Jiddu Krishnamurti

On the other hand, if someone was really an Avatar, one could not but ask himself why would an Avatar write something so obviously useless, even if it actually meant something?
To impress the natives?

That is a very strange statement.
Something to do with making a judgement about something or someone that writes on a level that may seem somewhat ridiculous, however from the spiritual/mystical instructions that I am aware of, what Meher Baba writes is pretty spot on. As my Master has said to many that have asked about the whys and the wherefores of the Universal Knowledge, an explanation would sound outlandish and beyond comprehension to the inexperienced.

Personally I see that Meher Baba has done exceedingly well in trying to convey this information to a form that can be printed. Though I have had to re-read pages 5 or 6 times to grasp what he is on about and his method of writing seems convoluted and he repeats the information adding further context with each phase; I have never come across any document so far that has described and qualified each principal in such a definite manner before. The quote that I used would seem gobligook viewed on its own out of context but with the preceding chapters and the following chapters plus the detailed diagrams it comes together exceedingly well for this type of subject matter.

Still reading the book would clarify matters and I know that 25 years ago when I read the Tibetan Book of the Dead I had the same problem and had to keep reading the previous pages over and over until I grasped the significance of the content. Now when I read teachings of many Saints and Masters of all Paths I understand their descriptions and analogies to a greater degree than I previously did, even the shrouded talk that they often use as it has been well detailed by Meher Baba's efforts.

A while back I came across Rishi Valley Education, a school system set up by J Krishnamurti, most interesting and most enriching.

Hunting through my bookshelf and falling into my 'psychology' section, 'tis true, anyway I found staring at me The Impossible Question
"Question: Can you ever empty this storehouse of impression which you have had?"
KRISHNMURTI: "You've put a wrong question. It is a wrong question because you say 'Can you ever'. Who is the 'you' and what do you mean by 'ever'? Which means: is it possible?"
"Sirs, look we never put the impossible question ~ we are always putting the question of what is possible. If you put an impossible question, your mind has then to find the answer in terms of the impossible ~ not of what is possible. All the great scientific discoveries are based on this, the impossible. It was impossible to go to the moon. But if you say, 'It is possible' then you drop it. Because it was impossible, three hundred thousand people cooperated and worked at it, night and day ~ they put their mind to it and went to the moon. But we never put the impossible question! The impossible question is this: can the mind empty itself of the known? ~ itself, not you empty the mind. That is an impossible question. If you put tremendous earnestness, with seriousness, with passion, you'll find out. But if you say, 'Oh, it is possible', then you are stuck.

The following question in the book is 'What is beyond consciousness?' Reading this I would suggest that Meher Baba and KRISHNMURTI often had chai together talking.

the only problem i have with k. is that he denounces all forms of meditation - including zen - but the process he is advocating (choiceless awareness) is actually non-different from zen practice.

then again this is not news in indian philosophy, namely excessive denial of previous thinkers.
just take a look at how advaita tried to distance itself from buddhism (my guess is brahmins were afraid they would lose their position given by mere birth), even though most of advaitic thought is just a reformulation of buddha dharma.

then again even ug later on did the same kind of a thing, after leaving k.

Zenkris, K denounced all forms of meditation including Zen because they imply time. The teachers of those systems imply that the more you practice, the better you will become. K pointed out that the whole philosophy of becoming: gradually getting better & better in time, is false. Mediation is when psychological time (the yesterdays & tomorrows) end, when you live completely in the moment. He said that you cannot use time to get beyond time as there is no beyond. For that there is no system.

Keep returning to his books, even now. Don't understand a lot, yet can't dismiss either

What are you hoping for?

Very good question. It's the same questions like that that JK asks, which is the very reason I return to his books.

Sometimes hope, sometimes not - the hope is to be free from sorrow. I think that is the reason people start reading 'spiritual' books in the first place.

The human desire to escape from sorrow is perhaps a bit compulsive.

I suggest simple outright acceptance of whatever your condition. Quite paradoxically, this is the key to escape. It's not that one actually stops suffering, but that suffering becomes irrelevant.

Another way of putting is that it's ones attachment to NOT suffering that causes most of the anxiety of the human condition. Acceptance of the situation is the easiest antidote.

As to K- I'm naturally a bit skeptical of anyone that doesn't speak clearly, and think that while there are many many many experientially 'enlightened' people around, few have the philosophical understanding to make sense of those experiences. Experiencing pure awareness does give the perspective of unity, but does not endow one with the intellectual tools necessary to make any sense of it, certainly not to explain WHY this unity is always the case to begin with. Intellectual enlightenment is a completely different process (and most often a mutually exclusive one).

Some good points here and there, though.

No offense but I found your post a good example of not speaking clearly or at least explaining what your really talking about. 'many many many experientially enlightened people around'????
'philosophical understanding to make sense of those experiences'??? Do you really think there are tools to explain and make sense of this? Are you saying that JK did not speak clearly?

Yes, I think all phenomena can be clearly explained.

Yes, I think K did not, in general, speak very clearly. But like I said, good points here and there.

It's one thing to have an experience, a completely different one to understand it well enough to explain it to someone else. Without a good understanding of psychology and philosophy, it's really not possible. The best they can do is to teach you techniques for likewise having the experience, but again, that doesn't convey an intellectual understanding of it. This is an unfortunate problem in the human condition, as it tends to lead to some kooky 'philosophies' over time. What's ironic is that even the kooky philosophies can produce results, at least any that convey techiniques within the philosophical construct. It can easily turn into a self perpetuating cycle of disinformation and misunderstanding.

This is a very important issue in my opinion, as I think the experience itself tends to be a bit misleading. It's easy to draw conclusions from it that aren't really accurate.

No offense taken.

K does not teach any techniques, He repeatedly says that ' word is not the thing.'

K never intended to convey it clearly. He wants the seeker to investigate the truth/ veracity of his statements.

Frog, Mate, A few links for you (Just in case, if you are interested. These teachers are a bit more 'accessible' than K).

I AM That, Nisargadatta Maharaj and Power of Now, Eckhart Tolle.

'word is not the thing' is itself a technique, and a valid one.

Likewise, I'm skeptical of such positions. Wanting someone to experientially investigate the human condition is one thing (and again valid), but refusing to explain it clearly on those grounds is suspicious. It's like saying, 'Let me mislead you in order to show you the truth'.

Yes I agree, those two books are definitely near the top of my list as well, at least as far as vedantic philosophy goes. Though you should also read Nisargadattas last book 'consciousness and the absolute' as he changes some of his opinions later in life. The changes allow for a fundamentally different interpretation.

Another excellent book on philosophy, but from a buddhist perspective, is the following: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika

Garfield's commentary very clearly details the buddhist response to vedantic philosophy. It's a hard read at times, but well worth the effort. Garfield though, intentionally does not extend the arguments beyond the intent of Nagarjuna's original, which while admirable in one sense, is a shame in another. This is probably at the top of my list of books on eastern philosophy, after having read on the subject for over 20 years.

Hi Grikoo, J.K. (and other 'teachers' before & after) have said exactly that, when K talked of conflict it was the battle of 'the what should be' against the 'what is' (which usually is suffering). Even the Buddha said that Life is suffering. Accepting suffering without escape is easier said than done though

Yes, I agree, but I don't think anyone has ever perfectly explained themselves. Experiencing it and explaining it to others are as you say two very different things. I've heard of some 'teachers' who openly admit they have never experienced such states and yet do quite a good job of explaining it and helping others see where they are stuck! I don't think J.K. ever tried to explain the state, he just seemed to want to point out where we might be stuck. I can't point out anything false in his teaching, that is why I keep returning. Many things I don't understand, but an outright statement that is false, not yet