There are certain things which I feel Krishnamurti delibrately avoided in his teachings. That is not to say that I don't think his teaching is powerful and can still transform a human being, it can. However, there does seem to be a difference between Krishnamurti the teacher and Krishnamurti the person.

For example, I recall reading in a biography somewhere that when people around him were dismissing the Theosphists 'Masters' as a lot of rubbish, Krishnamurti stated something like, 'I never said that!'. While he still obviously pointed out the dangers of belief, that is not to say that these things do not exist. There are other things like this.

I was thinking last night that if he was alive today there are many things which I'd like to ask, some which I feel he did not directly address fully. Before I go on to state what I would have liked to see discussed, perhaps others can add something...

I'm no authority, but perhaps JK did not speak enough about the invasion of believers which would come trying to reduce his message to tradition and beliefs. Inevitably, people still continue to believe into Masters, reincarnation and so on, but now they say very subtly that those are not a matter of beliefs, or of organized beliefs, but this is really the same thing going on, i think. Talking "about" something, and not being aware of the thought process in itself which creates those projections and contents of thought. But i may be wrong and K also was a believer in his private life, which i don't know.

True Kôan

True Kôan is not a by-product of thought, but a side-effect of quiet perception of what is (which may happen or not).

Does it seem rational to you that in 60 years of teaching and talking to some of the leading minds of the time, he did not cover things that you would like to ask?

The masters exist and as you say he never said they didn't. He moved away from theosophy because it was a prescribed method to truth and there is a danger in that.

Life is relationship

Eve Goodmon wrote:
The masters exist and as you say he never said they didn't. He moved away from theosophy because it was a prescribed method to truth and there is a danger in that.

The masters exist? Really? Do tell.

nick carter wrote:
The masters exist? Really? Do tell.

If you read his early writings and Annie Bassant letters they both make inferences about the Masters....Really do tell? Follow the theosophists teachings and you will find them....if that interests you...

Mr. Cat I am not going there with you, because the masters are not relevant....it is looking for the key under the light syndrome. Freemon can not be dependent on anyone, the masters, K or the bible.

Freedom from the known includes K as you have said, going to look for masters is a digression...

The issue is dependence and discovery and stop picking on me he he :) the Idiot.

Life is relationship

Yes, I've read all the books and I know the Theosophists believed in the masters, but I'm asking you if the masters exist because you say they do and I don't presume to know one way or the other.

nick carter wrote:
Yes, I've read all the books and I know the Theosophists believed in the masters, but I'm asking you if the masters exist because you say they do and I don't presume to know one way or the other.

There is a psychiatrist I know, who wrote a book about past life regressions his name is Dr. Stein or Klein, I forgot. There was a time when I belonged to the psycho-therapeutic community, in terms of profession, and I had done a work shop on past life regression....

I met the 'masters' there....or something that I can't explain away...this psychiatrist that believed in hard science and did not believe in anything but, showed me somethings that I can't explain away, that and few direct experiences I have had in Asia.

That was in the a long time ago, since then, I saw the light he he he....not masters. :) The idiot light.

Life is relationship

nick carter wrote:
The masters exist? Really? Do tell.

Can we not ask Karren? I am beginning to wonder whether she is a golden colored American he cat!

nick carter wrote:
Yes, I've read all the books and I know the Theosophists believed in the masters, but I'm asking you if the masters exist because you say they do and I don't presume to know one way or the other.

I suppose it depends whether or not you think consciousness survives the death of the organism. If it does, then compassionate chaps like the Buddha, Christ and Krishnamurti are rather likely to hang around here in one form or another doing what they can to help out. If you think that consciousness (or intelligence) has a non-material origin, then I would say that Masters or "Gods" are almost inevitable. If consciousness dies when we die, on the other hand, then of course all that's nonsense.

This post was last updated by Johnathan Barnes (account deleted) Sat, 29 Jan 2011.

Johnathan Barnes wrote:
I suppose it depends whether or not you think consciousness survives the death of the organism. If it does, then compassionate chaps like the Buddha, Christ and Krishnamurti are rather likely to hang around here in one form or another doing what they can to help out.

And re-in-Karrie-nate.

Eve Goodmon wrote:
I met the 'masters' there....or something that I can't explain away...this psychiatrist that believed in hard science and did not believe in anything but, showed me somethings that I can't explain away, that and few direct experiences I have had in Asia.

I think you should relate these experiences, and in great detail. It would be a lot more interesting than what passes for dialogue herein.

What aspects did J.K. not fully cover in his teaching?

fate?
GB

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

ganesan balachandran wrote:
fate? GB

He did that too.... somewhere he said, 'if one is a sensitive person and see two boats miles apart but coming into each other and every possibility of a definite collision and says so, whats so great about it?'

This post was last updated by Ravi Seth Mon, 31 Jan 2011.

nick carter wrote:
I think you should relate these experiences, and in great detail. It would be a lot more interesting than what passes for dialogue herein.

I don't think so, I am no longer interested in this but I am sure you can find the book it has the word masters in it...past lives and past masters or something like that. It is very famous book. I am sure you can contact the author. I am no longer interested in this stuff.

Life is relationship

Ravi Seth wrote:
'if one is a sensitive person

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Ravi Seth wrote:
whats so great about it?'

is not everything that. gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

ganesan balachandran wrote:
fate?

Subject to correction. I think K said there is no such thing as destiny.

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
I think K said there is no such thing as destiny.

It may be because one should not blame destiny and avoid facing the facts and it is true for an enlightened or after getting enlightened.Till then man is not the maker of his own destiny. personally i feel one can tackle the effect of fate only. gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

then mutation is voluntary?
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Till then man is not the maker of his own destiny.

Really I find no destiny working on me.I very well see what ever I sow so shall i reap and exactly this i find happening in my life.... even in everyday day to day situations.This means I am the maker of my own destiny and thus mutation in my case is now voluntary!!!!

ganesan balachandran wrote:
What aspects did J.K. not fully cover in his teaching?

A common problem today that I feel he didn't fully address would be depression. Not just normal depression, but serious, biopolar disorder. Is this a problem of the thought processes or a chemical imbalance of the brain? Although he briefly mentioned it, he never went deep into this. Perhaps if he had done it would help the many people today who suffer from it?

Also he never fully talked about the oldest religion on earth, Shamanism. By that I mean Ayahuasca (the Entheogen) ceremonys that still happen today in Latin America. These ceremonys have been hapeening for thousands of years, why no mention of it?Ayahuasca saved my life, curing my post-traumatic stress disorder and serious drug addiction in 2 weeks. Before I came accross Ayahuasca I could not even focus on a simple normal book, never mind understand J.K.'s teaching! Now I can. JK talked to people all over the world, surely he must have heard of this? Why no mention? By the way Ayahuasca is not a simple psychedelic drug, it is an entheogen which is very different thing entirely.

I also recall reading in Pupul's biography of him sensing a bad energy and walking around the house seeming to do some ritual. That sounds very similar to the Ayahuasca Shamans do during a ceremnony. Shooing off bad spirits. From what I read in that biography it appeared he was doing just that. I doubt Pupul was lying, so if he did do such things why no mention? Surely worth a mention if he dd such things himself?

There are more, but will leave that for now.

nick carter wrote:
Yes, I've read all the books and I know the Theosophists believed in the masters, but I'm asking you if the masters exist because you say they do and I don't presume to know one way or the other.

Although this question is not addressed to me I'd like to answer it. While I see the futility of belief and for me I wouldn't call them 'masters'... I have seen and felt 'good' and 'bad' spirits. Rarely, but when seen and felt as real as anything in this world. I also have had a full on near death experience which changed my life. Since that experience, although I still have a lot of problems and much fear, one thing I do not fear is death. I fear life, sure, not death.

Of course this is an experience which has conditioned me, perhaps the memorie stop me going deeper now, but it still happened.

The Spod wrote:
By the way Ayahuasca is not a simple psychedelic drug, it is an entheogen which is very different thing entirely.

The tawny plants were born in the ancient times, three ages before the gods; now I will meditate upon their hundred and seven forms.
gb

But he has made a clear foundation before us to inquire.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

The Spod wrote:
Of course this is an experience which has conditioned me, perhaps the memorie stop me going deeper now, but it still happened.

The Spod wrote:
one thing I do not fear is death.

Drive the dove out, pushing him with a verse. Rejoicing in food, lead the cow around and wipe out all the evil traces. let it fly forth, flying its best, and leave us strength to live.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

The Spod wrote:
There are more, but will leave that for now.

yes. incantations and spells , astrology, tantra, handicap
( cause) etc...
But i feel they are not necessary. gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Sat, 05 Feb 2011.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
personally i feel one can tackle the effect of fate only. gb

Do you mean here incidents cannot be changed but the effect can be nullified? Affect the effect or nullify? Nullify in the sense the effect having no psychological relevance to the person.Then there cannot be said to be a fate in such a state.But you say fate because incidents cannot be changed?

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
I think K said there is no such thing as destiny.

What did K mean here? To be a doctor or an engineer is it destiny? He was saying these values man made out of his conditioning.So it's a society made by man.Then we have these classes,status,rich, poor & so on due to our ignorance,lack of affection.Then ignorance,lack of love is creating this inequality which is then destiny? Is that what he meant? I don't know whether I managed to put it clearly.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
then mutation is voluntary?

One thing is clear here.There is no change whatsoever by evolution-unless we look we don't see anything.

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
One thing is clear here.There is no change whatsoever by evolution-unless we look we don't see anything.

yes.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK