On U.G. Krishnamurti:The Dharma Seals Of A Non-Buddhist

[DooDoot]

U.G.

In a You Tube video, U.G. said "there is no such thing as transformation" (or similar). This seemed contrary to the teachings in the Pali suttas, which seem to clearly describe a state of transformation or purification once samadhi & selflessness are established, namely, the purification reflected in the various jhanas and the uprooting of the tendency to defilement from final insight. For example:

Then, bhikkhu, I have also taught the successive cessation of formations. For one who has attained the first jhana, speech has ceased. For one who has attained the second jhana, thought and examination have ceased. For one who has attained the third jhana, rapture has ceased. For one who has attained the fourth jhana, in-breathing and out-breathing have ceased. For one who has attained the base of the infinity of space, the perception of form has ceased. For one who has attained the base of the infinity of consciousness, the perception pertaining to the base of the infinity of space has ceased. For one who has attained the base of nothingness, the perception pertaining to the base of the infinity of consciousness has ceased. For one who has attained the base of neither-perception-nor-nonperception, the perception pertaining to the base of nothingness has ceased. For one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, perception and feeling have ceased. For a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed, lust has ceased, hatred has ceased, delusion has ceased.

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn36.11

Did U.G. say there is just a static dullness of a bland equanimity when saying there is no transformation? Thanks

[Saengnapha]

it would be interesting to.hear more about U.G....

Not sure what you would like to know. Is there something in particular?

Loaded question, but can you give a summary of his teachings based on your experience with him? I've watched some videos and while I find some things he says interesting, and his sometimes rough handling of his followers entertaining, I have to say I can't quite follow him!

And...How did he feel about your interest in Buddhism?

Aflatun,

A belated response to your post. Since this is a Buddhist board, I didn't want to introduce UG into it to dissuade anyone from Buddhist practice. UG never discouraged anyone from pursuing whatever they wanted. He simply talked about his own state, what happened to him, and the subsequent 'condition' that it left him in. When people brought him views of others, he would simply take them apart in his inimitable way to show you what you were attempting to do, why you were attempting to do it, and how your own desire was leading you in the wrong direction. It was never a matter of making more of an effort, or a different effort, or no effort. What he talked about was his own state, the natural state, where there was never any effort to be or become anything. His whole 'teaching', was how our attempts to do something about our state, our suffering, furthered the suffering because the tools we used were created by what he called 'the world-mind', which is conditioned and only interested in its own survival. Thought was the main tool he criticized as being part of the fabrication of world-mind and not capable of leading you away from this circular fabrication.

The inevitable question put to him was 'well what do we do if everything we know and experience is this world-mind that creates suffering?' His answer was there is nothing you can do. This was said not to depress you, but to awaken you. To free you from the wrong effort and the ideas that the world-mind imparts. He often told me that the first thing that has to stop is your seeking, that it is taking you in the wrong direction. You have to become disenchanted and dispassionate as the Buddha stated. Then there is the possibility of that moment that happened to him, that he called his 'calamity', which brought the whole house down.

For me, seeking is a sign that disenchantment and dispassion are not established. These seem to be conditions for awakening but they seem to come about only after exhausting all one's attempts at getting 'there'. UG often would say that 'there' is part of the world-mind's influence and has no reality to it. It simply doesn't exist. That when you discover that you have been fooling yourself, discover the deception, it is nothing like you ever imagined it to be.

[SarathW]

For myself, he was the most honest man I have ever met

I knew (reading his books) about UGK for almost thirty years.
I never could understand his teaching except my conclusion was his teaching is an extension of Hinduism.
Unfortunately, I lost faith in him when I heard the news that he had an affair with his best friends wife.
I am not sure whether this is some sort of mudslinging.
But if it was true he was breaking the third precepts.
I personally will not take him as an enlightened person.
However, I am still open to investigating of his teaching.

[Saengnapha]

For myself, he was the most honest man I have ever met

I knew (reading his books) about UGK for almost thirty years.
I never could understand his teaching except my conclusion was his teaching is an extension of Hinduism.
Unfortunately, I lost faith in him when I heard the news that he had an affair with his best friends wife.
I am not sure whether this is some sort of mudslinging.
But if it was true he was breaking the third precepts.
I personally will not take him as an enlightened person.
However, I am still open to investigating of his teaching.

No, No. You are confusing him with J. Krishnamurti. UG said many times that it was impossible for someone in the natural state to have sex. But, he never said anyone should stop having sex.

It's easy to confuse these two because of their names. UG knew JK, but cut ties with him many years before his 'calamity'.

[sentinel]

[Saengnapha]

Very few people have written clearly about U.G. Many had an immediate reaction to what he put forth because he doesn't serve up any comforting teaching to distract you with. He wasn't selling anything. He never talked about his state unless someone asked about it. With his friends, there was mostly chit chat, not philosophy. He never advised anyone about meditation or what to do to change yourself. No goal or state was ever held up saying this is what you should reach for or understand. He only talked about the process of perception and the conditioned state that we all find ourselves in. He talked about the contradictions that so many have, the brainwashing that has taken place from birth, the constant demand for pleasure, the total failure of seeking. He talked about the illusory self and fear and how the conditioned mind could never free itself.

Here is an interesting extract from a book published in France, "The Useless Self", from someone who also knew U.G.

[CedarTree]

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn140


Epic shared Pali Canon passage!

I ran across this on a Buddhist blog and thought...

The impression gained here is U.G.K thought thought/thinking is a self, as follows:

There is no such thing as a seat located in any particular individual. What there is, is thought. Whenever a thought takes its birth there, you have created an entity or a point, and in reference to that point you are experiencing things. Every time a thought is born you are born.

If this is true, this gives the impression freedom from "selfing" can only be temporary because a human life cannot function without thought, which included the life of U.G.K; where every word U.G.K ever spoke was obviously the product of thought (vaci sankhara).Therefore, freedom from suffering could only be temporary if every time a thought is born the 'self' or 'you' are born. The Pali suttas say conceiving the idea of self is suffering, as follows:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn140

...he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising... SN 12.15

Therefore, it seems the doctrine of U.G.K was different to the Pali suttas (SN 22.59), which say thinking is not-self (anatta).

While the Pali suttas (SN 22.81) do say 'self' is a product of ignorant thought fabrication, the Pali suttas, unlike U.G.K, do not say every thought is a 'self' or an 'entity'.

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.

SN 22.81 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[Saengnapha]

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

Is there something you are trying to say? Please speak in your own words.

[sentinel]

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn140


Epic shared Pali Canon passage!

I ran across this on a Buddhist blog and thought...

The impression gained here is U.G.K thought thought/thinking is a self, as follows:

There is no such thing as a seat located in any particular individual. What there is, is thought. Whenever a thought takes its birth there, you have created an entity or a point, and in reference to that point you are experiencing things. Every time a thought is born you are born.

If this is true, this gives the impression freedom from "selfing" can only be temporary because a human life cannot function without thought, which included the life of U.G.K; where every word U.G.K ever spoke was obviously the product of thought (vaci sankhara).Therefore, freedom from suffering could only be temporary if every time a thought is born the 'self' or 'you' are born. The Pali suttas say conceiving the idea of self is suffering, as follows:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn140

...he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising... SN 12.15

Therefore, it seems the doctrine of U.G.K was different to the Pali suttas (SN 22.59), which say thinking is not-self (anatta).

While the Pali suttas (SN 22.81) do say 'self' is a product of ignorant thought fabrication, the Pali suttas, unlike U.G.K, do not say every thought is a 'self' or an 'entity'.

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.

SN 22.81 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

What UGK meant is only through "thought" one has the sense of self (false self) .
Without any thoughts , nothing is conceivable .

By the way , UGK has no doctrine whatsoever !

[Saengnapha]

The impression gained here is U.G.K thought thought/thinking is a self, as follows:

If this is true, this gives the impression freedom from "selfing" can only be temporary because a human life cannot function without thought, which included the life of U.G.K; where every word U.G.K ever spoke was obviously the product of thought (vaci sankhara).Therefore, freedom from suffering could only be temporary if every time a thought is born the 'self' or 'you' are born. The Pali suttas say conceiving the idea of self is suffering, as follows:

What UGK meant is only through "thought" one has the sense of self (false self) .
Without any thoughts , nothing is conceivable .

By the way , UGK has no doctrine whatsoever !

Yes. Through thought you conceive of a self. This is very similar to what Bhante Punnaji says about the constituents of perception in his explanation of paticca-samupadda.

[CedarTree]

What I was saying was clearly written under the Pali Canon quote.... Lol maybe include that next time?

"Epic shared Pali Canon passage!"

Some people need to practice character traits and socializing more....

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

Is there something you are trying to say? Please speak in your own words.

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn140


Epic shared Pali Canon passage!

The impression gained here is U.G.K thought thought/thinking is a self, as follows: If this is true, this gives the impression freedom from "selfing" can only be temporary because a human life cannot function without thought, which included the life of U.G.K; where every word U.G.K ever spoke was obviously the product of thought (vaci sankhara).Therefore, freedom from suffering could only be temporary if every time a thought is born the 'self' or 'you' are born. The Pali suttas say conceiving the idea of self is suffering, as follows:
Therefore, it seems the doctrine of U.G.K was different to the Pali suttas (SN 22.59), which say thinking is not-self (anatta).

While the Pali suttas (SN 22.81) do say 'self' is a product of ignorant thought fabrication, the Pali suttas, unlike U.G.K, do not say every thought is a 'self' or an 'entity'.

What UGK meant is only through "thought" one has the sense of self (false self) .
Without any thoughts , nothing is conceivable .

By the way , UGK has no doctrine whatsoever !

[Saengnapha]

What I was saying was clearly written under the Pali Canon quote.... Lol maybe include that next time?

"Epic shared Pali Canon passage!"

Some people need to practice character traits and socializing more....

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

Is there something you are trying to say? Please speak in your own words.

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn140


Epic shared Pali Canon passage!

What UGK meant is only through "thought" one has the sense of self (false self) .
Without any thoughts , nothing is conceivable .

By the way , UGK has no doctrine whatsoever !

It doesn't sound like you are saying anything. Please try to speak in your own words. I'm not a mind reader.

[CedarTree]

I am referencing a great post and contribution by another member and that I think is great to the conv in general as it is a Buddhist perspective-bridge passage for some of the focuses that other traditions in particular this teacher have given.

You seem like your looking for some kind of confrontation Not everyone is hostile and living intensely online. Some are just enjoying great posts by others and delighting in little tidbits of wisdom that were unknown.

Have a great holiday season with friends and loved ones and don't look to deep into things were you miss simple points lol

What I was saying was clearly written under the Pali Canon quote.... Lol maybe include that next time?

"Epic shared Pali Canon passage!"

Some people need to practice character traits and socializing more....

Is there something you are trying to say? Please speak in your own words.

What UGK meant is only through "thought" one has the sense of self (false self) .
Without any thoughts , nothing is conceivable .

By the way , UGK has no doctrine whatsoever !

It doesn't sound like you are saying anything. Please try to speak in your own words. I'm not a mind reader.

[form]

Thanks for sharing.

I think this guy is a real maccoy of spiritual development.

[sentinel]

One thing I like about him is , he is a straight shooter . Never pretending .