Lot of people used urge to K traching as Buddhas treaching earlier expressed will that be true.

K's teachings are more akin to vedanta and not buddha.

Awareness is touch of what is.

Galaxy Eh wrote:
K's teachings are more akin to vedanta and not buddha.
Awareness is touch of what is.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Yes Galaxy Eh. is correct in saying the above.But the beauty is JK was never taught regular Vedanta texts in his childhood or youth. He was born with it like other famous saints & savants of India. Why should one compare or identify him with this or that, may be we feel secure or reassured... I do not know. anyway he is no different from Adi Sankara,SRI RAMANAMAHARSHI, NISARGADATTA et al.Only thing was his context was quite modern and he lived up to it-Born in bullock-Cart-India to the modern jetset USA/INDIA,Computers, Psychiatrists-anything he could understand and did go beyond the "things"--He was a remarkable man indeed.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Yes indeed, Madhav, I believe we can consider K as another Buddha. He was profoundly impressed by the Buddha's teaching in his ealier days and anyone who has studied Buddhism deeply can see all through K's teaching an unmistakable parallel.

Unfortunately, few people today, either in the west or the east, have anything but a superficial understanding of Buddhism. It takes much patience and humility, as well as intelligence, to fully grasp this immensely subtle teaching -which seems so simple on its surface, and which shallow minds stupidly conclude is easy to understand - of course they only see it intellectually. The Buddha, like K, was eager to clear every vestige of emotional and intellectual garbage from the mind of man. They were like great and skilfull physicians wanting to restore complete health, wholeness, to their patients.

But, as you are probably aware, there are many variations of Buddhism and there have been many more than just one Buddha. The Dzogchen teaching of Tibet in its essence is identical with the central point of K's teaching. And anyone who has studied the Ch'an masters of T'ang dynasty China will know that 'Buddhahood' was not always such a rare state. But K was undoubtedly his own man, even though he is, to my mind, a continuation of that great indian tradition from the vedas and upanisads to Buddha, to Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Asanga, etc.

When the Buddhists asked K a similar question he replied: Why do you compare?

So: Why do you compare?

Look at today's quote:

"In talking to groups of listeners all over the world, I find that more and more people seem not to understand what I am saying, because they come with fixed ideas."

And that is what happened in that talk with Buddhists. So busy were they - trying to 'fit K in' - they missed altogether what he was saying. And so it continues.......

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
And that is what happened in that talk with Buddhists. So busy were they - trying to 'fit K in' - they missed altogether what he was saying. And so it continues.......

You're right about comparisons. But because someone dons a robe and takes some vows doesn't make them 'Buddhas' - most so-called Buddhists are not much more 'enlightened' than most Christians, although they may have a better intellectual understanding of certain principles. We should only be considering those who actually embody, but also go beyond, the teachings, because all teachings have limits.

And if these 'Buddhists' were trying to fit K 'in' then that proves they were acting out of keeping with the true spirit of Buddhism (which is shown at its best in K's work).

Paul Lanzon wrote:
And if these 'Buddhists' were trying to fit K 'in' then that proves they were acting out of keeping with the true spirit of Buddhism (which is shown at its best in K's work).

K made it very clear that the only manner in which to approach the teaching is with an empty and clear mind.

Well, among all the ancients who have been compared, is there any one who pointed out in the present lies the answer to all our problems. i dont think any one.
gb

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

if you people dont mistake me, and if you dont feel that iam conditioned( iam not conditoned that is different), i would like to say without any comparison, JK is a continuity of Veda
gb

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

To approach the teaching as K laid it down with a brain already full of Veda belief is to NOT approach the teaching with a clear and empty mind.

K negated all belief - including Buddhism. Simple as that.

One can only go deeply into the teaching from a state of emptiness.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
To approach the teaching as K laid it down with a brain already full of Veda belief is to NOT approach the teaching with a clear and empty mind.

On the contrary I approached Veda only after deconditioned by JK to see veda freshly and inferred JK is extension of veda. Sofar none has approached this way.
flight of the eagle, flame of attention, observation without recording, awakening, and all this can also be traced in Veda. Above all there is nothing like dos and donts, besides neither past , present , future, nothing of it there like JK. One can understand them only after deconditioning. In the last talk I think JK has pointed out this only as sacred, everlasting after all if he had opend it out, his whole teaching would have become meaningless.
Some time repeatedly reading and discussing the same has become a vicious circle and in that case why not some thing different (similar) without getting conditioned to that also. the meaning is as JK said it comes on its own.neither analysis, deliberate search dont give any meaning.
above all the Nachiketas which he often retells has the root there.

None of the commentaries, translations will be completely help in deciphering the meaning. but a clear and empty mind only will help. I really wonder if it is for that only JK has taught us.What to do next you will come to an understanding of your own without the shadow of faith and belief. one can be without it also as Jk points out. What a great traditional profession he continued?....
gb

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Tue, 10 Nov 2009.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
K made it very clear that the only manner in which to approach the teaching is with an empty and clear mind.

If you have an empty and clear mind then why should you need to approach any teaching? K negated Buddhist belief (and all other belief) but he couldn't negate what is at the heart of Buddha's teaching because he was 'that'. Buddha didn't teach anything that required belief. Strangely I've never encountered any K 'enthusiast' who has ever actually studied any kind of Buddhism, yet they always seem ready to make slashing generalizations. Could their minds be too full of K 'ism' ?

I don't wish to be taking a position for or against either Buddhism or k but simply to 'see' them without the labels. I don't identify with the teachings of Buddha or K but I revere them both as great seers - and yet I see that ultimately they have spoken not one single word, and that is as it should be.

I can point out many differences with Buddhas teachings and JK's.
gb

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

ganesan balachandran wrote:
I can point out many differences with Buddhas teachings and JK's. gb

I'm sure you are right, Ganesan. But maybe they are not very significant differences -perhaps you think they are. Both teachers wanted above all to free mankind from (self-inflicted) suffering, and the tyranny of conceptaul thinking. And both put the highest importance on compassion and wisdom (prajna).

I suppose there are bound to be differences as they lived in such different times and conditions. Buddha went from material security and wealth to almost the opposite, whilst with K it happened around the other way. It goes to show that external circumstances don't count for much where insight is concerned.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
I can point out many differences with Buddhas teachings and JK's. gb

I'm sure you are right, Ganesan. But maybe they are not very significant differences -perhaps you think they are. Both teachers wanted above all to free mankind from (self-inflicted) suffering, and the tyranny of conceptaul thinking. And both put the highest importance on compassion and wisdom (prajna).

I suppose there are bound to be differences as they lived in such different times and conditions. Buddha went from material security and wealth to almost the opposite, whilst with K it happened around the other way. It goes to show that external circumstances don't count for much where insight is concerned.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
I can point out many differences with Buddhas teachings and JK's. gb

I'm sure you are right, Ganesan. But maybe they are not very significant differences -perhaps you think they are. Both teachers wanted above all to free mankind from (self-inflicted) suffering, and the tyranny of conceptaul thinking. And both put the highest importance on compassion and wisdom (prajna).

I suppose there are bound to be differences as they lived in such different times and conditions. Buddha went from material security and wealth to almost the opposite, whilst with K it happened around the other way. It goes to show that external circumstances don't count for much where insight is concerned.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
I can point out many differences with Buddhas teachings and JK's. gb

I'm sure you are right, Ganesan. But maybe they are not very significant differences -perhaps you think they are. Both teachers wanted above all to free mankind from (self-inflicted) suffering, and the tyranny of conceptaul thinking. And both put the highest importance on compassion and wisdom (prajna).

I suppose there are bound to be differences as they lived in such different times and conditions. Buddha went from material security and wealth to almost the opposite, whilst with K it happened around the other way. It goes to show that external circumstances don't count for much where insight is concerned.

i mean a fundamental difference.

gb

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

Teachings of any enlightened teacher coming from the source will be original. It may not be anything new but it will be original and expressed in its own unique way. Buddha and Krishanmurti had both touched the source and the teachings emerged from that according to the needs of the age.

I find that there is a common thread to all the teachings of all enlightened teachers, in that they all emphasise the need for the ending of the ego or the false self and abidance in the true self or choiceless awareness. How to bring this about or how it is brought about is the aim of all the teachers. The teachings and methods vary according to the time, type of people around, the geography and innumerable other factors.

Any identification with a particular teaching or text is a hindrance to the understanding of what is. Only an unconditioned mind can see truth.

Freedom from the Self is the true function of Man

Jayendran Menon wrote:
Only an unconditioned mind can see truth.

There is no denial about it.

Jayendran Menon wrote:
I find that there is a common thread to all the teachings of all enlightened teachers, in that they all emphasise the need for the ending of the ego or the false self and abidance in the true self or choiceless awareness.

This common thread which you find or the reference is the fundamental difference from Buddha and JK.
Thank you Menon, iam not pointing out any mistake.iam happy that you are open and not conditioned to Jk or.Buddha.

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

Jayendran Menon wrote:
Teachings of any enlightened teacher coming from the source ...

What is the source? Here only there is difference and infact many differ though the source is one without implying.

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

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
K negated all belief - including Buddhism. Simple as that.

Good. that is only the beginning or fundamental, but there are more which we as individuals have to decipher.To see the truth in the false, there are lot of things JK has said and should not be taken literally. For example, religion is not different from life and at the same time religion as it exists today is not at all religion etc
gb

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

ganesan balachandran wrote:
i mean a fundamental difference.

I hope you will tell me of this fundamental difference. But do so only if you have studied Buddhism from the inside and not from a superficial hearsay of Hindu prejudice; that would be pointless.

madhav mool wrote:
Lot of people used urge to K teaching as Buddhas teaching earlier expressed will that be true.

Galaxy Eh wrote:
K's teachings are more akin to vedanta and not buddha.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
if you people dont mistake me, and if you dont feel that iam conditioned( iam not conditoned that is different), i would like to say without any comparison, JK is a continuity of Veda

Paul Lanzon wrote:
I hope you will tell me of this fundamental difference.

Definetely Sir. But this is more abstract. You have to percieve on your own if i may point out.I will try my best.The fundamental difference in the teachings right.
however it has become like the blind people identifying the elephant as pillar, rope etc after touching the legs, tail respectively.

As the Buddha said according to the canonical scriptures

Do not accept anything by mere tradition ... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures ... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions ... But when you know for yourselves?these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness?then do you live acting accordingly.

Definetely this not a deeper way of answering your query.I dont hink JK has pointed any dos and donts.

Paul Lanzon wrote:
I don't wish to be taking a position for or against either Buddhism or k but simply to 'see' them without the labels. I don't identify with the teachings of Buddha or K but I revere them both as great seers - and yet I see that ultimately they have spoken not one single word, and that is as it should be.

This is true and i too agree with this and I dont see the difference in the individuals.
gb
P.S:The dos and donts which Buddaha said also, iam of the opinion it is some body else quote.. Am I correct?

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Thu, 12 Nov 2009.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
This is true and i too agree with this and I dont see the difference in the individuals. gb P.S:The dos and donts which Buddaha said also, iam of the opinion it is some body else quote.. Am I correct?

Thanks Ganesan. Well, about the dos and donts we really cannot say, as the scriptures were written down well after Buddha's time by his followers. So it is believed. Some of the Pali scriptures (I am no expert in Pali) do give the feeling of being authentic , but others not so much. But somebody must have had a deep insight into Shakyamuni's teaching for there is no doubt that, if you have patience enough, you will sense that unmistakable fragrance of Truth coming through these suttas.

Personally I think the scholars may be mistaken in thinking that nothing was written down in Buddha's time - can you believe that none of those disciples were tempted to make notes of what they had heard? I think that followers are usually more dogmatic than their teachers and can become fanatical, maybe this accounts for some of the doubtful passages in the Nikayas. We cannot be certain that we are hearing the actual words of Buddha - but, all the same, somehow I think the true spirit does come through these very dry, very prosaic and repetative works, to awaken the Mind (the One Mind) without attachment.

Sorry Sri Paul Lanzon, I should have verified before mentioning the fundamental differences.However this inquiry lead me to one more aspect of Buddha.
Lord Buddha was not against Veda. Some ignorant people think so as they have heard the opinion of the Hinayana Buddhists only. Lord Buddha had the highest regards for the Veda. He told the brahmins that they should understand the true meaning of the Veda. Vedas are not just for the rituals. Lord Buddha quoted vedic verses when he was talking to Bimbisara.
Kindly let me know if this is authentic.
gb

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

ganesan balachandran wrote:

ganesan balachandran

India

20 posts in this forum

Offline
Sorry Sri Paul Lanzon, I should have verified before mentioning the fundamental differences.However this inquiry lead me to one more aspect of Buddha. Lord Buddha was not against Veda. Some ignorant people think so as they have heard the opinion of the Hinayana Buddhists only. Lord Buddha had the highest regards for the Veda. He told the brahmins that they should understand the true meaning of the Veda. Vedas are not just for the rituals. Lord Buddha quoted vedic verses when he was talking to Bimbisara. Kindly let me know if this is authentic. gb

Hello Ganesan, You are certainly right in my opinion when you suggest that the Buddha was not against the ancient teachings. I hope you do not think I am any kind of expert on the subject - I depend on whatever insight I have - I must say that, for me, it is the Mahayana that comes closest to the spirit of Buddha dharma. In the Theravada e.g. Majjima Nikaya and many other collections, the language is not at all inspiring as in the Vedas and Gita, but if your spirit is grounded in a longing and love for Truth and a deep reverence for all the buddhas, then these plain, matter-of-fact words spring to life and become like flames to burn out ignorance.

The Buddha was a truly radical thinker as well as having gone beyond all suffering. He saw that society no longer knew how to REALIZE the old teachings and that it had become mere repeaters of stale formulae. K seems to have travelled the same road; when he rejects all religions he is being, like Buddha, expedient. Seeing the urgency of the situation he cannot afford to compromise on this point. But neither K nor Buddha denied the truth of the older wisdom. It is the tyranny between the religious 'authority' and the blind 'believer' and also the danger of attachment to dogmas and words, that they see as so harmful, as I understand it.

In my opinion, for what it's worth, if you have genuine insight you may read any of the great religious books without any fear of becoming attached; or equally, you may read none of them - but not because you are afraid of becoming attached to them, but simply because you have not the inclination. Apologies if this seems to long or irrelevant.

Here, I'd like to mention differently in this topic, Pupul Jayakar mentioned Krishnamurti as a innocent and K have acted as the same, in his course he expressed his brain is very clear and something new matter reflect even though it comes automatically amidst group where he used to enquire, that's why K should not compare with Buddha, isn't so ?