The Ending of Time

It seems to be the most important book for an in-depth exploration of the teachings. A philosopher and a modern scientist come face to face with each other and very deeply delve into some of the most profound issues of our time. 

Questioning Krishnamurti

While Te Ending of Time has dialogues between K and David Bohm only, Questioning Krishnamurti: J. Krishnamurti in dialogue with leading twentieth century thinkers has dialogues with people from different areas such as Buddhist scholars, philosopers, artists and a Jesuit priest. This volume contains his conversations with Chogyam Trungpa RInpoche, Renee Weber, David Bohm, Jonas Salk, Walpola Rahula, Bernard Levin, Huston Smith, Iris Murdoch and Pupul Jaykar.

In his foreword to the book, editor David Skitt says: 'For the first-time reader, the range and vocabulary of these conversations may seem daunting. Is this philosophy, psychology, or religion? Or all three? Krishnamurti himself did not like giving a name to what he talked about. His agenda was very open-ended, always totally free to cover any aspect of the human condition. For Krishnamurti, a religious view of life is inseparable from exploring whether we mistakenly apply the biological model of evolution to the psychological sphere; and whether the computer is an accurate simulation of the human brain. For him, these are not incidental but crucial issues that determine the quality of our lives, not just topics of intellectual interest.'

Re: The Ending of Time

hi chaitanya-

The conversations between J.K. and D.B. are, as you say, an amazing journey of exploration.

The line, the barrier, call it what we will, between western science and the 'what-is' of it is fading to gray.

For me, one of the most 'powerful' pieces of the dialog begins with:

'K: May I talk about myself a little bit?'

I wonder where the dialog would have got if D.B. had answered J.K.'s last question:

'K. …Look, we have been going in the wrong direction, there is only non-movement; and, if movement stops, everything will be correct'?

with words other than:

'DB: Well, it is hard to know beforehand if everything is going to be correct.'

What do you think?

Rather than re-posting the dialog snippet here I would ask you to click here

the best-
basho

She is black!!

A friend has sent this joke from Japan. She attributes it to Krishnamurti, but has not given any source. But it is interesting and I want to share it with all of you. I also shows how K. even through jokes, wanted to jolt us out of our slumber, our prejudices, our preconceived notions.

Krishnamurti telling a joke…

“Two friends, one of them a bishop, die in a car crash. They go up to heaven and meet St. Peter. Neither of them has sinned too much, so he lets them in. And he says to them, 'If you have any special request, tell me now, and I'll see to it that it gets done.' The bishop, a religious person, asks to see God. St Peter is startled by his request and tries to dissuade him, 'Seeing God is a sensitive affair-it's very shocking. Few people can stand it. If I may advice you, please don't insist on this.' But the man is adamant and insists on his wish. Finally St Peter gives in and tells him, 'Very well, if you insist. Just don't blame me afterwards. Go that way and follow the signs: 'God'. And don't forget to come back here.' Off he goes to see God, while his friend wait with St Peter for his return. It takes ten to fifteen minutes before he returns. He is a mere shadow of himself, as pale as a ghost, and staggering about in deep shock. His friend is concerned to see him in this state and says, 'By Jove, what's happened to you? What was He like?' But the man can only moan, 'She's black.'”

Freedom From The Known

I loved this book. The idea of freedom from what is ‘thought’ to be known as if someone can really know or have ultimate knowledge of any one thing. In other words might further realization of something may be a sign of having freedom from the known? Not being stuck in any one particular thought paradigm?

“Truth is a pathless land and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion by any sect … I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies … If an organization be created for this purpose it becomes a crutch, a weakness, a bondage and must cripple the individual and prevent him from growing, from establishing his uniqueness which lies in the discovery for himself of that absolute, unconditioned Truth … when you SEE this process, when you are really aware of it without opposition, without a sense of temptation, without resistance, without justifying or judging it then you will discover that the mind is capable of receiving the new and that the new is never a sensation therefore it can never be recognized, re-experienced. It is a state of being in which creativeness comes without invitation, without memory and that is reality. That which is unnameable cannot be recognised.”

I imagine that Ken Wilber may have had a challenge with some of this whereas David Bohm may have been more in agreement, even though, K seemed to denounce the idea of dialogue even though he obviously participated in it. Might K say that Ken’s enclyclopedic knowledge effectively “prohibited” him from truly understanding truth and reality as K described it above? The concept of “mental self-pleasuring” comes to mind but is quickly replaced by, “Be continually open to the mystery…”

.

Re: Freedom From The Known

I loved this book.

The idea of freedom from what is ‘thought’ to be known as if
someone can really know or have ultimate knowledge of any one thing.

In other words might further realization of something may be a sign of having
freedom from the known?

Not being stuck in any one particular thought paradigm?

I imagine that Ken Wilber may have had a challenge with some of this whereas
David Bohm may have been more in agreement, even though, K seemed to denounce
the idea of dialogue even though he obviously participated in it.

Might K say that Ken’s enclyclopedic knowledge effectively “prohibited” him from
truly understanding truth and reality as K described it above?

The concept of “mental self-pleasuring” comes to mind but is quickly replaced
by, “Be continually open to the mystery…”