Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00622)

Hi All

Konstantin, I find interesting yours commentaries. But I would like 
point out one thing. You say:

`By the way Buddhist approach perhaps contradicts to that of
Krishnamurti "to live in now". "Now" is just an illusion, maybe
greatest of all. In his Harward lectures Dalai Lama mentions
that the moments from future are incessantly becoming moments
of the past, and it comes so that probably there's no any "now".
Though I am not sure that all Buddhist schools share this view.'

It depends upon what are you saying by "now". The sense of 
Krishnamurti speaks is the same that "Live in the Eternal" 
form `Light on the path'. Dalai Lama is referring to another thing. 
In fact, Tibetan school of Ati-Yoga (Dzogchen, the `Highest Yoga') 
has the same teachings of Krishnamurti. If somebody says that 
Krishnamurti teachings are invented or are inconsistent, obviously he 
don't knows Tibetan, Vedantic, and mystical teachings (see, for 
example, teachings of Eckhart, Tauler, and Boehme in Christianity; 
Namkhay Norbu, Tarthang Tulku, and Kempo Donyo in Tibetan Buddhism; 
Ramana Maharshi, Venkatesananda or Jean Klein in Vedanta, and some 
Sufis, included Idries Shah). Essentially, Krishnamurti doesn't say 
too much new concepts. I found only a few of them (however important, 
I think).
I think his role (if he had one) was to spread those teaching in a 
colloquial language and non-sectarian way. In that sense, he could be 
a "World Teacher" because was unattached of every particular 
tradition.
Everybody can disagree with Krishnamurti teachings, that are another 
topic, but he didn't invent anything so, what's the astonishment for 
his statements?
Best Regards
Pablo