11 ms·

Krishnamurti's teachings are based on scriptures such as Upanishads and Gita. He was averse to the notion of having a Guru (or teacher) because the teachers he

Krishnamurti's teachings are based on scriptures such as Upanishads and Gita. He was averse to the notion of having a Guru (or teacher) because the teachers he had seen in his time were very steeped in orthodoxy, despite their learning. He was also against quoting verses from scriptures because he wanted to break away from the traditional teacher-student model. His teachings are appealing to many people who do not have a sufficient background in the study of Vedanta (the culmination or final word of vedas). There are many contemporary teachers whose teaching is similar to that of JK. Eckhart Tolle, Mooji, Robert Adams, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi etc. To appreciate the teachings of any of the above spiritual giants, one needs to have an intense/burning desire to seek the Self. Once it is realized, it puts an immediate end to all suffering and seeking. The glory of the Self has been described in great detail in Upanishads and Gita. There are supplementary texts that also discuss the approaches to attain it.

acqq 10y ago
Not only he decided to be against the "gurus", he was explicitly against every religion too. http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-krishnamurti/dissolution-speech.php http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-krishnamurti/dissolution-... "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 to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief." "Again, you have the idea that only certain people hold the key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one holds it. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of Eternity." Note the context -- he was himself "chosen" to be "the guru" as he was 16(!) and he recognized the absurdity of it as he was 32: "The Order of the Star in the East was founded in 1911 to proclaim the coming of the World Teacher. Krishnamurti was made Head of the Order. On August 3, 1929, the opening day of the annual Star Camp at Ommen, Holland, Krishnamurti dissolved the Order before 3000 members." ( The film of him reading the speech then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYnxRYAHmEs&t=11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYnxRYAHmEs&t=11s ) The teachings of the Order in which he was raised weren't "Upanishads and Gita" but the "Doctrine" of Madam Blavatsky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Star_in_the_East https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Star_in_the_East "One of the central tenets of late 19th-century Theosophy as promoted by the Theosophical Society was the complex doctrine of intelligent evolution of all existence. This was said to be occurring on a Cosmic scale, incorporating both physical and non-physical aspects of the known and unknown Universe, and affecting all of its constituent parts regardless of apparent size or importance. The theory was originally promulgated in the Secret Doctrine (published 1888), a book by Helena Blavatsky, one of the founders of contemporary Theosophy and the Theosophical Society." Edit: Upanishads have, unsurprisingly, many more different teachings than what "tech_browser" wrote below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads They are huge and with a lot of stories, a random sample is here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15075.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15075.htm
- tech_browser 10y ago
  Most religions claim that God is a person and maintain that God created the universe, thereby making God and the universe two separate entities. Further, religion and philosophy are also mixed up. "God in heaven", "Good actions give heaven and bad ones yield hell" etc. are some statements that we often hear. The distinguishing teaching about the Upanishads is that 1. God is not a person 2. The universe, as we perceive, is an illusion and its underlying reality is God 3. The individual (a person like you and me), is not just a collection of bones, muscles and tissue. Neither is the individual his/her mind. The true-nature of an individual is the indestructible Self. 4. The individual Self and God are one and the same. There's no such teaching like this in the world. It blows my mind as I read and contemplate on the verses that talk about it. There are several saints who have realized this truth and their position on the issue of God, individual and world are identical to what the Upanishads teach. IMHO A person who has put to test the teachings of the Upanishadic in his/her own life, and lives by its vision is a real teacher.
  - xd360 10y ago
    THIS. Everything that you have said here, I completely believe in that too. If one observes the world and tries to find a pattern in it, the findings will align with this theory. Would you please share in which teachings exactly did you read about this. I mean specifically about the one where they state that God is the universe itself and not a person who is different from it. Was it the Upanishads? Is there some specific book or source ? Thanks for your input.
    - tech_browser 10y ago
      There's not a specific book where this information is laid out. I'll write what I know and can refer to source if you have questions. At the outset, I'd like to mention that there are dualistic (dvaita), non-dualistic(advaita) and qualified non-dualistic (vishishta-advaita) interpretations of the Upanishads. As a follower of advaita, I clearly see from texts that non-duality is what these scriptures teach. The Mandukya Upanishad talks about "ajata-vada", ie the argument that nothing is ever born. Its teaching is very close to buddhist philosophy. The Mundaka Upanishad talks about the creation being God itself. A famous mantra quotes an example of a spider which is not only the efficient but also the material cause of the webs that it spins. Chandogya Upanishad chapter 6 has the "maha-vakya" i.e. great statement "tat-tvam-asi" - thou art that. Of course, reading a translation will not be sufficient to understand the depth of this text. These texts are usually expounded by scholars who are steeped in the tradition of studying and understanding them. For advaita (non-dualistic) philosphy, the master-commentator Shankaracharya has written brief commentaries on all the Upanishads. Their translations are available in English, but like I said earlier, a mere reading of them may not bring about the desired affect of "oh my god this is so awesome".
virtualwhys 10y ago
> Krishnamurti's teachings are based on scriptures such as Upanishads and Gita. "the truth is a pathless land", what place does sacred scripture hold in JK's teaching? From everything I've read by him, none. Similarly for meditation practices, which he usually described as one of many ways to avoid the truth, there was a rejection of all (non)traditional means to awakening. If anything JK's teaching is that of the Buddha: negate all ways and the truth appears. As for contemporary teachers in the JK lineage, Ramana Maharashi actually precedes JK (with some overlap); otherwise I only know of Tolle and Mooji, the latter of which should not, IMO, be linked with JK, Maharshi or any other spiritual giant (attending one of his talks at his retreat center in Portugal felt more like a cult of personality than anything else).
- metaphorm 10y ago
  > If anything JK's teaching is that of the Buddha: negate all ways and the truth appears. Nagarjuna's doctrine applies. Every concept is inherently void. The meaningfulness that we find within concepts is a construction of our own [deluded] minds. The truth is what's left when we accept the inherent emptiness of things.
- tech_browser 10y ago
  Mooji's teachings very much follow Ramana Maharshi's method of self-inquiry. That he has a cult-like following is an unfortunate side-effect. I have seen his videos and noticed that some of his "followers" worship him. This phenomena is not surprising. Teachers of philosophy, devotion etc. are often surrounded by parasite-like followers who pay very little attention to teaching and practicing it in their lives. Their focus is mostly to hang around the teacher and hope for a miracle to happen.
  - orasis 10y ago
    While it's not my cup of tea, some people seem to benefit from the path of devotion.
dominotw 10y ago
>Krishnamurti's teachings are based on scriptures such as Upanishads and Gita. I am curious why you say this?
- tech_browser 10y ago
  Some of his teachings are indeed present in the Upanishads. Especially, his statements about the Self, happiness etc. all do exist in Indian Scriptures. He was a maverick philosopher that shunned the traditional system of teaching.
  - dominotw 10y ago
    Sure but that doesn't mean they were "based on ", i was mostly curious about that part. afaik, they were just based on a pure common sense not based on Hinduism/Buddhism etc. There is a video on youtube of him talking to some Buddhist scholars where he goes into this. Unfortunately this common misconception of miscategorizing him as "hindu guru" which instantly turns off most westerners, stopping him from gaining much wider acceptance.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
>"There are supplementary texts that also discuss the approaches to attain it." The more interesting question is, why are you trying to attain it? What is it that makes people seek enlightenment?
- tech_browser 10y ago
  The answer is simple. A human's life remains unfulfilled regardless of his material gains such as wealth and pleasures. The fear of oldage, death and disease looms large and so does the uncertainty of the future. If one were to examine the world objectively, one would find that whatever I've mentioned above is seen aplenty. The entirety of a human's life is based on the notion I-am-the-body-and-the-mind. If one were to discover one's true nature and shed these limitations, eternal happiness and peace follow. The path to learning this is fraught with difficulties. The biggest obstacle is to learn things differently from what we already know. A cursory reading of books isn't sufficient. This is where the Upanishads and Gita stand out in comparison to other texts on philosophy. Not only do they describe in great detail the true nature of the Self, but also prescribe many practices on reaching the goal. There's every reason to pursue Self-realization or enlightenment as the only worthy goal of life. Such a goal never comes in one's way of being employed, raising a family etc.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    >"There's every reason to pursue Self-realization or enlightenment as the only worthy goal of life. Such a goal never comes in one's way of being employed, raising a family etc." What if the only way to understand it was to not pursue it?
    - tech_browser 10y ago
      You are right. To beginners, self-realization is pointed as a goal worthy of pursuit. As one treads along this path, one realizes that nothing new is to be pursued or attained. If the Self were attainable as an object with the passage of time (and some exertion), it is not a worthy goal since everything within the realm of time will perish. The Self is ever-realized. One only needs to forego incorrect notions and predilections for the Self to manifest in all its glory. This is the method recommended by many teachers of non-duality to know the Self. In fact, there is nothing akin to knowing the Self, for it would then become an object and the division of seer-seen will again appear. To know the Self is to Be the Self.

acqq 10y ago

Not only he decided to be against the "gurus", he was explicitly against every religion too. http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-krishnamurti/dissolution-speech.php http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-krishnamurti/dissolution-... "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 to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief." "Again, you have the idea that only certain people hold the key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one holds it. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of Eternity." Note the context -- he was himself "chosen" to be "the guru" as he was 16(!) and he recognized the absurdity of it as he was 32: "The Order of the Star in the East was founded in 1911 to proclaim the coming of the World Teacher. Krishnamurti was made Head of the Order. On August 3, 1929, the opening day of the annual Star Camp at Ommen, Holland, Krishnamurti dissolved the Order before 3000 members." ( The film of him reading the speech then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYnxRYAHmEs&t=11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYnxRYAHmEs&t=11s ) The teachings of the Order in which he was raised weren't "Upanishads and Gita" but the "Doctrine" of Madam Blavatsky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Star_in_the_East https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Star_in_the_East "One of the central tenets of late 19th-century Theosophy as promoted by the Theosophical Society was the complex doctrine of intelligent evolution of all existence. This was said to be occurring on a Cosmic scale, incorporating both physical and non-physical aspects of the known and unknown Universe, and affecting all of its constituent parts regardless of apparent size or importance. The theory was originally promulgated in the Secret Doctrine (published 1888), a book by Helena Blavatsky, one of the founders of contemporary Theosophy and the Theosophical Society." Edit: Upanishads have, unsurprisingly, many more different teachings than what "tech_browser" wrote below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads They are huge and with a lot of stories, a random sample is here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15075.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15075.htm

tech_browser 10y ago
Most religions claim that God is a person and maintain that God created the universe, thereby making God and the universe two separate entities. Further, religion and philosophy are also mixed up. "God in heaven", "Good actions give heaven and bad ones yield hell" etc. are some statements that we often hear. The distinguishing teaching about the Upanishads is that 1. God is not a person 2. The universe, as we perceive, is an illusion and its underlying reality is God 3. The individual (a person like you and me), is not just a collection of bones, muscles and tissue. Neither is the individual his/her mind. The true-nature of an individual is the indestructible Self. 4. The individual Self and God are one and the same. There's no such teaching like this in the world. It blows my mind as I read and contemplate on the verses that talk about it. There are several saints who have realized this truth and their position on the issue of God, individual and world are identical to what the Upanishads teach. IMHO A person who has put to test the teachings of the Upanishadic in his/her own life, and lives by its vision is a real teacher.
- xd360 10y ago
  THIS. Everything that you have said here, I completely believe in that too. If one observes the world and tries to find a pattern in it, the findings will align with this theory. Would you please share in which teachings exactly did you read about this. I mean specifically about the one where they state that God is the universe itself and not a person who is different from it. Was it the Upanishads? Is there some specific book or source ? Thanks for your input.
  - tech_browser 10y ago
    There's not a specific book where this information is laid out. I'll write what I know and can refer to source if you have questions. At the outset, I'd like to mention that there are dualistic (dvaita), non-dualistic(advaita) and qualified non-dualistic (vishishta-advaita) interpretations of the Upanishads. As a follower of advaita, I clearly see from texts that non-duality is what these scriptures teach. The Mandukya Upanishad talks about "ajata-vada", ie the argument that nothing is ever born. Its teaching is very close to buddhist philosophy. The Mundaka Upanishad talks about the creation being God itself. A famous mantra quotes an example of a spider which is not only the efficient but also the material cause of the webs that it spins. Chandogya Upanishad chapter 6 has the "maha-vakya" i.e. great statement "tat-tvam-asi" - thou art that. Of course, reading a translation will not be sufficient to understand the depth of this text. These texts are usually expounded by scholars who are steeped in the tradition of studying and understanding them. For advaita (non-dualistic) philosphy, the master-commentator Shankaracharya has written brief commentaries on all the Upanishads. Their translations are available in English, but like I said earlier, a mere reading of them may not bring about the desired affect of "oh my god this is so awesome".

virtualwhys 10y ago

> Krishnamurti's teachings are based on scriptures such as Upanishads and Gita. "the truth is a pathless land", what place does sacred scripture hold in JK's teaching? From everything I've read by him, none. Similarly for meditation practices, which he usually described as one of many ways to avoid the truth, there was a rejection of all (non)traditional means to awakening. If anything JK's teaching is that of the Buddha: negate all ways and the truth appears. As for contemporary teachers in the JK lineage, Ramana Maharashi actually precedes JK (with some overlap); otherwise I only know of Tolle and Mooji, the latter of which should not, IMO, be linked with JK, Maharshi or any other spiritual giant (attending one of his talks at his retreat center in Portugal felt more like a cult of personality than anything else).

metaphorm 10y ago
> If anything JK's teaching is that of the Buddha: negate all ways and the truth appears. Nagarjuna's doctrine applies. Every concept is inherently void. The meaningfulness that we find within concepts is a construction of our own [deluded] minds. The truth is what's left when we accept the inherent emptiness of things.
tech_browser 10y ago
Mooji's teachings very much follow Ramana Maharshi's method of self-inquiry. That he has a cult-like following is an unfortunate side-effect. I have seen his videos and noticed that some of his "followers" worship him. This phenomena is not surprising. Teachers of philosophy, devotion etc. are often surrounded by parasite-like followers who pay very little attention to teaching and practicing it in their lives. Their focus is mostly to hang around the teacher and hope for a miracle to happen.
- orasis 10y ago
  While it's not my cup of tea, some people seem to benefit from the path of devotion.

dominotw 10y ago

>Krishnamurti's teachings are based on scriptures such as Upanishads and Gita. I am curious why you say this?

tech_browser 10y ago
Some of his teachings are indeed present in the Upanishads. Especially, his statements about the Self, happiness etc. all do exist in Indian Scriptures. He was a maverick philosopher that shunned the traditional system of teaching.
- dominotw 10y ago
  Sure but that doesn't mean they were "based on ", i was mostly curious about that part. afaik, they were just based on a pure common sense not based on Hinduism/Buddhism etc. There is a video on youtube of him talking to some Buddhist scholars where he goes into this. Unfortunately this common misconception of miscategorizing him as "hindu guru" which instantly turns off most westerners, stopping him from gaining much wider acceptance.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

>"There are supplementary texts that also discuss the approaches to attain it." The more interesting question is, why are you trying to attain it? What is it that makes people seek enlightenment?

tech_browser 10y ago
The answer is simple. A human's life remains unfulfilled regardless of his material gains such as wealth and pleasures. The fear of oldage, death and disease looms large and so does the uncertainty of the future. If one were to examine the world objectively, one would find that whatever I've mentioned above is seen aplenty. The entirety of a human's life is based on the notion I-am-the-body-and-the-mind. If one were to discover one's true nature and shed these limitations, eternal happiness and peace follow. The path to learning this is fraught with difficulties. The biggest obstacle is to learn things differently from what we already know. A cursory reading of books isn't sufficient. This is where the Upanishads and Gita stand out in comparison to other texts on philosophy. Not only do they describe in great detail the true nature of the Self, but also prescribe many practices on reaching the goal. There's every reason to pursue Self-realization or enlightenment as the only worthy goal of life. Such a goal never comes in one's way of being employed, raising a family etc.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  >"There's every reason to pursue Self-realization or enlightenment as the only worthy goal of life. Such a goal never comes in one's way of being employed, raising a family etc." What if the only way to understand it was to not pursue it?
  - tech_browser 10y ago
    You are right. To beginners, self-realization is pointed as a goal worthy of pursuit. As one treads along this path, one realizes that nothing new is to be pursued or attained. If the Self were attainable as an object with the passage of time (and some exertion), it is not a worthy goal since everything within the realm of time will perish. The Self is ever-realized. One only needs to forego incorrect notions and predilections for the Self to manifest in all its glory. This is the method recommended by many teachers of non-duality to know the Self. In fact, there is nothing akin to knowing the Self, for it would then become an object and the division of seer-seen will again appear. To know the Self is to Be the Self.