Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00137)

Here is an excerpt from an interesting post from listening-l.


Som: Krishnamurti used a different metaphor to convey some of
the ideas that the Hindu sages had put forward. I consider him to
be one of the Rishis, who talked a more modern language.

Devotion that Krishna demands of Arjun is not blind devotion. The
Bhagwad Gita is a dialog between two friends and not a treatise on
do's and don'ts.

Arjun has many questions and doubts that Krishna answers in a
friendly manner. He takes Arjun through a journey of self-discovery.

And then Arjun sees the Cosmic Form of the Lord, and surrenders
to that Cosmic Form.

Krishnamurti does the same thing: he takes his listeners through a
friendly journey of exploration and encourages them to ask
questions and raise doubts.

Through a journey of self discovery, a person may seee the Truth
and then surrender to that Truth.

It is interesting that when Arjun sees the Cosmic Form of the Lord,
he sees neither a beginning nor an end, and all times, the past, the
present, and the future are contined in that Cosmic Form, as are all
life forms and everything else. Arjun fails to describe the Cosmic
Form in words and merely bows to it.

The Truth that Krishnamurti is talking about is similar: it cannot be
captured in words. I wonder if you have read K's journal and the
notebook. His description of the "otherness", "benediction" etc. is
an attempt to describe what the author(s) of the Bhagwad Gita
have tried capturing in the metaphor of their time.

Krishnamurti takes his audience to "that which is beyond thought";
Krishna urges Arjun to look at that which is beyond death.

That which is beyond thought (K) is the same as that which is
beyond death (Lord Krishna).

I think there are interesting parallels between the message of the
Gita and the message of K.

But K was aware of this tendency in people to merely repeat
religious scriptures without thinking about their significance and
consequently did not make any direct references to scriptures.

But for all practical purposes, he was a Rishi (a Sage), who spoke
a more contemporary language.

Makes sense? At least some what?