#7: J.Krishnamurti

Jiddu Krishnamurti was, in many ways, total opposite of Osho. Where as Osho was excellent orator, entertaining, very humorous and gladly talked about everything - Krishnamurti had rather dry way to speak, he always seemed extremely serious and only talked about the most essential thing (mind and freedom of it). He always wore such clothes that fit into culture where he was at the moment. He constantly used word “sir” when addressing people and almost never used the word “I”. Curiously Osho once said that he had met lots people in his life: teachers, masters and gurus but only truly enlightened of them was Krishnamurti. When Krishnamurti heard about that he said that Osho was just fraud. Osho then said that this is exactly what enlightened person would say :)

In 1909 Jiddu was just a young boy wandering around on the beach in India when member of Theosophical society “found” him and took him to England to prepare him to become the world teacher. Things did not go as they planned. In 1929 Krishnamurti shocked many by giving a speech where he left the Theosophical society. This is part of that speech:

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 stop 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 the 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 help him organize it."

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. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or coerce people along a particular path.

When listening or reading Krishnamurti - he’s always going directly into the problem. He doesn’t use fancy metaphors or talk for sake of talking. All his life he kept thousands of lectures where he kept the same straightforward style. That’s also why some people don’t like to listen to him because he does not entertain at all. He was very concerned about the problems of mind and kept on saying that it was time to solve it now once and for all. His sincerity & determination was truly worth of mentioning.

Here are couple of quotes from him:

Insight is not an act of remembrance, the continuation of memory. Insight is like a flash of light. You see with absolute clarity, all the complications, the consequences, the intricacies. Then this very insight is action, complete. In that there are no regrets, no looking back, no sense of being weighed down, no discrimination. This is pure, clear insight - perception without any shadow of doubt. Most of us begin with certainty and as we grow older the certainty changes to uncertainty and we die with uncertainty. But if one begins with uncertainty, doubting, questioning, asking demanding, with real doubt about man's behaviour, about all the religious rituals and their images and their symbols, then out of that doubt comes the clarity of certainty.

To discover what is eternal, the process of the mind must be understood. You cannot think about the unknown; you can think only about the known, and what is known is not the real. Reality cannot be thought about, meditated upon, pictured, or formulated; if it is, it is not real, because it is merely the projection of the mind. It is only when the thought process ceases, when the mind is literally and utterly still - and stillness can come about only through self-knowledge - , that reality is understood; and it is the real that resolves our problems, not our cunning distractions and formulated escapes.

As I was saying if the young have not that revolutionary discontent, they are already old; and the old are those who were once discontented, but have settled back. They want security, they want permanency, either in their jobs or in their souls. They want certainty in ideas, in relationship, or in property. If in you, who are young, there is a spirit of inquiry which makes you want the truth of anything, of any political action whether of the left or of the right, and if you are not bound by tradition, then you will be the regenerators of the world, the creators of a new civilization, a new culture. But, like the rest of us, like the past generation, young people also want security, certainty. They want jobs, they want food, clothing and shelter, they don't want to disagree with their parents because it means going against society. Therefore, they fall in line, they accept the authority of older people. So, what happens? The discontent which is the very flame of inquiry, of search, of understanding – that discontent is made mediocre, it becomes merely a desire for a better job, or a rich marriage, or a degree. So, their discontent is destroyed, it merely becomes the desire for more security. Surely, what is essential for the old and for the young is to live fully, completely. But you see, there are very few people who want to live completely. To live fully and completely, there must be freedom, not an acceptance of authority; and there can be freedom only when there is virtue. Virtue is not imitation; virtue is creative living. That is, creativeness comes through the freedom which virtue brings; and virtue is not to be cultivated, it does not come through practice or at the end of your life. Either you are virtuous and free now, or you are not. And to find out why you are not free, you must have discontent, you must have the intention, the drive, the energy to encore; but you dissipate that energy sexually, or through shouting political slogans, waving flags, or merely imitating, passing examinations for a better job.

As you watch anything—a tree, your wife, your children, your neighbor, the stars of a night, the light on the water, the bird in the sky, anything—there is always the observer—the censor, the thinker the experiencer, the seeker—and the thing he is observing; the observer and the observed; the thinker and the thought. So, there is always a division. It is this division that is time. That division is the very essence of conflict. And when there is conflict, there is contradiction. There is “the observer and the observed”—that is a contradiction; there is a separation. And hence where there is contradiction, there is conflict. And when there is conflict, there is always the urgency to get beyond it, to conquer it, to overcome it, to escape from it, to do something about it, and all that activity involves time.... As long as there is this division, time will go on, and time is sorrow.

And a man who will understand the end of sorrow must understand this, must find, must go beyond this duality between the thinker and the thought, the experiencer and the experienced. That is, when there is a division between the observer and the observed, there is time, and therefore there is no ending of sorrow. Then, what is one to do? You understand the question? I see, within myself, the observer is always watching, judging, censoring, accepting, rejecting, disciplining, controlling, shaping. That observer, that thinker, is the result of thought, obviously. Thought is first; not the observer, not the thinker. If there was no thinking at all, there would be no observer, no thinker; then there would only be complete, total attention.