do, the ones that have tasted
a few drops of that water?"
Krishnamurti: Those few will have to shout from the
housetops before it's too late for mankind"
(Luis S.R.Vas, "Krishnamurti-Great Liberator or
Failed Messiah?", p.45-46)
Well, Krishnamurti had sensed something stirring in these
two individuals, Vimala Thakar and Dr. Ruben Gonzalez, but
he somehow forgot these people and had said that nobody has
lived his teachings and all that.
Before concluding this part regarding the accesssibilty of
Krishnamurti's Teaching and the Teacher himself, let us see
what Lama Anagarika Govinda (Scholar, mystic, writer,poet,
and painter), Ken Wilber (Transpersonal Psychologist, and
Integral Theorist) and others had said about Krishnamurti,
quoted in the book, "Krishnamurti- Great Liberator or Failed
Messiah? by Luis S.R.Vas, p.5 :
"Lama Anagarika Govinda has said:"Krishnamurti
is the most conditioned man I know," implying
that he has been reacting to his TS conditioning
and not free from it,thus making the transmission
of his insights ineffective. Others have pointed
out that he suffers from a "no dog but I shall
bark" syndrome,an arrogance of which he has been
accusing others. Ken Wilber, a noted thinker, has
charged him of being stuck midway on the spiritual
ladder."
In a website called Spiritualteachers.org, they had depicted
the 'Ratings of Spiritual Teachers';Last Update: July 10, 2016.
In which Krishnamurti was given only Two Stars only, under the
caption: Interesting and possibly of help to you.
They gave Five Stars to Douglas Harding, Franklin Merrell Wolf,
Ramana Maharshi, Richard Rose, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj,
and Bernadette Roberts;under the caption:Highest Recommendation.
Well, to conclude this part of the article, what I personally
say about the Teachings of Krishnamurti and the Teacher is that
the combination of Krishnamurti's Teaching and the Teacher
Krishnamurti is not recommendable, for it will be a dangerous
cocktail, both won't mix smoothly. As already stated,
The Teacher Krishnamurti somehow seeped into his teaching
contaminating it and unnecessarily complicating it.
Rarely his teaching is Pure Gold, or otherwise he gets into it
muddying it with his exhibitionistic boastfulness of his rich
inner life, of the spiritual heights he had ascended.
So if there is a way to filter out the Teacher from the Teachings,
then perhaps we can recommend it far and wide. Otherwise his
Teachings will confuse the common or lay readers, while
distracting the advanced readers and even the scholars.
Somewhere in her book, "Lives in the Shadow with J. Krishnamurti"
the authoress Radha Rajagopal Sloss remarked:
"One day, history will reveal everything; but the
division in Krishnamurti himself will cast a very
dark shadow on all he has said or written. Because
the first thing the readers will say, is: “If he
cannot live it, who can?”
Radha Rajagopal Sloss might have said these things for reasons
of her own, however, her diagnosis about 'the split' in
Krishnamurti tallies with my own diagnosis of K, and her prophesy
that "One day, history will reveal everything" has become true now,
and any perceptive reader can find it revealed in this article.
Regarding Krishnamurti's sexual affair with Rosalind Rajagopal,
whether the liaison was long or short, nothing much can be said
than this: Krishnamurti is only human, all too human.
And any human being can be enlightened, can reach the spiritual
heights, the pinnacle of Consciousness, yet psychologically
remain stuck with his or her infantile or juvenile stages.
Krishnamurti is to be understood as a human being with his own
limitations and flaws. He had an unhappy and traumatic childhood
which he had not overcome at all. And he was so overwhelmed by the
experience of his enlightenment he could not but bragg about it all
the time making it into a big show and game for which the
Besant & Co., had erected a stage.
Despite all his limitations and flaws, personally I love the man
Krishnamurti for the insights he had brought forth and I enjoy them
immensely, after all, lotus bloom in the mud only.I can understand
people with their masks, things that holding them back, without
even looking behind them or peeping into them; people are very
transparent that they reveal everything. The strange fact is
all people are clairvoyants about others but about themselves
utterly blind....
Regarding Teachings in general, my verdict is this: Humanity is
not yet ready for any Teachings.
Three Thousand or so years ago the Upanishadic Seers came and gone.
Two Thousand and Five Hundred years ago the Buddha came and
gone. Two Thousand years ago Jesus came and gone.The humanity has
not changed except a few individuals here and there.Teachings are
like 'Message in a bottle' to be thrown into the ocean of humanity,
someday,after a hundred years or even more, someone will find it
and take all the pains to decode the message, in the process of
decoding he will dig deep into himself and find the Treasure hard
to obtain.....
Also teachings have other uses too, that many people will play with
it, dabble in it, worship it, thus will be engaged now and then,
in a right pursuit for wrong (superficial) purposes. But these are
the saviors of the Teachings, carrying it over from generation to
generation. If there are no Christians around in the world there
will be no Bible to read or study! The same holds true for K's
Teachings and the Krishnamurtians....
Regarding the title of this article "Freedom From Krishnamurti!"
I have long forgotten about Krishnamurti, except quoting him now
and then when questing with my friends, like Krishnamurti quoting
the verses from the Bible. But something about him remained in me
unsettled or ungrasped which surfaced now while reading the book
"A Jewel On a Silver Platter" by Padmanabhan Krishna, 2015,
Pilgrims Publishing; freshly bought from the19th Neyveli BookFair.
For long I could not quite accept the enigma part of K as projected
by his devotees; but now I have found that missing last piece of
the puzzle and got the puzzle solved. Now I feel free and fresh
without nagging enigmas or mysteries.I have settled the score,
the itch that kept me unnecessarily thinking about it.
This is the first article in this vein of a series I have decided
to bring forth freshly.
Enlightenment happens against all Odds and Events!
M.Ganesan/Neyveli, 28.7.2016
*************************************************************************
