UG Krishnamurti

Reply
#1 Aug 10th, 2005, 21:59
Join Date:
Apr 2005
Location:
Norway
Posts:
190
  • zenkris is offline
#1
I already started one thread on the more famous J Krishnamurti.

While J Krishnamurti is respected and recognized more universally, even UG has much to say which could be considered useful in destroying our illusions:

-------------------------------
We are no more purposeful or meaningful than any other thing on this planet.

The Natural State is a state of great sensitivity--but this is a physical sensitivity of the senses, not some kind of emotional compassion or tenderness for others. There is compassion only in the sense that there are no 'others' for me, and so there is no separation

The plain fact is that if you don't have a problem, you create one. If you don't have a problem you don't feel that you are living.

The appreciation of music, poetry and language is all culturally determined and is the product of thought. It is acquired taste that tells you that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is more beautiful than a chorus of cats screaming; both produce equally valid sensations.

Nature is interested in only two things--to survive and to reproduce one like itself. Anything you superimpose on that, all the cultural input, is responsible for the boredom of man.

Boredom is a bottomless pit. As long as you think that there is something more interesting, more purposeful, more meaningful to do than what you are actually doing, you have no way of freeing yourself from boredom.

The whole purpose of a conversation or dialogue is only to convert the other man to your point of view. If you have no point of view, there is no way he can convince or convert you to his point of view.

I am not in conflict with the society. I am not interested in changing it. The demand to bring about a change in myself isn't there anymore. So, the demand to change the world at large is not there. I suffer with the suffering man and am happy with the happy man...

It is fear that makes you believe that you are living and that you will be dead.What we do not want is the fear to come to an end. That is why we have invented all these new minds, new sciences,new talks, therapies, choiceless awareness and various other gimmicks.

The only way for any one who is interested in finding out what this is all about is to watch how this separation is occurring, how you are separating yourself from the things that are happening around you and inside you.

A 'moral man' is a frightened man- chicken hearted man; that is why he practices morality and sits in judgement over others.

The so called self-realization is the discovery for yourself and by yourself that there is no self to discover. That will be a very shocking thing because it's going to blast every nerve, every cell, even the cells in the marrow of your bones.

Thought is something dead and can never touch anything living. It cannot capture life,contain it, and give expression to it. The moment it tries to touch life it is destroyed by the quality of life.

Cabbages are more alive than human beings.

Anything you experience based on knowledge is an illusion.

The body has no independent existence. You are a squatter there.

The day man experienced the consciousness that made him feel separate and superior to the other forms of life, at that moment he began sowing the seeds of his own destruction.

My motive for talking is quite different than you think.It is not that I am eager to help you understand, that I feel that I must help you. Not at all. I am only interested in making it crystal clear that there is nothing to understand.

All I can guarantee you is that as long as you are searching for happiness, you will remain unhappy.

You actually have no way of looking at the sunset because you are not separated from the sunset. The moment you separate your self from the sunset, the poet in you comes out. Out of that separation poets and painters have tried to express themselves, to share their experiences with others. All that is culture.

These memories have a great deal of emotional content for you, but not for me. I am only interested in what is actually happening now, not tomorrow or yesterday.

I have views on every damned thing from disease to divinity. But my views are of no more importance than those of the maid cleaning and cooking there.

All I am trying to point out is that all this knowledge you are so proud of flaunting isn't worth a tinker's damn.

When once the organism has freed itself from the stranglehold of thought, anything you do to try to bring about peace and harmony there only creates disharmony and violence.

When the movement in the direction of becoming something other than what you are isn't there any more, you are not in conflict with yourself.

The Sanskrit word "Maya" does not mean illusion in the same sense in which the English word is used. "Maya" means to measure. You cannot measure anything unless you have a point. So, if the center is absent, there is no circumference at all. That is pure and simple basic arithmetic.

While you are living, the knowledge that is there does not belong to you. So, why are you concerned as to what will happen after what you call "you" is gone?

Whenever such a thing [enlightenment] happened, it happened to those people who had given up completely and totally all their search. That is an absolute requisite for that kind of a thing.

Thought can never capture the movement of life, it is much too slow. It is like lightning and thunder. They occur simultaneously, but sound, travelling slower than light, reaches you later, creating the illusion of two separate events.

It is clear to me that to find out for yourself you must be absolutely helpless with nowhere to turn. The uselessness of turning to inner or outer sources to help yourself is something of which I am certain.

Your constant utilization of thought to give continuity to your separative self is 'you'.There is nothing there inside you other than that.

The problem with language is, no matter how we try to express ourselves, we are caught up in the structure of words. There is no point in creating new language, a new lingo, to express anything. There is nothing there to be expressed except to free yourself from the stranglehold of thought.

The questioner is nothing but the answers. That is really the problem. We are not ready to accept this answer because it will put an end to the answers which we have accepted for ages as the real answers.

You do create me. I don't create you for the simple reason that I don't have any image of myself.

We are not ready to accept the fact that thought can only create problems. That instrument cannot be of any help to us.

There is no way you can look at anything without the use of the knowledge that you have of what you are looking at.

Food, clothing and shelter- these are the basic needs. Beyond that, if you want anything, it is the beginning of self-deception.


Links:

http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/

http://www.well.com/user/jct/

http://uppaluri-gopala-krishnamurti.blogspot.com/

http://u-g.blogspot.com/

http://u-g-krishnamurti.blogspot.com/

http://uppalurigopala.blogspot.com/

http://k-ug.blogspot.com/

http://www.ul.ie/~sextonb/ug/
#2 Aug 14th, 2005, 01:02
Join Date:
Jul 2005
Location:
USA
Posts:
135
  • Maheswara_shishya is offline
#2
UG... Phooeeeeyyyy!!!! UG sat with Ramana Maharishi once and said "There is nothing special about this guy"(not verbatim).. Hell once upon a time UG even said Jiddu was full of shit.

Although he does make some good points, points that can be maddening. I know of and heard of a few folks who flipped their wigs listening to that old codger speak. But then again I've read that he feels "enlightenment"(i dun like that word) is completly biological, which i cannot disagree with, but im not sure i can agree with either.(Cannot disagree because hell i dont know what it is, can disagree due to knowing those whom are "enlightened".)

A friend of mine speaks with one of UG's close companions, I beleive his name is Dr. Vasu. As of late I belive UG is getting senile, but if im not mistaken he was telling me that UG had changed his tune completly in old age, not sure how accurate that is.

A wise man once said "Those whom claim to know all and have all the answers, you should immediatly turn your back and run as fast as you can away from".---M

((((Pardon my poor spelling and grammer))))
#3 Aug 14th, 2005, 03:38
Join Date:
Oct 2004
Location:
revolving around the sun standing still
Posts:
1,931
  • lotus blossom is offline
#3
thanks zenkris; i appreciate krishnamurti.
Not all who wander are lost
#4 Aug 14th, 2005, 23:54
Join Date:
Apr 2005
Location:
Norway
Posts:
190
  • zenkris is offline
#4
well, everything taken with a grain of salt can be good.

i think ug has essentially the zen thingie. that's why he would say things about jk and then go see him again and again. or say that buddha was the biggest bastard that ever lived etc. his message (although i know he would hate the word) is probably useful only to a small percent of people.
i don't think he will ever be well known in india, though. people are too unrelaxed about religion there to be able to get someone as zen as ug is. even bodhidharma who was a south indian had to go to to china where he is still famous, while being unknown in india.

the only problem i have with him is that somehow people think that what he's saying is completely new when it's not much of a departure from what some zen masters do or what jk said (though in a different way).

from Publisher's Weekly:

"Although U.G. Krishnamurti claims that enlightenment can neither be described by language nor attained by practices or preparations of any sort, this book ironically enough offers his ideas on the subject. Krishnamurti prefers the term "natural state" to "enlightenment" because it occurs in spite of, not because of, spiritual devotions. No guru, religion or belief can induce the natural state, he says, and therefore spiritual leaders are false in dictating practices. Still, Krishnamurti claims that the natural state is the same as that attained by the Buddha, Jesus and even Socrates. As a precursor to the natural state, Krishnamurti experienced a physically torturous period that he calls "the calamity," a deathlike process characterized by headaches, swelling at the chakras and intense heat like an explosion that destroys "the illusion that there is continuity of thought, that there is a center, an `I'...."
#5 Aug 15th, 2005, 00:05
Join Date:
Jul 2004
Location:
infront of the screen
Posts:
1,910
  • Ikuru is offline
#5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maheswara_shishya UG even said Jiddu was full of shit.
And? If UG did say so. What makes you think this statement to be wrong?

UG said simmilar things about einstein, buddha, christ etc.

Do you know for a fact Buddha was enlightened? Do you know for a fact Buddha existed? Do you know for a fact Enlighement exist?

What do we base our "facts" on? Books? Expirience?

How much do you think Epirience is worth?

Is expirience objective turth?
Last edited by Ikuru; Aug 15th, 2005 at 02:44..
#6 Aug 15th, 2005, 02:42
Join Date:
Jul 2005
Location:
USA
Posts:
135
  • Maheswara_shishya is offline
#6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikuru And?... If UG. did say so... What makes you think you Know this statement to be wrong?

UG. Do say simmilar things about all the idols and icons. including einstein buddha, christ etc.

Do you know for a fact Buddha was enlightened? Do you know for a fact Buddha existed? Do you know for a fact Enlighement exist? If so... What do you base these facts on? Books? Expirience?

How much do you think Epirience is worth?
Is expirience objective turth?
Rut roh defensive UG groupie..

"UG. Do say simmilar things about all the idols and icons. including einstein buddha, christ etc"

LOL And you don't think people see him as one, just because he says "Don't listent to what i say, but ill say it anyway" does not make him any different than any other "pop-icons".

"And?... If UG. did say so... What makes you think you Know this statement to be wrong?"

Well it was easy to say this, him being a student of Jiddus and close to his family for such a long time. Then UG takes Jiddu's works tweaks it a bit and calls it his own.. For fuck sake it does sound very similar.

"Do you know for a fact Buddha was enlightened? Do you know for a fact Buddha existed? Do you know for a fact Enlighement exist? If so... What do you base these facts on? Books? Expirience?"

I don't care about the Buddha actually, does enlightenment exist? Well it depends on what or who is calling it enlightenment. I can tell you samanasamadhi exists, but thats all I can tell you. I dont merely parrot from books like others do, wisdom is applied knowledge If i have not applied and had been the experient how can I say such is so?


How can Truth be objective?
#7 Aug 15th, 2005, 03:02
Join Date:
Jul 2004
Location:
infront of the screen
Posts:
1,910
  • Ikuru is offline
#7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maheswara_shishya Rut roh defensive UG groupie..

How can Truth be objective? o.0
Who cares about truth? How can truth be anything? What is truth?

Asking questions is not beeing deffensive. It is straightforward and offensive.
#8 Aug 15th, 2005, 03:13
Join Date:
Aug 2005
Location:
Taipei > Pune > Mysore > Kerala
Posts:
27
Send a message via MSN to shunzen
  • shunzen is offline
#8
J.Krishnamurti is always my pick of reading .........
#9 Aug 15th, 2005, 09:00
Join Date:
Oct 2004
Location:
revolving around the sun standing still
Posts:
1,931
  • lotus blossom is offline
#9
whether or not buddha existed the philosophy of buddhism makes sense, the main concern being 'what is the cause of suffering and what is the way out of it'.

things, words, ideas, dogmas etc that we cling to as truth may simply be feeding our suffering, the nature of attachments.
#10 Aug 15th, 2005, 11:22
Join Date:
Jul 2004
Location:
infront of the screen
Posts:
1,910
  • Ikuru is offline
#10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lotus blossom things, words, ideas, dogmas etc that we cling to as truth may simply be feeding our suffering, the nature of attachments.
Exactly.
Everything that is there, has to go. All our popullar Icons and Idols, Ideas, Thoughts and belives...

What UG is doing is shattering everything, (including he´s own statements) anything you put infront off him.

Some more UG quotes:

"My interest is not to knock off what others have said [that is too easy], but to knock off what I am saying. More precisely, I am trying to stop what you are making out of what I am saying."

"All experiences, spiritual or otherwise, are the basic cause of our suffering."

"There is no such thing as truth. The only thing that is actually there is your 'logically' ascertained premise, which you call truth."

"Why should life have any meaning? Why should there be any purpose to living? Living itself is all that is there. Your search for spiritual meaning has made a problem out of living."-UG
#11 Aug 15th, 2005, 18:26
Join Date:
Jun 2004
Location:
ND PaharGanj Permanently/Temporarily
Posts:
1,318
Send a message via AIM to mira4bai4 Send a message via Yahoo to mira4bai4 Send a message via Skype™ to mira4bai4
  • mira4bai4 is offline
#11

Pearls

What I like about all these characters is that one never knows when a riddle is a rhyme, a rhyme is a riddle, or a truth is a story when the story is the truth. I have been around a couple of these kinds of people and they say something to you and it means absolutely nothing, then later you beat yourself up for being so thick and missing an opportunity to actually be with them. Its like someone puts out their hand and there a pearls on it and you say, gee that looks pretty and then the hand is gone, then later you realise that one of those pearls was for you. DAAH DUMB!

Anyway the point is that unless we are up close to their level, we know squat about what they may in fact be saying, its all guess work down here and we know the saying about assumptions.
#12 Aug 29th, 2005, 04:26
Join Date:
Jul 2004
Location:
infront of the screen
Posts:
1,910
  • Ikuru is offline
#12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maheswara_shishya A friend of mine speaks with one of UG's close companions, I beleive his name is Dr. Vasu. As of late I belive UG is getting senile, but if im not mistaken he was telling me that UG had changed his tune completly in old age, not sure how accurate that is.
UG is just getting verry old. And thats all there is to it.
I would really reccomend anyone with any interest in anything to read something by UG. This man is Razor Sharp. No doubt about that.
If people fail to see that....
Not everyone´s for anyone.
By the way he used to be friends with J.Krishnamurti but they are Not related.
#13 Sep 1st, 2005, 16:18
Join Date:
Apr 2005
Location:
Norway
Posts:
190
  • zenkris is offline
#13
Quote:
By the way he used to be friends with J.Krishnamurti but they are Not related.
well, that's the only problem i have with u.g.
let me explain.

krishnamurti is the first name of both, not the family name. so ok, in case of j. instead of calling him jiddu, they called him krishnamurti by his first name, like john/mike etc.
but if ug, wanted to distance himself from j. why didn't he correct people and tell them that krishnamurti is a first name and his last name which is usually used is uppaluri gopala.

anyway, i don't respect him much less for that, but i think he should have discarded the almost "brand name" krishnamurti.
#14 Sep 1st, 2005, 20:41
Join Date:
Jul 2004
Location:
infront of the screen
Posts:
1,910
  • Ikuru is offline
#14
Most people around him/close to him call him UG.

"UG was raised to take on the mantle of guru, much like J.Krishnamurti. When the two men eventually met, each had rejected yhe guru role, and for years they conversed regulary, struggling to uncover the nature of truth, before a falling out led each in a different direction."

So he should change his name wen his friend started selling too many books?
Would that not be a weird thing to do you think?
#15 Sep 2nd, 2005, 16:38
Join Date:
Apr 2005
Location:
Norway
Posts:
190
  • zenkris is offline
#15
what i meant is actually very simple.

j. krishnamurti was known far earlier. at that time ug was his disciple of sorts at best.

i'll explain what i mean:

imagine that albert einstein was famous as albert e.
then later on someone tries to distance from what he said and his name happens to be say albert johnson.

if he really wanted to distance himself, would his books be printed under the name a. johnson or albert e.?
(this is not a very good example as albert is far more common in the west than krishnamurti)

not that it matters much, i just think you misunderstood what i said.
Reply

Similar Threads

Title, Username, & Date Last Post Replies Views Forum
Jiddu Krishnamurti Jul 15th, 2012 05:21 55 10315 Spirituality and Religion in India
Jiddu Krishnamurti Nov 5th, 2004 22:05 0 1401 Spirituality and Religion in India


Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules»
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2
© IndiaMike.com 2017
Page Load Success