Here is the speech given by "K" as his followers have affectionately called him for many years; given when he renounced all religion and dissolved the Order of the Star:

http://bernie.cncfamily.com/k_pathless.htm

Truth is a Pathless Land
by J. Krishnamurti

What follows is the speech made by Jiddu Krishnamurti in 1929 when he dissolved the Order of the Star. The Order of the Star was the organisation built around Krishnamurti by Theosophists who selected him at the age of 13 to be the vehicle for the return of the Christ, or Maitreya. He was raised accordingly, but after his enlightment, he refused the role that has been prepared for him, disbanded the organisation of which he was the head, and continued to teach on his own. His speech was made during the Dutch Camp of Ommen, in front of more than three thousand Star members, and with many thousands of Dutch people listening on the radio. Many of the concepts that are present in this speech are worth to be pondered upon in the light of almost 70 years of spiritual history.


We are going to discuss this morning the dissolution of the Order of the Star. Many will be delighted, and others will be rather sad. It is a question neither for rejoicing nor for sadness, because it is inevitable, as I am going to explain....

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 organised; nor should any organisation be formed to lead or coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organise a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organise it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallised; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others.

This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley....

So that is the first reason, from my point of view, why the Order of the Star should be dissolved. In spite of this, you will probably form other Orders, you will continue to belong to other organisations searching for Truth. I do not want to belong to any organisation of a spiritual kind; please understand this....

If an organisation 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. So that is another reason why I have decided, as I happen to be the Head of the Order, to dissolve it.

This is no magnificent deed, because I do not want followers, and I mean this. The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth. I am not concerned whether you pay attention to what I say or not. I want to do a certain thing in the world and I am going to do it with unwavering concentration. 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. Then you will naturally ask me why I go the world over, continually speaking. I will tell you for what reason I do this; not because I desire a following, not because I desire a special group of special disciples. (How men love to be different from their fellow-men, however ridiculous, absurd and trivial their distinctions, may be! I do not want to encourage that absurdity.) I have no disciples, no apostles, either on earth or in the realm of spirituality.

Nor is it the lure of money, nor the desire to live a comfortable life, which attracts me. If I wanted to lead a comfortable life I would not come to a Camp or live in a damp country! I am speaking frankly because I want this settled once and for all. I do not want these childish discussion year after year.

A newspaper reporter, who interviewed me, considered it a magnificent act to dissolve an organisation in which there were thousands and thousands of members. To him it was a great act because he said: "What will you do afterwards, how will you live? You will have no following, people will no longer listen to you." If there are only five people who will listen, who will live, who have their faces turned towards eternity, it will be sufficient. Of what use is it to have thousands who do not understand, who are fully embalmed in prejudice, who do not want the new, but would rather translate the new to suit their own sterile, stagnant selves?....

Because I am free, unconditioned, whole, not the part, not the relative, but the whole Truth that is eternal, I desire those, who seek to understand me, to be free, not to follow me, not to make out of me a cage which will become a religion, a sect. Rather should they be free from all fears - from the fear of religion, from the fear of salvation, from the fear of spirituality, from the fear of love, from the fear of death, from the fear of life itself. As an artist paints a picture because he takes delight in that painting, because it is his self-expression, his glory, his well-being, so I do this and not because I want any thing from anyone. You are accustomed to authority, or to the atmosphere of authority which you think will lead you to spirituality. You think and hope that another can, by his extraordinary powers - a miracle - transport you to this realm of eternal freedom which is Happiness. Your whole outlook on life is based on that authority.

You have listened to me for three years now, without any change taking place except in the few. Now analyse what I am saying, be critical, so that you may understand thoroughly, fundamentally....

For eighteen years you have been preparing for this event, for the Coming of the World Teacher. For eighteen years you have organised, you have looked for someone who would give a new delight to your hearts and minds, who would transform your whole life, who would give you a new understanding; for someone who would raise you to a new plane of life, who would give you new encouragement, who would set you free - and now look what is happening! Consider, reason with yourselves, and discover in what way that belief has made you different - not with the superficial difference of the wearing of a badge, which is trivial, absurd. In what manner has such a belief swept away all unessential things of life? That is the only way to judge: in what way are you freer, greater, more dangerous to every society which is based on the false and the unessential? In what way have the members of this organisation of the Star become different?....

You are all depending for your spirituality on someone else, for your happiness on someone else, for your enlightenment on someone else.... when I say look within yourselves for the enlightenment, for the glory, for the purification, and for the incorruptibility of the self, not one of you is willing to do it. There may be a few, but very, very few. So why have an organisation?....

No man from outside can make you free; nor can organised worship, nor the immolation of yourselves for a cause, make you free; nor can forming yourselves into an organisation, nor throwing yourselves into work, make you free. You use a typewriter to write letters, but you do not put it on an alter and worship it. But that is what you are doing when organisations become your chief concern. "How many members are there in it?" That is the first question I am asked by all newspaper reporters. "How many followers have you? By their number we shall judge whether what you say is true or false." I do not know how many there are. I am not concerned with that. If there were even one man who had been set free, that were enough....

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....

You have been accustomed to being told how far you have advanced, what is your spiritual status. How childish! Who but yourself can tell you if you are incorruptible?....

But those who really desire to understand, who are looking to find that which is eternal, without a beginning and without an end, will walk together with greater intensity, will be a danger to everything that is unessential, to unrealities, to shadows. And they will concentrate, they will become the flame, because they understand. Such a body we must create, and that is my purpose. Because of that true friendship - which you do not seem to know - there will be real co-operation on the part of each one. And this not because of authority, not because of salvation, but because you really understand, and hence are capable of living in the eternal. This is a greater thing than all pleasure, than all sacrifice.

So those are some of the reasons why, after careful consideration for two years, I have made this decision. It is not from a momentary impulse. I have not been persuaded to it by anyone - I am not persuaded in such things. For two years I have been thinking about this, slowly, carefully, patiently, and I have now decided to disband the Order, as I happen to be its Head. You can form other organisations and expect someone else. With that I am not concerned, norwith creating new cages, new decorations for those cages. My only concern is to set men absolutely, unconditionally free.




=====
"Truth is a pathless land and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. 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. My only concern is to set humanity absolutely, unconditionally free."

Magnificent wisdom, thank you for sharing this here.

Oh, you're very welcome, Goddess Whispers!

Last year I met a couple of other ladies online who were also fans of K. One had even grown up knowing Ram Dass and had played a lot in his back yard when she was a little girl.

I opened a message forum for a while so we could read together and discuss JK's writings, and those of other "oneness" teachers. It was all very interesting and I haven't even yet read his journals, which I think are still obtainable.

I've heard of K. but had yet to read any materials by or of him.And I have a few books by Ram D. , but this story was a lovely introduction to Krishnamurti. I look forward to more replies/thoughts on the topic.

I would have this question for him if he were still around today, but he'd be about 130 or so.

At the very beginning of his speech he says:
In the third paragraph of his speech it says:


So it seems in order to ascend to something, to Truth, one must have a path by or on which to do so, wouldn't it?

True, one doesn't need a religion, sect, etc., IN THE END, since one will eventually face God(?), Truth alone, someday (many lifetimes perhaps?). Unfortunately for one who is not in a JK level, one has to start somewhere, somehow. And I'm sure JK was not an enlightened person the moment he was born. No doubt, he studied with other teachers, meditated with them, and read books and so on. Therefore, one could never entirely disavow and ignore the lessons of one's religion, including one's gurus, one's culture, one's upbringing. Everything is important at a particular space and time. One step at a time, and all in good time.

I believe in the totality of things, and so far, many so-called saints, gurus from the past and present just simply don't add up -- they say one thing, and they indulge in another. What gives?! It just sounds so phony to just say, "I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect," don't you find??? It seems as if they completely ignored the past and those who helped them get to where they were/are.

Religion is important, and one must be grateful that one follows/followed a path, even if it is for now, etc. Religion helps us know our humanity, our "goodness," and culture. Sure, one must go beyond its unrealistic rules eventually, but one cannot ignore its intrinsic value completely. True: when one meditates, one should focus one's all to the 'flow,' Expansion, and so on. But, when one is in the world, one must be in the world, completely, consciously, and effectively. One shouldn't space out in the world. It is one's duty to one's self to be alert at all times while being in the world.




As long as one keeps one's mouth open and blabbering, one keeps one's self open to all possibilties, including criticism, not just new converts, regardless of one's initial intention of not wanting new followers.

Why didn't he just stay in his cave, all by himself, instead of going through all the drama of renunciation??? Why talk to anyone at all, especially to an earnest reporter... It would've been more effective if he had just told one person about his so-called renunciation, and in a very very short sentence at that.


I thought he didn't want followers??? His statement begs for attention. Again, as long one keeps one's books floating about and so on, it is inevitable. This particular post would not have been placed here in the first place. I wonder why he didn't tell his "former" followers to burn all his books, etc.???

Whether he liked it or not, he became another cage, path, key, religion, etc. for a person to get over someday, just like Jesus Christ, Buddha, Muhammad, etc., regardless of his "good" intentions.



Again, as long as one opens one's mouth, has a purpose and concern..., one is not completely free. One is just as guilty as the rest. One is never different from past archaic gurus, saints, mystics, masters, teachers, and so on -- at least some of them didn't have the pretentions about being absolutely "free," not wanting a new religion, not creating a new path. A teardrop on a pond always creates a ripple.

As long as one is in the body, one is not completely free. One could probably erase one's fears and so on, but one is not free, until one is completely out of this world, absolutely. Probably, until one gets a direct communication with God, then who knows???

True, there are those today (mystics and gurus and saints) who had this mystical experience of seeing the light or following a deep expansion or going into some kind of void or combo of the three..., but none of them spoke to God, directly, at least I've never met one yet. And with JK's case since he's dead, we will never know JK's "real" outcome, where he is now, and so on.



Eventually, the answer is yes..., and no because one needs other people and events to start the process, one's pilgrimage to the unknown because no one could do it by one's feat alone, at first at least.

One step at a time. And all in good time. And everything is important in a particular space and time. It's a domino effect. One cannot go from point A to point B (without fully appreciating point A), unless one gets the grace of God to bypass everything else. And "without a body, there is no proper meditation," so saints and mystics say. Therefore, mind and body and earthly experiences are also important in the chain reaction.

Just a thought.

I wrote this down in my personal bible. That is a beautiful speech and this Jiddu obviously has realized what he preaches. Thank you for posting this. I found this short paragraph which says the same thing about "truth is a pathless land". This isnt said better or worse but simply put in a slightly different context to show people that Jiddu is quite validated in what he said. Anyway here it is:

The Lord Buddha then warned Subhuti, saying, "Subhuti, do not think that the Tathagata (enlightened or awake one) ever considers in his own mind: I ought to enunciate a system of teaching for the elucidation of the Dharma. You should never cherish such a thought. And why? Because if any disciple harboured such a thought he would not only be misunderstanding the Tathagata's teaching but he would be slandering him as well. Moreover, the expression 'a system of teaching' has no meaning; for Truth (in the sense of Reality) cannot be cut up into pieces and aranged into a system. The words can only be used as a figure of speech."

Some realized souls do sit in caves but people are attracted to them by their grace and often build ashrams around them etc. Also like the buddhist and hindus both agree on, reality does incarnate enlightened ones (let it be known however that the job of the enlightened one is not to gain followers but to help others reach the same enlightenment as he or she had). If there were no spiritual betters in which we could learn from then no one would be enlightened (this is just one possbility, but it seems practical from my view point).

Also to sit in a cave is a spiritual stero type these days and shouldn't be used as an indicator of whether one is enlightened or not. Some stay as hermits in caves or up in mountains, others could work at a library or monastary. It could be anything. A true solitary is someone who sees the self anywhere and everywhere, whether in a forrest or city.



Also Like Buddha and Ramana Maharshi, they both didnt identify exclusively with their body's. They helped others realize that they wern;t their bodies but the awareness that thinks it is the body. A spiritual master can be completely free while in a body because again they have realized that they are not in that body and so dont identify their whole being as their body. They see everything as themself.

The mind is no other than the Buddha, and Buddha is no other than sentient being. When the Mind assumes the form of a sentient being, it has suffered no decrease; when it has become a Buddha, it has added nothing to itself. ---Huang Po


The word Tathagata (one of the names of the Buddha) signifiies one who does not go to anywhere and does not come from anywhere; and therefore is he called Tathagata (Thus-gone), holy and fully enlightened.----Diamond Sutra

If all is one, then how can you catagorize infinity? This world and God are one. Everything is real we just have to realize it. You say that you cannot be liberated until one dies, but what if when you die you go to another plane (of infinite planes) with a new form? All the true sages and mystics agree that spiritual liberation is to be had HERE and NOW. Find me one who doesn't agree with this....

Spiritual liberation is the same thing as direct communication with God but even more so, spiritual liberation is the realization that there is nothing that exists except God. God is all and all is God (including the Self here and now).

A body doesn't have to be a physical body here on the physical plane. However the form of a human being is an extremely lucky birth and we should be grateful that we are given such a great opportunity to be able if we so wish to meditate properly.

Instead of calling this a double quote I thought I would put up some of Jiddu's quotes:

The ending of thought is the beginning of wisdom."

"The observer is the observed."

"You are the world."

"Understanding is not an intellectual process."

Thought and energy: "Thought is matter as much as the floor, the wall, the telephone, are matter. Energy functioning in a pattern becomes matter. That is all life is....Matter and energy are interrelated. The one cannot exist without the other, and the more harmony there is between the two, the more balance, the more active the brain cells are. Thought has set up this pattern of pleasure, pain, fear, and has been functioning inside it for thousands of years and cannot break the pattern because it has created it." (P 140, Freedom from the Known.)

Thinker and thought: "We feel that the ‘I’ is different from thought, from mind. Is the ‘I’, the thinker, separate from thought? Then the thinker can operate on thought. Is the ‘I’ separate from its qualities? Remove thought, where is the thinker? We feel that the 'I' is permanent, because all other thoughts come and go. If the thinker is permanent, then thought can be changed, controlled, transformed by the thinker. But is not the 'I' the result of thought? Your mind separates the 'I' from thought because it cannot bear impermanency" (P 146, Krishnamurti A Biography)

"Thought cannot, do what it will, free itself from the opposites; thought itself has created the ugly and the beautiful, the good and the bad. So it cannot free itself from its own activities. All that it can do is to be still, not choose. Choice is conflict."

Love and observation : "I must love the very thing I am studying. If you want to understand a child, you must love and not condemn him. You must play with him, watch his movements, his idiosyncrasies, his ways of behaviour; but if you merely condemn, resist, or blame him, there is no comprehension of the child. Similarly, to understand what is, one must observe what one thinks, feels, and does from moment to moment. That is the actual."

"Observation without evaluation is the highest form of intelligence"

You are preaching to the choir, BNW. I already know what you're saying. Basically, JK didn't need to say, "I do not want followers..." There are those who would actually misenterpret his real intention, especially if they're not versed in the metaphysical/spiritual side of things. Thank God that there are people like you who are eager to champion these saints and mystics and gurus. Think of me as being a devil's advocate in this situation...

And the cave thing is not a question; it is a statement, sort of like a muse -- three question marks (not one), right?

And yes, they lower their consciousness to stay in the body to be a beacon, not to start a religion. Although, others did misenterpret their true intention, especially when their words, "teachings" got written down.




I agree, 300%. And there are also "enlightened" people who would say that everything in this world is part of the process. This world is a perfect machinery to polish up the rough edges. In the end, "enlightenment" is also a balance, while one is on this earth. Before the final nothingness, one has to be effective and rounded in this world. A human being has to know how to really love someone, a person, people, not just one's pet animal. If one has not achieved "enlightenment," or know that one is already "enlightened," one must pay one's bills and live a "good" life with deep respect to one's body, persona. One simply cannot space out, unfortunately. That is not enlightenment. It is a case of escapism. Just because one tells the world that one is spiritual, one is already exempt from being in the world??? I don't think so. Never. We all know the saying "unfinished business and baggage," right???

One step at a time. And all in good time. One will know that perfect time. And everything is important in a particular space and time. And in the end, it is timeless. It's a domino effect. One cannot go from point A to point B (without fully appreciating point A), unless one gets the grace of God to bypass everything else. Therefore, mind and body and earthly experiences are also important in the chain reaction.

If one could afford to have total renunciation of this world, then go for it. Stop eating and see where that leads to. I know of a saint who did this because he knew deep down that he was given this grace of "enlightenment," and strangers actually fed him to stay alive in the world because he, himself, wouldn't touch any of it. And I'm glad they did because I love this saint with all my heart..., even though he is not in this world anymore.

Like a "good" doctor, I only give a certain amount of dosage to not destroy the patient.

To the mind, infinity and "HERE and NOW" are two different things. In my experience, they are the same. This concept is really beyond the mind. It is meant for the consciousness to grasp it. Words could never convey it. You just have to experience it. The only word I could think of to use is expansion, and even that is a very limited definition. When the mind is still and purified, and the breath is almost breathless, ??? awaits, through the grace of Truth(?).

Humans have this arrogance that once a certain concept is defined, one knows it completely. Unfortunately, it is not so, especially not about anything beyond this world, and even of this world, one doesn't really know how to truly define them. How do you define an atom, light, and so on???

Yes, everything is real we just have to realize it. It's a matter of degree while on this earth. Things are real because they help to push one to the next step. Unfortunately, one still occupies a body; therefore, it is subject to relativity. Once you are completely one with...(again words could never describe the experience), then relativity and reality become one.

Then again, everything you know has to be surrendered in the end, including your TIGHTLY HELD belief system, all your book knowledge, even your recent experience since infinity happens "HERE and NOW." True, you will experience whatever it is you believe and those you've read in books about "enlightenment"..., but why stop there??? The act of surrender is another matter, however. Could you sit still in meditation for a week, for two day, for five hours in a proper yoga posture, mind focused, body not figiting about regardless of the noise outside and inside your house?

Again, one step at a time to purify the mind and body before going to the next phase. One simply cannot achieve the "HERE and NOW" without the proper dosage because one doesn't want one's system to get overloaded. Mystics and saints may appear to double talk, but you have to see where they are coming from. Some of them probably spent their whole lives pursuing the "HERE and NOW." Unfortunately, I've never known of anyone who could CONSISTENTLY sustain the HERE and NOW for a very long time. Get distracted, and your off the HERE and NOW. Many have died when they arrived at the "HERE and NOW." Think about it: it takes great concentration, through the grace of God(???).

You have to understand: when a guru speaks to the crowd, he uses words to convey the unconveyable. Out of his or her soul's sincere desire, a guru reaches out. In a way, he or she is like a prostitute because it is the only way to get people interested. What a guru tells his or her devoted disciples are usually different from what he or she tells the uninitiated, the masses. Think about it: how many people out there who are really willing to just be, sit still for hours, at least at first, and do it day after day, for years, not just one time or a week or a month??? Therefore, how does one package the unpackagable? So, many gurus have resorted to romanticizing the "work." And their readers get sidetracked. There is nothing romantic about spiritual work, it is WORK, for some. And just be, for others.

Earlier you stated this:

"As long as one keeps one's mouth open and blabbering, one keeps one's self open to all possibilties, including criticism, not just new converts, regardless of one's initial intention of not wanting new followers.

Why didn't he just stay in his cave, all by himself, instead of going through all the drama of renunciation??? Why talk to anyone at all, especially to an earnest reporter... It would've been more effective if he had just told one person about his so-called renunciation, and in a very very short sentence at that...."

I know you stated earlier that you are playing devil's advocate. I just wanted to say that I believe the answer to your question is in the statement you made at the top of this post. Wasn't K just unromanticizing his work? It is true, he was still openly talking about it, but I don't believe this was out of a need to gain followers or any other ego boosting behavior. Isn't it better that he realized he was in this world, that he had some responsiblity to pass on his wisdom? He just carried it out in a way that he believed wouldn't elevate him. This is the most wise and beautiful thing I have read in a long time (Thankyou Swandancer!).

It's my understanding that on the day he was to accept the mantle as leader of the Order of the Star, instead of giving his acceptance speech, he gave this one instead. It would have made no sense for him to have just told one person about the renunciation. There were thousands there waiting to cheer him on as he began is career in Theosophy as "The World Teacher", so he must have felt duty-bound to give his explanation to the entire bunch. There would naturally be reporters in attendance at such an auspicious occasion and they would naturally interview him. I give him a lot of credit for sticking to his own Truth, from which he never did waver. He lived to be about 90 years old and never did waver from his position on that day, just as he said he wouldn't.

It is also my understanding that his talks and lectures were not written down by him, as much as by his followers, and they were the ones who made these books out of it all. Just as nothing was written down by Jesus himself, and nothing was even written 'about' him for 200 years after he lived, Jiddu only kept his own journals, which were published much later on by his followers, if I understand correctly.

However, I think you are right to say that as long as he kept on giving speeches and lectures, he would have a following. But he did state that in his renunciation speech; that if he could help even one man attain enlightenment without the path of an organized religion, he would have fulfilled his mission. He wasn't fading away completely to do nothing; that would have been a betrayal of the gift he had for all mankind.

Perhaps for me it would have made more sense to word it as: "Truth is a land without an 'organized' path". Since later on he said "Truth is personal for each individual", then he is implying some sort of personal and individual path. But I do think this is one of the most moving speeches I've ever read, and it is so important in this day and age.

Yes, this is one of the most wise and beautiful things I've read too. I've actually read some of his books a long time ago... The truth is: students will flock at the feet of an enlightened being, regardless of everything, like bees to honey. And I believe certain masters stay in the body out of their soul's sincere desire, and God(???) knows or even have placed this sincere desire in their configuration and let them stay in their body.

No doubt, it is one of the most moving speeches I've read too, and one of the great examples of true renunciation. And yes, in the end "Truth is personal for each individual" since it is one's journey, and no guru or saint or mystic could give you the path. A guru or teacher or saint is a mirror, however.

I just think that part of a person finding their own truth is as to whether they need a mirror or not. K said no one needs this; however, some believe they do, at least for a time. If it goes on and on and on, then it probably isn't a mirror, it's a dependency.

Definitely. Besides, a "good" teacher wouldn't want his or her students to indefinitely hang around. A great teaching leads one to one's self, one's pilgrimage, not to hinder a person's adventure. In fact, a "good" teacher is a detached teacher. He or she doesn't even need the students' money and adulation, no need for worship and so on. In fact, a great teacher hardly speaks since there is really nothing much to say about "enlightenment" since it is an individual gig. In fact, this particular teacher warns his or her students to not compare experiences, as if one experience is better that the other and so on.

The thing with "mirror": it is there whether there is a person who wishes to look at it or not. It just is, just like "enlightenment."

I'm not actually taking issue with you here, dlv, but is it for certain to know he wasn't enlightened at birth? I have often thought him to be a very possible reincarnation of Jesus.

An old friend of the family also thinks JK's a reincarnation of Jesus. And I've heard this mentioned before, too, by other acquaintances from various ashrams. It's a possiblity.

Unfortunately what many spiritual books don't tell you is the fact that our earthly body carries tension and pain. Tension and pain have their separate story to tell, and everyone is not equal in this sense since others harbor more, greater, or less of these distractions (to be tolerated while sitting in a proper yogic pose) -- and these don't even include the clutter which spins in one's mind to annoy and so on. And sometimes it would take a miracle, indeed, or God's grace for one to get over one's accumulated messes.

In theory, it is easy; in earthly reality, it would sometimes require God's grace, or miracle to transcend them. But, all in good time. Besides, we have ample time of a chance, whether be it in this lifetime, or millions of lifetimes. On the other hand, one must make the effort to start sometime... One simply cannot just say, " I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna do it."

JUST DO IT, DAMMIT.

Nevertheless, it is a boon to incarnate in a human form, for only through human form one COULD get liberated due to the structure of the human body (its spinal column), a perfect machine (relatively speaking) -- mystics and saints have mentioned in the past. But, one has to be wise enough to take full advantage of this gift. Some mystics and saints also say that it takes God's grace for one to get this inclination to concentrate for one to eventually meditate, in the first place. But I tell you, once you read this post, it is no accident. I could actually attest that I didn't start out with lesser tension; I was not that lucky, but blessed enough to have persisted.

One could only be grateful until the end, regardless of everything. One cannot be an Einstein without going through the elementary stage of learning, at least not yet since our technology is not that advance to put a genius nanochip in your head.

Watchout for (the negative side of) nanotech, it will definitely change this world's reality..., hopefully, not in my lifetime.

Think of a Rock Star analogy: people buy guitars, synthesizers, microphones, just because they got inspired... They would like to experience a taste of "that," as well, whatever "that" is. Nevertheless, they did something about it by pursuing their individual goal. Inspiration is another form of God's grace. Rock stars like everyday people are God's tools. God works through us to help get us to where we are suppose to be. Whatever it takes. It's a journey, after all. No man stands alone, at first. And one will face God(?), one on one, eventually.

I like it because he realized what everyone should, that your own line of knowledge is just that, your own, the individual. If he was raised since 13 to be some sort of hope for an organization of helpless fools steeped in religion, which means feeling miserable about things in general, as they were all following some one else's path and guidelines.

Truth is an unorganized path, as it is different for every individual.

He spoke some of my own private knowledge, gleaned by myself through my own enforced journey here. Obviousley, he was right in that only a microscopic few will ever be free from the religious herds, and their pet goverments who use it to control others with. That control is what made him realize what he spoke.

Amazing how something like that was buried for so long{not} he saw this place for what it was, a cage.

He must have been a very nice man. It is always a pleasure to hear of people who are truely enlightened; his action on that day is a lesson to all mankind. I had not heared of jk before. have been practicing zazen since 7yrs old. He that instructed me always said that i should not see him as a teacher in spirituality or enlightenment, but like a physical training instructor- someone who could give me the tools to master what i could control, my body and my mind, then i would be able to find out for myself.

my heart sings for this man.

Well said. I concur! I think the same! This Jiddu guy was truly enlightened but it isn't him we should idolize nor his message but to use them both as means (tools) to discovering the truth itself within ourself. Wow been practicing zazen since you were seven? Awesome!

Since I so agree with what is said in K's speech here, I see everyone's Truth as equally valid and appreciate all the participation that is happening on this thread!

It has been very validating for me to read something written and spoken so long ago that speaks what I truly know to be my own Truth, as what JK has said here.

Actually, according to JK, concentration and meditation are two different things. And this is very deep, indeed. Concentration equals effort, but not a bad thing. Meditation equals effortless, where there is no effort at all.

JK actually said that when one concentrates on a specific thing or situation or goal, and the mind wavers to another thought, then one should watch that new thought, follow where it goes, and concentrate on where it stops, instead of trying so hard to control it, stopping it, and basically labeling the thought as undesirable and fighting it endlessly. When accepted, perhaps then one's concentration could go back to the original, specific goal.

Therefore, controlling the mind (thought) and mentally kicking one's self from straying will only lead to more distraction.

And I believe that one must concentrate before meditation actually kicks in. It is its mystery. And only through one's sincere effort that this would actually happen, this meditation, the state of "JUST BE." One step at a time.

One must ring the bell to know true silence.

Just a thought... Peace to you.

One's meditative adventure is definitely not a fair-weather, capricious, irresponsible effort -- I've seen ashram-hoppers here and there (know what I mean???). Yes, it is a great effort at first... And one has to be (relatively) effective in the world. If you live in the West, or an industrial nation, then paying one's bills is no surprise. Somebody has to pay them, unfortunately, unless one is a Rockerfeller, or has attached one's self to a generous person, husband, wife, friend. One could live in a commune, but I'll tell you now that it is NO PICNIC. One hears horror stories here and there... There is nothing romantic about it.

Nevertheless, one's meditative adventure has to be sustained, preferably everyday since it is also a physical workout. If you've sat in a meditative posture, then you know quite well that it takes tremendous physical stamina to keep your body erect (for hours).

"Enlightenment" is not a one-shot deal, unless one leaves the body completely. When one stays on, "enlightenment" has to be sustained, as well...

I wanted to take this opportunity to post a little more here on this subject. Later in his life, when his biography was being written, Krishnamurti explained his teachings like this:

"The teachings are not something out there in a book; what the teachings say is, 'Look at yourself, go into yourself, inquire into what is there, understand it, go beyond it', and so on. The teachings are only a means of pointing, explaining, but you have to understand, not the teachings, but yourself."

Moreover, one of the best pieces of advice I have heard him give, by reading his books, is where he teaches that beliefs and opinions only serve to divide and separate Mankind. Just think of how much peace we could have on earth if we didn't have all this division by the appearance of there being different "Gods" and political parties, etc.

Here is an excerpt from "The Core of Teachings"
Written by Krishnamurti in 1980 for the biography by Mary Lutyens - "Krishnamurti: The Years of Fulfilment". In 1983, he revised the statement to its current form. © KFT.

"The core of Krishnamurti's teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: "Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. Man has built in himself images as a fence of security; religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man's thinking, his relationships, and his daily life. These images are the cause of our problems, for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual.

"Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not a choice. It is man's pretense that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity.

"Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge, which are inseparable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution. When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts, he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep, radical mutation in the mind.

"Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence."

Lucky for JK that his bills were paid. Was he already rich? Did he charge for his guest appearances? Did he have a day job? Does he have children? Does he have a girlfriend, or wife? Was he a fun guy to be around with, or was he dull? Did he know how to rip the dancefloor like Krishna?

I do know that in the west, if you don't work, you'll be out on the streets, especially if you own your house (not just renting), unless you have someone to pay your bills. And usually, you don't take homeless people seriously when they talk about spirituality, at least in the West, especially when you get up early in the morning to avoid heavy traffic to get to work. And since I'm still alive and in the West, I act accordingly to take care of my body, absolutely. One simply can't go around this. And taking care of one's body is a path in itself since one's energy is used, sometimes expended to deal with it. For one to eventually meditate, observe, one definitely needs to deal with the basics, no doubt. You ignore earthly reality, you become a SPACE CADET. One simply cannot go from point A to point B (without fully appreciating point A)...

While in this world, if you don't have the money to back you up, you simply cannot "observe" indefinitely without doing anything. Besides, your ass will certainly get blistery sore, even if boredom doesn't get you first.

That's simply not what I get out of it. If you have a day job, a family, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, whatever, then he is giving a way to peace and freedom within that, is what I see here.

Have you heard of Primitivism? I believe this is what John Lennon and Jesus practiced, and many others, too, I'm sure. I'll start a new thread on that so we can discuss it, if you're interested. Then you might "really" ask about blistery sores on the rumpus derriumpus. But that, too, would be a choice. I don't think anyone has said or is saying to sit there and do nothing, be nothing, think nothing.

Here is the new thread on Primitivism: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=89253

I agree (in the end). BUT, to common, everyday people the concepts of observation and choicelessness need to be dumbed-down, or else, they will be misunderstood. So, please explain how these two are achieved while still in a day job with endless deadlines, have children, with tons of bills to pay, with dogs barking insanely in the neighbor's backyard, while going through a painful sinusitis, with a military cousin who is about to go to the Middle East..., and so on?

Are you married with children? Do you own a house? Do you have a job? Have you ever been in a car accident? If so, surely, you have endless choices to make in REALTIME.

Again, please explain your method(s) on how to achieve freedom and choicelessness while in REALTIME mode. Surely, you don't say, "Oh, I'll deal with that later..., while you're bleeding to death," right?

It's nice in THEORY. Then again, one could also be enlightened and relatively free while indulged in luxury with many choices to make, everyday, every moment. I've seen it in practice. To be free doesn't mean to be devoid of goodies and cares. It's not about escapism and laziness. Thank God for Mother Teresa.

I certainly didn't intend for anyone to get upset over this; I would never have posted it for that purpose.

I only 'wish' these things were true of me that you asked. I won't go into detail about my life, mainly because I practice following the "Crosstalk Guidelines" of Co-Dependents Anonymous the best I can, and outsie of being summoned to a court of law, I do not submit to interrogation, or participate heavily in "you" or "we" statements.

Anyway, about why Krishnamurti would say this. I don't think most people would like the ultimate answer and reason. Maybe others would conclude differently, since he did mostly leave it to each individual to do so, but I believe he is telling us we don't have Free Will. The fact that we struggle against that and try to force the issue, is what is wearing us out. His "choicelessness" is more about submitting to 'what is' in this sense, than in saying we have free will but to just not make any choices within that context.

I think there is a big difference between Intent and Free Will. There's a passage in the bible, and knowing that most of this was copied from much earlier cultures, I sometimes think Universal Truth can be found there. It says "A man plans his way, but God directs his steps". Whoever or whatever a person wants to exchange for the word "God" is perfectly acceptable, because I replace it with something like "Ultimate Consciousness" or "The One".

Funny you should mention her. I was going to go back and add her to my list of people I believed lived in Primitivism. No one was talking about being lazy, but she renounced luxury and elegance in favor of a simple, more 'primitive' lifestyle. Being a humanitarian is definitely what real Love is about, for it is compassion in action, and that is our true purpose towards each other. To me, our true purpose isn't about competing for a promotion or to be famous or wealthy. But preferring the other person over ourselves when they are in need, and them doing the same in return.

And again, as I said on the new thread, it takes a long time for what they are saying to sink in. I had to learn that it isn't what it appears on the surface. It isn't laziness to be on earth for the right reasons. The workaday world may not be right after all.

Mother Teresa, on the other hand, made choices everyday. She lived humbly, but that's one of her many choices.

Since many people in the West are already wrapped up in the "workaday world," which is not necessarily a bad thing, one has to accept this fact completely, and only then could one move on. I'm not judging primitivists, but their lifestyle is absolutely not my style. Then again, I don't want many things because I practically have everything I want. I have no bills, eveything is paid for, or at least I have the money in the bank to pay for my upcoming Visa bill. I'm also blessed enough to wake up at my leisure.

And I'm certainly not judging JK for his choice of choicelessness.

I have my belief system, and so far, I'm one with it. I enjoy life, sex, and luxury while at peace with my meditative "self," and I have no problem with cleaning my house..., and so on. I count my many blessings everyday, every hour, every minute -- when it comes to mind (of course). I would never trade my life with anybody, definitely not. And I certainly don't have any illusions of not wanting to make any choices because one could never get around this, to begin with, while one is in physical motion on earth.

There is always a price to pay for every choce we make, even if we don't think we're making one.

Can it be known for a certainty, though, that those were 'her' choices, and not that of One Consciousness? That is, I think, what K's point is in Choicelessness, whether anyone agrees with it or not. Mother Teresa taught acceptance of 'what is', so perhaps she also understood that she was a player on the stage of life.

The most accurate definition I've found as to what Simplicity is, is that it's having no more than the person themself decides on and feels they need. That is, unless it is Consciousness deciding for us.

At any rate, it could be vast luxury or total asceticism. The main point is that no one "else" decides for another what Simplicity is to them.

While on Earth, I don't believe one loses one's individual consciousness completely. Therefore, there is still an element of choice. Then again, I could only go by my experience, and none of the saints and mystics I've encountered actually said that they are THE God, and that their every word is holy, etc. And if one did say such a thing, then I'm sure I'd stay away, far away, from that person, absolutely.

In this world, no body has power over you if you're strong enough to take the consequences, unless you let them. But this is not the issue here, the issue is choicelessness.[size="3"][/size]

Mother Teresa followed Jesus' poverty. She never claimed to be a christ. It would be blasphemous for her to claim of such a thing, not in the Catholic religion. And her group constantly asked (begged) for money... I don't think she was aware of Primitivism at all. She made constant choices everday for her establishment to stay afloat. Watch her docu and movie about her.

What you dont understand dlv is that there is a difference between affective poverty and effective poverty. One may have no money or wealth which is effective poverty yet still crave after things money can buy and be bitter about not getting it. Affective poverty is when you have wealth but remian unaffected and indifferent to the privileges and power money can buy. So one can achieve a genuine poverty of spirit while not being effectively poor.

I think personally you bag this Jiddu too much. You are getting way too politically correct with him when he generally has an eye-opening message. You make it sound as if no one could benefit from his words of wisdom which obviously came from experience. If you are this critical of a free thinker and spiritual mystic like Jiddu then I'd love to see your criticizisms on actual orthodox indoctrinated corrupt religious leaders.

One of the biggest problems with our western society is that we think it's negative to be 'lazy' and positive to be 'stressed out working our **** off'. Lazy and natural are confused a lot. Think about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, whether it seems a fairy tale or a true story. For some reason it is a legend in most cultures around the world. They didn't have to do anything, and I think this is what is meant by being natural and enjoying life and the earth.

One of the documentaries that I watched about Mother Teresa, showed a group of her nuns preparing an old apartment building for use as a hospital. They were rolling up the carpets and throwing them out the windows. When asked why they did this, they replied that the carpets were "too elegant" and the Mother would not permit them. It was her 'choice' to have it that way.

I would have added, of course, that a hospital could not be kept sterile with carpeting, but just the fact that they said what they did, shows that she wanted to be very 'no frills' about the way she lived her life.

And yes, I don't understand your reasons for wanting to downplay Krishnamurti so much, dlv. If you don't like him, that's fine, but is it right to ruin the enjoyment of this thread for others? It is hard enough to find positive, uplifting, inspiring things in today's world. I keep in mind that he is from a different generation when things were applied differently, and they had different needs. He might say something a little different today if he were here now, but I like to enjoy what he said then also.

Don't get me wrong, I love JK (as I mentioned earlier), especially what he said about meditation and concentration. And definitely, it was timeless, at least for me. Then again, that particular talk (on video) was from his late years, and the talks from his late years (on video) made more sense to me than his earlier books, when he was much younger. People do grow and change as they get older. Life has a way of challenging our belief system.

My posts on this particular forum are not meant to ruin things for other people. I'm basically trying to answer the questions and put my input as honestly and sincerely as I could write them. Since this is a forum, one has the right to write one's POV.



I do understand what you're saying with this. BUT, I live now, with bills to pay, unruly workmen to straighten up, unrealistic deadlines, and so on. Again, Primitivism is simply not my style, not now -- think of this as just another POV.

In my line of work, I deal with practically all shades of humanity, not just the motive-oriented poor and the saintly (giving) rich, but also the spoiled, the power hungry, the talentless, the trendies, the meek, phonies, fullalove, and so on. I definitely know what you're saying, and I've lived this long to know, especially when one grew up in a political arena, not just the spiritual circle.


I respect your observation, but then again, my posts are merely POV. The thing about me: when I respect someone, I really get into that person's belief system and so on. Otherwise, I put my energy somewhere else.

It has become so clear to me what K was teaching. If left to oneself from birth onward, a person has a far better chance to come to the Truth sooner rather than later. If left to oneself without outside programming, a person would hear their own God-voice and answer.

So clearly can one not find Truth by following a religion, sect, philosophy, path, teacher, scripture, text, savior, christ, buddha, god or guru. You can capitalize any or all of those words/names or not. It is within the Self, and is personal and individual.

"Truth is in the eye of 'Everyman'; in that is the sum total of our Origin, Purpose and Destiny".

Yes, I truly get it now and am feeling more peace than ever before, and more compassion for others as well.

First off, if I could ever do a big Hollywood blockbuster it would be about K. To your questions, since he's not around, I'll presume to answer for him....

Language is a barrier. That's first off. It's an approximation of the thing so when he's saying ascend, and effort, he's--well he should have chosen better words, how about that? His entire message boils down to this:

If there is such a thing as that which is beyond thought, we must stop thought to allow "it" (Truth, the timeless, whatever word you wanna use) to show itself. Paths, religious or otherwise, exist in the domain of thought and so they are useless. Seeking is also a thought process, so don't seek--it's a matter of doing nothing for the sake of doing nothing and not because you wish to attain something by doing nothing.

So when he says Truth can't be brought down, we must rise to it, what he means is that Truth is the timeless non-thought state and so to capture it--to even think about it--is to kill it because doing so drags it into time. The timeless is now in time and is therefore dead, see? So he spent his life telling everyone who would listen that thought is the enemy and, furthermore, the persona we call "I" is an aspect of thought. It's the dominant thought that claims to be the thinker of other thoughts--but it's all just thought. So what needs to die isn't Truth to thought but thought to Truth. Ego death: the biggest fear of all.

I don't know if that clears it up for you or just sounds like so much babble.

Nobody got this in his day and very very few do now. Some try to make him into a philosopher or compare what he said to Buddhism, mysticism, etc.--but he would say all of that is a means to not end the self and experience Truth. It's a means to continue on as we are, forever debating words and not "getting it," for what he said goes against everything that we believe we are from the moment we're born, no matter the religion or culture.

Quite the conundrum if we let it be, but it's actually simple: Any direction you pick, you're the director. If there's anything beyond you, one must stop directing to see it. (Be it, actually--for who is left to see?)

The you must not exist. Ego death. That's it. And that only happens when we see the futility of trying deep down, not as an intellectual exercise--but REALLY see it and therefore dissolve.