(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.
