Bodhidharma called Buddha a Barbarian

February 19, 2011

Thought is DeadIn the book, ‘Thought is Dead: Moving Beyond Spiritual Materialism’, we find some rare startling ‘fires’ of UG Krishnamurti, in full swing. Some selected excerpts from this book are reproduced here:

Spiritual Greed:

Greed. You preach against greed. I’m sorry to point out this to you, because you give discourses on how to be free from greed. Are you free from greed? No. Do you want to be free from greed?

Q: No [Laughter]

Hi UG!UG: No. Why the hell are you asking to begin with? I am sorry to spotlight you and put you in that spotlight. So you tell me. I don’t know if there is such thing as greed. If there is a greed it is operating here in this moment in you. I don’t like to use that word bastard, but you are the greediest bastard in this moment. I am using this only to drive it home for you. So you think that I have ‘something’, which you want. If there is money you can rob a bank and take the money. There is something there. But here, it is your ‘assumption’ that I have something, that I am functioning differently, that I am this, that and the other. You want to be like me. If that is not greed, what else is it? She is laughing.

Q: She knows I’m greedy. [Laughter]

UG: When are you going to be free from greed? When are you going to say, “I’m
greediest man”? Right? When are you going to be free from greed? When? Tell me.

Q: Tomorrow.

UG: It is in operation here. The solution for the greed, if at all you are interested in freeing yourself from greed, is to allow that greed to fill the whole of your being. Every cell in your body, everything in that body should vibrate with that greed. By wanting to be free from greed, for whatever reason you want to be free from greed, you are destroying the possibility of freeing yourself from greed. Through greed you’ll be free from greed. Are you ready to accept it? It is the selfishness that will free you from selfishness, and not the preaching or practice of selfishness.

Spiritual Conmen:

UG: Those Zen bastards! They institutionalized meditation. Jokers! I was never attracted to Zen masters. Never! Because they were all the followers of Buddha and what Buddhism tried to preach to the world. So reject it. You all are them! They institutionalized the whole thing. They invented the techniques of meditation.

Q: The Hindus say that the Upanishads are much superior.

UG: Who? They have to because they are Indian.

Q: At least the Upanishads have not institutionalized those things.

UG: They created these metaphysics, the intellectuals. And what you find in Upanishads is not the people whom they are talking about, but the aspirations of those people who ‘want’ to be that state. That’s why Buddha had too much intellectual nonsense. That fellow didn’t have the guts, sir, to go to the end. And when he had this experience he said, as long as there is a single soul imprisoned in the veil of illusion I refuse to enter the gates of Nirvana. He never entered the gates of Nirvana – he refused for the sake of mankind; like the politicians talking of mankind, humanity, you know? And then for the first time in the history of mankind he introduced the element of conversion, proselytization. He created a sangha- he moved from place to place, followed by all these people, and he wouldn’t allow women to join his order for a long time. There were a lot of protestations. Finally he relented and admitted them also. Then came along – this is my reading of history, take it or leave it – an Ashoka, the King, and he used that as an instrument of power, very forcibly in this country. But then Jainism spread in the South, not Buddhism. That’s why you have so many Jain temples. The place where I grew up is called “the place of temples”. Not Buddhist temples, but Jain monasteries. A lot of prostitutes lived there, along with of course…they go together: prostitutes and spiritual teachers. It is not a religion.

Q: But what is the story that he refused to enter paradise?

UG: Who?

Q: Buddha.

UG: BuddhaHe didn’t have the guts. He stopped with some pretty little mystical experience, like anybody else. Like all these gurus you have in the market place. Even Ramana Maharishi stopped there. All of them. That prevents the possibility of these people coming out with something original. So they have to rely upon the authority of the scriptures, and then they interpret. How can a fellow that has written four volumes talk of enlightenment? Tell me. And claim that he is an enlightened man? He cannot do that. It’s a sales speech. They sell that stuff to the poor people. There is authority for them. The filthy word using – enlightenment. Sorry, sir.

Q: Buddha had authority?

UG: No, no, not at all. It was all political, the man, the King Ashoka. Otherwise, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam would have remained small cults. They became the instruments of power. They forced…of course, they didn’t use violence here in this country, but when Buddhism spread to Japan, particularly, the monasteries maintained armies – trained armies – and supplied them to the rival kings. That’s a trait of holiness. Sanyasins never existed in India. It is difficult to understand because you are all sanyasins. [Laughter]. Because you’ve made a business out of that.

Q: Do you say that Buddha is not at all original?

UG: Not at all. He pretended like J. Krishnamurti – original – by not using any authority that existed before. Because that is what the Upanishads said: it is an authority of its own, so I am “pramanya”, I think. Why should I quote that nonsense? I must wash my mouth. [Laughter]

Q: Buddha is very original.

UG: It is all intellectual nonsense. Not original, all saints do that, what did he do? No, sir. The monasteries supplied armies to the rival kings. The founder of Zen, the first fellow who went there, Bodhidharma, called Buddha a barbarian, and said that Buddhist teachings are nothing but toilet paper. He had the guts to say that in the 7th century! He is quoted there.

Q: The emperor asked him, what is the holy teaching of the Buddha? And he said, no holiness, just…

UG: Kill him, he said. If you meet Buddha kill him. Well, anyway, why do you need a Buddha? It’s the same as Christianity, the conversion – with violence! You may say Buddhism is not violent – Indians are cowards. You swallow anything! Hinduism is not a religion at all like Judaism. It’s social, political, economic, a lot of things put together. It’s just a way of life and way of thinking, nothing else. That is culture. It is not art, beauty, poetry, music – that is not culture. So that is part of your thinking. You think that you are superior to me because you are a swami. What have you renounced? You have not renounced anything. And the second thing is, they pick up a new job, a new language, use that and feel great.T that’s all. Use those words, Krishnamurti lingo.

“A truly religious person does not want anything for himself [laughter], but it is the responsibility of you all [laughter] to see that my teaching is ‘the’ teaching, and should be preserved for posterity in its pristine purity. So give liberally to my cause.” [Laughter]

Q: He uttered that?

UG: Sure, he said “cause”. You see, he was brought up in poor conditions. He didn’t have everything in his life. Here it is the other way around. Buddha was born a king. Anything I wanted I could have had. Anything, anything in the world, I has as a matter of fact, everything that one could reasonably ask for. If I wanted to buy a Rolls-Royce car, just in a jiffy…by writing a check on the Imperial Bank of India I could buy, so you see. Money was not, in that sense, a primary preoccupation. That is not my interest. See, I knew how you could make money. If I decided myself to money I would have been the world’s richest man – world’s richest! All the billionaires in America would be insignificant. That was not my interest. My only interest was to be certain that Buddha was a conman. These people around you, the claimants, are not really the genuine people. There is a dichotomy in their lives – what they said and what…

Some More Excerpts:

The fact of the matter is that when once you have everything that you can reasonably ask for in this world, when all the material needs are taken care of naturally the question arises, “Is that all?” And once you pose that question to yourself – “Is that all?” – a tremendous market for this kind of a business is created: a holy business. And they are exploiting the gullibility and credibility of people, not helping them to resolve the basic problem, the human problem. So you don’t want to be a normal person, you don’t want to be an ordinary person. That is really the problem. It’s the most difficult thing is to be an ordinary person. Culture demands that you must be something other than what you are. That has set in momentum this tremendous, powerful movement of thought which demands that you should be something other than what you are.

Every gland in my body, every cell in my body, has undergone a radical mutation. Why do I use the word mutation? Because I can’t think of a more appropriate word. Every gland has undergone a transformation because it seems to be functioning in a different way. The brain waves are incredible, and I would very much like to have the opportunity to use a brain wave machine. The electricity that goes out of my body is tremendous since there is no point inside of me. There is no space for me at all. Then it expands. The electricity that is generated in this body goes to the end of the universe, affecting the whole thing. When I come out of this state, whatever you call it, the whole body is filled with peace. It’s some kind of a substance like a white substance. The whole body is filled with this white substance. You can look at it and it shines like a phosphoresce. It’s the whole body.

 

About the Book:
‘Thought Is Dead’ is a unique selection of mostly unpublished and rare transcripts of U.G. Krishnamurti in dialogue, including a particularly rare discussion with renowned physicist David Bohm. U.G. explains how our desire for spiritual enlightenment is a greed, like any other, and that we are operating as a complex set of machinery. In addition U.G. details, in a step-by-step account, the mysterious process by which his consciousness underwent a complete transformation.
About the Author:
Uppaluri Gopala Krishnamurti (July 9, 1918 – March 22, 2007), known as U.G. Krishnamurti, or just U.G., was an Indian sage who spoke of his enlightenment openly. Although necessary for day to day functioning of the individual, in terms of the Ultimate Reality or Truth he rejected the very basis of thought and in doing so negated all systems of thought and knowledge in reference to It.
Book Details:
Thought is Dead: Moving Beyond Spiritual Materialism
By UG Krishnamurti
Paperback: 180 pages
Publisher: CreateSpace (July 31, 2010)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1453709371
ISBN-13: 978-1453709375
This Book’s Link on Amazon

 

Advertisements

UG: ‘Yes, I shall maintain Sankara was a bastard! Mandukya is shit!’

October 13, 2010

His name was Chakravarti Ananthachar. As his name indicates, he was AdiSankaracharyaborn in a Vaishnava family which followed the tradition of Vishistadvaita (qualified nondualism) taught by Sri Ramanujacharya. Although Mr. Ananantachar was profound scholar in Sankrit grammar and logic and an authority on Ramanajacharya’s philosophy, he was also a great admirer of Sankara and his Advaita philosophy. He lectures on Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta always drew large crowds and earned him a good standing in the spiritual circles of Bangalore. That is how several of my friends got to know of him. Once upon a time, my friend Krishnamurthy was very close to him and was attending his lectures almost every day.

One day in June 1998, our friend Venkata Chalapati spoke about UG to Anantachar describing UG as a “Jivanmukta”. Anantachar was impressed and expressed his interest in meeting UG. But UG dissuaded Venkat Chalapati: “Why do you want to bring him? You say that he is a scholar and professional speaker. Such people have an investment in the tradition they believe in. How can he listen to me?” But Venkat Chalapati’s eagerness prevailed.

At last, on Sunday June 21 1998, Anantachar walked into Major’s Farm house to meet UG. He was accompanied by Venkat Chalapati and Krishnamurthy.

UG respectfully offered a seat next to him on the sofa. Some of us on the floor and some on the available chairs. I wrote down the points of discussion between UG and Anantachar. Here is the text of the conversation that took place on that bright sunny afternoon.

Anantachar introduced himself as a theoretical Vedanta exponent, and a mere speaker and scholar on matters of Vedanta. He started his conversation with UG saying, “Those who are in the highest spiritual state are said to be in possession of several powers.”

UG made no comment.

Anantachar: Don’t you think that through meditation one can achieve great heights in spiritual life?

UG: Meditation should not be given any importance at all. That’s my feeling.

Anantachar: Then what shall we do?

UG: Nothing; do nothing.

Anantachar: [Smiling] In that case everyone becomes a yogi.

UG: I am not a yogi.

Anantachar: Anyway sir, you are a widely travelled person. Don’t you think it is possible to bring out a universal philosophy to end all conflicts?

UG: Universal philosophy as such doesn’t exist except as an idea. That goal has created the actual problem.

Anantachar: Do you mean to say that a universal life doesn’t exist? All the masters of all religions talked of the oneness of life.

UG: You are an expression of that life. The mosquito that is sucking your blood is another expression of that life. The garden slug out there is another expression. The problem is we want to understand life. We try to understand life. We try to understand. That attempt is bound to create conflict.

Anantachar: Advaita Vedanta talks about that life as anivachaniya, indefinable.

UG: In that case, why should they talk about it? [Now UG’s tone got sharper.] If there is anything as the “beyond”, it can never be captured, contained or given expression to. How can they describe it as bliss, beatitude and all that nonsense? If they know that it is anivarchaniya, they should have stopped right there.

Anantachar: As philosophers they wanted to postulate…

UG: What good is that to you sir? Philosophers as I know are lovers of wisdom. That’s what they are. Philosophy only helps to sharpen the intellect.

Anantachar: Sir, how to determine whether a man is wise or not?

UG: You have no way of knowing.

Anantachar: Sankara describes the characteristics of an enlightened man. Even in the Gita it is said…

UG: They are all empty words and empty phrases, sir! They mean nothing. What’s the use of all those words? You haven’t helped you. You are still asking the same question.

Everybody laughs. Anantachar is visibly shaken. He asks for a cup of water and empties two cups, one after the other.]

Anantachar: We have to use words to communicate with each other.

UG: I say and maintain that no communication is possible and none is necessary.

Anantachar: But we have no other way to wisdom.

UG: Why are we not ready to accept that “wisdom” is a real block?

Anantachar looks the people around helplessly. He turns to Venkata Chalapti and says “I can’t understand what he is saying.” He then turns to UG.

Anantachar: You have gone a little above my head. I am not able to follow you. I have worked for several years academically…

UG: But I am an illiterate…

Anantachar: No. No. I can’t agree. You are an enlightened person. Only a few are gifted to be enlightened. An enlightened person is above everything. In my opinion, when a man forgets all his surrounding in the contemplation of the undivided Self, that state, according to Sankara, is the “Brahmi State”. My practice of meditation is very poor. I haven’t done any sadhana. But I want to. I am only a Jnanamaargi.

UG: I am not a scholar like you. But I studied Advaita philosophy. Prof. Mahadevan was our teacher of Advaita philosophy.

Anantachar: Sir, how can we understand the world?

UG: There is no need to understand the world.

Anantachar: Otherwise, how can we be in contact with the world?

UG: Do you think you are really in contact withy anything? Do you think you are looking at that man? Do you think you have ever looked at your wife even once? If you once looked at your wife, that would be the end of the whole relationship. You look at everything through the knowledge you have. It’s the knowledge about the things around that creates the world for you. You can not experience anything that you do not know. In that sense I say and maintain that there is no such thing as new experience at all. How can you have contact with the world?

Anantachar: As long as we breathe and live in this world we keep the contact.

UG: No, on no level can you contact anything.

[Ananatachar was disturbed with the rise in UG’s voice. He became fidgety in his seat next to UG. He asked for more water and Mohan gives him some.]

Mohan: [to Anantachar] Do you accept what he is saying, sir?

UG: How can he say anything? He is not in a position to say.

Anantachar started quoting the Mandukya Upanishad. “There is Para wisdom and there is Apara wisdom. When once you renounce Vritti Gnana, then Swarupa Jnana dawns on you. Ultimately, upasantoyam atma, as the instructions in the Mandukya indicate.”

At this point, UG Gaudapadasuddenly flared up. He burst out saying that Mandukya Upanishad does not even have as much worth as toilet paper. He called Sankara a bastard for writing commentaries on Upanishads. He started his tirade on Gowdapada for writing the karika to Mandukya and called him also a bastard.

This was too much for Anantachar. He started trembling with anger. He could no longer sit in a composed manner. Mohan was trying to calm him down handing him more cups of water. “Drink more water sir, and sit comfortably,” Mohan told him.

Anantachar: [In an agitated voice, looking at the people around]. “This is too much, sir. He uses such uncivilised terminology. How can he call Sankar a bastard? How can an enlightened person use such foul language?”

Then UG again flared up.

UG: Yes, I shall maintain Sankara was a bastard! Mandukya is shit! It is his shit that is coming out of your mouth. What do you have to say? That is my question. Don’t repeat Sankara, Gowdapada and all that nonsense. You are just repeating. A tape recorder does a better job than you. What you say, does it operate in your life? You can teach fools from the platform and make a living. I have no objection. But it has not touched you. How can anybody describe that state a love and bliss? Love divides and separates. There is already division. How can there be love?

Anantachar stood up. He couldn’t take it anymore. He said, “I came here hoping to see an enlightened person. I never expected I would be meeting such a negative person instead.”

UG countered immediately saying, “You came to the wrong man. You can go now.”

Anantachar folded his hands as a mark of respect and walked out of the room.

The above excerpts are sourced from the book:
Stopped in our tracks: UG-anecdotes, comments and reflections (Second series). From the Notebooks of K. Chandrasekhar; translated by J.S.R.L. Narayana Moorty. Bangalore: Firsthand Publications, [2010].


If Einstein Were Here Right Now, I Could Shut Him Up In One Minute

August 29, 2010

Einstein

“Chandrasekhar, please come here,” called U.G. leaning against the parapet wall on the terrace. I approached him quickly wondering what he might show me. U.G.’s attention was on the road. The branches of Valentine’s tree spread widely above us like an open umbrella. “Can you see the space between those branches and the vehicles passing on the road?” asked U.G.

“Yes, why not? No matter how bent the branches are, the eyes can see the space between them and the road behind them,” I replied.

“I cannot. All that seems like a two dimensional picture to me. My eyes can see everything in front, one thing after another, but they cannot see the space among them. There are no measurements such as length and breadth, let alone depth. I maintain that the physical eye cannot see the third dimension. Our minds interpret what we see as the third dimension, but the eyes don’t tell us that there is space. When the present-day scientists talk about the fourth dimension on top of the three dimensions, I feel like breaking their teeth. Where is that fourth dimension? I say that even the third dimension is a lie. If Einstein were here right now, I could shut him up in one minute,” U.G. said. With that my mouth closed shut.

The above excerpts are sourced from:
Stopped In Our Tracks
(2nd/3rd Series) Stories of U.G. In India from the Notebooks of K. Chandrasekhar Translated and Edited by J.S.R.L. Narayana Moorty
Read on Links:
(1) u-g-krishnamurti.blogspot
(2) newsgroups.derkeiler


Foes are Friends too: Osho’s Tribute to J. Krishnamurti

May 18, 2010

The beauty or the freedom with the masters is that two masters may never agree with each other and instead they indulge and enjoy the ‘game’ of abusing each other profusely. It is to be construed more as a ‘joyous play’, less as a ‘serious play’. It also happened among Osho, J. Krishnamurti, and U.G. Krishnamurti – a classic case here.

In the following excerpts, Osho speaks on the peak of J. Krishnamurti (11 May 1895 – 17 February 1986):

Death of the mystic, J. Krishnamurti,
Osho’s tribute

J. Krishnamurti died last Monday (17 February 1986), In Ojai, California. In the past you have spoken of him as another enlightened being. Would you please comment on his death?

The death of an enlightened Jiddu Krishnamurtibeing like J. Krishnamurti is nothing to be sad about, it is something to be celebrated with songs and dances. It is a moment of rejoicing. His death is not a death. He knows his immortality. His death is only the death of the body. But J. Krishnamurti will go on living in the universal consciousness, Forever and forever.

Just three days before J. Krishnamurti died, one of my friends was with him; and he reported to me that his words to him were very strange. Krishnamurti was very sad and he simply said one thing: “I have wasted my life. People were listening to me as if I am an entertainment.” The mystic is a revolution; he is not entertainment.

If you hear him, if you allow him, if you open your doors to him, he is pure fire. He will burn all that is rubbish in you, all that is old in you, and he will purify you into a new human being. It is risky to allow fire into your being—rather than opening the doors, you immediately close all the doors.

But entertainment is another thing. It does not change you. It does not make you more conscious; on the contrary, it helps you to remain unconscious for two, three hours, so that you can forget all your worries, concerns, anxieties—so that you can get lost in the entertainment. You can note it: as man has passed through the centuries, he has managed to create more and more entertainments, because he needs more and more to be unconscious. He is afraid of being conscious, because being conscious means to go through a metamorphosis.

I was more shocked by the news than by the death. A man like J. Krishnamurti dies, and the papers don’t have space to devote to that man who for ninety years continuously has been helping humanity to be more intelligent, to be more mature. Nobody has worked so hard and so long. Just a small news article, unnoticeable—and if a politician sneezes it makes headlines.

What is your connection with Krishnamurti?

It is a real mystery. I have loved him since I have known him, and he has been very loving towards me. But we have never met; hence the relationship, the connection is Something beyond words. We have not seen each other ever, but yet…perhaps we have been the two persons closest to each other in the whole world. We had a tremendous communion that needs no language, that need not be of physical presence…. You are asking me about my connection with him. It was the deepest possible connection—which needs no physical contact, which needs no linguistic communication. Not only that, once in a while I used to criticize him, he used to criticize me, and we enjoyed each other’s criticism—knowing perfectly well that the other does not mean it. Now that he is dead, I will miss him because I will not be able to criticize him; it won’t be right. It was such a joy to criticize him. He was the most intelligent man of this century, but he was not understood by people.

He has died, and it seems the world goes on its way without even looking back for a single moment that the most intelligent man is no longer there. It will be difficult to find that Jiddu Krishnamurtisharpness and that intelligence again in centuries. But people are such sleep walkers, they have not taken much note. In newspapers, just in small corners where nobody reads, his death is declared. And it seems that a ninety-year-old man who has been continuously speaking for almost seventy years, moving around the world, trying to help people to get unconditioned, trying to help people to become free—nobody seems even to pay a tribute to the man who has worked the hardest in the whole of history for man's freedom, for man's dignity.

I don’t feel sorry for his death. His death is beautiful; he has attained all that life is capable to give. But I certainly feel sorry for the whole world. It goes on missing its greatest flights of consciousnesses, its highest peaks, its brightest stars. It is too much concerned with trivia.

I feel such a deep affinity with Krishnamurti that even to talk of connection is not right; connection is possible only between two things which are separate. I feel almost a oneness with him. In spite of all his criticisms, in spite of all my criticisms—which were just joking with the old man, provoking the old man…and he was very easily provoked…. Krishnamurti’s teaching is beautiful, but too serious. And my experience and feeling is that his seventy years went to waste because he was serious. So only people who were long-faced and miserable and serious types collected around him; he was a collector of corpses, and as he became older, those corpses also became older.

I know people who have been listening to him for almost their whole lives; they are as old as he himself was. They are still alive. I know one woman who is ninety-five, and I know many other people. One thing I have seen in all of them, which is common, is that they are too serious.

Life needs a little playfulness, a little humor, a little laughter.

Only on that point am I in absolute disagreement with him; otherwise, he was a genius. He has penetrated as deeply as possible into every dimension of man’s spirituality, but it is all like a desert, tiring. I would like you back in the garden of Eden, innocent, not serious, but like small children playing. This whole existence is playful. This whole existence is full of humor; you just need the sense of humor and you will be surprised…. Existence is hilarious. Everything is in a dancing mood, you just have to be in the same mood to understand it.

I am not sorry that J. Krishnamurti is dead; there was nothing more for him to attain. I am sorry that his teaching did not reach the human heart because it was too dry, juiceless, with no humor, no laughter.

But you will be surprised to know—whatever he was saying was against religions, was against politics, was against the status quo, was against the whole past, yet nobody was condemning him for the simple reason that he was ineffective. There was no reason to take note of him….

Krishnamurti failed because he could not touch the human heart; he could only reach the human head. The heart needs some different approaches. This is where I have differed with him all my life: unless the human heart is reached, you can go on repeating parrot-like, beautiful words—they don’t mean anything. Whatever Krishnamurti was saying is true, but he could not manage to relate it to your heart. In other words, what I am saying is that J. Krishnamurti was a great philosopher but he could not become a master. He could not help people, prepare people for a new life, a new orientation.

But still I love him, because amongst the philosophers he comes the closest to the mystic way of life. He himself avoided the mystic way, bypassed it, and that is the reason for his failure. But he is the only one amongst the modern contemporary thinkers who comes very close, almost on the boundary line of mysticism, and stops there. Perhaps he’s afraid that if he talks about mysticism people will start falling into old patterns, old traditions, old philosophies of mysticism. That fear prevents him from entering. But that fear also prevents other people from entering into the mysteries of life….

I have met thousands of Krishnamurti people—because anybody who has been interested in Krishnamurti sooner or later is bound to find his way towards me, because where Krishnamurti leaves them, I can take their hand and lead them into the innermost shrine of truth. You can say Oshomy connection with Krishnamurti is that Krishnamurti has prepared the ground for me. He has prepared people intellectually for me; now it is my work to take those people deeper than itellect, to the heart; and deeper than the heart, to the being.

Our work is one. Krishnamurti is dead, but his work will not be dead until I am dead. His work will continue.

The above excerpts are sourced and reproduced from the [link].

Some Links:
(1) An Overview of Krishnamurti’s Life and Work
(2) The Core of the Teachings
(3) Jiddu Krishnamurti [on Wikipedia]


Height of Discourses

May 15, 2010

WisdomMany of the so called pedantic discourses are mere pediatric shits.
– –


Knowledge Obesity

May 13, 2010

Knowledge obesityKnowledge vs Muscle Obesity is far more dangerous than the muscle obesity.
– –


Height of Wisdom

April 29, 2010

Wisdom is not in the Vedanta shit, but in this very instant moment.
– –