Thoughts on U.G. Krishnamurti?

[Hedge90]

I've just recently met this man's materials. They are as fascinating as they are disconcerting. After a "spiritual" event he later called "the calamity", he preached a kind of idealist philosophy, but with all ontological or teleological ideas removed. He basically said that a person is a vibration of a world-mind, and there's no personal soul/mind, just collections of bound-together memories. Nothing needs to be changed, no spiritual development should to be sought, because there's nothing down the end of that line, and everything is already as it should be.
Anyone familiar with him have any specific thoughts about him and his philosophy?

[Soul_of_Shu]

I've just recently met this man's materials. They are as fascinating as they are disconcerting. After a "spiritual" event he later called "the calamity", he preached a kind of idealist philosophy, but with all ontological or teleological ideas removed. He basically said that a person is a vibration of a world-mind, and there's no personal soul/mind, just collections of bound-together memories. Nothing needs to be changed, no spiritual development should to be sought, because there's nothing down the end of that line, and everything is already as it should be.
Anyone familiar with him have any specific thoughts about him and his philosophy?

I'm not all that familiar with UGK, but that observation seems in line with some schools of Advaita Vedanta, and not dissimilar from Ramana Maharshi's observation that "Whatever is destined not to happen will not happen, try as you may. Whatever is destined to happen will happen, do what you may to prevent it. This is certain. The best course, therefore, is to remain silent." Nonetheless, when regardless of this stance a follower would insist upon RM suggesting some practice, I suppose to facilitate the unfolding of their destiny, he would sometimes offer some suggestion. But who knows, perhaps he just wanted to preoccupy them with some task, so they would go away and stop pestering him with such questions.

[Hedge90]

I've just recently met this man's materials. They are as fascinating as they are disconcerting. After a "spiritual" event he later called "the calamity", he preached a kind of idealist philosophy, but with all ontological or teleological ideas removed. He basically said that a person is a vibration of a world-mind, and there's no personal soul/mind, just collections of bound-together memories. Nothing needs to be changed, no spiritual development should to be sought, because there's nothing down the end of that line, and everything is already as it should be.
Anyone familiar with him have any specific thoughts about him and his philosophy?

I'm not all that familiar with UGK, but that observation seems in line with some schools of Advaita Vedanta, and not dissimilar from Ramana Maharshi's observation that "Whatever is destined not to happen will not happen, try as you may. Whatever is destined to happen will happen, do what you may to prevent it. This is certain. The best course, therefore, is to remain silent." Nonetheless, when regardless of this stance a follower would insist upon RM suggesting some practice, I suppose to facilitate the unfolding of their destiny, he would sometimes offer some suggestion. But who knows, perhaps he just wanted to preoccupy them with some task, so they would go away and stop pestering him with such questions.

My objection against these views is always the question: then why did thinking minds appear? If the goal is to just "go with the flow", why didn't the cosmic mind just remain in its inert oceanic state? If the best state to be, from all points of view, is this dissolution in a cosmic mind, then no amount of sophistry can make a good argument for why had this unity be fractured. Many people say that it's because "God wants to find its way back to itself" or something like that, but that's not logical. If I could be in a state of eternal bliss, and there was NOTHING at all I could gain or enrich myself with by abandoning that state, why would I do that?
That's not actually a critique of Krishnamurti though, because as I understand he explicitly said one SHOULDN'T seek spiritual enlightenment, but instead exercise their individuality.

[Soul_of_Shu]

My objection against these views is always the question: then why did thinking minds appear? If the goal is to just "go with the flow", why didn't the cosmic mind just remain in its inert oceanic state? If the best state to be, from all points of view, is this dissolution in a cosmic mind, then no amount of sophistry can make a good argument for why had this unity be fractured. Many people say that it's because "God wants to find its way back to itself" or something like that, but that's not logical. If I could be in a state of eternal bliss, and there was NOTHING at all I could gain or enrich myself with by abandoning that state, why would I do that?

Well, I'm not advocating for, or refuting, either UGK's or RM's view. It did get me daydreaming though of some metaphorical allegory of metamorphosis, to put it in perspective. Recently in our local ecological niche, we had an extreme gypsy moth cycle, with myriad larval stage caterpillars devouring the leaves of the oak trees to the point of completely denuding them. As such, these creatures are considered to be unwanted pests, destroying the shade such trees provide, then falling from above onto our decks we enjoy in summertime, into our food and drinks, creating a mushy mess underfoot, attracting flocks of pooping birds. So I'm imagining some metacognitive 'seeker' version of the caterpillars going to a wise sage for advice, saying, 'Woe is me, I've had it with being in this state, which everyone thinks is deplorable and undesirable, what's the meaning of it all, what can I do to transcend this sorry condition?'

Wise sage oh-so-seriously replies, 'Here's what you need to be doing, which will trigger a process whereby you spin a cocoon, wherein it will in turn trigger a process that will transform you into a moth, and then everyone will admire you for your beautifully transfigured state, with wings creating the ability to fly free and rise above all this messy business ... it simply requires that you eat these very special magic leaves, none other will do', and then points to the oak trees.

So ask away, why does M@L do what M@L does? What's up with dreaming up this idea construction, all this relational subject><object, evolving/metamorphosing feedback-loop dynamic, with all the attendant suffering prone corporeality? I can only offer it's because that is M@Ls ontological imperative, which is also uncaused, and as such M@L can't be otherwise, thus rendering the question 'why' a moot point.

P.S. The oak leaves grew back within a couple of weeks.

[Eugene I]

My objection against these views is always the question: then why did thinking minds appear? If the goal is to just "go with the flow", why didn't the cosmic mind just remain in its inert oceanic state? If the best state to be, from all points of view, is this dissolution in a cosmic mind, then no amount of sophistry can make a good argument for why had this unity be fractured. Many people say that it's because "God wants to find its way back to itself" or something like that, but that's not logical. If I could be in a state of eternal bliss, and there was NOTHING at all I could gain or enrich myself with by abandoning that state, why would I do that?
That's not actually a critique of Krishnamurti though, because as I understand he explicitly said one SHOULDN'T seek spiritual enlightenment, but instead exercise their individuality.

I agree. Also their "everything is already as it should be" teaching is funny because, applying the same logic, why resist the thinking mind with its resistance or desires if it is part of the same "everything that is already as it should be" (including the thinking mind)? If there is any resistance against something or any efforts to achieve something within this mind, aren't they also part of "everything that is already as it should be"? Then why resist resistance?

[Soul_of_Shu]

I agree. Also their "everything is already as it should be" teaching is funny because, applying the same logic, why resist the thinking mind with its resistance or desires if it is part of the same "everything that is already as it should be" (including the thinking mind)? If there is any resistance against something or any efforts to achieve something within this mind, aren't they also part of "everything that is already as it should be"? Then why resist resistance?

Curiously, having at a very young age apparently encountering some transcorporeal, trans-spatiotemporal 'light' beings, imparting an indelible wordless message: ''However it may otherwise appear, do not fear, as All is unfolding as it must', it seems it may be in agreement with the above view that resistance is futile, even resisting one's resistance ... and I wonder what Cleric will make of that?

[Hedge90]

I agree. Also their "everything is already as it should be" teaching is funny because, applying the same logic, why resist the thinking mind with its resistance or desires if it is part of the same "everything that is already as it should be" (including the thinking mind)? If there is any resistance against something or any efforts to achieve something within this mind, aren't they also part of "everything that is already as it should be"? Then why resist resistance?

Curiously, having at a very young age apparently encountering some transcorporeal, trans-spatiotemporal 'light' beings, imparting an indelible wordless message: ''However it may otherwise appear, do not fear, as All is unfolding as it must', it seems it may be in agreement with the above view that resistance is futile, even resisting one's resistance ... and I wonder what Cleric will make of that?

If everything is unfolding as it must, then whenever someone chases a desire, it must be chased. Whenever one abandons that desire, it has to be abandoned. Tbh it really doesn't answer anything, other than maybe offering some kind of comfort. Because if whatever happens has to happen, then whatever you actually choose, you HAVE TO choose, so you could then choose what fits your nature.

[Soul_of_Shu]

If everything is unfolding as it must, then whenever someone chases a desire, it must be chased. Whenever one abandons that desire, it has to be abandoned. Tbh it really doesn't answer anything, other than maybe offering some kind of comfort. Because if whatever happens has to happen, then whatever you actually choose, you HAVE TO choose, so you could then choose what fits your nature.

Perhaps I'll refer you to this recent post in the 'Intuitive Idealism' thread, a thread which overall may better address your concerns ...

So basically we already have access right here and right now to the Universal Creative.

Seems like this is to say that we are never apart from the Creative Divine doing what the Divine imperatively does in Thinking up all this idea construction, including the curious confused idea that we are somehow other that That, and must figure out how to do what we're already doing ...

[Papanca]

I've just recently met this man's materials. They are as fascinating as they are disconcerting. After a "spiritual" event he later called "the calamity", he preached a kind of idealist philosophy, but with all ontological or teleological ideas removed. He basically said that a person is a vibration of a world-mind, and there's no personal soul/mind, just collections of bound-together memories. Nothing needs to be changed, no spiritual development should to be sought, because there's nothing down the end of that line, and everything is already as it should be.
Anyone familiar with him have any specific thoughts about him and his philosophy?

I'm not all that familiar with UGK, but that observation seems in line with some schools of Advaita Vedanta, and not dissimilar from Ramana Maharshi's observation that "Whatever is destined not to happen will not happen, try as you may. Whatever is destined to happen will happen, do what you may to prevent it. This is certain. The best course, therefore, is to remain silent." Nonetheless, when regardless of this stance a follower would insist upon RM suggesting some practice, I suppose to facilitate the unfolding of their destiny, he would sometimes offer some suggestion. But who knows, perhaps he just wanted to preoccupy them with some task, so they would go away and stop pestering him with such questions.

My objection against these views is always the question: then why did thinking minds appear? If the goal is to just "go with the flow", why didn't the cosmic mind just remain in its inert oceanic state? If the best state to be, from all points of view, is this dissolution in a cosmic mind, then no amount of sophistry can make a good argument for why had this unity be fractured. Many people say that it's because "God wants to find its way back to itself" or something like that, but that's not logical. If I could be in a state of eternal bliss, and there was NOTHING at all I could gain or enrich myself with by abandoning that state, why would I do that?
That's not actually a critique of Krishnamurti though, because as I understand he explicitly said one SHOULDN'T seek spiritual enlightenment, but instead exercise their individuality.

The same objection can be applied to this objection : why did the spiritual/contemplative path emerge, didn't it also emerge out of the cosmic mind in this scenario ? Why should it be considered an accident or a travesty ? After all, both thinking and the desire to reduce thinking, both the normal state of consciousness and altered states of consciousness did emerge out of the cosmic mind in this scenario.


Also generally people aren't consistent with the "everything is as it should be", the moment there is talk about suicide for instance this type of talk is quickly given up.

If some people are helped by meditation or contemplation, let them be, when ones life isn't really satisfactory or in depression thinking can lead to a vicious cycle of rumination and paralysis, not everybody is gifted enough to use thinking only in the lofty ways advocated by many intelligent and healthy minded members of this forum, it can be a good servant but a bad master. The same way goes for those who don't like that path at all, i don't think there is a one fit all solution for everybody. The overtly spiritual type tend to forget it, i agree, but the same goes for those who fall into the other extreme.

I don't think that people who are satisfied with their individuality/normal life need U.G to tell them to embrace it, that's what they already in most cases.

[Hedge90]

The same objection can be applied to this objection : why did the spiritual/contemplative path emerge, didn't it also emerge out of the cosmic mind in this scenario ? Why should it be considered an accident or a travesty ? After all, both thinking and the desire to reduce thinking, both the normal state of consciousness and altered states of consciousness did emerge out of the cosmic mind in this scenario.

Not really. Mystical communion is the return to an ontologically more "primitive" state (I'm not using this word in any pejorative sense, I just mean to imply that the primordial consciousness state is FROM WHICH thinking minds emerged). And I'm not against the experiencing of such communion, on the contrary: I think it should be part of everyone's life. But I don't agree that our LIFE's purpose is this communion, since we are going to return to it anyway after we die. So there should be a significance to individual life, that is complementary, not inferior, to the state of communion.