A new book titled, ‘Goner’ has been published:
Title: Goner: The Final Travels of UG Krishnamurti
Author: Louis Brawley
Publisher: Salisbury: NON-DUALITY PRESS, May 2011
Collation: 394 pages. Softcover. 5½” X 8½” format.
About the Book:
Louis Brawley met UG Krishnamurti in 2002 and spent the following five years travelling with him in the USA, India and Europe keeping a record of this remarkable non-teacher and documenting his own inner struggles as his ideas about life, love and Enlightenment were constantly tossed around and demolished. Louis fell into the role of foil and sidekick to UG’s bizarre interactions with his friends and audience and, as UG’s health deteriorated, he became his informal caregiver.
Louis Brawley doesn’t use honeyed platitudes to tell the story of a sage and his devoted follower; instead he tells an often unflattering story of his own struggles and shortcomings and the dynamic uncertainties of life with a man who “tore apart everything human beings have built up inside and out for centuries.”
Goner will teach you the meaning of the phrase ‘paradoxical truth’. UG Krishnamurti gave up everything for truth, but delighted in ridiculous fabrications; he was a teacher who refused to teach, a man who mocked do-gooders but was deeply kind; he was chaste but foul mouthed, he was a man who decried the supernatural … yet there were strange coincidences around him.
“…the way he lived, his living quarters and his mode of expression were one continuous movement, a three dimensional, living book of teaching. If you were observant, you could learn from him on contact with no need for explanation.”
About the author:
Louis Brawley was born in Ohio and lived and worked in New York, where he met UG Krishnamurti in 2002. Louis works as an artist, photographer and freelance art handler worldwide – occupations which fund his travels around the world writing and recording accounts and impressions from friends of the “Raging Sage”.
Visit publisher: Non-Duality Press
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]
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.
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.
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: He 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.
Thought is Dead: Moving Beyond Spiritual Materialism
By UG Krishnamurti
Paperback: 180 pages
Publisher: CreateSpace (July 31, 2010)
This Book’s Link on Amazon
David Joseph Bohm (20 December 1917 – 27 October 1992) was an American-born British quantum physicist who made contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the Manhattan Project [wikipdia]. Bohm, considered one of the best quantum physicists of all time., has had conversations with Jiddu Krishanmurti, U.G. Krishnamurti and also later with Dalai Lama. At length Bohm deals with the ‘thought’ in his book, ‘Thought as a System’ (1992) and he clearly sees the ‘destructive force’ in the ‘thought’ of the mankind; he was a ‘thought physicist’ too in that sense, so to say.
In a rather rare conversation between David Bohm and U.G. Krishnamurti happened on 17 Aug 1968, UG reveals and relates about the ‘natural state’ that he stumbled upon in 1967 in a more physical body terms. The Thought Knowledge Perception Institute has made these conversations accessible on their site. Here is the 1 of the 16 video clippings of that conversations now available on the youtube also:
The conversation happened between David Brohm and U.G. Krishnamurti is also featured in the recently published book, ‘The Biology of Enlightenment’, edited by Mukunda Rao. [Link]
The following ‘background text’ is sourced from the site of Thought Knowledge Perception Institute:
This conversation took place on August 17, 1968 and the recording lasts for 2 hours and 50 minutes.
Most people are aware of David Bohm’s friendship with Jiddu Krishnamurti. David also had a lengthy conversation with U.G. Krishnamurti on at least one occasion. Many comparisons have been made between Jiddu and U.G. Krishnamurti (no relation) with some people saying that their message are essentially the same. Other people are quick to point out that U.G. was critical of Jiddu and that U.G. was more sweeping in his denial of any kind of pursuit of awareness or meaning to life whereas Jiddu would talk about choiceless awareness, insight, ending thought, and the like.
The recording starts off with U.G. asking David to get the ball rolling and David asks about the “unusual experiences” he heard that U.G. had. U.G. then goes onto to describe the new state of being that came about for him in an unexpected way. U.G. goes into detail about how the experience felt along with the accompanying physical changes. U.G. goes on to say that he feels like he was woken up from a slumber for the first time in his life and from then on thought never operated in the same way in him again. U.G. sums up his experience as the mental functioning coming to an end, the body taking over, life expressing itself, and the “I” not referring to anything substantial. U.G. spends a good amount of time describing how he interacts with objects now that thought is different in him and what it means to see something.
Until about 73 minutes in, U.G. dominates the conversation and David Bohm listens and does not say much. After 40 somewhat minutes in U.G. talks a bit about what he was trying to discover since he was 14 (if there was anything behind all the abstractions the spiritual people were espousing) as well as some comments on the nature of thought and awareness. At one hour in U.G. is continuing to talk about the nature of thought.
After about 73 minutes Bohm starts to talk about thought and relevance and seeing when our judgements of relevance are relevant or irrelevant. Bohm points out how thought brings in irrelevant content that disturbs the function of the brain. Bohm goes on to talk about description and inference, the fundamental activity of science, and taking descriptions as what is. U.G. ends up being the main speaker again until about 93 minutes in where Bohm starts to talk about language as action and the difference between verbal and non-verbal action and the harmony (the lack-there-of) between the two.
Bohm states that the form of our language is out of harmony with its content. Bohm describes how this disharmony leads to confusion and incoherence. Bohm calls for attention to the form of our language and our judgements of relevance and irrelevance.
At times it appears that U.G. is trying to get Bohm to drop his ideas and concepts altogether and see that there is a way of operating that is beyond the structure of thought. Bohm on the other hand seems to feel that despite some things being beyond thought there is still a worthwhile dialogue that can be engaged in and that there is meaning and value in looking at all of these things (thought, language, awareness, communication, etc.) together.
At 110 minutes in Bohm again speaks about language, communication, emotion, and notions of relevance and irrelevance. The conversation then focuses on thought’s nature and seeing what it is doing and how it produces experiences and several other subjects that will be familiar to people who have read Bohm’s written work. The aforementioned subjects are explored in greater depth for the remainder of the recording.
For someone who has heard Bohm’s conversations with Jiddu Krishnamurti you cannot help but feel that David Bohm and U.G. Krishnamurti never really saw eye to eye or really built up much along the same line together during this recording like Bohm was able to with Jiddu. There were times where David and U.G. seemed to exploring together but U.G. would quite often end the conversation with a finalistic or dismissive statement, and at other times Bohm would go into great detail explaining things that U.G. seemed uninterested in or perhaps was not understanding. Yet there were also moments where once senses an agreement between David and U.G. All in all this recording serves as a good glimpse into U.G.’s autobiography in regards to his life changing experience, and a good glimpse into Bohm’s earlier ideas about thought.