Homepage: www.Rezamusic.com |
Band: www.Rezangela.com |
Journal: www.Rezajournal.com |
Videos: www.RezaTV.com |
Music Downloads: iTunes, etc. |
PLEASE SEE BOTTOM OF ARTICLE FOR SOME READER COMMENTS
(c) This document is copyright Reza Ganjavi and may not be reproduced in whole or part without written consent of the author.“It
is only the free mind that can perceive something beyond itself.” J.
Krishnamurti
Notes
related to the work around J. Krishnamurti
2008
By Reza Ganjavi (www.rezamusic.com, www.rezajournal.com)
SURGE
OF FREE K BOOKS ON THE INTERNET
on ulrich brugger’s “OJAI RETREAT”
REVIEWS
OF RAVI RAVINDRA’S BOOK
MIND-SETS THAT INFLUENCED SCHOOL REVOLUTION
ROLAND Vernon puts man before THE message
___________________________________________
It's
been a long time (over a year) since I sent one of these circulars. I attempted
to write earlier but it was low-priority and events moved from real-time issues
to merely matters for history, and some difficult subjects (e.g. a liar
Trustee) took more time and consideration. This is not a newsletter but only a
snapshot of certain facts and observations.
Nobody
is paying me to do this and I don’t have the time to turn this into a scholarly
quality, professionally edited work. Please consider this a draft.
One
chapter that’s missing from this document is on the Swiss Summer Gathering
2008. Those notes will be released later in a separate document.
These
days, aside from music, I do management consulting, project management, and
business analysis. The last project was for one of
------------
Once
again I've come across a case where psychologists and psychiatrists failed to
treat a patient using their therapies and long list of addictive medications,
but the person got healed and found freedom from past problems through the
power of understanding, attention, learning, observation of what-is.
------------
Those
who say K is not practical or is theoretical, intellectual, mental, “gnani”,
difficult, may not have approached it appropriately. K’s work as I understand
it is a set of pointers. It’s not a doctrine. The pointer points to something
then loses its importance.
"You
know the great musicians, Beethoven, Bach and so on, it is from the known they
act."
Not always. Maybe sometimes, maybe most time, but some of their greatest works
were rooted in the unknown. We know of many great works which the composer
heard the motif in a dream or it came totally unexpectedly.
I understood K's point in this and following statements as an attempt to
describe what creativity is not, and he makes the point clearly. This, however,
is a good example of why some academics have a problem with K. It doesn't
reduce his greatness and I believe given the weight of the tradition he was up
against he perhaps had to make big statements to convey points the traditional
brain would otherwise not take up.
A
few years ago a person from
Meanwhile, the Foundations have discussed the question of whether or not to
make available K’s works on the internet, for a fee or free of charge. I
believe this discussion was partly, if not fully, a choiceless one. If the
Foundations didn’t provide the books online, others who don’t respect copyright
laws would. I believe the Foundations are moving in the direction of providing
K’s material in one form or another.
Today, a casual search of the internet reveals that several sites are providing
digital versions of Krishnamurti books online for free. Last night I came upon
a page which a person by the screen name “Alcyone” posted several compressed
files containing numerous K books in digital format. One such file contained
34454 pages of K’s entire books represented digitally by about 500,000,000 bits
of information. Other books linked on that page include Collected Works, and
numerous K books in Spanish.
The page was part of a site (www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net) which in itself contains over 250 K books and talks
in their entirety and in multiple languages. The site is hosted out of
Another
site (www.freeweb.hu/tchl) hosted out of Hungry, contains digital versions of
some 62 books plus over 100 talks from 1948 onwards.
Of course this ultimately effects the Foundations and copyright holders’ bottom
line. The surge of these sites suggests the Foundations do not have an active
interest in stopping the piracy. I do not have a position on the matter one way
or another. The concept of intellectual property rights is relatively new
within the scope of history. How would K feel about it? He did not charge for
his talks (a nominal donation was requested). Would he mind if his books were
freely distributed on the internet? The fact of the matter is that they are.
Here’s
another very interesting site: http://webq.de/work/k-text/
The subject of integrity is an important one. A few years ago I saw a
translation of a book attributed to K which was not written by K. Other cases
of such distortion are not unusual, especially in translations, especially
regarding religions (a classic story is that of a Greek translator who remarked
Greek Orthodox Church was an exception in K's remarks…). So Foundations provide
a great service to K’s legacy by publishing the authentic version of his
complete works. This is a big project which is ongoing presently.
Early Works and K’s wish regarding them warrant a disclaimer to be published
with every volume depicting K’s attitude towards them. I suspect the
Foundations are handling it appropriately in their publications of material
prior to 1933.
What
I find exciting about having K books on line is that they will get full-text
indexed automatically by search engines and become available to anyone
searching for a particular phrase.
A
German student came across my website and we had a little e*dialogue. He wrote:
“Supposedly, K. said that nobody lives the teachings before his death.”
It
amazes me how many times this subject comes up. It’s probably the most
recurring subject I’ve heard around the K circles. Why?
This
student was sincere in his questioning and we talked about many things, but I
have also heard people rely on this subject, this supposition, to support an
indirect notion that “K doesn’t work” or somehow disparage K. And the most
common logic used is “if nobody got it during K’s life time, why should I
bother with the challenges he poses? Why should I bother with this work which
demands and deserves diligent study?”, and along those lines, “isn’t it enough
to watch a few videos, or go to some dialogue group, or to a summer gathering?”,
or, why not read Osho or someone who is easier to understand, why not read
Eckart Toll, Andrew Cohen, or follow Amma who supposedly gives you bliss
through a hug? (incidentally, I saw Amma and Cohen and read some of their works
and will write about their approach later, which is more good for laughs than
anything serious). Or easier yet, why not listen to Kryon, whose voice is
mesmerizing and you don’t really even need to understand what is said as it
just hypnotizes you.
There
are a zillion excuses not to take on the challenges K puts forth, not to
investigate some of what he points to, but all those reasons are rooted in
laziness, and what better justification than “nobody got it?”, which is just a
myth. Members of Order of Star of the East were very disappointed when K told
them they have to do the work themselves because they were lazy.
K,
when asked what difference one person would make if he changes, said, sir, you
change and find out what happens. It doesn’t matter if anybody else has “got
it” or not.
It
is not uncommon for discomfort to set in when faced with big challenges, e.g., “is
it possible to live without fear?” “is it possible for understand the limits of
thought and for thought to not enter where it doesn’t belong?” “is it possible
to live without conflict?” “is it possible to live without any chemical,
intellectual, emotional stimulation?” And so on. The notion of “nobody got it” is so popular
because it serves the purpose of relieving one from giving K weight – it’s a
way of discrediting K, along with other common thing you hear such as criticism
of his hair style!
On
Mary
Zimbalist and at least another trustee told me that what K meant was “us” –
people who were around him, who had not understood him. He could not have
possibly known about every person on the planet (as another trustee who
believed K was omniscient contended), said Mary.
It
seems that people closest to K and his organizations had trouble “getting it”
maybe because as Lutyns puts it in her biography they burned for being “too
close to the sun”. I know some of them. Why is it so?
Divergence
of the topic
-------------------------------
And
some folks spent their entire life and career in a K organization. Some have
never had a job outside this circle, and for some it might be that certain
challenges that a non protected environment provides and the opportunity to
test the teachings at that level was missing.
Those too close to this work and specially the man, K, may take it for granted, or feel just by proximity, it will rub off on them, or were too overwhelmed by the person. Listen to one of K’s workers sometimes in a dialogue talking about K. I often hear between his lines very similar phrases as the famous bumper sticker: “God said it, I believe it, and that’s all there is to it”, and watch him get all emotional and intolerant to anyone who challenges K or his views, sometimes to an explosive level of volume.
One of the issues seems to be that a lot of people want to be philosophers but simply do not have the capability. They have other talents in life but what I perceive sometimes is that the desire is sometimes there for philosophical discourse but the ability and clarity is simply missing. But I do believe each one of us is able to live a life in which we love and value truth as first priority.
Further
divergence of the topic
------------------------------------------
Another
hindrance, at least at a neurological / physical level which K seemed to give
importance to, may be that the force of habit and dependence is too strong. For
example, K didn’t drink coffee and challenged those who don’t medically need it
if it’s possible to live without any stimulation. This is overlooked by a
senior member of the foundation who was absolutely desperate after lunch
because there was no coffee machine around. An ex-secretary of a foundation was
extremely stressed and nervous, and she drank coffee. In a recent school
newsletter, a staff was introduced for her role, and for ‘the occasional
brewing of aromatic coffees for trustees and other visitors’. K didn’t down
bottles of wine. Cases of empty wine bottles were at both Brockwood and
“Saanen” drank by a few participants, and drinking alcohol seems normal by some
members of the official and unofficial foundations.
I
am not saying it’s right or wrong – I don’t drink wine because it makes me
tired, and I don’t drink coffee because it causes stress, hurts the nerves, and
speeds up an already too fast of a world. And I do not, not do these things
because K didn’t do them. But the fact that he didn’t tells me something about
how he lived. And he talked about protecting the body. It might be some
esoteric supernatural force he’s talking about but certainly, without a doubt,
caring for the physical body is fundamental. The brain is physical and its
state is directly correlated with the chemical / neurological state of the body.
The
consolidated version of this article is thirty pages (down from a lot more) so
I’m better off rewriting it if I want to get it down to one or two pages. So, here
we go:
One
of the K foundations brought in a rich person as a trustee who had success in
the brutal performing arts business. You might think, brutal performing arts?
Indeed. Art business is one of the most brutal because it’s rooted in
competition, backbiting, and other ugly practices which are so much against the
nature of arts. I don’t know what qualifies a person for being a trustee other
than being rich and having an “interest” in K. And for the sake of the gossip club,
no, I have not, and never have had an interest in being a trustee (although I
was asked about it) so this is not at all a case of envy (god forbid).
Anyway,
she came on board, and let’s assume the foundation didn’t know what they were
getting into. It is surprising though, and telling about the foundation, why
they put up with her for so long and did not oust her (despite an attempt and
surely desire by some of the trustees) but now she’s finally gone so that’s the
good news.
I
sensed from the beginning after her arrival that she had this nasty
side, but I
respected her and paid my dues in human responsibility in coming to her
with no
image, seeing her anew every time, but time and again I noticed her
nasty ways
of bad talking behind people’s backs, extreme stress, and a presence
perhaps symbolized by the only color I ever saw her wear: black. She
seemed out of
shape, and often confused, in pain, and unhappy, and often admitted it.
On
the other hand, she was doing a lot of volunteer work for the foundation, which
I appreciated and told her so – the type of hours other unpaid trustees don’t
generally spend (this is not a criticism of them), and making large donations.
Perhaps two reasons she was never ousted. But good work by itself can be a
pitfall as K goes into it. Her “drama queen” side was too overpowering.
Her
cunning ways was not a mystery to the foundation. After years, I finally said
something to the foundation. The straw that broke the camel’s back was a case
where she misrepresented, lied, and twisted the facts about a certain event at
which I was present. The response I got from the foundation was mind blowing,
that they knew about the problem, had other complaints, and that "if you
say anything you’ll be put on her blacklist and she’ll badmouth you
forever." Another person said they had heard similar things about her from
other people.
Now
I had to say something because the foundation seemed to have been
negatively
influenced by her – can you imagine? A trustee you could not criticize
for fear
of being put on an eternal blacklist? Another member of the foundation
told me
that they have learned to tiptoe around this power woman which makes
sense
given how in any organization people have to tolerate each other’s
weaknesses,
but I could never figure out why the foundation tolerated a person with
her
characteristics. Reminded me of the story of KFI and how they had to
move around another power woman, as documented: "if you can't move an
elephant, you go around her".
What
has become of the spirit of cooperation, cohesion, peace? This has become
another turf for power-play which I now realize seems to have always been the
case in the foundation because people have egos and just being part of a K
foundation surely does not mean the egos, the defenses, the will-to-power are
not there. This by no means is a criticism of all the trustees or the staff as
there are so many good trustees and staff that work at these foundations.
For
the first time in almost twenty five years of relating with the foundations I
complained about a trustee. I wrote to some of the trustees I knew, to tell them
some of the facts that had occurred and why I think this person is not a
trustworthy trustee. I also made it very clear that I did not, and do not, hold any
grudges or anything personally against her, no malice whatsoever – my only
issue is with the role she’s put in.
My
concern was mainly the foundation and the impact of long term decisions
of such
a mind. Mind you, she has a good mind, she is educated and has been in
executive roles, but I do believe something might have been damaged as
a result
of being an alcoholic for a long time or a victim of excessive child
abuse
(these are not invasions of privacy; these admissions were made by her
in a
public meeting hosted by a nonprofit foundation regulated by the
public), or whatever other reason which I don't care to speculate.
And
added to that, she seemed to have brought to the foundation the spirit of
competitiveness, power games which is so dominant in the line of business she
worked in for years. It is an interesting question about attracting new
trustees, and how the foundations ought to make sure those qualified people of
the world do not bring some of the cunning ways of the world with them to the
foundations.
She
continued lying and said several cold blooded lies, which is not surprising, and
did not respond to any calls for comments. She lied about me, she lied about a
staff member, and so on. One of the trustees got so fedup with her he wanted
her ousted and I know a couple others did too, but I never understood an
underlying political power play which was probably rooted in some sort of a
dependence on her – either to the volunteer service she was providing, or the
donations she made (these are just my guesses). Otherwise,
I know the people in charge were political and powerful enough to have her
ousted quickly, or were they, given how powerful she was and how she had the ear of one
of the senior trustees (I saw her several times bragging to a senior trustee about how hard she worked). So it took a while for things to play out. The
discussions on the plans to oust her led to potential vote count and
even some lobbying, which I participated in, to other trustees who wouldn’t
always get to see her other side.
Part
of her behavior was to cater to the powerful, with no regards to those in lower
positions, those who worked for her (several times she scorned people who
worked under her when they were not present), dialogue participants (I saw
several times before and after dialogues she says things about certain
participants she would never say in front of them), guest musicians (she was
even bad mouthing a guest musician that came to play at a foundation sponsored
concert which she helped organize). Bad-mouthing others behind their
back seemed to be her common habit.
I
know she was talked to in an attempt to “trim her wings”, and there
were
discussions among trustees about how they relate to public which is
something unusual as for several decades that came to Trustees
intuitively but now with her around they needed workshop and
discussion! I was told that the
mails I sent made a positive difference and that at the very least they
kicked
off a process to discuss and assess the role of trustees and how they
communicate
within and with outside the foundation. I believe it made more of
a difference -- at least a voice was heard in a formal manner and I
know in fact I was not the only one who felt she was placed in the
wrong role.
Now
she's finally out. I assume the majority of other trustees finally got
to see that she was put in the
wrong role. I wish her well in her future, for her health, and
happiness, as I
always have, and thank her for those
contributions of hers that made a positive difference.
Fifty
pages down to thirty down to two pages. Skipping details and evidence saved 10’s
of pages!
Recently
I stayed at The Ojai Retreat which years ago started as “institute of higher
education and dialogue”. It has changed character over the years and evolved
into a world class retreat. I wrote the following review on Tripadvisor.com:
“Ulrich Brugger, the founder of Ojai Retreat, has brought his touch of impeccable Swiss quality to building this Ojai resort. Every detail is attended to ensure comfort of the guests. The rooms smell good, feel good, and are very comfortable. The place is quiet and enjoys a wonderful view of the Ojai valley. The breakfast is wholesome and excellent. The landscaping is marvelous -- fragrance of flowers everywhere could get you naturally drunk. The staff is very friendly, professional. I travel a lot and when on business I stay at 4 and 5 star hotels. I give Ojai Retreat 6 stars.”
I totally respect people’s right to express their opinions to the extent that they should not even be judged or criticized for holding those opinions. Mr. Ravindra goes beyond that – he puts himself out as someone who knows – he published books about K and gives talks about him. His most terrible book: Two Birds On One Tree received the following interesting review on Amazon.com:
Another
reviewer puts it well:
"At the end if it, Ravi Ravindra,
who is trained as a physicist, questions if J.Krishnamurti was not a freak, as
the Ravindra tells us honestly that he seems to feel incapable of living a life
without a center, or perhaps also because he never saw anybody around
Krishnamurti that was centerless or without selfishness."
That
forms the centre of Ravindra's motives: deep inside he seems to think K was a
failure. Yes, he must feel the immensity of the challenges K poses and not
being able to grasp it because the ego is too strong, he concludes K was a
failure. But he doesn't do that elegantly, he tries to do that by discrediting
K, using cheap gossip and shaky logic. But just because someone failed to
understand and apply K doesn't mean K's teachings can not be tested, applied,
grasped, or discarded on their own without focusing on the teacher.
The
reviewer further writes:
"he ends investigation and seem to
have thrown in the towel, but that also demands a lot of courage,even if some
will see this a an incapacity to learn."
Ravindra
gives talks and writes books which spread his self-admitted confusion. As long
as there is a market, there is a product. People like sermons, they like being
talked to, specially if what they hear requires no movement, and in the West,
if the guy is from
(Nov 2007)
Greetings
from
There
has been some interest recently on the part of some Trustees about K-books in
I
have updated the foundations (or at least KFT) over the years on K publications
in
Earlier
this year I walked into a bookstore in
K
himself alluded, as far as I know, to the fact that some cultures will grasp
what he points to, easier than others, due to the existing familiarity with the
topic. In
The
comparative mind can't help but to refer to the fact that a huge number of K
books have been translated into Farsi which is only spoken in
Just
made a visit to the local bookstore and bought his last K book for a friend --
the fourth publication of "Freedom From The Known" translated by dear
friend Mercedeh Lesani.
What
is to become of these Foundations once all the material is published and are in
public domain? Currently the role of the foundations is to preserve and
disseminate. I suppose the preservation function will have to continue:
somebody has to maintain the archival vaults even after all the work is
published. Currently, the dissemination job is partly publishing, partly
putting on dialogues and so on, but ultimately true dissemination of a perfume
is by those who live it, and in the case of K that does not mean living
according to a system as there is no system, but to take the teachings as
pointers into matters of living which one needs to investigate and discover
first hand.
One
foundation has already been downsizing due to financial crisis that has plagued
the planet as direct result of eight years of mis-management of the world’s
super power by Bush&Company. It went through various phases of
right-sizing, purging or whatever diplomatic phrase one uses, even before the
financial crisis.
(A
few years ago I told the foundation not to go with the broker they
chose because I had bad experience with them. They were too reckless.
While nobody saw the financial crisis coming, I believe that foundation
should have been a lot more careful with how it invested its money --
should have invested it very conservatively. Conservative investments
had a much lower correlation with general market drop).
Ego,
sense of self, may be present in any organization made out of humans. K
foundations are no different. Keep in mind K was not fond of organizations and
nearly dissolved one or more of his own foundations and called one “idiotic”.
These foundations were meant to be minimal organizations. that should not be
forgotten.
While
a foundation may be doing a lot of good work with regards to archives,
publications, and so on, it may also possesses an ego, which is the direct
result of the ego of some of the people who run it. I am not speaking about
practical aspects which require a sense of identity, but a psychological
egocentric predicament which includes reactions, defensiveness, image making,
desire for continuity, polarization, etc.
And
this is done at an organizational level: organized effort to build and
strengthen an image, for example. It is too easy for an organization to be a
reflection of the ego of its leaders. Then philosophy becomes meaningless, but
every good organization needs to be philosophical, literally, meaning, be
interested in truth, and not settle for illusions. A K foundation doesn’t
always do this. I’ve seen philosophy and truth fall by the way side as politics
becomes all important.
A
recent newsletter asked for money by saying: “You can help spread
Krishnamurti's work in the world by making a donation”. There is nothing wrong
in this statement and I am those of us who give to a school or foundation
realize spreading happens primarily by living. The foundation must “live the
teachings” too as an entity. Is that the case?!
Much
has been written in various organizations’ newsletters on Frances McCann and
Mary Zimbalist who passed away nearly at the same time earlier this year. They
were both close friends of this work.
I
visited Mary several times over the years at her home which is now part of KFA
and had many good conversations. We went in K’s room which has now been
converted to a quiet room. We also participated in many public dialogues. One
thing people may not know about this quiet elegant beautiful lady was that she
loved surfing and had postcards and pictures of surfing which she cherished.
She
had cancer the last years but still came to a Christmas party and sang along
with us and had the amazing attitude that there was nothing wrong with her health.
She lived a long, rich life.
Their
love lives on in our hearts.
I
don’t know about all that went on but I do remember when she became the new
director she had to make a lot of tough decisions and as a result she made some
enemies. The school thrived with increased enrollments, etc., so she was
obviously a very effective leader, and I am sure being human, she was not perfect and did
not do everything right. The underlying waves of gossip died down within the
following year or two until X and Y came as teachers and according to a credible
source, the dissent was refueled.
I
love both X and Y but I felt something was unfair about the way it was handled.
I knew one of them to possess values I could not stand with regards to
backbiting, a double-faced, attitude often found and tolerated in
And
the other simply seemed to lack an ability to grasp some key items K pointed to.
I had the opportunity to hear him speak publicly in Saanen in 2006 and he
was so utterly confused, and admitted it, and when you hear someone speak like
that, and he also says he's studied K for 15 years, you begin to wonder what
that study really meant, and how it was done. His main concerns seemed to be
why K combed his hair sideways, and he criticized K for accepting money from
others, wanting his teachings to last 500 years, and confusion over other
trivial matters and clear questions (e.g whether he should accept what K said
or what other philosophers said – well the answer is clear: neither!).
I
am very interested in this because it’s fascinating to see how someone
supposedly tries to understand and apply this thing but misses; what prevents
understanding; and that leads to discrediting the pointer.
It
made sense how he handled going out with his ex-girlfriend for so long. After
years of being around this work and teaching at a K school, she was still
confused about basic concepts like concentration vs. attention, let alone
observer & observed which seemed to her like a secret celestial recipe, and
she concluded that the students were confused about K – well surely, when the
teacher is.
This
was the mind-set that was fueling the “revolution” and opposition. These guys
together were fueling dissent, as far as I observed. Their discontent was
recognized by the director as a healthy flame and she managed and addressed it
accordingly. Ok, now she’s gone. A new director is there, and she is absolutely
wonderful. I never forget the speech she gave during her daughter’s graduation.
She was a director then, and now she’s back. All good wishes to all.
At
least in the case of Jayakar and Lutyns they seemed to have delved into the
teachings. K's biographer, Roland Vernon spent a lot of time on the man, and
the teaching is totally missing in his book, but instead, UG, Radha, and
Helen's antagonisms towards K gives plenty of food for the many who attempt to
discredit the man so as to be relived from the challenges of the message. The
book is best characterized by the following online review I came across: "It's
rather comical actually; Mr. Vernon has written a whole book out of entirely
missing the point, for a bunch of readers who entirely miss the point and
indeed prefer to miss the point."
Talked
with lady in the
“I
don’t believe groups do you any good. Are groups necessary? Dialogue group are
largely confusing”.
“Every
day is a beautiful day to wake up to. A precious day.”
I’ve
been to many dialogues and it all depends on who’s in it. In the summer
gatherings I avoid certain folks after being in many dialogues with them in
which they always talk about being confused.
I’ve
been to some very good dialogues – a few – and a lot of them which were just a
waste of time (discounting the fact that you can learn something from any
situation).
Within
recent past, KFA setup a dialogue weekend for “Advanced Dialoguers”. I find
that term as a contradiction to K’s spirit of non hierarchy. There was
frustration (e.g., one trustee said his time would be better used with family),
at the frequent failure to go deep (a dialogue participant once said, it’s
better than staying home watching TV). Some dialogues do go deep, e.g. in Murren
2008, one of the dialogues I attended was absolutely fantastic, and you don’t
need to be an “advanced dialoguer” – all it takes is common sense.
Some
of the best dialogues occur spontaneously, with one or two persons, or simply
with oneself. It’s an absolute delight to end one’s own suffering through a
process of looking, unfolding, emptying. Meditation is a dialogue with silence.
A
friend asked me: “How do you tell someone about K – I find it so hard to do
so…”
I
never talk about K off the bat. He’s not important. What I have learned in
life, from him, from others, from life itself, shares itself and responds to
issues that come up. The magic is in the present – in the problem that tells
its story if it’s listened to – and reveals itself. We talk about issues.
When
something has touched you deep inside you can talk about it easily. It talks
itself. When you have no wounds, you can feel the pain of other minds/bodies.
You point out the obvious, what you see and can sense. A good teacher starts
with questions, and empathy. The rest naturally follows. And because it's
natural, not programmed, it contains the principle of God, Love, Tao, That,
Otherness: spontaneity. And it is expressed out of interest, caring,
unselfishness. Therefore, it has penetrating power.
K's point, as I understood it, was that the fragrance has to first be present.
It can not be talked about merely as a theory. The new comer to the flower has
to smell the fragrance, the vibrant color, and sense that there is something
there, however small, which is out of the realm of the ordinary human
suffering.
In university, an indicator I used to determine if I had learned something, was
to be able to explain it to somebody else. Of course some people are more
expressive than others, but any student of any subject who has learned that
subject well, ought to be able to explain it to another person. and it seems
that a lack of that ability is related to simply not having studied the subject
well enough. In the case of profound life teachings, that study must include
application and examination of the subject matter in daily life. It is too easy
to go to a dialogue group, a gathering, and get energized. There is nothing
special about that. But it is special to take the subject matter, and live and breath and
sleep with it, and dig into it, with a scientific approach, like one would
approach mathematics or chemistry.
--------
Dr.
Ruben Feldman-Gonzalez is one of the few psychiatrists around who has a deep
insight into the nature of the human being as well as the work of Krishnamurti.
He has written many volumes which are available on line (http://percepcionunitaria.org/en/) including many interesting discussions he held with
K.
Ruben: “Can we talk about meditation?”
Krishnamurti : “Is there anything else?”
--------
“He told me that I was too worried by the
obsession of being a doctor and with conversations about politics, but that I
should climb up to the rooftops and shout out the teaching that interested no
one: the immediate mental mutation. The mental change that occurs right now and
is not gradual.”
--------
Ruben: “Why that doesn't come more
often?”
Krishnamurti: "What do you do with your energy?”
--------
‘Krishnamurti said something close to
the following: "We may have genetic
differences but we are all able
to 'touch' the ground or the totality of the mind, and that ground is the most
important thing for human life".
Krishnamurti said: "The ground being complete silence of the
mind." (He emphasized the word “complete”) "Then we can talk."
--------
Ruben: “You told me two days ago that
you'll never die in an aircraft. What is
it that makes you feel protected?”
Krishnamurti: ‘That’.
Ruben:
“OK. Please, tell me about
‘That’.”
Krishnamurti: “You can see That in action, but you
can't talk about it.”
Krishnamurti:
“You speak. ‘That’ is not only for
you.”
Ruben:
“Can you tell me more about talking to people about all this?
Krishnamurti:
“You talk and expect no thing.”
READER COMMENT
The first comment came from a member of a foundation as follows (reprinted with permission):
"Hi Reza. Thank you for another insightful and interesting read. A little about the online content:
Those
online books and texts are mostly not book scans but are from a cracked
version of the original K-text (the DOS version from the early 90's).
The
http://webq.de/work/k-text/ address you quote is no longer a valid URL.
This was the prototype for the official J Krishnamurti Online site. The
new site (different design) is now being developed by Paloma and Miguel
at FKL, with contributions from all the foundations. A first version
should be online the end of Jan. As I understand it, the thinking is
that we can't fight the unofficial online sites but we can do better.
At very least, the jkrishnamurti.org will contain fully verified texts
with fewer spelling and typing errors. It will also have some audio
video content as well as the content of K-text. I feel people will
choose the 'authentic' version should they have a choice.
About the attitude towards K
I,
too, am saddened by the 'k was a failure' attitude that often abounds,
or the attempts to belittle K in some way, or at least suss him out as
a man. It is used as the ultimate excuse - 'if no one understood it
while he was alive, surely I can't', or 'but he clearly didn't listen
to that man in that dialogue, therefore he's a hypocrite, or 'he seems
to have some defects, therefore he's not worth listening to'. And yes,
that 'final recording' backs up the excuse that 'no one can get it.'
There seems to be a feeling that it's 'too difficult' so the tendency
is to get busy (very busy) doing what they can do, ie run schools and
foundations and centers. [Reza's
note: I am sure this friend didn't imply all those who run K's
foundations, schools and centers are in this category -- I certainly
don't think so and know many very fine trustees, teachers, staff,
principles, etc., but there are also always exceptions.]
Also this seems similar to the
<snipped> attitude that the teachings are important, great even,
but it's not really for me. Then we get authority and followers.
I
prefer the attitude that K is speaking to me, here and now, not to
those at Saanen 1976 or Ojai 1984. Nor do I care if no one got it (or
maybe did) - it's to do with my life. You make this point very clear in
your circular.
Best wishes"
"Well, I thought you hit the nail on the head and I just gave it another hit..."
"REALLY nice ... For what its worth... graciously written... and you cover "areas" few would even think of...."
-----------
"I
can see that your writing and thoughts are developing in many ways, and
you are putting a lot of work into it! you have some great ways to
humourly express some serious stuff, and made some good points about
what is going on in the K's world."
"I appreciate your sending your notes over here. I am 99% confident the untrustworthy "trustee" you spoke about is <snip>. I feel/felt the same way about her and stopped going to the <snip> because her energy felt counter-productive to the spirit of Dialogue as I truly learnt to feel and express through my relationship with K.... You and I are on the same page. Enough said but it was nice to read and, as I said, I appreciate your sharing your thoughts and I am interested."
"Reza,
Thank
you for sharing your notes. I felt a sense of relief by not
having been around many of those attitudes of people who "know" about
Krishnamurti. Reading Jiddu's works has always felt very private
to me. The application of self-knowledge has been very useful, however,
and conversations with friends and family sometimes led to this sort of
discussion.
Anyway, I'm writing you because I want some help in the area of ...
Hi Reza- Your perception- that enlightenment etc.are not fixed, static . They are as dynamic as lightening in the cloudy sky of mind. It is a vain attempt to practice or do something to invite it. It comes of its own when the the I is low ebb."
"No personal contact for a long time but I do read and appreciate what you write . Your passion comes through. Take care of yourself Love"
Here's my response to Roland Vernon's email. Funny how his only comment
about my 12 page letter which includes a critique of his lousy book was
to pick on literally a few words of intro I wrote, and nothing at all
about the substance of the points of I raised about his book - not a
single response, except the attitude that Diane White, Radha Sloss, et
al have used: discredit the message by shooting the messenger. Also,
his use of the terminology reminded me of Sloss, a clueless author, who
used character attack to discredit K, missed the boat, and had nothing
valuable to say in critique of his teachings. My reply to his email:
"Hi
Roland. I'm not surprised that you objected to literally few words
talking about what I'm doing in a letter that was 11 or more pages long
-- it's typical to resort to character attack in order to avoid the
subject / the content, which you could have instead objected to. I
guess you did the same thing with K. Is it possible to not have an
image of another's image of themselves? Here, you're making an image of
my image of myself which may be real to you but it's far from what-is.
But you're of course free to have whatever opinion you like to hold.
The only shadow that is worth addressing is that which is made by the
self standing in the way of love.
...
Good wishes to you
Reza"
Your
newsletter is touted as excellent by < >. He gave me your
email and suggested that I contact you about receiving news. He
also suggested that I ask if you might send me a recent newsletter that
you sent out re: info in it about < >.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks, I am very gratefull to you for your email and the info, kind regards, Sam
Dear Reza, thank you for your very colourfull mail...sounds you're top fit! take good care, work, play, and stay healthy,
I like your articles on "K" Schools
Dear Reza:
Thank you for this report. <> and I have read it together and found it very interesting.
Dear Reza,
Your 2 mails were gifts for the New Year.....Thank You!
Your note on 'K' was wonderful reading. I have also visited some of your other sites which I found quite fascinating.
Please keep me in your mailing list. I would love reading your mails.
Thanks again.
<>
Thank you again.
Dear Reza...all those beans have certainly given you energy! Best of luck on your colourful journey..did you read,"journeys in Iran, The unseen mirrors", by Jason Eliot? hug
.
Homepage: www.Rezamusic.com |
Journal: www.Rezajournal.com |
Band: www.Rezangela.com |
Videos: www.RezaTV.com |
Music Downloads: iTunes, etc. |