Customer Reviews

Krishnamurti's Notebook

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

There are many collections of J. Krishnamurti's writings, which actually come from his talks prepared for various audiences, and most of them are extremely good and enlightening.

However, this, his notebook, is a more direct view of his thoughts, being written down during one of his travels in a notebook. These are personal revelations, written for his own purposes, and as such are quite instructive.

We do once again encounter many of his concepts as revealed in his lectures, but here they are presented in a different context, as in a personal journal. We get beautiful descriptions of his surroundings. These musings are written in the third person in that he refers to himself as "one" rather than "I".

This book will undoubtedly be of more value to those already familiar with his writings and with his talks than to those who haven't yet become acquainted with them. It is a more direct glimpse into his thinking.

Very highly recommended to the spiritually inclined.

A close friend has been speaking about Krishnamurti to me for years. And frankly, as a Catholic-mystic-traditionalist, I just couldn't get there from here. Then life started to get so bad, I did not walk - but ran (while remembering all my friend said about this precious and great soul). Taking entry by entry ever so slowly, I began...just began to "see" that true wisdom and learning can be the saving Grace if one will just take the time to watch, observe, listen, touch, and smell all that is alive and still thriving around each and every one of us. The Notebook sits atop my night-table, and after I say my prayers (I know this sounds ridiculously childish but I don't care...), I reward myself with another journal entry from Krishnamurti. Now, all I need is a rich relative to purchase everything he ever wrote!

Possibly the most important document produced in the 20th Century, and now thankfully back in print. Just as radical as Jesus's reply to the rich young man who desired eternal life (Matthew 19:16-26), and just as true and uncompromising, and expressed in a manner that contains no dogma, and requires no belief. (One needs to come to this book with an entirely receptive mind.) It is like an extended expression of the Beatitudes in modern language. What is called the
"Kingdom of Heaven" in the Bible is referred to variously by
Krishnamurti in the notebook as the "benediction", the "otherness", and "immensity". An extraordinary book. Beautifully written. A treasure for the ages.

Comments and reflections written down by K himself; similar themes to his talks but more poetic and in many ways more poignant. Buy it if you can find it.

This book is exceptional, perhaps the best I've ever read. It includes Krishnamurti's teachings, as wise as ever, plus beautiful descriptions of different environments and situations and accounts of K's "process" (not "a bunch of strange headaches"). If you are hollow, perhaps you will miss the boat, but I recommend everyone to read it.

His notebook contains the foundation of most of his other books, but there are no dumb questions asked him, and it includes notes on his personal life which makes him seem more like a human being. It is only 100 pages long and very readable. One discovers what he seems to like most in his life, and that is nature. Many beautiful descriptions of his musings on nature are included. It is a wonderful book for those who have never read any of his work.

Krishnamurti's teachings hinge on the mystical experiences he underwent as a youth. K underwent "initiations" when he was young, and he experienced an ongoing "process" throughout the rest of his life. Those experiences are the key to his teachings. Without the key, the "pathless land" remains uninhabited. I don't think K comprehended the significance of those experiences, although they certainly altered his consciousness and were the basis of his spiritual life. To K, there was an "other" that was the source of his insights. References to the "other" can be found throughout his Notebook. This is a clue whose significance is elucidated in reference to his youthful out-of-body experiences with the Lord Maitreya.
___

Krishnamurti did not derive his "teaching" from reading his own books (or the books of others). Nor did he derive it from watching his own videos (or watching others). K was not born with it. In fact, according to the testimony of some, K was a rather moronic child with "a vacant mind." So where did his "teaching" come from? He certainly didn't teach the Theosophy in which he was raised.

K underwent occult experiences as a youth in India, culminating in experiences he underwent in California. The occult "process" that had begun in him then continued throughout his life and served as a continual inspiration to him. Without those foundational experiences, K would have had nothing of his own to teach. But those foundational experiences remain unexamined and unexplained, even by K himself. This is why I regard K's "teaching" as "testimony," because as long as the basis of it remains a mystery he is really only testifying to its results rather than "teaching" it. If people could achieve those same foundational experiences by reading his books or watching his videos, then those books and videos would in fact constitute a teaching.

Consider Copernicus. If a man asked Copernicus to teach him about the orbits of the planets, Copernicus would refer to a process of scientific observation and mathematics. The teaching of Copernicus would reside in the scientific process of observation and in mathematics, not in merely a conversational approach to the subject. If he merely stated that the Earth rotates around the Sun, his mere statement of the fact would not in itself constitute "proof" or even a "teaching" but merely his own simple testimony which would bear no greater weight (perhaps less weight) than the prevailing belief of the Church.

Now consider Krishnamurti. He "taught" using ordinary conversational English. He did not use a specialized language (like mathematics) but instead confined himself to ordinary language with which he addressed ordinary people. The use of ordinary conversational language, in itself, can pose innumerable problems for accurately communicating on a subject as subtle as consciousness. For instance, what one person means by any given word (such as "awareness") is not necessarily what another person means by the word. (Krishnamurti was never very systematic or methodical with his use of words.) In addition to this, rather than employing the scientific method, K denounced the application of "method" and instead advocated "choiceless awareness." Specifically what "choiceless awareness" means is utterly subjective and dependent on whom you ask at any given time.

In the absence of applying the scientific method, it is likely that you will merely presume that you are "choicelessly aware." The absence of the scientific method typically implies the presence of mistaken assumptions.

K spent decades traveling the world to reach millions of ordinary people through his talks, books and videos. Did the millions of ordinary people who studied his "teaching" fail to understand it because of faults of their own, or was their lack of understanding the fault of K's "teaching"? After more than fifty years, if the millions of students of K's "teaching" failed to understand it, then what's the point of the teaching? Is it comparable to trying to teach calculus to a little child? That would be the fault of the teacher, not the student. But K's "teaching" is not a science, and so the question of why so many people failed to transform remains as unanswerable as the question of what it means to be "choicelessly aware." It remains as much a mystery as the means by which K himself arrived at his spiritual experience.

When Einstein published his Theory of Relativity, there were relatively few people who were in a position to grasp it. Those few people were not special or lucky, they simply had the background (the science and mathematics required) to get it. It's a matter of science, not a matter of getting lucky. With K's "teaching," however, understanding is a matter of "getting lucky," as he himself admits.

If learning a subject is a matter of luck, like winning at roulette, then I'd say the subject is not susceptible to being taught because to me teaching does not amount to a recommendation to get lucky. You can't teach how to get lucky.

I regard Krishnamurti's collected works as brilliant testimony but not a teaching. There is no doubt in my mind that K was an extraordinary human being and that he possessed an extraordinary experience. What he talked about, and what he wrote about, constitutes a testimony. It can inspire. And it can also confuse. Without the scientific method, the likely result is in fact confusion and the absence of consistent results.

maybe I missed the boat on this one, but kept wondering 'where's the beef' in this book. nothing profound here other than a bunch of strange headaches.