J. Krishnamurti on Life was God

[RL_Adducul]

Hi, I heard him recently, J. Krishnamurti was a philosopher, he described God as merciful. He believed life itself was God. But it seems that he was confused about God, I noticed his views is kindbeing Indian who heard about many gods. Is he the same as the Dalai Lama has different belief but has an enlightenment?

 

[Vico]

Hi, I heard him recently, J. Krishnamurti was a philosopher, he described God as merciful. He believed life itself was God. But it seems that he was confused about God, I noticed his views is kindbeing Indian who heard about many gods. Is he the same as the Dalai Lama has different belief but has an enlightenment?

Krishnamurti did not ascribe to belief which he said is a denial of truth.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. …

 

[White_Tree]

Is he the same as the Dalai Lama has different belief but has an enlightenment?

Based on what I’ve read both about and by Krishnamurti, I think it’s safe to say he was enlightened in a manner similar to the way the Dalai Lama is enlightened, though I doubt Krishnamurti would make such a claim about himself.

With regards to @Vico’s comments about Krishnamurti eschewing belief, it’s worth looking at what he said:

Is belief necessary to find out [if there is a God]? To learn is far more important than to know. Learning about belief is the end of belief. When the mind is free of belief then it can look. It is belief, or disbelief, that binds; for disbelief and belief are the same: they are the opposite sides of the same coin. So we can completely put aside positive or negative belief; the believer and the non-believer are the same. When this actually takes place then the question, “Is there a god?” has quite a different meaning. The word god with all its tradition, its memory, its intellectual and sentimental connotations - all this is not god. The word is not the real. So can the mind be free of the word?

That’s only one quote. Krishnamurti said a lot about belief, though as a general characterization, Vico is right that he wasn’t a fan of it. But he also did not advocate disbelief.

Krishnamurti’s issue here is that both belief and disbelief condition the mind and prevent us from seeing and knowing what’s really there.

As he points out, what we believe to be “God” is actually just a collection of mental concepts. But none of these concepts are actually God.

And to truly know God, we must free ourselves from the shackles of those concepts in order to experience the reality of God apart from the conditioning of our own mind.

Many Catholics revere St. Thomas Aquinas for his Summa Theologica, which contains a lot of ideas and concepts about God. But he never completed it, because after he had his own mystical experience of God, he famously said, “All that I have written seems like straw to me,” and he ceased work on the Summa.

The Summa is one of the most influential works of Catholic theology in history. And yet, even its own author recognized its inadequacy after his own experience of Truth.

No one knows exactly what Aquinas experienced that caused him to turn his back on his entire life’s work. Most Catholic philosophy only incorporates the insights of pre-mystical Thomas. But the wisdom that he received in those last few months of his life should not be discounted.

If even St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest Catholic theologians of all time, could not capture God in his concepts, then Krishnamurti might be onto something.

 

[White_Tree]

And with regards to your question of whether Krishnamurti believed “life itself was God,” it’s difficult to know his meaning without reading the source.

Krishnamurti wrote many books and gave many lectures. I’m unfamiliar with the particular quote to which you’re referring, and the context in which it was written.

I will point out, about Krishnamurti, that his writings are often misinterpreted, even by his own followers. I remember a number of years back reading something that one of his followers had written in a book about Krishnamurti’s views on meditation, and then when I went back and read what Krishnamurti had actually said on the topic, it was completely the opposite of the way his follower’s book had characterized it. Though Krishnamurti’s point in that case was very subtle, and it was easy to see how someone could mistake it for having a different meaning.

So if you have a direct quote from him on the topic you’re interested in, that would be helpful.

 

[Vico]

Hi, I heard him recently, J. Krishnamurti was a philosopher, he described God as merciful. He believed life itself was God. But it seems that he was confused about God, I noticed his views is kindbeing Indian who heard about many gods. Is he the same as the Dalai Lama has different belief but has an enlightenment?

The Catholic receives benightment through the sacraments, a sharing in the divinity as adopted son.

Catechism on the Celebration of Baptism and the Sacrament of the Eucharist

1236 The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, which is inseparable from Baptism. Indeed Baptism is “the sacrament of faith” in a particular way, since it is the sacramental entry into the life of faith.

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith , which relies on divine authority.’ For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 (‘This is my body which is given for you.’), St. Cyril says: ‘Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.’"212

Contrast with Krishnamurti

Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any organisation, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, nor through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique.

 

[RL_Adducul]

And with regards to your question of whether Krishnamurti believed “life itself was God,” it’s difficult to know his meaning without reading the source.

Krishnamurti wrote many books and gave many lectures. I’m unfamiliar with the particular quote to which you’re referring, and the context in which it was written.

I will point out, about Krishnamurti, that his writings are often misinterpreted, even by his own followers. I remember a number of years back reading something that one of his followers had written in a book about Krishnamurti’s views on meditation, and then when I went back and read what Krishnamurti had actually said on the topic, it was completely the opposite of the way his follower’s book had characterized it. Though Krishnamurti’s point in that case was very subtle, and it was easy to see how someone could mistake it for having a different meaning.

So if you have a direct quote from him on the topic you’re interested in, that would be helpful.

One thing, would his teachings might misled us Catholics?

 

[White_Tree]

Depends on what you mean by “misled.”

As @Vico has pointed out, there are differences between Krishnamurti’s teachings and those of the Catholic Church.

At a very basic level, Catholicism is a set of beliefs, so much so that it is sometimes referred to as “the Faith.” An approach to spiritual development that eschews any kind of belief or other mental artifice is obviously going to have some differences with an alternative approach that is belief.

That said, is engaging with Krishnamurti’s ideas in a mature way going to mislead you? No. In fact, if you are interested in spiritual experience (as opposed to just believing in things you’ve never seen), then his advice could prove very helpful. Though, as I pointed out in my earlier post, he can be easy to misinterpret if you’re not careful.

Is it possible that in your quest for mystical experience that you discover there is a gap between that reality and Catholic theology? Well, St. Thomas Aquinas found that. It seems entirely possible that you might find that too. Is that being misled, if you discover on your journey that theology is somehow lacking? Some might say so. Whether you believe that is up to you.

I don’t think you should be afraid of seriously wrestling with ideas and teachings that could run contrary to your faith. It’s a mature thing to do. Your faith is shallow if you only have it because you refuse to learn about and seriously consider potentially contradictory ideas. That’s not real faith; that’s self-enforced ignorance.

If your quest for Truth leads you to discover that you were wrong, isn’t that something you would rather know? And if you discover that you were right, your faith will be that much stronger, because it will be founded upon your own experience and analysis, rather than simply ignorance of other approaches or ideas.

Krishnamurti had an incredible and deep wisdom, so much so that the people who raised him recognized the light in him even when he was just a small boy wandering at a distance from them on the beach. Even if you choose not to follow his path, you will likely learn a lot about yourself, and about God, by studying his teachings.

 

[mcq72]

Even if you choose not to follow his (Krishnamurti) path,

A previous post quoting him says, “truth is a pathless land.”

Is that indeed his quote or accurate summation?

 

[mcq72]

Is it possible that in your quest for mystical experience that you discover there is a gap between that reality and Catholic theology

Indeed, but what I experienced with only a brief encounter of his readings as a youth only heightened or made me aware of such a gap. He may have been good at “observations” of our “problem”, but really had no real soltution. Indeed a blind man can lead other blind men, but the more you realize you are blind does not necesarily mean you can now “see” (like just getting around better in the dark). Reminds me of those who avoid religion because of the hypocrisy of followers. Ok good, you are not a hypocrite in that regard but are you really any better off or freer?

In the end maybe he was what he tried to avoid being, another pied piper. Yet I am greatful to any pipers that show what is the vanity of life under the sun, else we would not
appreciate what is from above.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Is it possible that in your quest for mystical experience that you discover there is a gap between that reality and Catholic theology? Well, St. Thomas Aquinas found that.

St. Thomas found a gap between mystical experience and the rational understanding that he presented in his theology.
But what he never did and what no saints did (by the end of their life) was deny any of the defined doctrines of the Catholic Faith, in which he put his belief.
He found no gap between the dogmas of the Faith (which Krishnamurti is dismissing as an obstacle) and the mystical experience of God.
In fact, those dogmas lead us to God - they are not a hindrance. The resurrection of Christ, the dogma of the immortality of the soul, the existence of Heaven, Hell and Purgatory - these are all part of union with God. They are not unnecessary “extras” but essential truths that we must put our faith in. Faith is a virtue. We believe everything the Church teaches because God has revealed it (and God wants us to believe).

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Even if you choose not to follow his path, you will likely learn a lot about yourself, and about God, by studying his teachings.

It may be true. But I’d question that recommendation for anyone who has never read the writings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis de Sales, St. Bernard, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St Anselm, St. Bonaventure, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. John Vianney - as a start. The lives of all those saints and many more, the great interpreters of St. Thomas (Fr. Garrigou Lagrange). And if they haven’t read the diary of St. Faustina or the mystical writings of St. Catherine, St Gertrude, St. Mary Magdelene de Pazzi, the Cloud of Unknowing, St Anna Maria Taigi - and dozens more Catholic mystics.
I think Krishnamurti ranks pretty low on the list of those we should read to learn about God - and I’d say there is not enough time in one’s lifetime to fully get through all of the authentic spiritual teaching first.

 

[White_Tree]

A previous post quoting him says, “truth is a pathless land.”

Is that indeed his quote or accurate summation?

Correct. The word “path” might have been a poor choice of words on my part.

What I meant by “path” was to undertake the introspection, questioning, and mental examination he explains in his writings.

 

[White_Tree]

He may have been good at “observations” of our “problem”, but really had no real soltution. Indeed a blind man can lead other blind men, but the more you realize you are blind does not necesarily mean you can now “see” (like just getting around better in the dark). Reminds me of those who avoid religion because of the hypocrisy of followers. Ok good, you are not a hypocrite in that regard but are you really any better off or freer?

I have a friend who was in a spiritual study group with a woman who had previously been Krishnamurti’s girlfriend. Based on what I’ve heard second hand from her, Krishnamurti actually did know much more than he let on in terms of the solution to the problem, but did not speak or write about it publicly. Of course, that doesn’t really help those who can only read his public discourses.

As to why he chose to remain so reserved about what he knew, I can only speculate. I’ve seen some other teachers who mentioned that the traumatic experience of his upbringing might have “damaged” him, in the sense that he ended up delivering a lesser message than a soul of his caliber would have otherwise have been able to give.

I still think his writings are very useful, though I agree with you and @Bill_B_NY that there are other authors that might be more beneficial. However, if @RL_Adducul is feeling a draw towards Krishnamurti’s work, it’s possible there is something in there that he needs to see at this part of his journey. If a person is feeling a pull like that in their heart, I don’t think it’s something that should be suppressed. Often times, we are led to what we need to see at the time that we need it, and after it has served its purpose, we leave it behind.

 

[mcq72]

Correct. The word “path” might have been a poor choice of words on my part.

What I meant by “path” was to undertake the introspection, questioning, and mental examination he explains in his writings.

Thank you for your response.

The conundrum of whether " path" is the right word. Not sure I have him right but wouldn’t he say not be on a path is to be on a path?

I think it an unescapeable word. The early Christians were first known as people on the Way. It definitely was a path. That is they definity made a chose, knew where they were going and why. They saw truth in the experience of the spirit of Jesus Christ thru the Holy Ghost. Truth, the way, the path, was a person. Truth became a capital T. Word became a capital W.

So yes, Christ mentions a path, apart from other paths. One is wide and one is very narrow. One leads to destruction and well traveled, the other to life with few that do so.

Yet being born again, the beginning of the narrow path, is the like the wind, where we are not quite sure from whence it came or where it is going, but we see and hear it rustling the leaves on the trees. In that regard it is no path. Yet faith cometh by hearing, and that by the Word of God.( and “Salvation is of the Jews”, as He told the Samaritan women at the well).

All the introspection in the world is vain by itself. It can only reveal our desperate plight, our darkness of soul, and death in spirit, our guilt.

There is away that seems right unto a man, but the ways are those of death.
Vain are the attempts to muster any freedom from the dilemma. Any vestige of light that we have from within can only illuminate our desperate plight . Only by the grace of God do some then cry out for help, and find the originator of all true Light.

Such Light therefore comes from without, to rekindle gloriously the spirit and light within us. It is His light, His image in us. All else is vanity.

Indeed introspection is better than not, and humility better than pride, pride that dares not admit damage (missing the mark). Jesus did ask the apostles whom they thought He was. Apart from their magisterium, their rabbis and teachers and leaders, He asked for their personal opinion. These were ordinary people, fishermen and a tax collector, yet Christ dignifies them, as He does all mankind, and asks all, “Who do you say that I am?”. ( and note the answer did not come from within, but from without, from above, from the God the Father)

So introspection into self is an endless abyss. The greatest use of our faculties is to then reach up and out and face His question.

“Choose ye this day whom you will serve”, and seal your fate forever.

“Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom and knowledge , and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding”

Know yourself well enough to you know you need to know Him. Jesus, the only saving Christ.

That is my answer to the lost youth that I was back then meditating and reading Krishnamurti.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I still think his writings are very useful, though I agree with you and @Bill_B_NY that there are other authors that might be more beneficial.

You seem a little cautious about that. Reading the saints and great spiritual teachers of the Church “might” be more beneficial than reading someone who held false beliefs about God? For me, to neglect the teachers who proclaim the truth about God is an act of ingratitude and I would question why one would seek for the treasures of the Kingdom of God among those who do not possess them (and ignore those who do possess them).

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Know yourself well enough to you know you need to know Him. Jesus, the only saving Christ.

That is my answer to the lost youth that I was back then meditating and reading Krishnamurti.

In our culture today we don’t take enough pride (in the good sense of that word) in our heritage given by the Holy Church. We often think that meditating on the life of Christ is not an intellectually advanced activity. So, non-Catholic spiritual teachers gain our excitement and interest.
I think it’s been the same for a long time. Jesus Himself was ridiculed for not being intellectually advanced, and not having academic credentials. St. Augustine had the problem. He was embarrassed to see the Gospels since he was a great (in his own eyes) scholar.
Jesus teaches humility and He lived it.
We really don’t like that message. It hurts our pride. We want to be considered intellectual. We’re looking for validation from the world around us.
That’s the Cross. It’s hard to carry. But we have to renounce the praise and the pride of the world.

 

[mcq72]

That’s the Cross. It’s hard to carry. But we have to renounce the praise and the pride of the world.

Yes, thank you for your response.

Krishnamurti had a way of flipping things. So I am wondering if it was hard to be Krishnamurti, hard to be so intellectual, especially a renowned one. Like he was not free to be anything else. Now that is a cross to bear. Brings to mind an old Dillon song," Gotta serve somebody (the devil or the Lord)". Satan is a hard taskmaster. The Lord’s yolk is a yolk but restful and “easy” at the same time.

Again when one has been born again as an adult, the world’s intellectualism, even wisdom, is flipped on its head, seen as vanity, even counter to God’s wisdom. The new birth in Christ is at the expense of death of the old man, including his faith and wisdom and intellect. But yes, the new man must be on guard for any pride in the blessings and giftings of such a life in Christ, and never forget the original and continual death to self.

 

[White_Tree]

I think it an unescapeable word. The early Christians were first known as people on the Way. It definitely was a path.

You’re right. I think it’s worth looking at the quote in context here:

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 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 let 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 to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices.

So he’s definitely talking about a type of path there. He speaks of the need to ascend the mountain, pass through the valley, etc. But it’s not a path in terms of an organization or a structure of beliefs.

Personally, I half agree with him here.

We have a strong tendency to take our system of religious beliefs and mistake it for Truth. But when Jesus was asked, “What is truth?” He was silent (John 18:38). Our mental concepts, no matter how holy or noble they seem, are not Truth. Truth is not of the mind. It can be experienced, but not intellectualized. And yes, the experience of Truth can happen spontaneously, without the need for a path.

But where I disagree with him is that I don’t think it’s possible to dwell in the Truth, in a permanent way, without the guidance of some sort of path or religion. At least I’ve never heard of anyone in history who has been able to do so. Even Krishnamurti had a path, though it wasn’t something he discussed publicly, and I won’t get into the nature of it here, because it would be controversial and I don’t want to derail the discussion.

(Part 1 of 2)

 

[White_Tree]

As you said,

All the introspection in the world is vain by itself.

And I would agree. You can introspect for an entire lifetime, and not necessarily come any closer to Truth if you don’t have some sort of path to guide you.

Krishnamurti grew up with people practically worshiping him. They thought he was the promised World Teacher. And he (correctly) recognized that this worship, along with the organizations built up around him, were simply trapping his followers’ minds in boxes. And as long as their minds were imprisoned, they could never experience Truth. So he gave them a great blessing by trying to shatter their mental prisons (or at least, teach them how to shatter those prisons for themselves).

But there is a balance that must be struck. I know people with a lot of mystical experience but no intellectual culture, and they wind up making all sorts of errors. Though the far more common occurrence is people with a massive collection of beliefs and concepts, which they mistake for Truth, but no real experience of Truth whatsoever. And for those people, maybe a little dose of Krishnamurti might do them good. But to take that teaching on “pathlessness” too far will lead to its own types of problems.

(Part 2 of 2)

 

[White_Tree]

You seem a little cautious about that.

Yes, I am a little cautious about that. For two reasons.

First, I’m of the mindset that if a person feels drawn to something in their heart, then that is often indicative of something that they need. Different people need different types of spiritual food at different stages of their journey. As the Apostle tells us:

I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. – 1 Cor 3:2

So if a person is craving a certain type of spiritual food, then I am loath to say, “No, don’t eat that” unless I know it to be poisonous or absolutely worthless. Krishnamurti is hardly poisonous. Is he the best teacher you could find? Probably not. But his teachings do have value, and may be exactly what a particular person needs at a certain stage of their journey.

Secondly, even if someone is a saint, receiving their teachings at the wrong time could hinder rather than help.

I think part of the reason why religion is on the decline in much of the world is it is just a concept or belief for so many people. Try telling a mystic that there is no God. They’d laugh in your face. It’d be like saying “There’s no sun, and no earth.”

The reason why so many people doubt the existence of God, or are otherwise apathetic about religion, is that they have no experience of the things religion is teaching about. It’s just a fantasy for them. It’s a set of ideas. Maybe those ideas are comforting, or founded on Scripture and excellent philosophical reasoning. But it’s still just ideas.

The problem with ideas is they are unreliable. They are the shifting sands Jesus spoke of:

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. – Matthew 7:26-27

No matter how good your argument is, there will always be an equally good counterargument. If your faith is founded on nothing but intellectual concepts, which are subject to shift and change, then it will collapse like the house in the parable, which is exactly what we are witnessing in the world.

So for instance, the Summa is a very well-crafted text. It can be very useful for particular purposes. But in its final synthesis, it is a collection of intellectual concepts. So if someone with no experience of the Divine at all were to pick up that text and read through it, I am having a hard time seeing how it would do anything for them other than give them more concepts to bounce around in their mind. So for particular people, at a particular stage in their journey, that is not the text they should study. Such people should be studying something that will help them to reach an experience of the Divine, so that when they later go read about such things, they can draw a link between the concepts they study and their own experiential reality. Otherwise, it’s all just fantasy for them. And fantasies can fade away.