> Krishnamurti's teachings are based on scriptures such as Upanishads and Gita.

"the truth is a pathless land", what place does sacred scripture hold in JK's teaching? From everything I've read by him, none. Similarly for meditation practices, which he usually described as one of many ways to avoid the truth, there was a rejection of all (non)traditional means to awakening.

If anything JK's teaching is that of the Buddha: negate all ways and the truth appears.

As for contemporary teachers in the JK lineage, Ramana Maharashi actually precedes JK (with some overlap); otherwise I only know of Tolle and Mooji, the latter of which should not, IMO, be linked with JK, Maharshi or any other spiritual giant (attending one of his talks at his retreat center in Portugal felt more like a cult of personality than anything else).

> If anything JK's teaching is that of the Buddha: negate all ways and the truth appears.

Nagarjuna's doctrine applies. Every concept is inherently void. The meaningfulness that we find within concepts is a construction of our own [deluded] minds. The truth is what's left when we accept the inherent emptiness of things.

Mooji's teachings very much follow Ramana Maharshi's method of self-inquiry. That he has a cult-like following is an unfortunate side-effect. I have seen his videos and noticed that some of his "followers" worship him. This phenomena is not surprising. Teachers of philosophy, devotion etc. are often surrounded by parasite-like followers who pay very little attention to teaching and practicing it in their lives. Their focus is mostly to hang around the teacher and hope for a miracle to happen.

While it's not my cup of tea, some people seem to benefit from the path of devotion.

Not only he decided to be against the "gurus", he was explicitly against every religion too.

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-krishnamurti/dissolution-...

"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."

"Again, you have the idea that only certain people hold the key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one holds it. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of Eternity."

Note the context -- he was himself "chosen" to be "the guru" as he was 16(!) and he recognized the absurdity of it as he was 32:

"The Order of the Star in the East was founded in 1911 to proclaim the coming of the World Teacher. Krishnamurti was made Head of the Order. On August 3, 1929, the opening day of the annual Star Camp at Ommen, Holland, Krishnamurti dissolved the Order before 3000 members."

( The film of him reading the speech then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYnxRYAHmEs&t=11s )

The teachings of the Order in which he was raised weren't "Upanishads and Gita" but the "Doctrine" of Madam Blavatsky:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Star_in_the_East

"One of the central tenets of late 19th-century Theosophy as promoted by the Theosophical Society was the complex doctrine of intelligent evolution of all existence. This was said to be occurring on a Cosmic scale, incorporating both physical and non-physical aspects of the known and unknown Universe, and affecting all of its constituent parts regardless of apparent size or importance. The theory was originally promulgated in the Secret Doctrine (published 1888), a book by Helena Blavatsky, one of the founders of contemporary Theosophy and the Theosophical Society."

Edit: Upanishads have, unsurprisingly, many more different teachings than what "tech_browser" wrote below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads

They are huge and with a lot of stories, a random sample is here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15075.htm

Most religions claim that God is a person and maintain that God created the universe, thereby making God and the universe two separate entities. Further, religion and philosophy are also mixed up. "God in heaven", "Good actions give heaven and bad ones yield hell" etc. are some statements that we often hear.

The distinguishing teaching about the Upanishads is that 1. God is not a person 2. The universe, as we perceive, is an illusion and its underlying reality is God 3. The individual (a person like you and me), is not just a collection of bones, muscles and tissue. Neither is the individual his/her mind. The true-nature of an individual is the indestructible Self. 4. The individual Self and God are one and the same.

There's no such teaching like this in the world. It blows my mind as I read and contemplate on the verses that talk about it. There are several saints who have realized this truth and their position on the issue of God, individual and world are identical to what the Upanishads teach.

IMHO A person who has put to test the teachings of the Upanishadic in his/her own life, and lives by its vision is a real teacher.

THIS. Everything that you have said here, I completely believe in that too. If one observes the world and tries to find a pattern in it, the findings will align with this theory. Would you please share in which teachings exactly did you read about this. I mean specifically about the one where they state that God is the universe itself and not a person who is different from it. Was it the Upanishads? Is there some specific book or source ? Thanks for your input.

There's not a specific book where this information is laid out. I'll write what I know and can refer to source if you have questions. At the outset, I'd like to mention that there are dualistic (dvaita), non-dualistic(advaita) and qualified non-dualistic (vishishta-advaita) interpretations of the Upanishads. As a follower of advaita, I clearly see from texts that non-duality is what these scriptures teach.

The Mandukya Upanishad talks about "ajata-vada", ie the argument that nothing is ever born. Its teaching is very close to buddhist philosophy.

The Mundaka Upanishad talks about the creation being God itself. A famous mantra quotes an example of a spider which is not only the efficient but also the material cause of the webs that it spins.

Chandogya Upanishad chapter 6 has the "maha-vakya" i.e. great statement "tat-tvam-asi" - thou art that.

Of course, reading a translation will not be sufficient to understand the depth of this text. These texts are usually expounded by scholars who are steeped in the tradition of studying and understanding them. For advaita (non-dualistic) philosphy, the master-commentator Shankaracharya has written brief commentaries on all the Upanishads. Their translations are available in English, but like I said earlier, a mere reading of them may not bring about the desired affect of "oh my god this is so awesome".

This is very useful information. Thank You for answering.

You may find the extended lore of the Elder Scrolls games, of all things, to be interesting in relation to this subject. There's a lot of philosophical prodding at the idea of "world and identity as illusion", and at the nature of characters in fiction, and the ways those two concepts interrelate.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:CHIM

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:The_Monomyth

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Spirit_of_Nirn,_God_of_Mortals

It's ultimately not all that deep, but I'm fairly sure it's the only top-selling mass-market video game series to touch on the concept in even that much depth.

Wow, thanks you!

On the surface, this appears to be the same 'religious system' my wife and I have come to embrace over the past decade or so.

We will be reading into this a good bit more.

>"There are supplementary texts that also discuss the approaches to attain it."

The more interesting question is, why are you trying to attain it? What is it that makes people seek enlightenment?

The initial impetus is not really important. It may have been something as trivial as a book, or a friend, or somebody on TV. People start all sorts of pursuits for all sorts of silly reasons, and usually end up abandoning them for the next-best-thing to come along. Promises of a better life ("the end of suffering!") are tempting to the unfortunate and downtrodden.

A better question to ask is what _keeps_ people dedicated to this quest? And of course I mean the ones who end up fulfilling it or getting close.

Once you see you can't unsee. Once these practices (that are numerous and not constrained to the East) are followed, things happen. You catch glimpses of the absolute. Mystical experiences and synchronicities become common. The intuitive aspect of yourself comes to the foreground and it's the one that drives this process. One gets all the validation one needs, not from teachers or gurus, but by direct experiential knowledge.

Once on that path, it's hard for someone to turn back. He'd have to delude himself by repeating lies often enough that he'd come to believe them (what are beliefs but thoughts you keep having?).

>"One gets all the validation one needs, not from teachers or gurus, but by direct experiential knowledge."

Sure, I have no problem with that. However, if you let your past experiences define who you are, it'll always limit you, even if your past experiences include 'glimpses of the absolute'.

Simply put, the most common mode of human existence is that of a storyteller. If you see connections between event A and event B you're telling a story. There's no harm in that, it's a natural part of who we are. Of course there are moments where the self fades and the story has less of a structured narrative, but we still find ways to tie it together.

I like to ask myself this, if someone achieves enlightenment, what do they do with the rest of their life? Are they going to spend their time maximising their new found connection to their senses? What gives pleasure to someone who minimises personal attachment?

I couldn't say since I'm not living with that realization.

Here are the words of someone who does: http://biroco.com/journal.htm

This is a goof example of what I was referring to...

>"Push the details of life back into the mist and just sit with knowing that 'I am'. Why's that of any great interest? I'll tell you why. Because I didn't know I was, and then I did, and that amazing fact is somewhat skirted over being concerned about anything else."

This is the storyteller considering that 'I am God' makes everything else seem trivial in comparison. Why would you do ordinary human things when you see yourself as a God?

Ultimately it just seems like a waste of time to me, to deny yourself the richness of external experience just to trip on the magnificence of your self-image.

Why bifurcate into the position, all things are god, or the converse position, no things are god, Storytelling, Truth, Falsity. Even after the most profound proof realized, you stop to get a drink of water.

My point is, so called enlightenment does not necessarily lead people to living a richer life. Paradoxically, even though enlightenment is meant to remove burdens, some "enlightened" people treat it as a burden in its own right, even though they wouldn't necessarily admit this.

The answer is simple. A human's life remains unfulfilled regardless of his material gains such as wealth and pleasures. The fear of oldage, death and disease looms large and so does the uncertainty of the future. If one were to examine the world objectively, one would find that whatever I've mentioned above is seen aplenty.

The entirety of a human's life is based on the notion I-am-the-body-and-the-mind. If one were to discover one's true nature and shed these limitations, eternal happiness and peace follow. The path to learning this is fraught with difficulties. The biggest obstacle is to learn things differently from what we already know. A cursory reading of books isn't sufficient. This is where the Upanishads and Gita stand out in comparison to other texts on philosophy. Not only do they describe in great detail the true nature of the Self, but also prescribe many practices on reaching the goal.

There's every reason to pursue Self-realization or enlightenment as the only worthy goal of life. Such a goal never comes in one's way of being employed, raising a family etc.

>"There's every reason to pursue Self-realization or enlightenment as the only worthy goal of life. Such a goal never comes in one's way of being employed, raising a family etc."

What if the only way to understand it was to not pursue it?

You are right. To beginners, self-realization is pointed as a goal worthy of pursuit. As one treads along this path, one realizes that nothing new is to be pursued or attained. If the Self were attainable as an object with the passage of time (and some exertion), it is not a worthy goal since everything within the realm of time will perish. The Self is ever-realized. One only needs to forego incorrect notions and predilections for the Self to manifest in all its glory. This is the method recommended by many teachers of non-duality to know the Self. In fact, there is nothing akin to knowing the Self, for it would then become an object and the division of seer-seen will again appear. To know the Self is to Be the Self.

Then why is it necessary to follow this or that belief system to get to something so obvious? Why is it necessary to read up on this school of thought or another when the only thing they can teach you is they have nothing to teach you?

Because there's a difference between intellectual understanding of the Self or non-dualism as a concept, and actually manifesting that "truth" by living it. Or as someone once wrote: Philosophical truths are transmitted through "praxis", not like pieces of eight. You've spent years conditioned to think a certain way, decades building that self-model you call "you". These associations will not be destroyed easily, just by someone saying so.

The Hindu/Vedantic systems emphasize self-enquiry and the importance of having a teacher guide you, which may look like pushing belief systems to outsiders, but it's really a process.

The western mystical tradition is more explicit in how important process/techniques are rather than dogma.

Let's put it like this. The main benefits of self-inquiry are not tied to one school of thought. To observe the change in ones thoughts and senses with equanimity does not require anything from old scriptures.

The reason Hindu/Vedantic systems and other systems of spirituality have extra merit is not in what they teach per se, but in the sense of pleasure we get from their poetic expression, and from feeling connected to other practitioners.

That's not to say schools of spirituality have no merit, they do have merit as a social construct, but in terms of self-exploration all you really need is the basic technique and some time to do it.

Well said.

There is no need. Note that every person has a different conditioning of the mind and not everyone reacts in the same manner to a philosophical statement. Consider several pieces of firewood, each with a varying degree of dryness. Each of them will react differently when ignited with a spark.

The process of understanding the Self requires a teacher, at least in the beginning stages. There are exceptions to the norm, as always. Ultimately, an individual is best equipped to decide what's best for him. Contemplation on the wise sayings of seers may be suitable for some, whereas studying scriptures under a teacher and practicing austerity might be appealing to others.

>"The process of understanding the Self requires a teacher, at least in the beginning stages."

My question is, why? What does the student gain from this when the path is one of self-study?

How else would a person learn or hear about the Self? It is not a solid thing that can be perceived by the senses. Neither is it as abstract as nothingness. It is one's real nature and the source of the notion "I am". Further, it is that which makes it possible for the mind and senses to function.

You may argue that all this information can be gleaned by reading a book. At best, this will remain in the realm of theoretical knowledge. Only a person who has treaded along this path can offer some insights into what the Self is and how it may be realized. If you don't like to label this person as a teacher/preceptor, feel free to give him any other name you like.

To tell a person that he's the body and mind requires no knowledge. Further, such ignorance is well established in every individual. The knowledge of the Self is something a person has to discover after being introduced to it via some medium.

a Buddhist would say that just in the same way that a rock evolves into a human, a human evolves into a Buddha.

In the sense that a rock remains a rock, and a human remains a human.

Does the direct answer gets someone to the truth just as easily as speaking in riddles?

I believe only Chinese Chan (which evolved in to Japanese Zen, and similar Korean and Vietnamese traditions) uses the dramatic "mental conundrum provides sudden enlightenment" approach. The rest of Buddhism apparently generally considers needlessly verbose or obtuse speech to be unskilled and counter to progress. Indeed, it could be argued that speech - with some exceptions - is generally discouraged.

Indeed, it could be argued that speech - with some exceptions - is generally discouraged.

This is inline with the absolution of the self... If Buddhism believes that the self doesn't exist it's hard to use language that directly engages with the idea of self (subject).

>Krishnamurti's teachings are based on scriptures such as Upanishads and Gita.

I am curious why you say this?

Some of his teachings are indeed present in the Upanishads. Especially, his statements about the Self, happiness etc. all do exist in Indian Scriptures. He was a maverick philosopher that shunned the traditional system of teaching.

Sure but that doesn't mean they were "based on ", i was mostly curious about that part.

afaik, they were just based on a pure common sense not based on Hinduism/Buddhism etc. There is a video on youtube of him talking to some Buddhist scholars where he goes into this.

Unfortunately this common misconception of miscategorizing him as "hindu guru" which instantly turns off most westerners, stopping him from gaining much wider acceptance.