Jiddu Krishnamurti: His Teaching

Information on full lecture series is available here.

Download the Lecture Handout for the quotes referred to in the lecture.

No authority, teacher or teaching can help you be free

21:06 – His Teaching

  • Intense self observation without any interference from the mind
  • Attention is not the same as concentration

33:56 Experiences of Observation

  • Studying without trying to explore
  • Focus on a kind of intense observation
  • The need for intense passion and love

37:32 The Observer is the Observed

  • Total Seeing
  • Nondual & Suchness
  • Totality or Suchness
  • Total Freedom

57:00 Otherness

See Other Lecture Series Videos:

  1. Nisargadatta Maharaj’s Neglected Teachings
  2. Krishnamaurti: His Teaching
  3. Krishnamurti: His Experience
  4. Advaita Vedanta
  5. Dzogchen
  6. Dogen

51 thoughts on “Jiddu Krishnamurti: His Teaching”

    1. Lorenzo Clemente

      Glossary: Soul – Soul is the Agency, the Medium of Experience and the Experience Itself – Inner Journey Home, pg.24 – “Since the soul is the experiencer, the fabric and container of experience, and the content of experience, then the experiencer is not separate from this content. The subject of inner experience is the soul, but so is the content, the object of experience. In other words, as we recognize the soul we begin to see the nonduality of subject and object of experience, at least with respect to inner events”. But here Hameed refers to “inner events”.

      1. Hi Lorenzo,
        Good point. But I don’t think it really addresses what K was teaching in a complete way. The soul, or individual consciousness, is truly where experience happens and what experiences all content of experience. But K went further in his teaching of “the observer is the observed” than the individual consciousness is experiencing its own content. In some of his teaching the observer is the observed is what you say. As when he says you are the loneliness or the fear. But it is not just a consciousness aware of a particular content within it, but rather being this content in some total way. When he teaches that “one is the bird flying” he is not saying there is a consciousness being the bird. My understanding is that there is the bird, and the bird is what he is. there is no soul or consciousness besides the bird.

        And when he teaches “There is only the bird,, one is gone” we cannot say anything about individual consciousness, except that maybe it is implicit in such realization, because the bird is known.

        I think K was not clear on what the experiencer is. He sometimes said the brain, sometimes the mind, sometimes consciousness. I remember seeing a dialogue between K and Bohme and his wife, where she was trying to get k be precise in his terminology. She then said she was encouraging her husband to help K be more precise in his terms.

        I think K would have been more precise if he knew about the soul, or that there is an individual consciousness, not simply the brain or mind. But he is not alone in not having the experiential knowledge of this individual consciousness. Many can only think of the brain or body and contrast it with universal consciousness.

  1. Subject vanishes into the object. As if the adamant “point” described by Nisgaradatta becomes here a vanishing point… a total absorption in All That Is so it is not that you become All, you simply vanish into it without a trace. Wondering if the “mutation” or “transmutation” is like the moving of the assemblage point?

    1. Hi Sarah,
      Interesting blend of the assemblage point of Castaneda, Nisargadatta’s point of light, and Krishnamurti’s vanishing into the object of observation.

      You have a good synthesizing mind, which I appreciate.

      I know from meeting K that he does experience the point of light. Whether the point of light vanishes as subject vanishes into the object, like a bird or a woman on the road, is something I doubt K will agree with. He writes that the bird remains but the one is gone. The one is not usually a point of light but an observing subject, which is most likely his individual consciousness..

      I think you are probably right that the “mutation” that K talks about can be seen as a particular movement of the assemblage point. K does not look at things this way, for I doubt he read Castaneda. If we see it as a movement of the assemblage point then it is a total and final movement. Not just a temporary or transitory movement, because for K what he called “mutations” is a final and total change that transforms the human being and liberates one.

      1. Thank you Hameed, I am so delighted to explore these concepts and questions, and I appreciate very much your insight. The idea that the subject vanishes and yet the point of light does not is illuminating, And I love the insight that while the term “assemblage point” is not in the Krishnamurti lexicon, that the concept of the “mutation” may be the same movement as a final shift of the assemblage point.

        Perhaps I am conflating a bit too much all these different “points” — because I am gathering the point of light is not the thing that shifts, it is the relationship to it, or perception of it (through the shifting of the assemblage point we perceive the point of light?) I am reminded also of Thomas Merton’s “point vierge…” which seems not unlike Nisgaradatta’s …

        “At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark which belongs entirely to God, which is never at our disposal, from which God disposes of our lives, which is inaccessible to the fantasies of our own mind or the brutalities of our own will. This little point of nothingness and of absolute poverty is the pure glory of God in us. It is so to speak His name written in us, as our poverty, as our indigence, as our dependence, as our sonship. It is like a pure diamond, blazing with the invisible light of heaven. It is in everybody, and if we could see it we would see these billions of points of light coming together in the face and blaze of a sun that would make all the darkness and cruelty of life vanish completely … I have no program for this seeing. It is only given. But the gate of heaven is everywhere.”
        ― Thomas Merton, Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander

        Much to contemplate!

        1. Thanks, Sarah,
          for the quote from Merton. It is a beautiful view of the point of light. It is a point of truth, a point of nothing, hence poverty, a point of existence or being. It can appear in any of the qualities of spiritual nature. It is the spark of fundamental truth in the human consciousness.

          1. Ah! This spark then remains in both Nisargadattaʻs rocklike immensity and Krishnamurtiʻs union with the observed and all other spiritual qualities/experiences. A point both of unity and differentiation. Perhaps Krishnamurtiʻs “mutation” is the fundamental shift of orientation from/to that point, into one encompassing and connecting unique perspective. Almost like synecdoche? Each bright point IS Indraʻs Net…

  2. Krishnamurti’s roots with the Theosophists make his claims about practice very odd – and maybe there is more than meets the eye’s first-glance. It reminds me of the Buddha’s origins in a wealthy royal palace, and then heading for a life of bare-experience, embracing poverty, and not really looking back at the way the Buddha’s origin oriented his choice to pursue enlightenment.

    Wouldn’t K. have been steeped head to toe 24/7 in practices while nestled in the bosom of Besant and Leadbeater’s organization? And for how many years?

    Ingo Swann wrote a fantastically helpful book named “Psychic Sexuality: The Biopsychic Anatomy of Sexual Energies”, which includes a substantial analysis of available information from and about the Theosophical leaders.

    Swann suggests that Leadbeater’s inner-circle may have had all sorts of undisclosed endeavors involving powerful knowledge of sexual energies and practical ritualized ways of working.
    Swann’s book spans many topics and characters and historic contexts, Wilhelm Reich and Franz Mesmer are two of several other phenomenally interesting figures from different phases of history considered in that book. Leadbeater especially attracted a lot of Swann’s attention and commentary.

    Do we know much about Leadbeater and Besant’s inner circles, and the practices used there?
    I once saw a video of K. discussing kundalini or sexual activation of spirituality, and he literally laughed at the idea while seeming a bit sheepishly adolescent towards the topic – acting embarrassed that he even had to address what he seemed to take as a silly or inappropriate question.

    K.’s enthusiastic charismatic fuego is undeniable and charming. And ultimately it makes sense to say there’s no one path or practice that can be something like “a world savior” in a one-size-fits-all-all-the-time-always sort of way.
    But it also seems surprising that he wouldn’t have acknowledged how it was diligent practice that led to his conviction of such an enlightened proclamation.

    Did K. write or talk about his practices and the culture he was groomed in, adopted by the Theosophists and living as their protege?
    Did he get bored of them at some point?
    Did he find practices beyond his oppressive or irrelevant to his experience in his younger years?

    At some point Hameed mentioned that K. wasn’t reading books from other spiritual teachers discussing the nuanced details of experiencing realization, or describing it.
    And even if he lived that in his post-Theosophical years, it is hard to imagine that he went through Theosophical Society grooming, and all manner of high-society education, while remaining unaware of the philosophical and spiritual traditions related to his presumed-future-job as world-savior.

    Or perhaps he was modeling a more modern version of Buddha’s story – and thereby sort of fulfilling the Theosophic prophecy that corralled him into their sponsorship? He was born in the wealth of royal conditions, but realized it was missing something valuable, so left the compound and found something free and enlightened.

    I do wonder if there was a sex-magic component that “decent people just did not discuss” in those times – for whatever reason, whether based in power-dynamics, law and social-order, or attunement to humanity’s state of development at that time.

    Swann’s book is a remarkable and unique contribution.
    Bessant, Leadbeater, and Krishnamurti are certainly not the only characters in history about whom we do not know much about exactly how they came to know what they knew!

    1. Hello, Jason,
      Interesting questions. What is known is that Krishnamurti was trained and educated by the theosophists. That this training included yogic and tantric methods, related to chakras and kundalini. Leadbeater was one of the primary trainers. You find this in the Years of Awakening by Mary Lutyen, and probably by other biographers. You find some of this in K’s Notebook.

      There is no mention of sexual tantra, but there was much training in esoteric methods.

      The 2nd lecture will delve into the matter of K’s training by theosophy and how it is related to his experience of the sacred and his teaching about spiritual authorities and gurus.

      He had a good point about the Pathless Path, and there will be a discussion of its place in spiritual teachings.

  3. Good evening and thank you again for this opportunity.
    I have two comments
    1: Could it be so that the teachings of Krishnamurti did not lead to much Self realizations with others because of his internal true fire of his inner knowing. Which for him whas as normal and logical as his breath, but for others impossible to recreate.
    2. For Tamzie Pinkerton:I believe a super Ego has always a tendency to come up, because your created Self does not want to die/make way. There seems a choice when recognized, to see and go through it, for what it is, or point outwards. Please take this with Love, I recognize the process….it can come along…Krishamurti may say, just watch it,look at it with your Full attention! This is your path,enjoy all of it, be curious. Love Yourself! I had the distinct feeling it bothered you so that is why I write. Hope you are well! Mette

    1. Hello Mette,
      You are kind to respond to Tamzie. I appreciate it when the listeners talk to each other.

      About your first point. I think it is a good point. We can see that it is true for most of his life, but he ended up questioning it towards the latter part of his life. The 2nd lecture will delve into this matter.

      1. Thank you very much Hameed! I am looking forward to the 2nd lecture.
        And I also have to admit, that my knowledge of Krishnamurti may be limited because his book “freedom from the know” hit home(over and over again) it felt so right for this form of me that I am living right now. And of course I love his short films on youtube. So it is wonderful to listen to something through someone who has a broader picture.
        Have a wonderful moment,
        Warm regards,

  4. It is always wonderful to participate in the Diamond community! Thank you.
    I have several questions:
    1) Psychedelics may permit similar integration experience. Might Khrishnamurti’s headaches have triggered that same part of the brain which might be why he never had teachings showing people how to achieve this state? That in the end, his teaching was describing his experience and that permitted a window into the other realm for others?
    And as you say, this might have been the value of Khrishnamurti to the 20th century.
    2) As another part of this question: since we are part of this material world, is this a true statement: one can only remain in THE* temporarily but these gifts of moments in THE permit us to better interact within our reality and at the same time encourage us to increase our moments in THE? Meditation is certainly a means of touching that part of Reality.
    3) I am surprised to hear that he expressed what sounded like disappointment and actually concluded that no one had changed in light of what he himself expressed: “The pure act of seeing the fact, whatever the fact be, brings its own understanding and from this, mutation takes place.”
    Mutation may come in very small increments and also by his expressing disappointment (if that was how he expressed it) or in making the observation that no one had changed, that is a thought that comes from a time/place space, isn’t it? And seems to undermine everything that he presented prior to that.

    Warmest regards,

    * No name higher consciousness

    1. Hello Yvonne,
      I find it interesting that so far the discussion is mostly about K’s professed lack of success in inviting fundamental change in his listeners. In my 1st lecture I was focusing on what he called self-observation and various subtleties of it. I wanted this to be understood and appreciated, for it is an important part of Krishnamurti’s contribution to world spirituality. It is what he spent his life talking and lecturing about.

      In terms of your 1st question above: Interesting correlation with psychedelic experience. I am not aware of psychedelic experience causing life long headache and pain. The interesting thing is that K did not discuss his own experiences in his talks, but discussed something he learnt from these experiences. Which is the practice of observation without observer.

      2nd question. We can surmise that he took it that having the fundamental change will help live life more truthfully and fully. I think he wrote about living life fully himself.

      3rd Question. K did not think mutation comes in small increments. For this means to him it happens in time, while mutation is outside of time. Some in his circle did not want him to publish his observation of no fundamental change in others, for they thought it can undermine his teaching. But he went ahead and allowed the publication. Will discuss this more fully in 2nd lecture.

  5. Krishnamurti wants us to see (perceive) with a mind that is free of any fragmentation [p. 180, The Impossible Question, 1972]. Wouldn’t such a mind/observer have to be entirely free of fragmentation in the first place in order to allow for fragmentation-free perception? He doesn’t explain how to transcend this vicious circle. Or does he?

  6. After Krishnamurti’s Experience
    arising without any how to reach it, the intense focus, the deep and enveloping love, the leaning in, the longing to understand, not mentally, to know with entire being. I would like to know–is this the type of experience Krishnamurti was talking about? Or is this something else?

    I was sitting relaxed with a friend on top of a hill framed by trees in Oakland. We sat about 6′ apart, wrapped in quilts she had made by hand, looking out through an opening framed by trees. There were the stars in the sky, the lights across the Bay, the lights outlining the Bay Bridge to San Francisco, the blackness of the bay, the smell of pine from a tree nearby, the rustling of some leaves in the breeze, my friend nearby.

    There came this intense embracing, enfolding, all-encompassing feeling of deep love. Everything felt like it physically touched and interpenetrated throughout my? body. What body was this? Whose body? There was an expanded sense of much greater awareness, the capacity of knowing everything and being one with my friend forever, timelessly as well as with this moment and environment fresh, forever now.

    Pictures and movies of other times together, appeared like silent popcorn popping, like there was a huge file thread of us together unravelling from some sort of fabric, with a continuous living, streaming current Being of Us flowing throughout some greater fabric of woven rivers.

    I say, us, because my experience felt like I wasn’t the “me” I thought I knew any longer. Yet I was integrally there. My body was included. There were no boundaries between this awareness and my body, my friend, the trees, the ground, the Bay, the city, the bridge. There were no longer 2 separate bodies sitting 6 feet apart yet all were included.

    Included seems an inadequate word. As if anything could be not included. Not included wasn’t an option. No possibility of not included. All present together.

    Visions/flashes of a multiplicity of times and experiences came. Whether we had lived together or apart at different times, our experiences had been similar, related in some way miraculously. Like we were one being experiencing the nuances of variation over lifetimes together.

    Here simultaneous overlapping and interweaving of looking out at the scene now together interlaced with images of other experiences. There was a breathless sense of awe, a felt pressure of the environment and scene as I “felt-saw” it, as experienced through other different internal yet seemingly cosmic senses. There were overlaid experiences happening all at once.

    It was intense throughout all sensing capacities. Especially active were some sort of internal sensors, I didn’t recognize. As if sensing had turned inside out with active inner sense organs now turned outside experiencing some ocean of somewhat viscous fluid substance like the arms of a sea anemone moving and absorbing.

    I closed my eyes because all of it was so intensely streaming with aliveness and vibrancy. I closed my physical eyes, partly to savor the incredibly intense and nearly overwhelming sense of love, partly to experience inside what was streaming in and through my body’s inner and outer senses, and partly to allow myself to momentarily just see the black behind my closed eyes and perhaps dampen the intensity a little.

    When I closed my eyes, I was shocked! There was no darkness. There inside, everything I was seeing with my eyes, was occurring within, with even more detail and aliveness. Everything was exactly the same inside of me. But with a quantum increase in number of pixels of detail.

    Within, the experience felt and appeared and sounded more rich, bright, intense and real than any outward environmental experience had ever been. It came to me that what I had been seeing with my eyes outside, was only an apparent reflection of what was dynamically emerging from deep within some inner realm of being that didn’t really fit inside of myself as I had conceived myself to be. It felt compressed within somehow. There was a kind of pressure to it.

    The senses I seemed to be sensing from inside, seemed to be actively projecting what I was feeling and seeing with my friend outside of myself, creating the external experience I had been having from within, so to speak. I no longer had the sense of myself as “me”. I seemed to have disappeared into something else or other beingness– more diffuse and yet precisely focused and clear.- yet, at the same time feeling more dense and compressed to fit within my body consciousness so something of this awareness could access it.

    It seemed that awareness could focus on anything and full revelation of being and evolution would simply be accessible and unfold. Choice felt more about focus rather than what to do or have.

    The possibility opened of being able to simply turn focus like a telescope and anything focused upon would unlock or unfold a complete evolution of whatever it was, or more precisely, of its particular living existence (beyond mere events and circumstances of history, although that was included).

    Experienced beingness buzzed with vibrations, flows, and electrical activations. Flooded with nearly overwhelming aliveness and shifting waves and currents of being.

    Tecla Garcia Recollection written 4/3/21

    1. You are right, Tecia, that K taught to experience with the entirety of one’s being.

      The experience you describe is wonderful, and it is great you have had such opening. It seems more the non dual kind of experiencing, where it is more oceanic, and including all in one unbounded awareness. It is not the kind of experience K emphasized or discussed. He never talks about being the awareness, or the beingness, but does talk about awareness and beingness.

      Your experience also has elements of something similar to K, where he is one with the other without there being a self. We can refer to it as nonlocal or unilocal experiencing, where the universe is all within your individual body. or you and your friend is one being.

      He emphasized not only experiences and opening, but a radical change, where the access to such experience is permanent.

  7. Krishnamurti’s spiritual maturity coincided with a sort of a breaking away of the authority surrounding him and being bestowed upon him. I’ve always imagined this helped propel his awakening, but I think it also restricted his teachings because he could not draw on the teachings that came before, and wisdom of various practices, any how whatsoever. He asks everyone to start from scratch the way he did, which makes it quite difficult to have a student join you in awakening. In this way, his greatest strength turned into his greatest oversight. What are your thoughts about this?

    1. Hi Ryan,
      Interesting reflections on K’s situation.

      I agree with you in some parts of it. But prefer to leave further discussion of this important aspect of K’s life to the 2nd lecture.

      It seems everybody wants the 2nd lecture more than the 1st one. the first one is actually what he taught, which is of great import. The latter has to do with his life, both inner and outer, not his teaching.

  8. Hi Hameed,

    Thank you for these talks! I was especially interested in what you said about the relationship between spirituality and science. I personally feel very passionate about this topic, and have had already three brief and, for me, life-changing conversations with you about it (the first two were in a series of online talks you gave at the SAND about Duality and Nonduality, and the third was during the “Spirituality in a Fractured World” course, with Karen also present). There are so many things I would like to say about this, I’ll try to be as brief as I can:

    I agree with you in that Krishnamurti and David Bohm seemed to be mainly talking past each other. I personally feel that while Krishnamurti was very precise, David Bohm was always rather vague in his thinking.

    I also agree in thinking that all attempts so far at integrating science and spirituality have been misguided. The book you mentioned, The Tao of Physics, is a good example.

    However, I strongly feel that this integration is necessary and urgent. Not because spirituality needs any kind of confirmation coming from science (it doesn’t), but because science is completely stuck right now. No major breakthroughs in physics have happened in the last 50 years or so. This is unprecedented since the beginning of modern science. I believe the reason for this stagnation in science is materialism.

    Like you said, most contemporary scientists are materialists. You seem to think that this is okay, the result of the fact that scientists simply look at reality in a different way. I completely disagree with this (if that is what you are saying). Materialism is not a different view. It isn’t a view at all. Materialism is just ignorance and superstition.

    Materialist scientists have been incapable of coming to a coherent view of quantum mechanics, for example. Some materialist scientists believe in the many-worlds interpretation (a total pseudo-philosophical aberration). Others believe that quantum reality is simply weird, impossible to understand, and that scientists should just “shut up and calculate”. Others say that physics is not actually a science about the physical world, but about our knowledge of the physical world, or about the way information works. And so on. Something similar happens in cosmology. Materialism is the main obstacle right now to the progress of science.

    I believe the only way forward for physical science is to accept these basic truths:

    – scientists are manifestations of Nature

    – when scientists make observations, it’s ultimately Nature itself that does the observation

    – the physical world is the observed world

    – every single living cell is constantly being observed by Nature

    – scientists have physical bodies

    – as they interact with the physical world, the physical bodies of scientists become entangled with the physical world they observe

    – entanglement accounts for all the regularity and consistency we observe in the physical universe

    I can’t go into more detail here, but I’m convinced that the acceptance by scientists of these very simple ideas would open the door for a new scientific revolution. We need an embodied science, a science where the physical body of the experimenter is recognized as part of the experiment. And where the observer (the observing consciousness) is recognized as not being confined to the disembodied mind of the human experimenter. (There are no disembodied minds. At least, not in the physical universe!)

    I think it is possible to devise simple experiments, for example involving double-slits, to prove that the entanglement of small objects like electrons or photons with the physical bodies of the experimenters plays a crucial role. This would solve the measurement problem, and show that observation is a fundamental property of Nature.

    I doubt any of this will be understandable here, in such short space. But I feel an urgency to put these ideas out into the world. It is difficult for me to understand why nobody in the scientific community, or in the spiritual community, seems to realize these very simple connections. A possible explanation, of course, is that I’m missing something. I’m not a trained scientist. I think that may be an advantage, because it makes it easier for me to “think outside the box”. But I could be completely wrong, of course.

    Anyway. If anybody reading this feels any interest, I would love to go into a more in-depth conversation.

    Sorry for the long post, but I really feel this is important. This comes from my heart, and from my passionate love for the truth.

    Thank you for the teaching, Hameed!

    Adur Alkain

    1. You have an interesting view, Adur,
      maybe some of the participants can respond to you, especially the scientists.

      I agree with you that science needs to go through a big transformation. Some scientists have said as much. Roger Penrose, the mathematical physics from UK who got the most recent Noble prize for physics has written that science needs to go through many paradigm shifts before it understands matter. Meaning that science does not even know what matter is. He gives the example of the electron: that physics does not know what an electron is.

      David Bohme had tried to deal with the difficulty by postulating an implicate order underlying the explicate order that scientists observe and measure. But the physicists have not paid any attention to the idea of implicate order, especially that he did not say much about it, did not give it structure or any mathematical formulation.

      Your idea of nature observing is interesting. What is the nature that you think is making the observation?

      1. Hi Hameed,
        Thank you for responding!

        I find David Bohm’s ideas about the implicate order very interesting. It is a pity he never was able to put those ideas into a more precise formulation.

        The nature I think is making the observation is true nature.

        All my ideas are inspired in your book The Inner Hourney Home. I believe it is possible to apply the notion of the five boundless dimensions to quantum physics. I know this is quite a bold jump, and I don’t have a deep enough understanding either of quantum physics or of the boundless dimensions to make it work, but I have a strong intuition that this orientation could provide deep insights into the nature of the physical universe.

        I believe observation happens in the dimensions of Awareness and of Being and Knowledge.

        The easiest way for me to show what I mean is to give a quote from your book:

        “The mind that knows is pure presence itself, which knows its own differentiations. It is the knowing of Being, the knowing of true existence, differentiated into the knowing of beings and existents. It knows through the soul, for it needs to be localized for there to be discriminated knowledge of forms. It provides the soul with her knowing faculty, with her mind and intellect, just as the dimension of divine love provides her with her heart and feelings. This means that it is not an individual soul that knows, although that is how things appear.”

        Almaas, A. H.. The Inner Journey Home: The Soul’s Realization of the Unity of Reality . Shambhala. Kindle Edition.

        I think we can apply this same idea to physics: when a scientist (an individual body-soul) makes an observation, it is not really the individual that makes the observation, but true nature. But true nature can only make the observation through the individual body-soul.

        I believe this can explain the nonlocal nature of quantum phenomena. Nonlocality and entanglement only looks “weird” from the perspective of the individual observer. It makes perfect sense from the perspective of the one single boundless observer, true nature.

        Wouldn’t it be something if some brilliant physicist could apply these notions and confirm them experimentally, and end up winning the Nobel Prize in Physics? That would be great publicity for the Diamond Approach! 🙂

        (I’m only half-joking: if I’m correct, it should be possible to prove experimentally the crucial role of the experimenter’s physical body in every experiment involving quantum phenomena. This would show not that “we create physical reality” (like some naive versions of “everything is consciousness” would have), but that true nature (or nature, or the universe, as most scientists call it) creates physical reality through our physical bodies (through our entangled sense perceptions).)

        Anyway, I’m happy I have been able to express these ideas here… I would be even happier if somebody with more knowledge than me could do something with them… or show to me that they simply don’t work! 🙂

  9. Revato Wasmann

    Dear Hameed,
    I have a great appreciation for Krishnamurti’s contribution and writing. Yet at some point I began to I miss something like love for humanity in his teaching. On the contrary, he seemed to feel contempt for other human beings.
    I wonder how much this contempt influenced both his insights and his teaching. As you were saying yesterday, he hardly ever referred to himself and that an essential part of his teaching is about being absent in the experience, not being there at all. Yet, it may not only be profound spiritual insight but also an expression of some fundamental lack of love for himself and other people. Were his teachings and insights possibly influenced by his own psychological pain?
    I wonder what your thoughts are on this and would be grateful for any comment.
    With appreciation, Revato

    1. Hi Revato,
      I think Krishnamurti had deep and everlasting love for humanity. He expressed it in many of his talks and his biographical writings. His concern about individuals changing is his way of how to save humanity from its ignorance and pettiness. He believed humanity can save itself only by individuals having such fundamental change so that they are free of greed, selfishness, attachment, violence, hatred and so on.

      Whether K loved himself? good question, since he does not recognize there is one to love.

      I will wait til the 2nd lecture to talk about K’s pain, which was mostly physical.

  10. Nancy Baker, Zen teacher and long=time student of the Diamond Appropach
    Like so many of my spiritually-minded generation, I read Krishnamurti and went to hear him speak every time he came to NYC. The last 3 times he ever came at the end of his life, I was given a great gift by a friend w ho knew him–3 days of several hours each of those last 3 yearly visits in a small room with no more than 20 of us. What struck me was how K actually worked with individuals. It was a back and forth, extremely focussed (without exclusion), leading the questioner step by step into a state of not knowing. This would come as a big surprise, revelation, relief to the questioner. The closest thing I can think of is Socrates interactions with his questioners. Francis Lucille often uses Atmananda’s logical taking a questioner to the truth, but it is never in true dialogue form. One had to interact with K to get to that place. I don’t think he ever thought anyone should experience what he had experienced. I think he thought of himself as a true and unusual ‘mutation.’ What he wanted for others was a not-knowing presence free of the past and future. During those intimate times I was struck by the frequency of his use of the term, “God,” something he never did in big public gatherings. The last year in the very last 5 minutes I ever saw him, tears ran down his cheeks as he mentioned “the sorrow of mankind.” It was so affecting, so moving. So often in his notebooks in particular he uses the word, “ugly,” for the behavior of mankind, but here I saw the very deep compassion for the suffering of others. I think he could have used what I heard my Zen teacher say to a student many years ago: “There are no utopias. It’s like cleaning. The job is never done once and for all.”
    I knew David Bohm thanks to my friend, who gave me the great gift of those intimate times with Krishnamurti. He was such a lovely man, very quiet and nonreactive. I did one of his weekend long dialogue groups once. He was right–a group of up to 40 people, if they spent a long enough time together (especially those from our western culture), they could actually arrive at a point of ego free ‘dialogue’ of completely equal voices in perfect harmony. It didn’t happen until well into the beginning of the second long day, but it was quite impressive to witness and be part of this. He was very struck by what he could see in simpler cultures, especially Native American, about how this worked. He and Krishnamurti dialogued together for about 25 years and had great respect for one another. An interesting book of their conversations is the one on time. I’ve never seen any dialogue from the SAND conferences between a scientist and a sage that came close to their conversations. I wonder about the relationshp between Bohm’s ‘wholeness and the implicate order’ and Krishnamurti.
    As for Krishnamurti biographies, the acknowledged very best is by Pupul Jayakar. She and her sister, as young teenagers, were asked by K to be with him all night as he went through one of his most intense experiences of his ‘process.’ Qute a relationship she had with him for the rest of his life. She was a very well-known, impressive woman as an adult. I remember her sitting in on one of the litte groups I was in. She was like a silent mountain sitting in the corner of the room just observing.
    Like Advaita and Zen, as you pointed out, there is nothing that acts as a ’cause’ to bring about awakening or whatever one wants to call it. Zen thinks of practice-s as preparing the conditions for receiving grace, to put it in western terms. Iyengar taught K yoga, which he practiced every morning, and, of course (like Francis and Dogen) thought of ‘meditation’ as being an expression, not a means to an end outside of itself.
    Thank you, Hameed. As a result of listening to your talk, I picked up the little paperback I have of K’s last notebook r journal. It made me happy to be back in touch with his extreme sensitivity to beauty.

  11. Here you are, Nancy,
    Good to see you here and bringing your valuable first hand experience of both K and Bohm.

    K definitely loved the beauty of nature, and described it so well with sensitivity and appreciation.

    I will read the biography you mentioned. I had not read it.

    I agree with you that K did not say he wanted people to change the way he changed. But he taught because he believed people can have a radical change similar to his, but not the same. But radical and final, and sudden, not in time and not a result of any practice or path.

    I had not questioned his success in his teaching till I came across his own questioning of his teaching. As I will show in quotes in the 2nd lecture, he does say “nobody changed, after all these years of teaching.” He was obviously disappointed, and obviously believed “mutation” is possible for others, not just himself.

    A question I have for you: I think it is great that you witnessed that K interacted with the small group of people you were with till many experience not knowing. This is great. But what happened next. Did any of them go beyond not knowing to a new kind of knowing? Did any share a change in their being? Did transformation happen? Maybe it did, and I want to know what you remember.

    Not knowing, as you know, is a pre condition for real change. But it is not the only pre condition. It can be the beginning of the airing of new kind of experience or awakening, but this rarely happens without further inquiry beyond the not knowing. Grace may occur, which can bring about true change. But do we know whether not knowing is sufficient as preparation for grace?

    In your Zen practice, practice goes on for a very long time. It does not directly cause awakening, but gives more possibility for it. It is true, it can be the expression of awakening, and this is how K can be seen as having understood it. But here we are mixing Zen with K’s teaching, which is interesting, but I am not sure how applicable in understanding Krishnamurti.

    You love Krishnamurti, and so do I. But we need to understand the great to see that greatness does not mean knowing all possibilities of reality. Many great teachers, but non can be said to have known all possibilities of reality. I think K will agree with this.

    1. Yes, indeed, it does not mean knowing all possibilities of reaity–which may not be possible. . I think you said something about certain experiences K had that you didn’t know or hadn’t had. And I’m sure the reverse is true. I wonder if you see him as not just opening the west to something new, but also as having newly unforlded a corner of the great unfolding of spiritual wisdom. As for those I saw get to the place of not knowing, not only did I not know them, but not everyone got to that place in working with K. That’s where his frustration would show up. Moroever, I would say that the few examples of ‘success’ were clearly not about some deep change for the individual–that was obvious–but I think in the case of a few of those close to him, there was a true realization that, at least somewhat, changed their capacity for the kind of thinking he tried to teach people, or draw people into. But that, as far as I can see, had nothing whatever to do with what he himself experienced. Nor, for that matter, with the total ‘destruction’ he said was required to move beyond mere change into mutaton and creation. I wonder how he thought that destruction came about in him. I’m struck byhis comments about the boy he once was–sort of empty, having things go right through him. In the few places I’ve seen him make those comments the context was usually some surprise that the boy survived. To be contiued. love, Nancy

      1. You are right Nancy,
        that K did not only function as a pioneer in bringing mystical wisdom in the secular west. He did bring a whole new teaching. But I think his main contribution is his experiences, many of them are unusual, and not known by most nondual teachings or Western teachings.

        different meanings to the observer is the observed is one of them. We will discuss in. the 2nd lecture his other thread of experiences, related to the sacred otherness. You don’t hear other teachers talking about these kind of realizations, and I don’t mean just the fact it is otherness. I mean what this otherness is and what it manifests and how it changes. These are not well known introductions into the spiritual sphere.

  12. Dear Hameed,
    I wonder if you would be kind enough to comment on what Zen teacher Jeff Shore says about discriminating consciousness – it appears to me you see the individual discriminating consciousness as a foundation stone for experience ?
    Jeff says, “Consciousness can be clarified, purified, emptied to an incredible degree. This can be most helpful as a preliminary practice. But that is far from the end of the matter. Learning to coast and enjoy the ride for a while is not coming to a full and complete stop. A clarified, purified consciousness emptied of its
    ordinary content is still discriminating consciousness. Discrimination is not discernment. It is a discursive, bifurcating symptom of dis-ease. And discernment is not merely discrimination. It is seeing into, seeing through, the true nature of things. ”
    Love Bruce Stevenson

    1. Hello Bruce,
      I think what Jeff Shore says is right on. I have never read him, but i am glad you brought in his quote.

      One thing to understand: consciousness is not only discriminating or discerning. The consciousness that needs to be clarified and purified is the totality of our individual being, the totality of our individual experience. All of our experience happens within and is discriminated in the individual consciousness. But it is not all that is possible for us, for realization can go beyond feeling we are individual consciousness with subjective experiences and perceptions.

      Shore makes a distinction between discrimination and discernment, which is a useful one. It seems he thinks of discrimination as that of ordinary experience with its thoughts and emotions. But that discernment can go deeper into the realms of spirit or true nature.

      My view is that discrimination and discernment is the expression of one capacity of consciousness Consciousness has many other faculties, like feeling and love, response and action. Feeling can be a discriminated emotion but can also be a discerned presence of the fullness and luminosity of love. Love can be discerned further to have many qualities, like the appreciative personal love, the passionate ecstatic gravitational pull, or the sweet melty connectiveness to another or to the whole.

      The Christian tradition has a way of looking at individual consciousness referred to as the soul. The soul, in this tradition, has mind, heart and will. The mind is the seat of discrimination and discernment. but the heart and will have other functions. This individual consciousness or soul is to be clarified and purified, otherwise it is experienced as the ordinary separate individual. . This means mind, heart and will can all be clarified and purified, which is a discernment of what clarification of consciousness means.

      1. One more comment about discrimination. The real problem with discrimination is making the two items discriminated ‘opposites,’ excluding one another, and hence conceptual. Dogen tells us that we, of course, discriminate delusion and enlightenment, but that they do not exclude one another, they are not ‘opposites.’ To think that they are is a delusion and this can come as a surprise. In his Notebook Krishnamurti often describes Beauty, Solitude etc as having “no opposites.’ I don’t think he would go as far as Dogen, but the understanding of what “opposites” means is the same and points to the difference between discrimination and discriminating wisdom or discernment. What I think Krishnamurti didn’t know was that an actual, discriminated path could become, for the one on it, a path with no opposites–a “pathless path.” Why he didn’t know this is perhaps explained in the following quote from Paul Brunton.

        “There are men of enlightenment who cannot throw down a bridge from where they are to where they once were, so that others too can cross over. They do not know or cannot describe in detail the way which others must follow to reach the goal. Such men are not the teaching masters, and should not be mistaken for them…The man of enlightenment who has never been a learner, who suddenly gained his state by the overwhelming good karma of previous lives, is less able to teach others than the one who slowly and laboriously worked his way into the state – who remembers the trials, pitfalls, and difficulties he had to overcome….The capacity to receive Truth is one thing; the power to communicate it to other men is another. Moreover, only he who has himself lived near to our own experience of the quest, our own falls and slips and tumbles, who himself remembers how he struggled step by step along it to reach his present height, can best help those he has left far behind him.” – Paul Brunton

    2. I’m not Hameed, but here’s another reply: In Buddhism “discernment” is often called “discriminating wisdom” and is highly valued. The great Zen master Eihei Dogen spoke of “delusory discrimination” but also of “correct discrimination.” Discrimination is necessary–“this scalpal is best for that kind of surgery” or ” this kind of apple not that kind is best for making pies” etc etc. For Dogen the difference lay in the context and in the presence or lack of attachment, separation, duality etc etc. Jeff Shore has it right for how to get to the top of a 100ft pole, but then as Zen tells us we must step off.. It’s interesting that Jeff Shore’s comment seems to apply to Krishnamurti. What he says about purifying consciousness sounds like K on change, which he says is just continuation. What is required is a complete break–“destruction” is his word–in order for true liberation to take place. This is all very interesting. Thank you. Nancy

  13. K’s description of being the blade of grass, the bird the woman. Is this in the realm of the real or the imagination?

    It seems to me that K engaged in a visualization in which he disembodied himself and projected it into another object. He no longer felt he existed but in the object. That the self can disembody and relocate and inhabit another object gives an expansive experience would feel like a spiritual experience but this experience is the result of visualization not reality. For this to be real, sensory input is needed. To be the bird he has to viscerally experience what the bird is experiencing, get a visceral sensory input which he doesn’t refer to at all. He has to feel the bird’s body as we feel ours, be able to communicate with his fellow bird species and understand them, taste and chew the food the he picks, know what is going on in his bird’s mind. How can he? he is not really in the bird. He has visualized it, a mental projection, and then believed it which becomes a sort of a exercise in conscious hallucination. It is like a being in a waking dream. In the dream we inhabit another world experiencing it as real but it is in the realm of imagination.

    To experience being disembodied is in the imagination it is not in reality. His body is still there even if he didn’t feel it there. It is still supporting his life. His body made him see the bird. Without the body and it’s instruments how is he going to see, hear or feel? unless we create a religious belief that the self does not need the body to experience what a living healthy body provides. If that is so we will soon arrive at a fantasy world of our making. There would be no blindness or deafness because the self would not need an eye and an ear to see and hear. Organs even the body becomes superfluous to living and awareness. Sleep itself tells us that without an alert body we loose our awareness and connection to the material reality.

    My understanding from what K describes is that he engaged in conscious hallucinations. They are hallucinations because he believed them to be real.

    1. Hi Fadi,
      I don’t think Krishnamurti will agree with you. He was adamant that we can be free of imagination. His approach is to experience with no mind at all, thinking or imagination.

      It is true he had some unusual dissociation from the body. But he also cared and cherished his body, and took great care of it till the time of his death.

      The realization of one being the bird or the tree is known by other teachings, like in Zen. It is recognized as a well grounded experience, beyond mind or imagination. To think such pure realization is a hallucination might be due to two things. One is that it is difficult to imagine or think this is possible, for the reasons you gave of feeling what the bird feels. The other, and most important reason why it is difficult to recognize or even imagine such possibility being not only real but a deep realization of one way of experiencing reality, is that we do not have such experience ourselves. If we don’t have such experience, it is difficult to believe it is possible.

      I brought them up in my talk to show the possibility of these kinds of realization, that are rare. You don’t have to believe them, you only need to be open to the possibility of such experience. Krishnamurti did not want people to just believe him; he wanted people to find out for themselves. This might be one reason that he did not talk publicly about such experiences of his. We find them in his biographical writings.

      It is amazing what we can find when the consciousness is free. These lectures are partly an attempt at showing what different teachers and teaching have found out. Most of them are difficult to believe or even imagine to be possible. Yet they hold the promise of freedom and the fullness of life.

      1. It makes sense to me why this question is being raised. I wonder, to help build more of a bridge to this question, – and because I’m curious – if you could describe in concrete detail what you personally mean by your experience of “being the bird”, Hameed. What is the actual experience such that one interprets and says with certainty that I am “being the bird”?

        I imagine it might be more accurate to say that one has an experience in which one feels/knows/senses that one both is and isn’t the bird at the same time, which is what makes the experience particularly compelling (“how could that be?”)

        I remember reading a question and answer section where a woman was genuinely asking if Krishnamurti was a tree, and his reply was something like, “Of course, madam, I am not the tree!”

        1. Good question, Gabe,
          It is mysterious. But first you must remember of two kinds of realizations of the observed is the observed. One is being the bird, as an example. the other is the bird appearing, no oneness with the bird. Just the fact of the bird. K wrote about both, without him indicating they are two different kinds or experiences.

          The first feels like an experience. There is the sense of oneness with the bird, but more that one becomes the birds. The self is gone, and remains only as the bird. I can be watching a bird, and at some point I feel I am over there as the bird. It is not that I feel the feathers and so on. I am the being of the bird, its essence. So there is a knowing of being the bird. It is the same as being the point of light or being the absolute. The point of light or absolute is the self, and that is why we say I am the bird. There is no other self that is being the bird, the self has dissolved into the bird, and totally becomes the bird. But it is the Sense of self, not the body. One can even see what the bird sees, as if looking from that height and feel the swooping of the bird.

          The second and more mysterious experience of the bird is more rare for people. It is more that the sense of oneself is totally gone. there no self and no person in this realization. there is the bird, simply the bird. or watching the ocean and suddenly there is simply the ocean being the ocean. There is no me, and I am not being one with the ocean or the bird. Here, there is no sense of experience, or awareness or experiencer of a consciousness conscious of the bird or ocean. There is just the fact of the ocean being itself, the fact of the bird being the bird. There is no association, no knowledge from the past, not connecting the ocean or relating it to anything else. the ocean is absolute in its being the ocean. The ocean then is totally ocean, pure, total, and free.

          There is the sense of total freedom, but upon reflection we see that experience, awareness, consciousness, are ultimately concepts. this is not recognized by most nondual teachings. and this realization is not part of the nondual mode of experiencing. In the nondual the ocean is simply consciousness appearing as the ocean, just as everything appears as consciousness. This realization of simply the ocean is much simpler. there is no sense of the ocean being consciousness, spiritual or material. It is simply the ocean.

          1. Yes, this is great. Thanks for taking the time. I’m getting more of a sense why it’s important to really differentiate K’s realization from more traditional spiritual realizations, and to bring that into the discourse.

            I wonder if the 2nd, more mysterious happening you’re mentioning, is related to K’s insistence about not “recording” experience, and why that was so significant, and perhaps more unique to his realization. That idea makes sense to me intellectually, but practically speaking… 🤷‍♂️

  14. I went to several of Krishnamurti’s talks in the 70’s. During his talks he would say ‘Are you with me?’ several times. At first I thought he meant ‘Do you understand.’ Then I realised he actually meant, ‘Are you with me.’ and suddenly I was with him and everything changed. I have spent the rest of my life exploring that change with concentration and total curiosity. Which is why I am part of the Ridhwan community now.

    1. Hi Tony,
      Interesting experience. I wish you have told him, for he thought at the end of his life that nobody changed the way he thought was possible. Obviously nobody around him changed in the radical way he wished for people.

      I will be exploring this question in the 2nd lecture

  15. Hameed, I have heard you tell the story of meeting K before (in DH6, I think). You mention here that when you met him it was clear that he had realization of The Point. I’m curious if his teaching can be understood as a teaching on The Point or perhaps a teaching expressed by The Point.

    Thank you for doing these talks and sharing your wisdom.

    1. Hello Steve,
      Much of his teaching seems to reflect the wisdom inherent in the point of light. Being the point of light one becomes a pure witness. Also, to be the point of light one must let go of all external influences, including the influence of one’s own mind.

      He has written about seeing a point of light in his head. I don’t think he understood what it stood for, but he had its realization. But his teaching comes also from other places, not just from the point of light. I will be discussing these in the 2nd lecture. I have divided his experiences into two kinds. The other kind, I will be discussing then, for they also help us understand him as the being he is and why he taught what he taught.

  16. Dear Hameed,
    Thank you so much for the lectures. My question on the experience of being the sound (or bird) without an observed or the observing is:

    How can you Krishnamurti know this and write it down? And how can you, dear Hameed, know this yourself? For me, there is always (must be) knowing of the experience of being without an observed or the observing.

    Comments on my question above:
    For me Krishnamurti is pointing out the same as what a part of case 46 uit Mumon’s Gateless Gate describes:

    If you come to the top of the 100 feet pole, you jump. Then you’re gone, but you don’t know you’re gone. (So when I am gone and don’t I am gone I am completely the sound or bird then without an observed or the observing)

    And there must be still knowing otherwise no one could ever writing the experience down. There must be knowing even if there is not knowing and not knowing that I am gone. In other words: I am gone in being the sound of bird AND I can still write this insight down right now.

    I am looking forward to experience your answer.


  17. You are right, Jeroen,
    that there must be knowing. But this happens in retrospect. In the actual realization of being the bird, or the bird is imply the bird, there is no sense of knowing. Simply the fact of the particular. In the moment of realization there is no time and no timelessness. And there is no sense of experience, experiencer, knowing or knower. There is simply the bird.

    Looking back at such realization we can say there must have been knowing. But the is an inference.

    It is a mysterious thing. It is like Dogen nonthinking. It does not mean no thinking. But there is thinking without this thinking patterning the realization or reality.

    From this realization, we can see that knowing, awareness, experience and so on are all concepts. Not a delusion but concepts. Reality can appear as an experience or awareness. But it can simply appear, with knowing or experience not present explicitly.

  18. The reason people dont get to the point of those experiences is simply because we are conditioned to depend on others. I don’t believe this invalidates his point at all. Practices are a delay, in some sense, they are, because even through those practices, in the end, you must see what it is for yourself, it is because of people’s tendency to want to depend on someone or something, their reluctance to be alone with themselves, to continue passionately on the path of self enquiry and not give up, (giving up merely implies the superficial nature of their pursuit, that fails when it comes face to face with what our parents, our schools, and our societies have drilled into us since we were young.) that they fail to see what Krishnamurti did.

    The fact is, the mere seeing of the fact that there is a lot more to a person than their memories and experiences, is not that hard to see, I’ve seen quite a few talk about enlightenment but they conveniently brush off their own suffering, sadness, different moods as separate, they say they don’t identify with it because they are the vast space of nothing and everything, which is an unfortunate way people deceive themselves into thinking they have achieved something they haven’t, as if it is something to be achieved, rather than lived. K advocated complete psychological understanding of yourself, so there is no hiding behind an experience that isn’t in everyday living, and as far as I have seen, most people who claim enlightenment, would not meet his standards. You are perhaps one of the very few, but I am fairly certain your teachings will get exceptionally few there, because in order to have this present in your everyday life, in each moment, there is no teaching, there is only observation.

    1. Interesting points, Abhay,
      I appreciate the quality of dialogue.

      The first point you raise, which is that people need to be independent and in their inner aloneness to be able to see the truth of their experience, is well taken. But this is a point most teachings make. Some won’t say it the way you write it, rather talking about the self being the impediment.

      So I don’t have an issue with Krishnamurti about making a point that one needs true and absolute inner autonomy to know the truth. The point I made in the second lecture is that he made this be absolute and central to his teaching. He made it at the expense of the universal truth that many have learnt from true spiritual teachers. That there have been teachings, paths and lineages, like the Zen lineages, that have resulted in many awakened individuals. He kept saying don’t follow any teaching, don’t believe any teacher. Just do it on your own.

      One way of understanding this is that he mixed up two things. One is that one requires inner autonomy and aloneness to be able to ascertain the truth. The other is that this happens as one stage in many of these paths. He negated the second point in order to assert the first one. Both are true. A true teaching guides you all the way to your true inner autonomy so that you ascertain the truth for yourself. You will see this in the lecture I will be giving about Dzogchen, the nondual teaching in Buddhism.

      Of course, there is more to a. person than their memories. This is actually what all spiritual teachings say. This is an important part of any genuine spiritual teaching.

      However, you don’t continue with this point, but you go to how some teachers claim enlightenment or have enlightenment experience but neglect to look at and understand their psychology. I agree with you here. I see it in many places. It is an observation I had made many times, of some teacher claiming nondual. realization or some kind of enlightenment and it is clear that. they are not free from some of their psychological conditioning or patterning from the past. It is regrettable that such individuals don’t mention to their students or to the pubic that they still have unresolved issues, believing that being in a state of vastness or awareness takes care of them. It does not. Some say these patterns persist but they are not strong or they don’t identify with them. Here I agree with Krishnamurti that one needs to understand one’s psychology completely.

      And it is my experience that all psychological conditioning can be dissolved. Not to return again. There is then no self, and nothing to replace it.

      I don’t think Krishnamurti has worked through all of his psychological conditioning. This is one thing I discuss in the second lecture on K, for it explains his physical pain that lasted most of his life. I give the understanding that what is called his Process is due to psychological barriers he was not aware of.

      K was very good and quite a genius in understanding the content of experience in the moment, but he did not give due credit to the fact that anything that happens in the moment in the mind is related to a long history of impressions. His way of inquiry did not include connecting the immediate awareness of what is happening in the now with what has caused it in the past. This made it not possible for him to see some unconscious elements that still stayed unobserved for him.

      He is not alone in this, but he is a clear and obvious example of this dilemma. I think it is instructive, because he was so clear and free of self, but yet had some delusions and wrong beliefs that he did not know he had.

      1. I’ve given my views on the utility of teachings in my comment on the other lecture, I hope you don’t mind me not going over it here again.

        Actually that was just my point, that those people have those experiences where they see past their egos (memory and experiences) and without resolving the rest, claim enlightenment and let their issues play out in bad ways.

        This is interesting. He lays out that the root of psychological disorder is thought and time, which is the “me”, that already implied the past in it, if I am not wrong? He also explains an event that demands insight and interpretation gives birth to the me, that event would be the past, and would be included in his enquiry, I think. Perhaps you could clarify this point.

        I’ve also wondered often whether he had some left over conditioning as well, I personally would not comment on the explanations for why he had the pain, I have no knowledge of this, and would not want to make comments on something I don’t know much about. For now, I agree with his points on spiritual authority, though I have clearly seen him miss things that are very clearly present in front of him, for example, his conversation Transformation of man with Dr shainberg and David bohm, in there it is extremely clear that shainberg could not see what he was talking about, in fact I am uncertain whether bohm did or just understood him intellectually, I believe it is the latter, but instead of taking that opportunity to really understand where shainberg was stuck, k proceeded as if things were understood, he treated shainberg as if he understood, almost ignoring his pain points and putting forward his own, I’ve never quite understood this. He would get frustrated at people not understanding but would not try to look at things from their perspective, I understand he believed there were no perspectives when it came to the truth, for it is simply there, but for people to break through their conditioning, for you to help people see through it, it is vital that you understand their perspective. Perhaps he truly meant it when he said he would not help anyone, that he would merely enquire along with people. But he did want them to follow what he was saying, so why not take a more whole approach, has always puzzled me, he showed and had many emotions come through in various talks, in some, very few, I have clearly seen frustration and anger, which I can tell is not born out of the present moment, if there is no expectation, desire, which implies memory, there can be no such reaction out of something as simple as people not understanding, so K definitely had a few misses. Perhaps his notion of living and dying each minute prevented him from looking into these. I’m not sure this is conditioning though. Is there anything other than the pain that points to him still being conditioned?

Leave a Reply to Mette Noordhoek Hegt Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Scroll to Top