Reflections on Meditation by J Krishnamurti

[saurab]

Meditation is to be aware of every thought and of every feeling, never to say it is right or wrong, but just to watch it and move with it. In that watching, you begin to understand the whole movement of thought and feeling. And out of this awareness comes silence.

[snowyowl]

Originally Posted by saurab

Meditation is to be aware of every thought and of every feeling, never to say it is right or wrong, but just to watch it and move with it. In that watching, you begin to understand the whole movement of thought and feeling. And out of this awareness comes silence.

Nice quote saurab. I was thinking only the other day that meditation is no longer a technique for me really. Meditation has become another word for awareness: anytime anyplace anywhere (just like Martini ).

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 1 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by saurab

And out of this awareness comes silence.

That seems to me to be the key point.... the SILENCE.

[Miss Hepburn]

I wasn't gonna comment, but I came back. What the heck.
Since the 70s JK has not been my favorite. Nice guy, dont get me wrong, I just disagree with too many things he says.

I learned differently than the first post.
Meditation would not be watching thoughts and feelings at all...I mean let 'em come and go, sure.
Rather meditation was focusing, concentrating, placing your sweet attention on something
that does not end...
that Thing that has always been there, always will be.
What is that, some may ask? Well, I'm not gonna tell anyone...but you could start with
...the Power that makes your hair grow while you sleep...the Power that is within an apple seed that makes it grow into a tree?
How about the Presence all around you and in you?

Me? I'm not into watching any of my thoughts...I mean intentionally hoping it leads to silence or peace or some great wisdom and experience.

But hey...that's just me and my own 'logic'. I am not debating...just telling others my opinion.
And so far so good!!

[Unseeking Seeker]

Analysing not fulcrum of a sneeze ~
Delight in effervescence of release

[saurab]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Since the 70s JK has not been my favorite. Nice guy, dont get me wrong, I just disagree with too many things he says.

Me too. I also disagree with many many things that JK says. He was not such a great teacher, but the way he used language to convey certain truths has made me more open and intelligent. He makes many mistakes, but his greatest contribution was his insistence on being with and clearly seeing "what is".

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Meditation would not be watching thoughts and feelings at all...I mean let 'em come and go, sure. Rather meditation was focusing, concentrating, placing your sweet attention on something that does not end...

This is also a good focus for meditation, in fact one of the best. But meditation is also about the meditator, his thoughts and feelings and his silences. But meditating on God is one of the best possible focuses for meditation.

[Miss Hepburn]

Hi saurab, Glad we agree. That's always nice.

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

...the Power that makes your hair grow while you sleep...the Power that is within an apple seed that makes it grow into a tree? How about the Presence all around you and in you?

The Kena Upanishad speaks to this.
https://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacreds...arama/kena.asp

By whom commanded and directed does the mind go towards its objects? Commanded by whom does the life-force, the first (cause), move? At whose will do men utter speech?

I have tried to watch some old JK talks uploaded to YouTube and I can't get past 5 or 10 minutes because he's simply very confusing. I totally agree with the concept of choiceless awareness - basically resting in awareness, just sitting, do-nothing meditation - and I can't figure out if it was only conceptual for him or he's just a really bad teacher. For instance it's neither watching thoughts nor moving with them as that's doership and doership is what these techniques are meant to disabuse us of.

[saurab]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

For instance it's neither watching thoughts nor moving with them as that's doership and doership is what these techniques are meant to disabuse us of.

Many problems above. For one thing, when Krishnamurti said moving with thoughts, he meant an observation that was seeing everything, every thought, no matter how fast it came and went. that is what he meant by "moving with thoughts".

The second problem is the idea that doership is in some way divorced from the truth. "Just Be" is what every advaita teacher teaches.

But like God, each one of us are both male (doing/creating) and female (being). What does "being" mean ? It means that all projections are reabsorbed back into the heart/mind. So even if there is a single thought you are doing, not being.

It is pretty obvious that this state of being with no projections at all cannot be sustained forever. There is a reason why we have the mind. It is to decide. Decision and direction is the reason why the mind was created. If there was no mind, you couldnt love a particular person, but you would have a very general kind of love for "everyone". So the mind/thought is meant to give direction to your feelings. The mind/thought is also meant for deciding. Feelings cannot decide. You need the mind to decide on anything. So the next time you hear someone saying that doership is in some way inferior to just being still, you should remember what I stated. What I have stated is very logical. God as creator is a doer. And he has given the power to create on a lesser scale to every angel and human being, in fact every living thing.

The reason why the advaita teachers teach that you are not the doer is because they identify with awareness and awareness is actionless. There is not an iota of an idea about doing or acting about awareness. But there is a reason why we have the mind (and we will always have the mind even after enlightenment). The reason is to do, to manifest, to create. So, being and doing are both essential properties of every single being in the universe.

Hence, I conclude that the teaching "You are not the doer" is at best a partially correct teaching. It is not true in the real sense.

[Unseeking Seeker]

About Krishnamurthi or any other teacher for that matter, it’s who they are addressing, which is what must be considered. “Ego never accepts the truth” is an old adage. Thus ultimate truths are rejected by those still in lower mind.

Asking someone suffering from dementia what the square root of minus one is, for example, what good will it do? Likewise, for those who’re yet to comprehend shifts in perception from separateness to interconnectedness to oneness, how may they be convinced?

Sometimes, intermediate truths are what is needed to steer the listener towards inner silence.