(This
article was written by Alsibar, who has studied spiritual guides
extensively, and the original text in Portuguese can be read at this link.)
While
browsing the internet, I was surprised to find a blog with a text
entitled: "Jiddu Krishnamurti and Theosophy: the avatar that proposes
the deficient functioning of the brain."
Why
would anyone write this? Is it an extreme intention to distort what
Krishnamurti said, or simply a misunderstanding on the part of the
article's author?
The
great Indian mystic and thinker, wherever he may be, must be
disheartened to realize that despite so many testimonies to his
teachings, there is still room for misrepresentation of what he taught.
Krishnamurti
never asserted that the brain "doesn't work." That would be absurd.
Nonsense. And in fact, Krishnamurti stated the exact opposite. According
to his view, we only use a small part of our brain. The other part
doesn't manifest itself due to the limitations imposed by reactive
memory, thoughts, and conditioning.
I
don't need to quote any of his claims to support this. Anyone who wants
to can go directly to the source. There are several websites, books,
blogs, and even videos where a sincere researcher can draw their own
conclusions.
Krishnamurti's
teachings do not differ from those of other great enlightened beings,
not even from Krishna's own teachings in the Bhagavad-Gita. For
Krishnamurti, reactive and automatic thinking must cease completely;
only then is true understanding and perception possible. And this does
not occur through thought itself, which would be contradictory. It is
good to remember that thoughts are not the mind. They are only a part of
it, a small part.
He
further stated that only in silence, space, and tranquility can the
Unknown, Truth, or God manifest. The essence of this position is no
different from that of other great enlightened beings. Silence is a
necessary condition for the elevation of consciousness; this has been
unanimously accepted from Buddha to Babaji. But does this mean I should
never think again? Not at all.
The
key lies in learning to put things in their proper place. Krishnamurti
clarifies that thinking is fundamental to everyday technical tasks. For
example, for teaching mathematics, physics, history, building a bridge, a
computer, remembering, reasoning, reflecting, and so on.
However,
the problem arises when thought attempts to transcend itself: toward
the Sacred, the Timeless. And that is impossible because, by definition,
the limited can only operate within its own sphere of limitation. In
turn, the Unlimited only manifests when the mind is in a state of
complete peace, tranquility, and silence. In that state, characteristic
of meditation, there is only a feeling of freedom and boundless space.
And it is there that the Unknown can emerge.
I
am amazed by humanity's capacity to destroy the sacred and distort the
truth. The other day, I saw a discussion on a forum on the official
website of the institution that represents Krishnamurti in Brazil.
They
were debating whether or not Krishnamurti believed in reincarnation.
The group was divided. Some members argued that Krishnamurti did believe
in reincarnation and, to prove it, they quoted Krishnamurti's sayings.
Others disagreed and used other words of Krishnamurti to support that opposing thesis.
What
surprises me is that Krishnamurti left this world only a few years ago.
Everything he said is recorded, so how can there be so much controversy
surrounding his teachings?
Imagine,
then, what happened to Jesus, Buddha, and so many others in an era
limited to oral tradition, passed down by memory, where there were
almost no written records.
For
me, such discussions are childish and unfounded. We don't need to
debate what Krishnamurti did or didn't stand for. That's something
fundamentalists do. But neither can we make absurd claims about someone
who was one of the most important Enlightenment figures of the 20th
century.
His
contribution to the development of human perception, spirituality, and
self-realization is undeniable and invaluable. Let's do our part. Let's
investigate whether what he said was true or not. The Truth is within
everyone's reach.
It's
relatively easy to spend hours discussing Krishnamurti's words. The
difficult part is achieving that state of independence and freedom he
described. Unfortunately, it seems few are willing to embrace and live
that "ideal" in which each person becomes a light unto themselves.
I
will not cite the website for purely ethical reasons. Nor do I want to
repeat the mistake of some blogs that do not publish opposing opinions.
This is a very undemocratic stance, typical of mediocre and insecure
minds that do not accept discussion or debate. This kind of attitude is
common, but it still saddens and outrages us.
Therefore,
now that I have created my own space for debate, I take this
opportunity to defend a man who dedicated his entire life to the
spiritual awakening of humanity. Krishnamurti never said that the brain
should not function; otherwise, he would not be a sage, but a fool.
No comments:
Post a Comment