Krishnamurti on God

What did Krishnamurti mean by God?  He used the term in a number of ways, in a number of contexts, sometimes arguing that God is a just a product of thought, other times using God in a more positive or suggestive way – as when he talked about discovering “God” or “Reality” once thought has come to an end. 

This question came up on the Integral Institute pod and I thought it would be good to also explore it here.

Re: Krishnamurti on God

From my understanding, Krishnamurti would equate God with Life.

Frans

Re: Krishnamurti on God

I believe, he referred to truth, and not to an idea. His books painstakingly takes you on a journey of self discovery; stay with him and he'll lead you to the pathless land in your own experience.

What I love about Krishnamurti is that he would never speak of the Absolute in the abstract. He would never talk “about” it. That is to me a clear understanding that truth is a living reality. Never to be pinned down or boxed in. Truth is a living exploration in an ongoing introspection and enactment of all of our senses towards the goal of realization of the inherent divine nature of all things, in a living context.

He would never allow anyone to state a fact, he would demand a living, ongoing understanding of its reality in the moment.

This made him so uncompromising and free from dogma.

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Hey Bjorn,

That's exactly what I meant by saying he equates God to Life.  Maybe a better way of saying it is that he equated God with Living…

All the reasons you give for why you love him are the same reasons I do…

Love,
Frans

Re: Krishnamurti on God

In the book titled Ending of Time, which features a dialogue between K and David Bohm, Krishnamurti says in one place that God operates when the brain is very quiet. Elsewhere, K also uses the expression 'the other' to refer to God. And quite often he says: “When the me is, the other is not”.

I think K means by God, the absence of the me, the whole psychological structure that goes by the name of self. 

Chaitanya 

Knowing oneself vs. knowing about oneself

It seems to me that in spite of all the knowledge that we accumulate about ourselves, we are still not in direct  touch with ourselves. Knowing about oneself, collecting data about oneself is not the same thing as knowing oneself. How does one get in touch with one's inmost self? What is the role of knowledge, if any, in this? Does meditation have a role to play? 
Friends, I would like to invite you all to investigat this question.
   

Re: Krishnamurti on God

That's a great question, Chaitanya!

It's also a question I've been thinking about lately.  It seems to me that we make it much too complicated; any “knowledge” stands between us and the direct perception of who we are.  Meditation - in the form of mirrorlike observing - is self-knowledge. 

I've written and deleted another 5 lines here - words fall short of conveying meaning here..

Frans

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Hi, Chaitanya,

I agree that that's a great question – really, it deserves its own thread, and I would actually separate it off, but for some reason I no longer have the “move post” option that I used to have as a pod administrator…

I'm not sure if you're interested in this aspect of your question, but a “challenge” to the full effectiveness of direct self-observation in the moment runs something like this:  There are aspects of ourselves that simply do not show up, phenomenologically, in the moment.  Choiceless awareness, in itself, is not sufficient to disclose some of the deep aspects of our cultural conditioning.  Other methods of “observation” and inquiry are involved – a longer view “over time,” and from a distance, which allows structural and structuring patterns to show up…patterns that underlie (and subtly influence and constrain) the aspects of ourselves that we can observe, phenomenologically, “in the moment.” 

One way of putting this would be that it is important both to know ourselves directly, in the way that you mention, and to know about ourselves in this other way that I'm describing.  It's not a question of using one way or the other, but of wisely using both – recognizing the limitations of each.  If I had to evaluate the two, I would say the direct self-observation you describe is the most essential – but the results of that self-observation can be skewed if you do not have the longer (“temporal”) view of the self that I'm also describing, because you may not recognize the subtle ways you may be interpreting what arises in choiceless awareness without it.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Bruce,there must be a simpler way which includes both,  direct as well as the one described by you. I feel there has to be something simple, something that is not so complicated, does not include any intellectual effort, any introspective dissection.

Kabir says It is in 'the breath of my breath'. Why should my relationship with something that is so close, be so difficult!

I think the way I understand self-exploration (a friend in K circle once described it as self-excavation!), there is something complicated about it. The way I conduct self enqiry only strengthens the self. Does not help dissolve it and therefore the very purpose of enquity gets defeated. 

K says that all one needs to do is to stay with oneself and nothing else. Absolutely nothing. And my self enquiry does not enable me to stay with what is. It often becomes an escape from it. My knowledge about anger, jealousy and so on, only stops me from looking at it. My knowledge about my wife, my kids and friends comes between them and me. The kind of looking that I am aware of creates a lot of noise, the noise created by information and knowledge. And I feel I need silence, a profound silence which happens only when efforts stop. 

I think only silence, only silent watching may lead to the insight that K talks about. An insight that penetrates through the thick wall of what is. 

Can we explore the nature of this seeling? The gentle, passive, silent watching that I am not capable of? Can I examine my obssession with information, with knowledge which makes a direct perception so difficult?

Namaste.    

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Chaitanya, if it helps, picture Krishnamurti as I saw him in childhood and for the last time in my youth. The source of his ideas:

walking by a river, deep in thought, or perhaps a walking meditation, letting thoughts flow in and out, not following them, just watching them Flowing as the river, flowing with the river. flowing.

And Krishnamurti, when I met him for a few brief moments, who bowed to us with such humility, as if surprised that anyone would want to meet him! Startling us who had just heard him as  such a passionate, forceful, enlightened Speaker, one who sounded almost as if he had to drum some sense into our heads!

If the few times I had the wonderful fortune to experience him in childhood, are an indication, God was not a construct for Krishnamurti. It was an experience. As he is for me–not his words, but his message.

I guess the short answer is- yes, meditation. To absorb all the words and not just read them. As he said: don't grasp, don't try to understand or categorize. Just watch!

Why is the ego so desperate?

Why is the ego so desperate in ensuring its survival? Why is it trying so hard to make sure that there is something to sustain itself? Why is the ego so deeply afraid of its death?
Could we investigate this together?

Re: Why is the ego so desperate?

A thought comes by, slightly at a tangent: ego is what it is. A land where light is refracted, truth broken up into components, oneness divided.

Yet in this land of ego, we can go into each color, each component, each division…and the deeper we go, the closer we come to the light.

We can take all colors together, all components together, all divisions together…and in that together, is the truth.

And when we are aware of “who” is going deeper or viewing all together, the illusion lifts.

So, “why is the ego so desperate in ensuring its survival?”  I feel  that the land of separateness needs to maintain its separateness. And perhaps ego is not a being with feelings; it is the soul lost or entangled in the dimension of ego, that is desperate.

Re: Why is the ego so desperate?

The ego is desperation itself, is it not? It is thought running around searching frantically for the answer, the solution, the magic word or whatever, to deal with what it does not and cannot know enough about to adequately meet.

Re: Why is the ego so desperate?

Great questions Chaitanya! Vital to investigate.

A great raging, snow storm here, today, one of a great immensity and force, quietning and over powering all sounds and noise, and cannot help but feel how much more powerful the forces of nature, the power of which is quiet ungraspable by thought. Why doesn't thought see it's own limitations I ponder.

Namaste.

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Why is the ego so desperate?

Well, I hope I'm not being too gruff or out of place here, but there is a practical answer that I think we often overlook.  The ego is desperate because that is human nature.  I do not believe that we need myths and mystical analogies and metaphors to help us understand that humans are feisty and predictably unpredictable.  We are primates, not divine beings of perpetual light and reason.  We have egos.  We get offended.  We get angry.  Be get greedy.  We are inexplicably drawn to shiny objects (and will do terrible things to obtain or keep them) and we worship and obediently follow people who are no more deserving of respect than ourselves.

Namaste,

Earon

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Earon,

The question does not presuppose that human nature and human development are fixed.  It sees the possibility for mutation and change – in brain and mind.  Krishnamurti talked regularly about the possibility of a mutation in the brain itself – a radical reorganization, which is what he felt he himself had experienced.

It may be that human nature is a given, that we're stuck with it, that there's no change and we just have to live with our current limitations and our current propensities toward violence, greed, narcissism, etc. 

But I see no reason to start with that conclusion and look no further.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Thanks for engaging my comment, Bruce.  I do not believe that accepting human nature as fixed requires us to give up hope for a better future.  Indeed, my position is that by waiting for human perfection to somehow manifest, we are diverting too much time and energy into our own personal perfection or enlightenment. 

This energy might be more effective in creating stronger cultural values and addressing social inequities, which are the causes of much trauma.   And that, in the long run, will help us to step out of the cycle of inner perfection and outer shame, which is caused by our expectations of perfection and the inevitable shame and guilt we suffer when we fall short of divinity.

I believe that Krishnamurti understood this reality, also, but it was too radical a departure from Hindu (and other) beliefs.  He would have had no students willing to be guided, which would have been very sad.  Praying for a mutation or enlightenment is easier, sometimes, than realizing that there is yet another path to follow in the pathless land.

Peace,

Earon

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Hi, Earon,

You wrote:  Praying for a mutation or enlightenment is easier, sometimes, than realizing that there is yet another path to follow in the pathless land.

I agree.  And as I expect you are aware, Krishnamurti would not have endorsed praying for mutation or enlightenment either.  Nor engaging in comparative games with “perfection” as the dangling carrot.

Though, admittedly, some of what he discussed could lead (and has led) people in that direction.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Hi.

Does true enquiry begin with conclusions or one needs an openness to enquire? I feel that we need to set aside some of our very deep-seated conclusions when we enquire into some of the fundamental questions. We need humility, and must approach with hesitation. 

Is there much difference between the inner and the outer? Is social structure very different from what we ourselves are? Have we not created social imbalances, the gap between haves and have nots? Is society not an expression of our own greed, acquisitiveness, desire to dominate? Doesn't society mean our relationships with each other? I see no difference between the two. This is an interesting issue and needs to be examined deeply.

Going back to ego's desperation, I feel that the ego is aware of its impermanent nature, its fragile, brittle existence. Deep down it knows that it is a bottomless pit, a leaky bucket and no matter what it does, it will never find fulfillment. And because of its inability to totally accept this situation, it is constantly trying to creat an opposite condition, looking for permanence, strength and so on. It is waging a constant battle against its own transient nature, its own weakness. At the root of all this struggle lies our inability to see what is and accept or respect it.

Get we go a little more into this?
 
Chaitanya 

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Chaitanya, I believe that all discussions begin with conlusions, in the form of assumptions, stated or unstated.  It is possible to leave these assumptions behind, but not a simple task, and possibly not an authentic inquiry.  It may be easier to state one's assumptions as the discussion ensues, attempting to own them, while also being aware of them and being willing to try transcending them to reach new levels of understanding.  Might this constitute true enquiry?

I agree with your observation on the ego's desperation.  As for inner and outer worlds being the same, that is a point of inquiry.  We have a powerful tendency to copy that which we see, and perhaps mimicry may be our primary learning style.  If it is, then the acquisitivenss and violence in our society may be more due to our media's influence than our social interactions.  Without Stephen King, violent video games and violent and horror movies, might our culture be different?

Does the presence of “imagination” and “ego” in humans relate to the “inability to see what is and accept or respect it”?  If so, perhaps our ability to envision our divinity stands in the way of recognizing our basic humanity.

I state these as questions.  Feel free to identify my assumptions.  If anyone has a sense of how Dr. J. Krishnamurti would have responded, I would be delighted to receive this information.

Peace,

Earon

The inner and the outer

Friend, The moment I realize that I am conditioned, in the grip of a lot of prejudices, I already have space to enquire, humility to go deeper. When I do not see my conditioning, and cling to my conclusions  unconsciously, then there is a problem.

It is quite obvious that the society in which I live is a reflection of my own desires, greed and idiocyncracies. The seeds of violence are deeply embedded in my psyche and as a human being I create a society to suit my narrow ends. Whatever I am, within my small shell, gets magnified at a much larger level. I would like to quote Krishnamurti here. When Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated in India by a Hindu Brahmin, Krishnamurti was asked during a public talk as to who was responsible for Gandhi's assassination. Krishnamurti pointed to all the people sitting in the crowd and said:” Each one of us is responsible for this…each one of us who divides himself in the name of caste, creed, religion, sex and nationality is responsible for Gandhi's assassination.” What he actually means is that as long as I am not transformed, as long as I nurture the seeds of violence within myself, in my relationship with the world, there is no possibility that the world will ever change. Change begins with oneself and if I am at peace with myself, with the people I live with, and with my surroundings, then only is there a possibility of a change occuring in the society. Usually, I begin with the society, thinking that it is something different, something that can be changed through organized action. But it has never been possible. Only individuals change and because of the change they experience, some change occurs in the society in which they live. The outer structure may change temporarily because of coercion, pressure, law and so on, but this will be a very short-lived change. The inner will asser itself sooner or later and destroy whatever superficial change has been brought about.

I thing that imagination is part of our egoic activity. And it certainly stops me from seeing things as they are. I often imagine a state which is the opposite of what is and fly into it as a means of escape etc. I think thoughts, imaginations, emotions they all stop us in some way or the other to see what is.

Much love,

Chaitanya     

Re: The inner and the outer

Chaitanya, I find nothing in your view with which to disagree.  I would add that, just as the negativity in society is a reflection of our own traits, so are the positive, uplifting traits, such as service work and compassion.  No matter how those positive traits are degraded in the outer structure, such changes are temporary, also.  The positive inclinations always re-emerge.

To add one of my favorite quotes from Abraham Joshua Heschel, which also reflects what I see as Krishnamurti's values, “In a free society, some are guilty, but all are responsible.”

While we will continue to work on our inner challenges, we should not abandon the outer, and vice versa.   Few of us choose to be renunciates, a path which may be inconsistent with raising a family and having a career.  But it is the balancing of internal and external, and the ability to see that which in us is part of the problem, that enhances our ability to be the change we seek.  I note the progress made in American culture regarding sexism and racism over the past 50 years.  Those problems are not eradicated, but the progress is important.  There is currently a disturbing hatred towards Muslims, and sometimes undocumented hispanics, and a resurgence of antisemitism in much of the world.  So the problems shift and change but prejudice still finds expression.

What I am seeing more and more about the process of social change is that each generation has its own perspectives, its own realities.  Those who grew up at a time when there was no communism and even socialism was seen as a dirty word may lack a deep understanding of the problems with capitalism.  Consumerism has been a way of life for a generation, and such habits are difficult to change.  However, those same young people have a far greater tendency to respect other cultures and peoples, and they have grown up in a world where minimalism and low environmental impact are also values. 

The seeds of positive and negative change are both there.  As in the ancient American Indian proverb, there are two wolves within us - one is compassionate and altruistic and the other is selfish and hateful.  The quality of our future depends upon which one we choose to feed.  This, I believe, is consistent with Krishnamurti's philosophy.  While we may periodically tend to give up on humanity, there is likewise so much that is compelling and marvelous about us.  We are slow learners, but not to be counted out.

From another perspective, the task of creating fully human people is amazingly complex.  Surely, it can take 50 or 100 years for many people to have experienced enough of the cycles of life to gain insight into how our own internal perceptions are both cause and effect of the things we see happening around us.  Are there short cuts?  Can we educate our young people so that they understand this while still teenagers?  Could we learn enough about our own inner worlds to gradually create a world where the vast majority of adults actually functioned as adults - and not as adolescents?

Peace,

Earon

The positive and the negative

Friend, you have raised some very interesting questions. 

Is there a positive which is not the opposite of the negative? What is the relationship between what we call the negative and positive forces, the forces of destruction and the forces of compassion? Is there any relationship? Or they are mutually exclusive and the one comes into being only when the other ceases to be?

In other words, is there a relationship between a heavily conditioned mind, which is experiencing hatred, jealousy and all kinds of what we commonly describe as negative forces, and compassion? Can the negative ever become the positive or whatever it becomes will only be a modified continuity of the same?

Is there any such thing as self-improvement? Is psychological evolution a possibility or peace, love and such other attributes are just projected states or a conditioned mind?

I am not saying that peace, love and other positive forces do not exist. I am just questioning whether the mind as we know it, is capable of coming upon compassion.

Much love,

Chaitanya 

Re: The positive and the negative

Chaitanya, I do not use negative and positive as opposites, but to connote relatively desirable and relatively undesirable changes.  I don't suppose it desirable to completely uncondition the mind, because our nature seems to draw us into both solitary truth-seeking and communal truth-seeking, and it may be difficult to find balance between these conditionings.  Perhaps the yogi would see the solitary truth-seeking of the renunciate as a non-conditioned mind, but others might hold it to be more of a loosening of awareness of the conditioning?

Might we all agree that the mind is capable of coming upon compassion just as we come upon a beautiful sunset or a bunch of ripe bananas or mangoes.  We may not be able to replicate the circumstances which allow the discovery, but we certainly are motivated to try, which is an attachment, a grasping.  Nonetheless, we sometimes do find what we seek, even though it does not last long.

Are we capable of altering our conditioning, toning down our attachments, being self-aware of our conditioning and our grasping, and our frustration and impatience?  Mindfulness practices help us to accomplish this, I believe.  And, over periods of time, perhaps we can gently move both inner and outer worlds closer to a golden age?  Or, is the scale of change so mammouth, so glacial, that our efforts are futile?  Riane Eisler, in “The Chalice and the Blade”, shows us historical enclaves where there were very peaceful, non-domination-based cultures, even when the larger trends led to ever more violent empires.

Where is the line we can draw between creating positive change without becoming so attached to our accomplishments that we calcify and undermine all of our advances?  Is there a point at which the inner discipline ripples out into the larger world in such a way that one tiny step forward occurs?  If so, please give me some examples.

Peace,

Earon

Awareness is important

It seems to me that non-judgemental awareness of oneself, of one's emotions, feelings, thoughts and actions and so on is the only remedy. Only a choiceless awareness, as K calls it, can free me of my conditioning and nothing else. SO the question is: how do I become choicelessly aware of myself exactly as I am, without any justification, condemnation or indulgence? How do I become aware of myself exactly as I am? Not according to what somebody has said about my mind, but directly. This is the real challenge before the human mind. Change begins only when I see things as they are. As K says the very seeing of what is is an action. Seeing is going beyond. So is it possible for me to become aware of the contents of my consciousness, without any judgement? 

Namaste.

Chaitanya

   
  

Re: Awareness is important

Yes, Chaitanya, I do think it possible.  There is a delicate balance on the pathless journey.  To understand the intricacies of this journey, we must fully live in the present.  To engage the world as a leader, we must wait for the world to discover us, unattached to being discovered, just living life as our true self.

I believe that I have a book to share with the world, but it rests on the hard drive of my computer.  And there it will rest until a publisher sees fit to print it.  I can try to interest publishers, but it will only happen when it is ready to happen, and I must be okay with that.  The more I see things as they are, the more it makes sense to me that they will not change very much.  And yet, I have gone through some relatively transformative process so that I can see some truth that most others do not recognize.  If I expect them to recognize the truth I have found, will it be their truth, or am I merely asking them to trust me and my truth?  If the latter, then will there be any benefit except to my income (not to say that my income is unimportant)?

If awareness is important, it is not because awareness can change others, but because it changes us, regardless of whether other people see us any differently.  But, if our awareness helps others to see truth in themselves, then perhaps the effort is successful, and perhaps my own efforts succeeded long ago. 

I do wonder whether my reasoning make sense to you?  I am not able to learn about Krishnamurti by parroting back what he said, but by applying some of his thoughts to my internal awareness.  I was very much taken by “Think on These Things” when I read the book around 1969.  Since that time, I have attempted to be aware of my conditioning, and have found some lessons in my own conditioning that may be relevant to the conditioning of others in our culture.  It makes sense to me that I should be curious about what other students of human conditioning might thinks of my ideas, and that is why I am in this discussion.

Peace,

Earon

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Earon, I like how you share your own expanding awareness, as actually, so did Krishnamurti each time he used a term, God or another.

I think that is how a great thinker [for lack of a better term at the moment] like Krishnamurti would want it to be! As we discuss with each other, we can keep extending each other's, and our own awareness, and it is that flow in thinking that is awareness.

So, what did Krishnamurti mean by God, as Balder asked at the beginning of the thread? Perhaps he accepted each thought that came to him of God, and showed how we don't need to let that word be a conditioned concept; but a flow of awareness.

And I agree, Earon, the more we use our own words and language and styles to show our awareness, the closer we are to getting away from conditioning. The worst would be if we began to use K's words instead of our own.  He's probably moved on to other words by now!

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Is there a positive approach to this question? Or this needs to be approached negatively?  Can we really find what God is or we need to reject the whole psychological structure that has been built through conditioning? Conditioning that has its own interpretaton about the word God? feel that denial of what is not God is what is needed. There can be no direct approach to something that is unknown. Does it make sense?

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Meenakshi, I very much agreed with your thought on not being conditioned by our thoughts about God.

God is very important to many people, and I feel compelled to respect that.  And yet, I have had so many of the same experiences as the various devotees, zealots, monks, hermits, mystics and others have had.  And I believe that I only encountered my thoughts of God, and not any God entity.   Perhaps God is an imaginary friend whom we would be better off not discussing with others.  : )

I also agree with Meenakshi's point, although stated much less pointedly, that re-enacting K's enquiries may not be the most fitting and thoughtful way to honor his memory.

Peace,

Earon

Re: Krishnamurti on God

For most of us God is a concept. We have Hindu God and Chiristian God and so on. He is to many of us, just an imaginary friend and we talk to him about our problems and expect him to solve them.

How does one discuss what is God? Where does one start? Does one start by questioning one's concepts about him or by questioning what others believe about him? What is the best approach?

Chaitanya

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Chaitanya, the flip side of every question is the answer.
As you have stated your questions, would you like to state your answers as well? That makes this more of a dialog than a question-answer session.

Many of K's questions were rhetorical; he was “The Speaker”, as he referred to himself, and he asked and answered.

Here, on a board for him, perhaps we can do the same: answer our own questions and invite further dialog. What say you?

{now I've asked two direct questions!!!]

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Regardless of how one puts it, one would certainly like to have a dialogue. A dialogue in which the participants can share their insights about some basic questions. Each one of us has to decide for oneself whether the question one is raising is coming from a certain depth, a certain understanding, investigation or is just a superficial intellectual query. I personally feel that this is all one can do. Have a dialogue with an open mind and invite like-minded people to share their views, insights etc. And since this is an enquiry into something which is not exactly known, one has to be hesitant, gentle and not too sure about one's beliefs.   

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Well stated, Chaitanya.  Perhaps, once we agree that the discussion is a dance, rather than trip to a known destination, it may be easier to trust that we aren't merely being led along someone's thought processes to their “inevitable” conclusions.  This is why I am not drawn to discussions of Integral theory, etc.  I feel that I am being directed through a lens that excessively manipulates me, showing me vast scenery and intellectual constructs without yielding any new insights (others, of course, see deep, profound insights there - but then again, many people have seen “The Secret” as a profound spiritual achievement.)  It is a dance of ego, to me.  New conditioning for the mind, to me, simply adds layers to the existing layers and may lead us further from the truth that is in the heart, the truth that empowers us to be peaceful and passionate in our lives, rather than the truth which causes us to endlessly chatter and read, chatter and read, write and chatter, read and write.

It does not easily appeal to me to invest this modicum of time and energy, especially on the Internet, where I can not rely upon visual and auditory feedback to help me sense the discussant's attitude and intentions (i.e., It takes a while to get to know people here).  However, to embark with others on a journey in the pathless land is quite another matter, and a treat.

As for God, I don't seem to have much to say, so I'll listen.

Peace,

Earon

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Chaitanya,

I like the way you put that.  It is exactly what I've been doing here in Canmore with the BVIC (take a look at the BVIC page on my website - www.onthetrail - if you want more info) and the discussions have been very rich and sometimes profoundly deep.

Do you know of any more of these kinds of initiatives - I would like to “link” to other groups if possible…

Thanks,
Frans

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Earon,

I feel that I am being directed through a lens that excessively
manipulates me, showing me vast scenery and intellectual constructs
without yielding any new insights (others, of course, see deep,
profound insights there - but then again, many people have seen “The
Secret” as a profound spiritual achievement.)  It is a dance of ego, to
me.

Isn't it the fact that we tend to identify with the map, the lens, that makes it into a dance of the ego?  To me, all these maps and lenses give me different approaches to reality - as long as I don't identify with any of them, I am free to live a life that is a little richer in “knowledge”…

Frans

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Frans, that is an excellent point.  I acknowledge my attachment, and the dance of my own ego. 

Peace,

Earon

Re: Krishnamurti on God

I think that's why Krishnamurti calls it a pathless land. We make a problem of everything. Any path, medhod, practice that is prescribed by some teacher, becomes a device for sustaining the ego. That is why perhaps the Buddha also negated all techniques. Once a Brahmin boy asked the Buddha if his achievement is attributable to meditation, penance, fasting, study of the scriptures, something else, or all of these. And the Buddha is said to have replied: “Neither because of these, nor without them.”  

It seems that nothing is a problem in itself, per se, but the ego turns it into one. It turns everything into a source of sustenance for itself, of self-aggrandizement.

Can we go into this more deeply?

Chaitanya

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Chaitanya, I believe that your post hits the nail on the head.  How does one go more deeply than that?

If humans can not stop seeking a path, perhaps it is because we are social animals by nature.  We feel confined while in the structure of the herd and its defined path and yet lonely when we walk away from the herd and its defined paths.  Perhaps our entire lives are spent in this process of approach and avoidance, of finding, and straying from, paths.  A gurhu salesman enterpreneur captures us with ideas just as flypaper catches a fly.  The ego is the glue which keeps us stuck.

Peace,

Earon

Re: Krishnamurti on God

We are pathological. To see one’s own pathology is freedom.

Re: Krishnamurti on God

Because the ego needs to be fed through outside sources, because we are too afraid to really “know” we can be nurished from inside - not needing validation through any techniques or believes.  It's hard to speak of this without the “speak” becoming a belief - this is the area where words and thoughts need to give way to Being.  It's up to each of us to do so, without any concern about what others do.

Frans