Customer Reviews

The First and Last Freedom

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

What I am going to write about "The First And Last Freedom" (TFaLF) applies to almost every book Krishnamurti (K) wrote. This was K's first book (1954), and might be his best. It always amazed me that K could say basically the same thing over and over in answer to so many philophical and spiritual questions, and yet it almost always seemed fresh, just as re-reading this first book of his seemed to me this time around.

In philosophical terms I think that it's important to say that what K taught falls into what is termed the "via negativa," which are paths like Zen that promulgate "the way that is no way," the system that is no system, that the only way to realize the eternal is to simply *be,* be aware, at every moment, to face life and who one is with absolute honesty, directness, and clarity. Let me also say as caveats that you do not need to want to realize the eternal to study K, and that realizing the "ineffable" is surely a path that many people could care less about! To each his own, for sure.

K is not going to be popular to self-absorbed New Age types who are at times superficially talking about "enlightenment" and "love," while other times taking their spiritual temperatures to see if they are aware of themselves enough. On the contrary he often referred to our petty concerns as silly and stupid, not to insult us, but rather to try to effect a kind of catharsis where we simply see ourselves exactly as we are, w/o pretense, w/o belief systems, w/o indentifying with the sundry crutches that many of us surround ourselves with, precisely to avoid just seeing exactly who we are. The term K coined for this constant self awareness was "choiceless awareness." To my mind choiceless awareness is like the occham's razor of spiritualilty - the clearest, most direct way to realize the eternal is simply to know who you are, at each moment, to face yourself absolutely squarely, w/o judgement,

choicelessly, w/o beliefs, w/o any systems of thought or philosophies. I have always seen the truth of his simple saying, "beliefs separate." Think of how many wars and conflicts there have been because people confuse the symbols that lead to "truth" with the actuality of just seeing what is from moment to moment.

Some of the spiritual teachers these days seem to be saying that the the spiritual path is an easy one, that if we see ourselves as spiritual that is enough, something I call spirituality by proclamation. K himself realized that choiceless awareness can be a very arduous path.

While K's choiceless awareness certainly leads to a life of contemplation, he never advocated withdrawing from society as many such paths of "renunciation" suggest. In fact he said many times, in this book and almost all others, "life is relationship." Part of the process of knowing oneself is in relationship to other people, individually and collectively. As we observe ourselves choicelessly we must also learn to relate to others in the same way, especially w/o the psychological memory that taints many moments when we are present with another but crowwded with memories of past hurts and desires. I often like to think that all of us simply bounce off or resonate with one another; no one has the absolute truth, and each of us can learn from others in relationship, if we can simply just *be* present.

There has, I guess since the time of the Greeks, been a philosophical conflict between being and becoming. K's teaching emphasizes the former, unequivocably. Whether or not you agree with K, I do feel it is very instructive to see the conflicts and tensions that are created by those who are obsessed with ceaseless doing in order to become, who have to identify with some tribe, nationality, or belief system, who cannot seem to just be who they are w/o such crutches.

On a personal note, I believe (!) that I have evolved more from K's simple path of choiceless awareness than from any other teaching I've studied because I feel that it is the most direct way to whatever truth is possible to realize. Unfortunately I do find it painful to see my own faults and desires so clearly! I am not certain that an adult who comes to K's work can rid themselves of all the psychological garbage so deeply conditioned from the past, to heal oneself completely and in so doing go beyond the ego. I actually prefer Jung's individuation to egolessness.

Of course this one review is not doing justice to K's teaching. Fortunately he wrote more than 30 books, many of which were collections from talks and discussions he had, with many "gurus" and the very important physicist David Bohm. There are also many videos and tapes of fascinating dialogues available from the Krishnamurti Foundation in Ojai, CA. The introduction to TFaLF was written by Alduous Huxley, who therein defined the spiritual crises that K's teaching addressed and outlined K's direct approach to the "truth" as well as anyone who wrote about K.

I am reading these books in sequence so that I will be aware of any shifts in this philosophy as he progresses.

The reading here is easy, but the thinking is more difficult. Krishnamurti doesn't attempt to speak what people might want to hear, but speaks from his heart, from his innermost being. So he doesn't give an easy path to follow nor does he promise such a path. Actually, to provide a path for others to follow would contradict his philosophy.

The answer according to him is in self-knowledge, but that knowledge can not be gained through effort. Nor, says he, can it be passed on to you by a guru. It won't be found in books. (I can't help but be amused by those who emphasize that the Truth isn't revealed in the printed word, and of course they use the printed word to share this message with us.)

The first half of the book is comprised of writings and portions of talks. The second half consists of questions asked after his talks, and in his answers you will find repetition sometimes as he clarifies. He has a way of emphasizing the main points by asking "Is it not?" or words to that effect.

I admit to having difficulties with much of what he says, but this isn't criticism as much as a compliment. The very difficulties I might have benefit me so so that I learn through resolving them. If you don't get this book, do at least read some of his other material. You will be rewarded.

Krishnamurti should be taught in all the schools as an example of how to think clearly. The effect would be astonishing. This is an excellent introduction to his methods, and you will be well-rewarded if you read this book and take it to heart. If you were to break with tradition and attempt to explain Zen in logical terms, this book could be yours. K's robust sanity is a symbol of hope for an ego-ridden humanity.

I am thoroughly impressed with the depth of insight presented within this book. However, I have questions that are unanswered whenever I reread the books. He mentions several times how meditation, such as deliberately calming the mind through observing the breath, for example, cannot possibly lead to liberation. He calls discipline silly and limited. All methods and traditions are conditioned in themselves and lead to the result in which that particular method advocates. This would mean that every one of the patriarchs of Zen, including the masters of other sects with the traditional "methods" (koans, contemplation of non-self, meditation on emptiness, samatha-vispassana) are all false and that krishnamurti alone realized the real. I beg to differ. From where we are now, some, perhaps not all, need a teacher, "methods" to help us get in touch with our own minds. He actually admits his "non-method" of choiceless awareness is very difficult. "The task is arduous and requires an extremely quick mind." he says. It follows that people who are deeply conditioned by habit at present, do "not" have quick and observative minds. My contention is that this is where the forms of attention training as "methods", are needed. In Theravedin tradition we have "mindfulness." In Zen we have the same attention training to whatever one is doing. I have tried to observe my own mind with choiceless awareness like Krishnamurti says but it is extremely difficult to start this from ground zero. Besides, Krishnamurti has reasoned through logic resulting in the dismissal of the other buddhist and taoist traditions. Is that not reaching a conclusion through "thought" and dismissing the entire practice without actually experiencing such practices as Zen? In the end it seems that the truth most likely will not be obtain by direct "searching" as a subject searches for its object. But it is logical that the conditions for the flash of insight that obliterates subject and object (self and other) can be improved through "deliberate and willed action." In other words we need to cultivate our power of attention-observation in order to catch up with the level of "choiceless awareness" that K advocates.

For those interested in exploring a non-authoritative speaker in the realm of 'spirituality'. Krishnamuti is among the finest. The First and Last Freedom includes a preface written by Aldous Huxley. Krishnamurti explores many different topics of our daily lives in a practical approach. This is not 'new age' and read best if not treated as just another philosophical view of life. Enjoy! This is definitely a favorite of mine! :

I refer to this book more than any other - it is for me a great source of learning about myself. K cuts to the heart of every human fear, joy, search and struggle. If I could recommend only one book to all those I love it is this one. I have read at least a half a dozen of K's books and for me this one says it all.

In many aspects this book is VERY hard work. It is not light reading by any stretch but the work pays off many times over...

This book is an excellent introduction to the mind of J. Krishnamurti. A profound thinker and perhaps the twentieth century's greatest philosopher. I was left with the impression that he speaks much the same as the original buddha when discussing life and our relation to it. This is a very important book.

JK was a mystery. His life story was dramatic and his teaching controversial - so many people found his talks transforming and yet many also were disillusioned. I myself, who was too young, foolish and too far away to see the man when he was alive, have been puzzled by the fact that supposedly no one who studies his talks was deeply transformed, sadly admitted by JK himself.

But how could we measure his merit as a teacher by that fact alone? Twenty years after he died, everytime I read his words, the man came alive, sharp, passionate, uncompromising and compassionate.

He came to the earth pure and clean, and he learned the mess of the human psyche in order to teach; he was a deeply religious and poetic man, evident from his few talks after his realisation and before he disbanded the Order, but in order to talk to a wider audience, "his beloved" was reduced to "the nameless" or "that immensity" in his later talks, with only a very slight touch at the end of talk; he didn't study any religious traditons, not even the Bhagavad Gita, and his talks were all his own, which perhaps explains why many people found his talks hard to grasp, because they can't be put into any familiar systems which we have learned before.

How can we judge him or measure him? He reached and touched more people than anyone else in modern times; his talked "from the ground up", from this drab of life everyone lives instead of exclusively to long time spiritual seekers; and his words are the best guards against superstition, which goes hand in hand with spirituality.

I salute you, Sir !

I tried to read a book by Krishnamurti over thirty years ago when I first became interested in Eastern spirituality and philosophy. I remembered that his writing style was dry and repetitive, and that one of the early comments he made was, "Don't read books." I followed his advice, at least in regard to his book that I was reading. Recently, however, I became interested in the ideas of the physicist David Bohm, by reading WHOLENESS AND THE IMPLICATE ORDER, and discovered that he had co-written a book with Krishnamurti. On reading THE FIRST AND LAST FREEDOM I rediscovered that his writing is dry and repetitive, confusing, and not especially helpful. Although I find that I agree with nearly all of his opinions, or he agrees with mine since I had them before reading this book, I came by my opinions without being "enlightened." It is always gratifying to find that someone more or less famous agrees with my opinions. But if these opinions have any value, they must be passed on to other people in a way that people who do not already share these opinions might be influenced by them. I find it hard to believe that Krishnamurti's writing is likely to be able to do this. Perhaps someone younger would find him more helpful, but I suspect that they will like him because he is understood to be enlightened and expresses ideas that they already share with him. I like him for those reasons myself.

Krishnamurti has a fascinating history. He was born in colonial India next to the headquarters of the occult Theosophical Society. Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, the leaders of this society encountered him and raised him under their tutelage, convinced that he was the vehicle for the messianic World Teacher, and organized the worldwide "Order of the Star" in support of this belief. As a young man Krishnamurti denounced his saviorhood and the concept of gurus as guides to absolute truth. His idea was that unconditional psychological freedom is within the reach of everyone - though just how this can be achieved is not made clear in this book.

Though Krishnamurti had the reputation of being enlightened, he asserted that this was meaningless because only someone who was enlightened could determine whether or not he had realized reality. It is quite likely also true that only one who has realized reality can grasp the teaching of one who is enlightened - if there is such a thing a being enlightened. Other enlightened teachers, Paramahansa and Hawkins for instance, explain that in the enlightened state one can see that everything is perfect and beautiful. We only see disease and murder as ugly and evil because we judge them with our limited minds. If this is true - and I know it is not -- then I prefer self-deception. Krishnamurti, at least I understand him, does not have this view of reality. We are miserable because we lack intelligence, but our lack of intelligence is not in itself perfect and beautiful. "What leads to a better life is intelligence; and there cannot be intelligence if there is belief, if there are class divisions, if the means of production are in the hands of a few, if there are isolated nationalities and sovereign governments" (206). He sounds like a revolutionary, and he was concerned that the present crisis - the one in 1954 - was without precedent because it dealt with ideas. The greatest calamity is "to use ideas as a means to transform man" (146). Enlightened people are supposed to eschew the notion of being revolutionaries. On the other hand, he advises against judging and comparing as this leads to duality and isolation. Krishnamurti wants a world free of ideas. Right-thinking comes with self-knowledge. Without understanding yourself, you have no basis for thought; without self-knowledge, what you think is not true" (12). We mistakenly identify ourselves with our beliefs and thereby use them to hide from ourselves.

Not only does Krishnamurti advise us not to read, we should also not pray, not meditate, not make any specific effort of any kind. Because these are all associated with ideas and will thereby lead to isolation and entrapment rather than freedom. "So the mind must be free of the known, which means the mind must be completely silent, not MADE silent. The mind that achieves silence as a result, as the outcome of determined action, of practice, of discipline, is not a silent mind" (207). But he never really explains how we should attain this silent mind, just that any actual effort we use will not achieve it. The eternal comes into being when the mind is blissful, with no thoughts either conscious or unconscious. I am by no means blissful, and my mind is full of constant pointless chatter, and I find that meditation helps quiet my mind and worries. I do not anticipate that meditation is going to lead me to the eternal, but it is at least somewhat more helpful than not making this effort. Since Krishnamurti insists that these efforts do not lead to the eternal, then he implies that all the gurus who claim to have achieved ultimate truth by these methods are deceiving themselves. This has also been my conclusion. But he also implies that he has achieved this blissful state. Maybe so, but he has no explanation of how he did, not anything useful to impart beyond advising us to be cautious of chaining ourselves to ideas.

"The very nature of the mind is to be dishonest, crooked, and incapable of facing facts" (228). We train it to be clever and mistake that for intelligence, and we honor cleverness, no matter how corrupt, and mock wisdom. Belief in God has no reality because this belief is just an idea and not the reality of God. Belief in God as idea rather than God as reality does not make you a better person. None of this is new, and simply stating it one more time accomplishes nothing.

Krishnamurti's advice is that one's transformation can only be NOW, from moment to moment, and transformation is simple: "seeing the false as the false and the true as the true" (286). Love and truth are identical and are the mental state when time has completely ceased. This is very heady but hardly helpful.

I shall read his dialogue with David Bohm and see what I think.

This is THE post-liberation guide book. If you are newly free, read this book, read it slowly, look deeply into the words and LOOK at what JK is telling you to look at. Reading alone is insufficient, you have to work it out for yourself, do the math.

For the non-liberated, probably not the best book. Too many words, too many things to get confused by. I can offer suggestions, though, if interested.

Liberation is the realization of no-self. Once liberated there's more work to do, JK shows you what you need to do in this book to achieve and maintain clarity.

I've since dedicated my life to showing others the path. Contact me if you have questions.