"Krishnamurti influenced me NOT to be influenced by him but by the TRUTH  of which he spoke in that I was encouraged to find out for MYSELF whether what he was saying was, in fact, the truth.  To simply regurgitate what K said and take it for my own would have been exactly what he admonished his audience and readers NOT  to do.  The truth I learned for myself assisted me to take  no-one on this earth for my authority unless, of course, I want an architect's advise on building a house, etc...         I see for myself that I MUST learn what is true and that no-one can possibly ever convey to me what is true.  K certainly was a guide but as he so frequently said: "The word is not the thing".  I see how thought thwarts living sanely and blissfully.  I see how ambition and the desire to be something  lead to nowhere in the truest sense.  Ambition of simply thought and a resistance to what is.  I have learned that speaking and writing about the Teachings is absolutely meaningless  unless I LIVE the Teachings myself.  I also see that there is no self.  That the self is but a fabrication of the imagination - thought, or a string of thoughts.  There truly is no "me" and it IS an illusion that there ever was and is a "me", an "I".

I have learned and am always learning that watching minute to minute the whole structure of thought - desire, etc...is a fascinating process and assists me to understand the whole of Life - and everyone else as we truly are one.  We all think and until we understand the entire process of thought, we will remain in struggle."

B.A. Star

 

~~~

 

"Minding.
I am not K.  Yet when I read what the author has said in his dialogues, I find I want to have that kind of intelligence.  When I first encountered his books I felt I was reading my own thoughts.  Since I was completely lost and bewildered at the time, and concerned with my thoughts,  it was an unexpected and surprising confirmation of  the realness of the processes I was experiencing.  That was many years ago. There does not seem to be anyone else speaking as he did.  I think I  understood what he was saying about the mind.  Applying myself to my own situation , without  setting any framework, and having a straightforward approach to life, I should be able to be as mindfully aware as I can .  There is a problem with self-knowledge, which is difficult to discuss or explain, as it becomes confounded in language.

 I realise there is an admiration of K's professionalism and dedication.  It was something that appealed to me. Having been estranged and coming upon such as K's words, which pointed to the importance of what I was experiencing, there was the association with those words and the speaker, K.  Perhaps, like for many people, such an important public figure can become their teacher or guardian. Their association is one of the support and reference that can be had from the role performed by such a figure. That K made it quite clear I could only deal with my own life, on it's own terms, without any kind of intercedent, was never forgotten.   As best I could, I have been cautious of this association, looking back on the information and experience, rather than any dependence.  The perspective that I gained about my thinking has been invaluable. There have been developments. This has been largely a private exercise for my own well being.  Any kind of  changes that one  might be expected to be able to elaborate,  have not been forthcoming. But within my own thinking, that is in the technique, there have been changes. Previously I have not had any opportunity to express  my understanding of such themes.  Although there is a method in it, and the essential technique, that is thought, can be expressed.  
 
I don't have a career in answering peoples questions about philosophy, religion and so on.  In fact hardly anyone asks me a serious question. Yet because I have this serious minded nature, I would  tend to take people on this journey.  Gradually I am heard to express insights, philosophies and wisdoms.  It has always been natural to me.  Most of the time, being an average person, I have had to modify my language to the ordinary circumstances I am usually in.   Only in general conversation with acquaintances will I occasionally express some deeper thinking.  Since having read what K has had to say, I am more confident of the process.  So it is possible to allow the more revealing examination  of the thinking.  In my own thinking I can more readily resolve some confusion.  This is not without some technique, as the thinking is itself problematic.

Most people are not anticipating that there is a revolutionary change to their mind.   Yet I have always thought how amazing has been the change in my thinking which, without dogma, could be reproduced for consumption by the right audience.  On the other hand when I have looked at the comments of K's audience, then and also now, there is evident a continuing lack of understanding.  Each of the respondents comments are a continuation in confusion.  K speaks directly in regard to the thinking.  It is without commentary.  Except when he is making commentary. He did not speak to receive agreement, or even confirmation.  It is like a craft, or sport.  You are making something and as each step progresses, the object develops and increases, until it is finished.  The involvement is just in a growing activity.  This involvement ceases with the end of the action.   The thing has been made.   Yet for the vast world audience in search of understanding of this kind, the relationship and the dynamic is not realised.   Seeking an audience, a group, or a role is not the relationship or the dynamic.  It is just a fact that there is a speaker and a listener who could  equally participate in the dialogue.  Although there are many issues which might arise, such as cultural and social norms, that either participant might be at pains to eliminate from the meeting.  An important fact to remember,  is that they are meetings between people in regard to topics such as religion, seeking enlightenment and so on. Though not essential to the meeting,  it was still the origin of the relationship.  K was doing his job.

Like K, I worry that there is no thinking to end the problems.  K was doing the job he found himself to be in. To do something about the same matters, what's my job?  Is it to propagate some ideal factors as the necessary conditions for change?  Well if that's what you can do then fine.  Is it to participate in discussion about what was said, quoted or reported ?  Well if the respondents are seeking  to find the shared misconception of their own conversation, it might help.  Is it to fulfil a role or position like K held?  Well if you did, you would spend most of the time trying to appease other people. So what do you do?  Well it might mean achieving your goal and being  indifferent to the externalities.  Or it might be an active presence in the empty meaninglessness of life.

For me the problem has been to fill a role as I see it in the world.   This role could be anything.  I have no idea what. There are many roles, as well as non roles.    At the same time there are the ordinary conditions of an ordinary life. The role less.  I found in the writings of K that the role is thinking.  The role that became apparent to me was of learning about the mind, and my thinking, but without making this an obsession, or a  preoccupation.  It was a  matter of fact.  It needed no  cultivation, and the nature of it was delusive.  This is a very different type of role.  It does not have any way of accommodation in the ordinary world.  Yet it is essential that it is in that same world, without separation.   Even a journey of inconsequence can be a role."

Peter Stephens

~~~

"You ask if I can say how K's teachings have influenced my life…..Well, I don't like the term "influence". I think K was insistent that that was not his intention; that he wanted people to look at their own lives and think things out for themselves.

What Krishnamurti has had to say has, I think, helped me to learn in many respects about the life I have lived, and am living – to "dare" to be innovative and independent in thought and action and not rely upon precedent and tradition. To see the falseness of self-pity and not be defensive in face of great difficulties. To be aware of the universal nature of human experience, thought and emotions and establish relationship on that basis. To recognise the importance of right eating and creative occupation. And to be aware of the pettiness, ugliness and cruelty arising from nationalism, racial discrimination and religious entrenchment, with the mental enclosure, conflict, pain, resentment, fear and anguish they cause".

Dan Hansen

~~~
 

"I have found that Krishnamurti's words seem to directly relate to me on a personal level. He seems to know the overall path my thoughts are likely to take and "gets ahead of them". His attention is on thought as the problem of humanity, and is devoid of personal belief and "sales pitch". Consequently he makes one aware of ones own thinking process and gives insight into it. What is remarkable is that what he says speaks directly on a  personal (hence private, exclusive) level, while simultaneously being totally general and common to all people: a bit like good music".

Robert Taylor

~~~
 

"I am going to respond to this right now as I believe it is very relevant and important to explore. His words and influence leave me repeatedly 'empty' - in so much as what I can possibly say or do about it - but there is a substance to, or resonance with, what he says which reaches beyond my usual intellectual ponderings. Maybe he was just a master of touching raw nerves due his own bizarre circumstances, but deeply, and beyond classy explanation, I feel and intuit what he has said, and how he expressed it, as pointing close to some kind of truth which I think is important to come into contact with".

 Terry O'Brien  

~~~
 

"I have a question about the request for the impact of K on individual lives. I considered such a thing a few years ago and , for me , found that it emphasised the personal. The importance of experience to "me". The essence of division. A denial of the world is me. A friend I have in Australia wanted to make our "e-mails" more personal and less general. Yet does this not involve a trap? And isn't it the most significant trap. Isn't the first step seeing that there is no personal and that there is only human consciousness with all its tricks. And its main trick that there are many. You and me and all the others. Is this not a trick of consciousness. The difference becoming a division.   And in the division attributing qualities to the divided entity to maintain its "individuality". Such as experience. How K influenced "me" and thereby strengthens 'me'".

Kris Wooles

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

return to top