UG Krishnamurti has died.

[Ryan Rudolph]

I sensed that he was going to die for a while now, as he was getting up there in age. And although UG Krishnamurti had his imperfections, some of his work proved to be quite significant to my own development a few years ago. Here is his obituary if anyone is interested. Overall, I think UG possessed some degree of clarity, but he had many flaws that were evident in some of his earlier discussions. Nevertheless, not many achieve his level of understanding. Here is one of his dialogues from
YouTube, and it is quite good.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

UG did not show the slightest signs of worry or fear about death or concern for his body even at the end of his life. He did not leave any specific instructions as to how to dispose of his dead body. ‘You can throw it on the garbage heap, as far as I am concerned,’ he often would say.

Right to the end.

[clyde]

People call me an ‘enlightened man’ -- I detest that term -- they can’t find any other word to describe the way I am functioning. At the same time, I point out that there is no such thing as enlightenment at all. I say that because all my life I’ve searched and wanted to be an enlightened man, and I discovered that there is no such thing as enlightenment at all, and so the question whether a particular person is enlightened or not doesn’t arise. I don’t give a hoot for a sixth-century-BC Buddha, let alone all the other claimants we have in our midst. They are a bunch of exploiters, thriving on the gullibility of the people.

U.G. Krishnamurti

[Tomas]

.

No, he's on the outside looking in...

.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Tomas wrote:

No, he's on the outside looking in...

You need to absorb his entire body of work and life as a whole before you can accurately make that judgment. For instance: he refused to use the word enlightenment because of how it was typically defined by low quality truth seekers in India that came knocking on his door, so he used a different term for enlightenment called the natural state. The term natural state is less appealing because its more modest; its lacks the lofty and exciting feel of the term enlighenment.

Imagine the hundreds of followers steadily flowing through his door over the years, with the same conditioned notions of enlightenment, all idolizing the great teachers, hoping for bliss, and higher eurphoric states of consciousness. And how many would disagree with his assertions simply by saying things like “well, that’s not what the Buddha said” or “no!, Jiddu Krishnamurti said this”

It sounds as if the steady flow of incorrigible followers made UG weary of everything ‘enlightenment’, and this is probably why he created his own term called the natural state.

not to mention, his own disillusionment with the term, that resulted in the ending of his search.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

From his obituary:

After his aimless wanderings in London and Paris, like a dry leaf blown here, there and everywhere, he landed in Geneva and at last found refuge in Valentine de Kerven’s chalet in Saanen. By then incredible experiences had started to happen to him and his body was ‘like rice chaff burning inside’. It was a prelude to his ‘clinical death’ on his forty-ninth birthday (in 1967) and the beginning of the most incredible bodily changes and experiences that would catapult him into a state that is difficult to understand within the framework of our hitherto known mystical or enlightenment traditions. For seven days, seven bewildering physical changes took place and he landed in what he calls the ‘Natural State’. It was a cellular revolution, a full-scale biological mutation.

What was this cellular revolution, biological mutation?
.

[sschaula]

http://www.well.com/~jct/mystiq.htm

He talks about that in this writing.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth wrote:

What was this cellular revolution, biological mutation?

Yes, this is the questionable part of UG’s life I was talking about before. He may have made up the story due to an inferiority complex he felt towards Jiddu Krishnamurti, who also claimed to go through what he called “the process.”

I’ll admit to experiencing what I’d call subtle mutations in the brain structure itself. On a couple occasions, in the depths of silence, it felt as if some force was rearranging the neurological network inside my brain. Some unknown force was basically taking out the trash contents within my consciousness, by some sort of nonverbal, nonmaterial, bizarre some of process. That is the best way I can describe it, and it doesn’t do it justice.

So based on these experiences, I would say that neurological mutations in the brain itself are possible, but many of their other claims are rather outlandish.

Moreover, the neurological mutation that I recall is nothing compared to the sorts of drastic changes the krishnamurti’s claimed. Both accounts could merely be fabrications.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Scott - thanks for the link.

Ryan,

I would say that neurological mutations in the brain itself are possible

Yes, neurological mutations do happen in the brain. That is well proven to happen as a result of emotional trauma, thought training, and medication/nutrition, but that just sounds a whole lot more ordinary than

For seven days, seven bewildering physical changes took place and he landed in what he calls the ‘Natural State’. It was a cellular revolution, a full-scale biological mutation.

Like you said, the phrasing could have been hype - for whatever reason.

edit - Here is a better link on the biological changes resultant from severe stress.

[Sapius]

Ryan,

You need to absorb his entire body of work and life as a whole before you can…

… even begin to understand him. I agree to that.

However…

So based on these experiences, I would say that neurological mutations in the brain itself are possible, but many of their other claims are rather outlandish.

One can consider them 'outlandish' only until one experiences them himself. And even after that, one will still consider them outlandish until he can logically comprehend “outlandish” things through reason and existing knowledge. That is if he can at all.

Moreover, the neurological mutation that I recall is nothing compared to the sorts of drastic changes the krishnamurti’s claimed. Both accounts could merely be fabrications.

Not necessarily, for the same reason I mentioned above.

What are the two accounts?

[sschaula]

I personally think he had a kundalini experience.

[Shardrol]

Tomas wrote:

No, he's on the outside looking in...

You need to absorb his entire body of work and life as a whole before you can accurately make that judgment. . .

Tomas is quoting the song by the Moody Blues:

Timothy Leary's dead
No, he's on the outside looking in . . .
.

[Shahrazad]

I don't believe in kundalini.

[Sapius]

I personally think he had a kundalini experience.

And what are your personal experiences on the subject?

[Sapius]

I don't believe in kundalini.

Good; then try sharing your experiences rather than your disbeliefs.

You do believe in Arabian Nights, I take it. Or is that your real name?

The work however is quite logically in accordance with human psychology, and good advice though.

[Shahrazad]

You do believe in Arabian Nights, I take it. Or is that your real name?

Yes, I sure do. Shahrazad was quite the heroine. She and I have shared ancestry.

The work however is quite logically in accordance with human psychology, and good advice though.

What is good advice? Arabian Nights?
.

[Sapius]

Shahrazad,

Shahrazad was quite the heroine. She and I have shared ancestry.

Is that so? Nice to know, however, Arabian Nights I think is a compilation of many tales told by different philosophically based minds, and the one who complied it as Alf layla wa layla, created a character – Shehrazad – and her life to actually make it more interesting and coherent.

I am told that individual stories floated all around the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and India, far before it was complied as one, and it is hard to tell who those individual authors were, or even who complied it in its original form.

I have read some of it here, and seen quite a bit on the Hallmark Channel as a mini-series.

So where do you think Sharazad is actually from? Syria? Lebanon? Morocco? Egypt? The northern African belt? Yeman? The Saudi Peninsula? Persia? Iraq? Turkey? The Indus Valley?

If you don't mind saying, that is.

What is good advice? Arabian Nights?

Basically, the moral behind the stories.

[Shahrazad]

So where do you think Sharazad is actually from?

I think she was Arabic, but can't narrow it down further than that. Arabic people are all related, in the same way that Jews are related. We are descendents of Ishmael, first son of Abraham.

[Carl G]

http://www.well.com/~jct/mystiq.htm

I'd never read any of the man's writings, so I clicked on the link:

First paragraph of the Mystique of Enlightenment:

There is no teaching of mine, and never shall be one. "Teaching" is not the word for it. A teaching implies a method or a system, a technique or a new way of thinking to be applied in order to bring about a transformation in your way of life. What I am saying is outside the field of teachability; it is simply a description of the way I am functioning. It is just a description of the natural state of man -- this is the way you, stripped of the machinations of thought, are also functioning.

I disagree. Clearly there is a teaching, involving method and system.

Third paragraph:

Your natural state has no relationship whatsoever with the religious states of bliss, beatitude and ecstasy; they lie within the field of experience. Those who have led man on his search for religiousness throughout the centuries have perhaps experienced those religious states. So can you. They are thought-induced states of being, and as they come, so do they go. Krishna Consciousness, Buddha Consciousness, Christ Consciousness, or what have you, are all trips in the wrong direction: they are all within the field of time. The timeless can never be experienced, can never be grasped, contained, much less given expression to, by any man. That beaten track will lead you nowhere. There is no oasis situated yonder; you are stuck with the mirage.

The natural state of man is not anything to be aspired to, it is something to be transcended.

I think for me U.G. is a "trip in the wrong direction", though I do wish him Rest In Peace.

[sschaula]

Shah,

I don't believe in kundalini.

I don't think it's something you can believe in or not. That'd be like saying, "I don't believe in neurons."

I have no need to convince you of it. If you're curious you'll find out.

Sap,

And what are your personal experiences on the subject?

I wrote a little about it before...do a search. Enough to know that it's something physical and real, and not something a person believes in or doesn't.

Kundalini is the physiology making itself efficient, sometimes in a drastic way due to it already being very inefficient.

[sschaula]

Carl,

The natural state of man is not anything to be aspired to, it is something to be transcended.

I think UG had the belief that the natural state of man was uncorrupted. He wasn't speaking of the natural state of mankind, which is pretty violent and stupid most of the time. He was transcending that...at least in theory. So in my opinion your idea of "the natural state of man" isn't in line with his.

...I hope it doesn't look like I actually cared for his stuff. I actually thought he was pretty stupid for saying he wasn't a guru, and then playing the role. And his followers were even more stupid for having listened to him babble on about nothing really.

[Shahrazad]

Scott,

I don't think it's something you can believe in or not. That'd be like saying, "I don't believe in neurons."

I don't believe in neurons either.

Is there anybody at all in this site who can take an innocent joke? Geez.

So far the only one I know here with a sense of humor is Dan Rowden. Everybody else is as uptight as a robot.

Don't let me stop you, though. Not that you would.

[sschaula]

How about from now on if you're joking you say "haha" along with it?

[Shahrazad]

I hate when people do that. It is an insult to people's intelligence. Plus, jokes are funnier when told with a straight face.

[sschaula]

I can't see your straight face, Shah.