Every once in a while a book comes into my peripheral vision that speaks to me. The most recent example is James Altucher, who I discovered via elephantjournal.com (an interesting website in itself). He wrote a book called I Was Blind but Now I See which speaks to many things I often think about. Books like Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent on how our thinking is shaped by the media, or Jiddu Krishnamurti's entire life work on the importance of understanding the effects of education, media, parents, culture and religion in shaping who we are, how we think and act, what we strive to do and be, how we define success, happiness and failure - strike a similar chord.
Although I have not gone far enough into my own personal inquiry on all of these elements I am increasingly aware of the fact that I need to be increasingly aware of this. That most of who and how I am is not conscious or even of my own doing.
James Altucher seems to be addressing these issues in his book. I have ordered it today. When I take the leap and read it I will report back.
If you take a look at the book or have read it, let me know what you think/thought.
Showing posts with label Jiddu Krishnamurti. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jiddu Krishnamurti. Show all posts
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Friday, December 25, 2009
Buddha, Buddhism and Internal Paradox
I am now reading "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula, who wrote this in 1958 while in Paris studying at the Sorbonne (which creates some sort of an affinity with me in my mind as it is also my alma mater).
What I like about this is that Rahula attempts to simply present the texts and Siddharta Gautama's original words and teachings. I am not sure that it is possible to do so but at least he makes an honest attempt to do just that.
While reading this book, from the very beginning, what struck me immediately is an internal paradox linked to Buddhism. Siddharta Gautama found his own truth by abandoning all traditional religions and their methods and going his own way. Unfortunately, to me this is the essence of Siddharta's message, you need to walk your own path. I say unfortunately because it makes our work more difficult. And my own feeling on this is that following any one else's method, no matter how beautiful, evolved, thoughtful, spiritual, ... including those of Buddhism, is a shortcut to someone else's truth.
The Buddha himself, who I prefer to call by his name Siddharta Gautama in order not to deify him, "attributed all his realization, attainments and achievements to human endeavour and human intelligence." And he seemed to believe that "man is how own master, and there is no higher being or power that sits in judgment over his destiny."
According to Rahula, Siddharta "taught, encouraged and stimulated each person to develop himself and to work out his own emancipation, for man has the power to liberate himself from all bondage through his own personal effort and intelligence."
So how do we go from a personal journey to an -ism, like other isms, religions and codified practices? While I have no doubt that the intentions were pure it seems that Siddharta was lacking the coldness of heart that someone like Jiddu Krishnamurti had. Siddharta saw the plight of others and tried to "teach, encourage and stimulate" where Krishnamurti called for uncompromising introspection with no real hints as to the how of proper self-knowledge and spent a lifetime trying not to become anyone's guru. It seems to me that both have a similar message but that somehow Siddharta allowed himself to become the Buddha, thus recreating some of that from which he broke free.
This is the inherent paradox I see in Buddhism. And it is even apparent to Rahula at some level as he begins his book by comparing the Buddha to other founders of religion, while wondering aloud "if we are permitted to call him a founder of a religion."
A final 'food for thought': Siddharta's story also made me think about how often in history spirituality is a privilege of the wealthy. Much like St. Francis of Assis, Siddharta was the son of wealthy parents (royalty) before becoming a renunciate. Maybe only wealth to the point of not having to worry about the bottom elements of Maslow's heirarchy of needs from a young age, leaves the mind to dedicate itself to more lofty or existential thinking. Who knows?
What I like about this is that Rahula attempts to simply present the texts and Siddharta Gautama's original words and teachings. I am not sure that it is possible to do so but at least he makes an honest attempt to do just that.
While reading this book, from the very beginning, what struck me immediately is an internal paradox linked to Buddhism. Siddharta Gautama found his own truth by abandoning all traditional religions and their methods and going his own way. Unfortunately, to me this is the essence of Siddharta's message, you need to walk your own path. I say unfortunately because it makes our work more difficult. And my own feeling on this is that following any one else's method, no matter how beautiful, evolved, thoughtful, spiritual, ... including those of Buddhism, is a shortcut to someone else's truth.
The Buddha himself, who I prefer to call by his name Siddharta Gautama in order not to deify him, "attributed all his realization, attainments and achievements to human endeavour and human intelligence." And he seemed to believe that "man is how own master, and there is no higher being or power that sits in judgment over his destiny."
According to Rahula, Siddharta "taught, encouraged and stimulated each person to develop himself and to work out his own emancipation, for man has the power to liberate himself from all bondage through his own personal effort and intelligence."
So how do we go from a personal journey to an -ism, like other isms, religions and codified practices? While I have no doubt that the intentions were pure it seems that Siddharta was lacking the coldness of heart that someone like Jiddu Krishnamurti had. Siddharta saw the plight of others and tried to "teach, encourage and stimulate" where Krishnamurti called for uncompromising introspection with no real hints as to the how of proper self-knowledge and spent a lifetime trying not to become anyone's guru. It seems to me that both have a similar message but that somehow Siddharta allowed himself to become the Buddha, thus recreating some of that from which he broke free.
This is the inherent paradox I see in Buddhism. And it is even apparent to Rahula at some level as he begins his book by comparing the Buddha to other founders of religion, while wondering aloud "if we are permitted to call him a founder of a religion."
A final 'food for thought': Siddharta's story also made me think about how often in history spirituality is a privilege of the wealthy. Much like St. Francis of Assis, Siddharta was the son of wealthy parents (royalty) before becoming a renunciate. Maybe only wealth to the point of not having to worry about the bottom elements of Maslow's heirarchy of needs from a young age, leaves the mind to dedicate itself to more lofty or existential thinking. Who knows?
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
[Notes on] Krishnamurti's As One Is
The full title of this small collection of talks (the former equivalent of today's podcast transmissions I guess) is As One Is - To Free the Mind of All Conditioning. And as a good friend recently pointed out, you don't really need to read the book once you read and understand the title...
In any case, this is definitely a key theme for Jiddu Krishnamurti (who I wrote about in a previous post) and the toughest injunction he left us: free your mind from all conditioning! To get there, it seems to me like he is asking each and every one of us to do two things - a permanent auto-psychoanalysis and meditation. The first is about trying to bring to light the different influences that may be operating on us (family, culture, religion, tradition, country, wealth, color of skin, place of birth, morals, society, peer pressure, expectations, desires, wants, needs, dogma, ideology, isms, etc. etc. etc.). Not to judge ourselves about them, but to try to understand them, not to avoid them or hide from them, just to bring them to the light and look them over so to speak.
The latter, meditation, is different (I get the impression) from the mainstream understanding of what meditation is or what it is for. I cannot profess to completely understand what he means when he says or talks about meditation, but most of all he tells us that if meditation is about taking control over the chattiness of the brain, or any other form of attempting to control, then that is not meditation and that is not helpful.
It is hard to relate here how dense his thinking is; dense in the sense that when I start to underline the hard-hitting ideas and sentences (as I am wont to do), I end up underlining almost the entire book. An example can get this point across and especially share with you the wonder that is Krishnamurti - the powerhouse spiritual thinker:
In any case, this is definitely a key theme for Jiddu Krishnamurti (who I wrote about in a previous post) and the toughest injunction he left us: free your mind from all conditioning! To get there, it seems to me like he is asking each and every one of us to do two things - a permanent auto-psychoanalysis and meditation. The first is about trying to bring to light the different influences that may be operating on us (family, culture, religion, tradition, country, wealth, color of skin, place of birth, morals, society, peer pressure, expectations, desires, wants, needs, dogma, ideology, isms, etc. etc. etc.). Not to judge ourselves about them, but to try to understand them, not to avoid them or hide from them, just to bring them to the light and look them over so to speak.
The latter, meditation, is different (I get the impression) from the mainstream understanding of what meditation is or what it is for. I cannot profess to completely understand what he means when he says or talks about meditation, but most of all he tells us that if meditation is about taking control over the chattiness of the brain, or any other form of attempting to control, then that is not meditation and that is not helpful.
It is hard to relate here how dense his thinking is; dense in the sense that when I start to underline the hard-hitting ideas and sentences (as I am wont to do), I end up underlining almost the entire book. An example can get this point across and especially share with you the wonder that is Krishnamurti - the powerhouse spiritual thinker:
To stand alone is to be uncorrupted, innocent, free of all tradition, dogma, of opinion, of what another says, and so on. Such a mind does not seek because there is nothing to seek; being free, such a mind is completely still without a want, without movement. But this state is not to be achieved; it isn't a thing that you buy through discipline; it doesn't come into being by giving up sex, or practicing a certain yoga. It comes into being only when there is understanding of the ways of the self, the 'me', which shows itself through the conscious mind in everyday activity, and also in the unconscious. What matters is to understand for oneself, not through the direction of others, the total content of consciousness, which is conditioned, which is the result of society, of religion, of various impacts, impressions, memories--to understand all that conditioning and be free of it. But there is no "how" to be free. If you ask how to be free, you are not listening.
When you read Krishnamurti you also realize, because he tells you, that the whole notion of 'spiritual progress'--so dear to East and West--is not where it's at. By seeking with an objective in mind we are not truly seeking, we are simply continuing our conditioning... He also helped me to understand the difference between aloneness (something very positive as he explains it--reread the above quote for his understanding of the concept) and loneliness...
Another quote linked to the first one, and to show you how with Krishnamurti you feel like he sees us in all our ugly and petty habits, names them, brings them to the light and challenges us to do something about, i.e. understand them, here is another short passage on listening:
Another quote linked to the first one, and to show you how with Krishnamurti you feel like he sees us in all our ugly and petty habits, names them, brings them to the light and challenges us to do something about, i.e. understand them, here is another short passage on listening:
Do you really listen, or are you interpreting what is being said in terms of your own understanding? Are you capable of listening to anybody? Or is it that in the process of listening, various thoughts, opinions, arise so that your own knowledge and experience intervene between what is being said and your comprehension of it?
Using this (his) strict definition, I don't think anyone could 'throw the first stone'...
He also has a wonderful passage on the explanation between concentration (which is narrow and excludes) and attention (which is open and includes); the latter which he defines as complete awareness without interpretation. Which I guess is true listening.
And I will finish this post, although I will continue to read and review the book for another post in the near future, on his take on meditation that I alluded to at the outset of this post. As usual, beautiful, right on and so difficult to apply:
He also has a wonderful passage on the explanation between concentration (which is narrow and excludes) and attention (which is open and includes); the latter which he defines as complete awareness without interpretation. Which I guess is true listening.
And I will finish this post, although I will continue to read and review the book for another post in the near future, on his take on meditation that I alluded to at the outset of this post. As usual, beautiful, right on and so difficult to apply:
Self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom. Self-knowledge is not according to some psychologist, book, or philosopher but it is to know oneself as one is from moment to moment. Do you understand? To know oneself is to observe what one thinks, how one feels, not just superficially, but to be deeply aware of what is without condemnation, without judgment, without evaluation or comparison. Try it and you will see how extraordinarily difficult it is for a mind that has been trained for centuries to compare, to condemn, to judge, to evaluate, to stop that whole process and simply to observe what is; but unless this takes place, not only at the superficial level, but right through the whole content of consciousness, there can be no delving into the profundity of the mind. Please, if you are really here to understand what is being said, it is this that we are concerned with and nothing else. Our problem is not what societies you should belong to, what kind of activities you should indulge in, what books you should read, and all that superficial business, but how to free the mind from conditioning...
To be continued...
Monday, February 2, 2009
[Krishnamurti] What you seek...
Of all the spiritual writers out there, and there are many, the most demanding is probably Jiddu Krishnamurti. Why demanding? Well, even though he is a spiritual guide in most senses, he is unrelenting in what he demands from each of us, and what he demands from us feels nearly inhuman in the breadth, depth and sincerity of the personal work needed.
While Nisargadatta reminds us that depth cannot be found by digging shallow holes everywhere and encourages us to pick a spot, any spot, and dig deeply; Krishnamurti asks us to dig deep holes and even when we find oil, water, paydirt or whatever it was we were looking for to keep digging for he warns us (or admonishes us depending on how you want to see it) that "what you seek you will find, and it will not be truth."
This last phrase must be some form of Hindi philosophy (or just plain spiritual wisdom) as it appears often and I remember that Nisargadatta also mentions something similar when talking about death, telling us that to each will be given an afterlife as we expect to find, i.e. as we imagine it, and not as it really is...
Getting back to Krishnamurti, what a life story! A brief outline (you can get more here) goes something like this: Jiddu and his brother were identified in what was then Madras, India, in 1909 or thereabouts by members of the Theosophical Society who were looking (like in The Matrix) for a Chosen One, which they called the "World Teacher". They found two. They were tutored and given a very spiritual education first in India and later in the UK and Europe. His brother later died of tuberculosis. Jiddu was groomed to fill the role of World Teacher and during a famous meeting in 1929, when he was around 35, he disbanded the order set up to follow him. The speech he gave at the time, to disband his followers, as quoted from Wikipedia, is a pretty good glimpse at his philosophy:
To me, this philosophy reminds me of the scene between the messiah-like figure from Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov and the Grand Inquisitor (I mentioned in a previous blog post). In it, the Grand Inquisitor rails against the Messiah who is preaching freedom and tells him how much the Church, i.e. organized religion, has been working to undo the damage the Messiah did putting those ideas in the minds of men, ideas they are not equipped to handle and, thus, do not want.
Krishnamurti seems to be saying something similar to Dostoyevsky's messiah-figure. I understand it as organized religion, any organized religion, is about someone else's truth, so it cannot be anyone's, any one's, truth. We each need to find our own truth, and that is a "pathless land" in the sense that it has to be our own path, we cannot take any shortcuts by walking a path already taken by another.
A propos paths, an interesting and somewhat frightening side note on the original Theosophical Society (Wikipedia link here) which I only learned by reading a bit of background information to write this post. The first of their three official objectives was "to form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or colour." Their rather positive philosophical intentions, together with their worldviews, were later used and abused to justify racism of the worst kind. Another example of the path to hell being paved with good intentions?
Back to Krishnamurti (again, there I go getting sidetracked...). He has written many books and in addition there are many books about him. There are also many DVD's of him speaking that are available, for those who are interested. His speaking style is very stern, very serious, he says often that he is not here to entertain us. Or rather, something that is very original for a public speaker, he does not address his public in the plural, he says you, never all of you, he says we are here 'both of us' the speaker and you, as if it is an intimate two-person conversation even when speaking to a large audience, and he deems it a conversation - it is neither lecture nor entertainment nor an attempto to teach or affect ideation or beliefs. The severity of his attitude, no smiles, doesn't make you uncomfortable but calls for perfect seriousness of intent and of listening. It impresses and it is impressive.
I find this same tone in his writings.It is not that he is unforgiving (see a previous post on this subject :)) but rather uncompromising in what he suggests we demand of ourselves - to look at everything simply but deeply with our brains, our hearts and our entire being...
Of his different books, I could suggest This Light in Oneself or his Commentaries on Living Series, of which I believe there are three books (subtitled First, Second and Third Series), but there are many others. Many of them have very different names, maybe you can choose one that speaks to you.
As a teacher, I also feel 'called to task' quite often by Krishnamurti's writings as he often is most demanding of educators and parents, the teachers of children. Speaking of the importance of educators to be properly educated (a term he would never use by the way), that if the educator does not have 'self-knowledge', which is 'the beginning of wisdom' he himself will be both the victim and the source of much ignorance, strife and sorrow. He speaks of teaching quite beautifully.
One of the worst things about reading Krishnamurti is that he really does tell you everything that you need to know to figure things out. And then he tells you that, and that you can stop reading now; but I keep reading, keep looking for more insights elsewhere...
"See the false as the false, then the truth is. You don't have to look for it.
What you seek you will find, and it will not be truth."
Another note to myself.
While Nisargadatta reminds us that depth cannot be found by digging shallow holes everywhere and encourages us to pick a spot, any spot, and dig deeply; Krishnamurti asks us to dig deep holes and even when we find oil, water, paydirt or whatever it was we were looking for to keep digging for he warns us (or admonishes us depending on how you want to see it) that "what you seek you will find, and it will not be truth."
This last phrase must be some form of Hindi philosophy (or just plain spiritual wisdom) as it appears often and I remember that Nisargadatta also mentions something similar when talking about death, telling us that to each will be given an afterlife as we expect to find, i.e. as we imagine it, and not as it really is...
Getting back to Krishnamurti, what a life story! A brief outline (you can get more here) goes something like this: Jiddu and his brother were identified in what was then Madras, India, in 1909 or thereabouts by members of the Theosophical Society who were looking (like in The Matrix) for a Chosen One, which they called the "World Teacher". They found two. They were tutored and given a very spiritual education first in India and later in the UK and Europe. His brother later died of tuberculosis. Jiddu was groomed to fill the role of World Teacher and during a famous meeting in 1929, when he was around 35, he disbanded the order set up to follow him. The speech he gave at the time, to disband his followers, as quoted from Wikipedia, is a pretty good glimpse at his philosophy:
"You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, 'What did that man pick up?' 'He picked up a piece of the truth,' said the devil. 'That is a very bad business for you, then,' said his friend. 'Oh, not at all,' the devil replied, 'I am going to help him organize it.'
I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or coerce people along a particular path."
"This is no magnificent deed, because I do not want followers, and I mean this. The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth. I am not concerned whether you pay attention to what I say or not. I want to do a certain thing in the world and I am going to do it with unwavering concentration. I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies."
To me, this philosophy reminds me of the scene between the messiah-like figure from Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov and the Grand Inquisitor (I mentioned in a previous blog post). In it, the Grand Inquisitor rails against the Messiah who is preaching freedom and tells him how much the Church, i.e. organized religion, has been working to undo the damage the Messiah did putting those ideas in the minds of men, ideas they are not equipped to handle and, thus, do not want.
Krishnamurti seems to be saying something similar to Dostoyevsky's messiah-figure. I understand it as organized religion, any organized religion, is about someone else's truth, so it cannot be anyone's, any one's, truth. We each need to find our own truth, and that is a "pathless land" in the sense that it has to be our own path, we cannot take any shortcuts by walking a path already taken by another.
A propos paths, an interesting and somewhat frightening side note on the original Theosophical Society (Wikipedia link here) which I only learned by reading a bit of background information to write this post. The first of their three official objectives was "to form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or colour." Their rather positive philosophical intentions, together with their worldviews, were later used and abused to justify racism of the worst kind. Another example of the path to hell being paved with good intentions?
Back to Krishnamurti (again, there I go getting sidetracked...). He has written many books and in addition there are many books about him. There are also many DVD's of him speaking that are available, for those who are interested. His speaking style is very stern, very serious, he says often that he is not here to entertain us. Or rather, something that is very original for a public speaker, he does not address his public in the plural, he says you, never all of you, he says we are here 'both of us' the speaker and you, as if it is an intimate two-person conversation even when speaking to a large audience, and he deems it a conversation - it is neither lecture nor entertainment nor an attempto to teach or affect ideation or beliefs. The severity of his attitude, no smiles, doesn't make you uncomfortable but calls for perfect seriousness of intent and of listening. It impresses and it is impressive.
I find this same tone in his writings.It is not that he is unforgiving (see a previous post on this subject :)) but rather uncompromising in what he suggests we demand of ourselves - to look at everything simply but deeply with our brains, our hearts and our entire being...
Of his different books, I could suggest This Light in Oneself or his Commentaries on Living Series, of which I believe there are three books (subtitled First, Second and Third Series), but there are many others. Many of them have very different names, maybe you can choose one that speaks to you.
As a teacher, I also feel 'called to task' quite often by Krishnamurti's writings as he often is most demanding of educators and parents, the teachers of children. Speaking of the importance of educators to be properly educated (a term he would never use by the way), that if the educator does not have 'self-knowledge', which is 'the beginning of wisdom' he himself will be both the victim and the source of much ignorance, strife and sorrow. He speaks of teaching quite beautifully.
One of the worst things about reading Krishnamurti is that he really does tell you everything that you need to know to figure things out. And then he tells you that, and that you can stop reading now; but I keep reading, keep looking for more insights elsewhere...
"See the false as the false, then the truth is. You don't have to look for it.
What you seek you will find, and it will not be truth."
Another note to myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)