APPROACH TO KRISHNAMURTI'S TEACHING

(This article was written by Alsibar, who has studied spiritual guides extensively, and the original text in Portuguese can be read at this link.)

Introduction

One of Krishnamurti's most remarkable characteristics is undoubtedly his approach to Dharma, or Universal Truth.

The originality and depth of his vision, along with his revolutionary approach, made him one of the greatest, if not the greatest, religious iconoclasts of recent times.

A unique personality in the history of human spirituality, this sage was considered the benchmark of a new era in the evolution of humanity's spiritual consciousness.

Krishnamurti was considered complex even by those who lived with him. But in fact, after a deeper and more serene analysis, we realize that he might be exactly the opposite.

The problem lies, perhaps, in our resistance. Breaking with beliefs deeply rooted in our psyche, the result of years of conditioning and alienating education, is no easy task.

In other words, we are complex beings and therefore have great difficulty understanding the simple. After all, freeing ourselves from these complex, powerful, and intricate psychosocial structures requires a great deal of dedication, seriousness, and energy that we often lack.

Some consider Krishnamurti repetitive and evasive, but the truth is that he expressed himself from the perspective of the moment, reflecting on the subject as if it were the first time. In this way, he wasn't trying to recall what he had said in the past; on the contrary, he was developing a new line of reasoning.

While he himself claimed that the essence of his message hadn't changed over time, I believe there was a significant shift in language and approach. One only needs to compare his books throughout his career to see the differences.

It is possible to perceive some very distinct phases: before the Order of the Eastern Star; after the break; the first years after the break; the process of maturation of his language; the use of a more verbose and elaborate oratory, which culminates in his last phase where he returns to a simpler, more concise, precise and objective language.

Far from a profound change in meaning, these changes only affected superficial and peripheral aspects, such as alterations in emphasis and angles, the adjustment of some expressions and terms, the abandonment of some orientations that seemed inaccurate or difficult to understand, etc.

Why did Krishnamurti sometimes seem evasive?

Let us remember that Krishnamurti's main mission was to contribute to the liberation of human consciousness. A far from easy task, given the complexity and difficulties of the mind, eager for quick and easy answers.

The questions he was asked were generally within the realm of beliefs, and Krishnamurti refused to answer them in a simplistic or straightforward way. He usually considered such questions to be "incorrect." And incorrect questions lead to incorrect answers, he used to say.

More important than discussing "the sex of angels," Krishnamurti led the reader to confront his own inquisitive mind.

The second step would be the transcendence of that mind, so that there would be no more questions, but only a great silence and tranquility.

In his speeches he used to say that the important thing is not to know if God, reincarnation, life after death, etc., exist, but if we can free ourselves from psychological suffering and find the liberating Truth.

This attitude was very similar to that of Buddha, who also avoided answering metaphysical questions.

Krishnamurti is also seen as a wise man without great appeal to those eager for the "miraculous" or the "fantastic." He rarely cited or demonstrated extrasensory powers and perceptions. It's not that he didn't possess them; numerous accounts of healings and fantastic experiences attributed to him exist. However, he maintained that this was not his mission.

Krishnamurti prioritized the message of pure and simple liberation. Even so, he did not fail to recognize the existence of the miraculous, even mentioning it on some occasions, as in the book "Our Inner Light," where he stated: "There are various forms of sensory and extrasensory perception. Clairvoyance, healing processes, all of that happens, but they are secondary factors, because the mind truly concerned with discovering the Truth never addresses them."

~ * ~

Throughout this text, we will not explain Krishnamurti's teachings but rather reflect on the characteristics of his approach, based on his most famous sayings, trying to understand why he exerted such a strong influence on a whole generation of seekers, thinkers, sages, scientists, educators, mystics, and people in general.

'Truth is a pathless land'

Krishnamurti, in his speech that distanced him from the Star of the East, set the tone of rebellion that would become his hallmark for the rest of his life: "I maintain that truth is a pathless land."

By making such an original statement, Krishnamurti broke not only with his former followers, but also with an entire millennia-old tradition that claimed there was only one path, or several, to Truth.

To say that there are no paths to Truth sounds, at first glance, shocking and enigmatic. What did he really mean by that? Did he say that there is no path, no route to the Unknown?

Yes, exactly, and he remained true to this premise throughout his long life.

By asserting that there are no paths to Truth, Krishnamurti dealt a decisive blow to all religions and gurus who claim otherwise. They all claim to have, be, or know the path to Truth or God, yet this is one of the main instruments of exploitation and domination.

With one stroke, Krishnamurti freed humanity from the cruel and arduous struggle many undertake in their quest for liberation. He also demolished the foundations of most religious, esoteric, and spiritual organizations that claim to be the only ones authorized to teach the true path to heaven.

But Christians might ask: Didn't Jesus claim to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life?

Going beyond the scope of this article, but without wanting to further confuse readers, especially beginners, I state: this statement is true, but throughout the centuries it has been Machiavellianly manipulated by the multitude of Christian religions and sects.

When Christ says that He is the Way, He is not referring to His historical persona as Jesus, but to the Universal Christ Consciousness, the Universal and Timeless Truth, Brahman, that dwells in all of us.

Remember Luke 17:21, which states, “The Kingdom of God is within you.” Therefore, this Truth, or Kingdom of God, is the same as what Krishnamurti called the Unknown, the Timeless, the Unthinkable; they are just different names and nothing more.

'The first step is the last step'

How can the first step be the last? We simply don't see the point of that statement. Our minds aren't accustomed to movements that aren't linear, progressive, and temporal. But the premises are interconnected, because if there are no paths to Truth, there's no way to walk toward it.

The first step is understanding this. There is no way to go to God because, in truth, He is not distant, like a fixed goal to be reached in time and space. It is our thoughts and our illusion of separation that keep us away from the Truth or from God.

But this separation simply doesn't exist. It's an illusion. And if it's an illusion, the first step is to understand that. If there isn't a seeker separate from the object sought, then you're not walking in any direction. You're no longer even searching because you realize that Truth has always been here now, in you and in all that "is."

'There is no way, no method, no system'

Some people never fully understood why questions about "how" were never answered.

How can I free myself? How can I stop my thoughts? How can I overcome my fears? How can I improve?, etc.

Krishnamurti always insisted that "There is no 'how', there is nothing to do, just passively perceive the fact and become aware of it."

I confess that I came to doubt Krishnamurti's approach and for a long time remained suspicious, wondering if that "how" really didn't exist. But I finally understood that it doesn't.

Krishnamurti used to say that the demand for a method or practice can only keep you trapped in the known, preventing the manifestation of the unknown. Now, if there are no paths and no seeker, how can there be a "how"?

This has been said by other enlightened masters of the past, but never with as much emphasis as Krishnamurti.

An overview of Zen Buddhism and Taoism in their oldest, purest, and most original forms can give us some clues. Let's take two basic concepts from these two spiritual movements: Wu-wei (action through non-action) from Taoists and Zazen (sitting without doing anything) from Zen Buddhists.

Ultimately, what are these two concepts if not inaction and lack of method? If there is nowhere to go, no one to turn to, and nothing to achieve, then we stop and rest in our being, doing nothing.

In Christianity, this amounts to "surrendering to the Father's will" and letting Him act in our lives.

The difference lies in the fact that Krishnamurti uses different words and expressions, but in essence, it's the same. If we stop doing, practicing, or following methods and systems, we stop feeding the ego. Whoever practices or follows something has something in mind; however, liberation only comes when we die to all desires of "being, not being, or becoming." If there is nowhere to go, no one to turn to, and nothing to achieve, where does the "how" fit in?

'Thought creates the thinker, not the other way around'

Krishnamurti repeats this phrase several times and in various ways. To say that "the thinker is the thought" is equivalent to saying that "the controller is the controlled," that "the observer is the observed," or that "the experience is the experiencer."

This understanding, rarely shared by gurus, sheds new light on humanity and its eternal inner conflict. This conflict has so profoundly marked humankind that in certain eras it even influenced art, such as the Baroque period.

In other words, conflict was so common that it came to be considered natural. No one questioned it, as if it were inherent to the human condition.

Krishnamurti broke this paradigm and established a profoundly illuminating vision: why is there conflict if the one who controls is the one who is controlled?

There is no reason to struggle to control thoughts, because "the thinker" is thought itself. By dividing oneself between "thinker" and "thought," an internal war is waged. Krishnamurti understood that this is a trap of the mind, a flawed and exhausting process. When we understand that "there are only thoughts," the conflict immediately ceases.

But who would benefit from maintaining such a conflict?

It seems to me that this eternal internal struggle served the purposes of oppressive individuals and organizations (and continues to do so today). However, everything that is divided is weak. Jesus said that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Imagine humanity divided against itself. Crushed by the pain of conflict, it would be easily manipulated and exploited.

But Krishnamurti warned us: the suffering resulting from conflict is not a necessary condition for perceiving Truth. On the contrary, it is an impediment, an obstacle. A conflicted mind is a confused mind; a confused mind lacks the clarity to see Truth. Therefore, the first step is to free oneself from the confusion in which one finds oneself. 

Conflict, therefore, is just another illusion of the Matrix, of the Ego. If the one who controls is the one being controlled, it's as if the person were fighting against their own shadow. Or as if both hands were fighting against themselves. It's a deceptive division, forged over centuries by the ignorant. A perverse process that maintains the illusion that humanity is progressing when, in reality, it is stagnating.

Conservative spiritual leaders say, “You’re not trying hard enough. Be strong! Fight harder, push yourself harder, don’t give up!” And the harder you fight, the more energy you waste and the weaker you become. You walk in circles, getting nowhere. What more comfortable situation could there be for Maya (Illusion), or, as Christians would say, for Satan?

'Knowledge is an obstacle'

Many people do not understand when Krishnamurti states that knowledge is an obstacle to understanding the Truth.

Traditionalist religious groups, so attached to their sacred texts and traditions, vehemently criticize this stance. This is not surprising, since these texts and traditions are the pillars upon which their organizations and power rest. What would become of the various Christian sects and religions without the radical appreciation and defense of their sacred texts?

It's not that they should be despised. That's not it. But we can't confuse "the moon with the finger pointing at it," as Zen says. Books are important insofar as they inform us about history, science, current events, general knowledge, records, etc., but NEVER as the TRUTH because we must never confuse the means with the end.

Of course, to learn about Krishnamurti, Buddha, and Christ we need books, but books cannot reveal the Truth to us, for it resides within us.

Buddha used to say, "Use the boat to cross the river, then abandon it; it is foolish to carry it or cling to it." The same is true of knowledge. It helps us understand where Truth resides, but we can only find it after abandoning it, by transcending the level of words and concepts.

This does not mean that a person forgets everything they have learned, as if suffering from amnesia. It simply means knowing that knowledge has its place in the performance of specific tasks, but it can never be used as a means to understand or perceive Truth—which is always new and unrecognizable—because, as Krishnamurti said, "If it were recognizable, it would not be Truth."

Reality, God, must always be something new, alive, never before experienced. Therefore, the level of words, concepts, and dead experiences must be transcended.

'Psychological time is an illusion'

Another misunderstood aspect of Krishnamurti's approach is his claim that psychological time is an illusion. But what did Krishnamurti mean by psychological time?

It's simply the time it takes to transform who you are into who you want to be. We're so used to thinking in terms of change that we firmly believe this process is natural and necessary. Now, the transformation of physical and chemical processes does require time. The question is: does the process of psychological mutation follow the same patterns as the physical one?

The answer is obviously no. And that's where Krishnamurti emerges, once again, as a great iconoclast, dismantling dominant paradigms and beliefs. All religions, with rare exceptions, insist that we must improve, that we must be more loving, kinder, more this, more that.

But Krishnamurti understood that the process of "more" is, in fact, an aspect of strengthening the ego. Being better, more loving, more charitable, kinder, less violent, less jealous, etc., only perpetuates and revitalizes the illusory entity created by thought.

The ego camouflages itself under the guise of kindness and respectability, and consequently feels no need to awaken from its slumber. Thus, from this perspective, we see that the process of "more" or "less" is essentially a selfish activity. The ego perpetuates and strengthens itself as it becomes increasingly virtuous and respectable.

This does not mean that a person should become evil, cruel, or greedy. Krishnamurti argues that there is a state of virtue and goodness that lies beyond the poisonous dominion of the ego, and that this can only be found in the extinction of the ego.

Thus, every desire to be, to become, not to be, or to become, remains the EGO. Changes made at this level are superficial. However, we know that in some cases certain changes are necessary for harmonious social coexistence. The individual adapts to the moral and social standards of society, becoming a better, more productive, and respectable citizen, but what happens then?

This is what psychologists call normosis: "sickly normality." We must transcend this level of normosis. Society is neurotic, sick, and fragmented in its perpetual conflict. The striving for "more" only fuels the illusion of the Matrix, while neurosis takes hold of society.

Finally, I want to say that transformation, according to Krishnamurti, does exist, but it doesn't happen over time or through the desire for more or less. Only through the extinction of the ego's power can true transformation occur; otherwise, the center will remain. And if the ego maintains control, then the mutation is superficial and illusory. It is not a true transformation, but simply a "modified continuity of what is."

'Atman is an invention of the mind'

Another controversial stance of Krishnamurti was the denial of the existence of the Atman or Soul, which shocked Hindu and Christian conservatives.

In Hindu tradition, the human being is divided into the "Higher Self," also called Atman or Soul, and the "Lower Self," also called ego or false self. The problem lies in the fact that, throughout the centuries, humanity has increasingly identified with the Higher Self. And thus, in considering itself the higher self, it has forgotten the need to "kill" the power of the ego.

Now, if I am already the "I AM," why should I worry? Why should I meditate? Why should I seek my liberation?

However, a simple reflection is enough to realize the error: who says to himself "I am the Higher Self" if not the ego itself?

If the Atman truly exists, it can only be something beyond thought; so how can I know for sure who it is if I don't first overcome, transcend the level of the "thinker" (ego)?

At this point, Krishnamurti employs extreme wisdom and subtlety. He does not categorically affirm the existence of the Atman or Higher Self, but he always said that by freeing oneself from desire, time, and thought (EGO), the Unknown, the Eternal, and the Timeless could manifest.

Jesus said the same thing using other metaphors: "unless you die, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

I'm not claiming that Krishnamurti preached the existence of the Atman, not at all. Because that would just be another belief, a source of discord and opinions. But if we replace the word Timeless or Unknown with Atman, it amounts to the same thing. A simple matter of terminology.

Traditionally, gurus and religions claim that we are divine (in the Upanishads it is written "Aham brahmasmi" which means "I am God") but that we do not realize it because of our illusions and ego.

Krishnamurti says the same thing, only he subverts the order of things. For him, we are EGO (thought, time, memory, and desire); and it is in the cessation of this that the Eternal can manifest. The difference lies in the fact that Krishnamurti doesn't name this "something." He doesn't call it the "Higher Self." But these are simply different terms for the same phenomenon.

In other words, you can tell a caterpillar that it's not a larva, but a potential butterfly. Or you can tell the caterpillar that it's a larva and that only when the larva dies will the butterfly emerge.

The caterpillar ego will never meet the butterfly ego; only when one dies will the other be born. The problem is that, generally, we want to find God or Truth while remaining the ego we are.

But the limited ego can never find the unlimited Atman; only with the cessation of one does the other manifest. Now, the name given to this divine something—divine spark, soul, God, Truth, Unknown, Timeless, Eternal—is not very important.

'Freedom is at the beginning, not at the end'

Traditionally, liberation, or Moksha, is considered the culmination of a long and arduous process. It is the result of a difficult and thorny task in which the seeker, after years of effort, discipline, and struggle, can finally enjoy liberation, or Nirvana.

But from Krishnamurti's perspective, liberation begins with understanding what is false and what is true. Therefore, it would be a waste of time and energy, and a grave mistake, to postpone liberation until the future.

Liberation is not the end result of a long process. Lest some beginners think Krishnamurti was crazy, this statement fully aligns with the position of many Zen Buddhist patriarchs. For them, we are already Buddhas; what we lack is the awareness of this fact. Now, why leave liberation from false concepts until the end when we can liberate ourselves now, in the here and now?

This, therefore, is another fallacy created by religious organizations and cunning gurus. Claiming that liberation will only be achieved in the future after many years of dedication and effort establishes a power structure that facilitates the control of the masses, guaranteeing the establishment, maintenance, and continuity of the dominance of religious traditions.

Krishnamurti invites us to liberation from the very beginning; perhaps that's why so many people are frightened by his revolutionary approach, because many fear the responsibility that comes with freedom. But our own reasoning tells us that it really makes no sense to use the wrong means to achieve the right ends.

Wrong means lead to wrong ends, right means lead to right ends; and for Krishnamurti, the means themselves are the end. That is, if I begin my journey based on erroneous premises, I cannot "arrive" at the right place. If I realize that my entire belief structure about Truth is flawed, I free myself from it. This very realization liberates me from errors and mistakes.

Freedom can only arise from the very beginning, because I cannot start building a house incorrectly. I must, from the beginning, do the right thing; only then can my house be built correctly. If I am free at the beginning, I will also be free in the middle and at the end.

Conclusion

Krishnamurti's originality lies not in the essence of his teachings—which is the same as that of all great avatars and enlightened beings—but in the original, unique, and personal way in which he addressed topics poorly understood by humanity.

For example, Mount Everest is so vast that it can be discussed in many ways, various aspects can be described, but it will be very difficult to faithfully depict its full immensity and richness. Some will try to describe it from above, others from below, or from the side, or they will focus on lesser-known aspects. But it will always be the same Everest.

The same applies to Dharma, the Universal Truth. The various perspectives that exist regarding it are aspects, characteristics, or facets of the same and only Truth, which, being so vast and broad in its multiple aspects, allows for diverse visions, versions, and perceptions.

Furthermore, due to the complexity and heterogeneity of the human species, with its countless differences, levels of development and vision, God, by His infinite and unknowable nature, manifests His message in diverse eras, cultures and peoples to reach the greatest possible number of people, helping them to free themselves from the illusion of the ego and from suffering.

Krishna stated in the Bhagavad-Gita that He manifests Himself to the world whenever and wherever there is a decline in Dharma (universal religious principles). He also states that God Himself "descends" to save the righteous and annihilate the wicked, as well as to re-establish the principles of true religion.

We will never know if Krishnamurti was a thinker, a mystic, a sage, a master of modern spirituality, or an avatar, as described in the Bhagavad-Gita. However, his approach is absurdly original, innovative, and revolutionary.

In addressing secular teachings and traditions, Krishnamurti certainly revisits ancient concepts, helping modern man to understand them, adapting them to the needs and demands of a new era and the new man who emerges with postmodernity.

Krishnamurti has helped and will continue to help hundreds of thousands of people around the world to free themselves from false conceptions, illusions, superstitions, and outdated teachings, just as Jesus and Buddha did in the past.

And in doing so, he fulfills the main objective of his mission on Earth, revealed at the time of the dissolution of the Order of the Eastern Star: "to make man absolutely and unconditionally free."

(References: Krishnamurti's books " The Illusions of the Mind " and " The Light That Never Went Out ")

COMMENTS

Adilson: Krishnamurti's approach is very insightful. Congratulations, Alsibar! Krishnamurti's teachings have been a great help to the world and also to my experience of "awakening." The only thing I could add for a better understanding of this excellent text is about the "single step."

When Krishnamurti says there are no paths, I understand it this way: there are no paths for the "ego." (K. addresses multitudes and knows he is addressing "egos," which is why he speaks in this radical way to force us to "reflect" on what he says.) As the text emphasizes, there is no path in the sense that there are no methods, techniques, magic, ceremonies, gurus, or anything that can lead us to Enlightenment (which he called Truth).

But at least for some, there is a path that opens up when "we awaken from the first dream," within the "dream world of Maya [the Illusion]."

In other words, first, the "Prodigal Son" "regains his sanity" (this is the first awakening), and then decides to return to the Father's House. But this doesn't bring him back instantly. He will have to walk the (symbolic) Path back step by step, inch by inch; he will have to unravel the energetic and karmic entanglements he created over long ages (under the yoke of the ego); this is what it means to walk the Path (back to the Father's House).

Only when he arrives at the Father's House will he have attained Final Liberation: the fullness of Christ, that is, he will become a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha.

The one who travels this (inner) path is no longer the ego; although the ego remains "with us," it loses "power over us" and is gradually reduced or "deconstructed," piece by piece, part by part; and this is painful; it is what some call "crossing the desert," and what Saint John of the Cross called the "Dark Night of the Soul." Therefore, it is not so easy. But then, we are sustained by a Mysterious Force and a Faith that "moves mountains." We continue "living," but it is no longer "us" (egos) who "live," but "Christ," who "lives in us."

Christ is the Way that leads us to the Father. Christ, or Buddhi, is the Light, the Loving Wisdom (or Intelligence, as Krishnamurti called it) that will "lead" us to the "Father"—or Perfect Union with Divinity—; only then can we say, "I and the Father are One." This

Total and instantaneous awakening may not be common, but it could happen to someone "out of the ordinary" like Krishnamurti, which is why he also stated that there is no "path".

I hope these words can help those who strive to understand these wonderful teachings.

Namaste!

Alsibar: Hi Adilson, how are you? My friend, your comment definitely enriched the conversation. Yes, I agree with you on the explanation of the "first and last step." I loved the connection you made with Christ's words and parables. You write and express yourself very well. Congratulations, my friend! 

Feel free to read and comment as much as you like.

Thank you for your participation.

A fraternal hug!

Julieta: Your article is very interesting. However, Krishnamurti dedicated his life to pointing to a "place" (with a single word) and few understood him, but, in the subtext of his talks or writings (the latter being few), he points to a single TRUTH: the Creator Father.

There is no possibility of "killing" the ego, but rather of it finding its proper place... We confuse everything: religions, sects or philosophies, do not point to the same God, but branch out, confusing us and disconnecting us from the Creator Father.

Krishnamurti points out very important things, and sometimes he himself gets confused. And, in one talk, he points out that the only thing that can unite men is Religion... the Creator of everything!

The first step is the last: it is already written: the beginning (the first) and the end (the last). By understanding this, man will be freed.

May YHWH bless you!

Alsibar:  Okay, Julieta. Thank you for your participation. Best regards.

CID'S OBSERVATIONS

As you can see, everyone interprets Krishnamurti in their own way, and there are even those (like Julieta) who transform Krishnamurti into a defender of religion, but this assertion by Julieta will be rejected by the vast majority of those who have studied Krishnamurti.

Alsibar is among the researchers who best explains Krishnamurti, and undoubtedly Krishnamurti was a very brilliant spiritual guide, but I believe that Krishnamurti made the mistake of repudiating the Masters.

Because Krishnamurti was pressured from childhood by the leaders of the Theosophical Society of Adyar to revere the imaginary masters promoted by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, he ended up rejecting all of that without realizing that there most likely are true Masters of Wisdom, and these teachers affirm that there are several paths that lead to the Truth, that there are different methods to reach it, that there is Atman and the soul, and other aspects that Krishnamurti also denied.

And that is why, although I believe Krishnamurti's approach to teaching has value, I also consider it incomplete and in certain points erroneous, because I have found teachings that seem even more accurate to me because they were given by beings even more enlightened and with greater knowledge than Krishnamurti acquired.