What do you think?
Rate this book
Mind Is A Myth Conversations with U.G. Krishnamurti
This book consists of edited talks between U.G and various questioners in India,Switzerland and California
159 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1999
52 people are currently reading
372 people want to read
About the author
U.G. Krishnamurti
66 books135 followersUppaluri Gopala Krishnamurti also known as U.G. Krishnamurti, was an Indian thinker who said that there is no "enlightenment". 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.
U.G was born on July 9, 1918 in Machilipatnam, a town in coastal Andhra Pradesh, India, and raised in the nearby town of Gudivada. His mother died seven days after he was born, and he was brought up by his maternal grandfather, a wealthy Brahmin lawyer, who was also involved in the Theosophical Society. U.G. also became a member of the Theosophical Society during his teenage years.
During the same period of his life, U.G. reportedly practiced all kinds of austerities and apparently sought moksha or spiritual enlightenment. To that end, between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one, he undertook all kinds of spiritual exercise, determined to find out whether moksha was possible. Wanting to achieve that state, he had also resolved to prove that if there were people who have thus "realized" themselves, they could not be hypocritical.As part of this endeavor, he searched for a person who was an embodiment of such "realization".
U.G. emphasized the impossibility and non-necessity of any human change, radical or mundane. These assertions, he stated, cannot be considered as a "teaching", that is, something intended to be used to bring about a change. He insisted that the body and its actions are already perfect, and he considered attempts to change or mold the body as violations of the peace and the harmony that is already there. The psyche or self or mind, an entity which he denied as having any being, is composed of nothing but the "demand" to bring about change in the world, in itself, or in both. Furthermore, human self-consciousness is not a thing, but a movement, one characterized by "perpetual malcontent" and a "fascist insistence" on its own importance and survival.
U.G. denied the existence of an individual mind. However, he accepted the concept of a world mind, which according to him contained the accumulation of the totality of man's knowledge and experience. He also used 'thought sphere'(atmosphere of thoughts) synonymously with the term 'world mind'. He stated that human beings inhabit this thought realm or thought sphere and that the human brain acts like an antenna, picking and choosing thoughts according to its needs. U.G. held all human experience to be the result of this process of thought. The self-consciousness or 'I' in human beings is born out the need to give oneself continuity through the constant utilization of thought. When this continuity is broken, even for a split second, its hold on the body is broken and the body falls into its natural rhythm. Thought also falls into its natural place – then it can no longer interfere or influence the working of the human body. In the absence of any continuity the arising thoughts combust.He stated that we inhabit a thought realm. When the continuity of thought is broken, even for a split second, its hold on the body is broken and the body falls into its natural rhythm. Thought also falls into its natural place – then it can no longer interfere or influence the working of the human body. In the absence of any continuity the arising thoughts combust.
In its natural state, the senses of the body take on independent existences (uncoordinated by any 'inner self') and the ductless glands (that correspond to the locations of the Hindu chakras) become reactivated. UG described how it is the pineal gland (Ajna Chakra) that takes over the functioning of the body in the natural state, as opposed to thought.
U.G. also maintained that the reason people came to him (and to gurus), was in order to find solutions for their everyday real problems, and/or for solutions to a fabricated problem, namely, the search for spirituality
U.G was born on July 9, 1918 in Machilipatnam, a town in coastal Andhra Pradesh, India, and raised in the nearby town of Gudivada. His mother died seven days after he was born, and he was brought up by his maternal grandfather, a wealthy Brahmin lawyer, who was also involved in the Theosophical Society. U.G. also became a member of the Theosophical Society during his teenage years.
During the same period of his life, U.G. reportedly practiced all kinds of austerities and apparently sought moksha or spiritual enlightenment. To that end, between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one, he undertook all kinds of spiritual exercise, determined to find out whether moksha was possible. Wanting to achieve that state, he had also resolved to prove that if there were people who have thus "realized" themselves, they could not be hypocritical.As part of this endeavor, he searched for a person who was an embodiment of such "realization".
U.G. emphasized the impossibility and non-necessity of any human change, radical or mundane. These assertions, he stated, cannot be considered as a "teaching", that is, something intended to be used to bring about a change. He insisted that the body and its actions are already perfect, and he considered attempts to change or mold the body as violations of the peace and the harmony that is already there. The psyche or self or mind, an entity which he denied as having any being, is composed of nothing but the "demand" to bring about change in the world, in itself, or in both. Furthermore, human self-consciousness is not a thing, but a movement, one characterized by "perpetual malcontent" and a "fascist insistence" on its own importance and survival.
U.G. denied the existence of an individual mind. However, he accepted the concept of a world mind, which according to him contained the accumulation of the totality of man's knowledge and experience. He also used 'thought sphere'(atmosphere of thoughts) synonymously with the term 'world mind'. He stated that human beings inhabit this thought realm or thought sphere and that the human brain acts like an antenna, picking and choosing thoughts according to its needs. U.G. held all human experience to be the result of this process of thought. The self-consciousness or 'I' in human beings is born out the need to give oneself continuity through the constant utilization of thought. When this continuity is broken, even for a split second, its hold on the body is broken and the body falls into its natural rhythm. Thought also falls into its natural place – then it can no longer interfere or influence the working of the human body. In the absence of any continuity the arising thoughts combust.He stated that we inhabit a thought realm. When the continuity of thought is broken, even for a split second, its hold on the body is broken and the body falls into its natural rhythm. Thought also falls into its natural place – then it can no longer interfere or influence the working of the human body. In the absence of any continuity the arising thoughts combust.
In its natural state, the senses of the body take on independent existences (uncoordinated by any 'inner self') and the ductless glands (that correspond to the locations of the Hindu chakras) become reactivated. UG described how it is the pineal gland (Ajna Chakra) that takes over the functioning of the body in the natural state, as opposed to thought.
U.G. also maintained that the reason people came to him (and to gurus), was in order to find solutions for their everyday real problems, and/or for solutions to a fabricated problem, namely, the search for spirituality
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
May 26, 2015
Imagine a state where you are looking at a tree and the tree and you and are no longer separate entities. Technically you aren't separate from it because the way you look at the tree is colored by many things and what you are observing is actually yourself, but I'm talking about something more deeper: What if your realization is not just an intellectual but something very natural?
Imagine a state where everything you have been taught by the society and your own deceptions like time and space are dissolved.
Imagine a state where you are no longer defined by the past: not just your past which includes your story, events but the entire past of humanity: our collective beliefs, our definitions etc. Even though we are living in the 21st century, our bodies and our minds contain imprints of early stages of evolution.
Imagine a state where you don't just question normal everyday beliefs but also all the spiritual beliefs that have influenced the mankind.
Imagine a person who takes complete responsibility of knowing the truth (if there is any) and knowing himself.
U.G. Krishnamurthi's ideas are radical and to be honest, they are sometimes contradictory. He says that there is nothing like enlightenment. He criticizes every spiritual leader in the history of mankind: he says that Jesus, Buddha etc were crackpots. He says that Jiddu Krishnamurthi was a bufoon and a hoax. He also criticizes psychologists like Sigmund Freud. He questions almost every piece of knowledge that human beings have discovered, saying that, the person who is acquiring the knowledge is AS IMPORTANT as the knowledge himself. One cannot separate the knower from the known.
I do not agree with everything he says. I felt as if he is also a victim of the same bias that he is accusing others of (for example: he criticizes spiritual leaders for dividing life as spiritual and material but he himself divides nature and man). It is funny when he criticizes Jiddu because his ideas are quite similar to him. Jiddu always talked about the division between the observer and the observed and U.G.'s ideas are built on the same foundation. He criticizes Buddha and Hinduism but ironically, he concludes that there is no 'self' (Buddha said the same) and that there is no duality (Advaita!). Maybe what he meant was that he stumbled upon these truths on his own, not because of any authority and that is what every human being should do. I personally, believe in both: I learn from others but try not to be overawed by those who know more than me. One might dismiss him as a old man who is still stuck in teenage but he says that he is not trying to destroy others, he is actually trying to destroy his own ideas. He says that he wants to destroy what we are going to interpret from his words.
I felt quite depressed after finishing this book because he destroys every thought that human beings ever had. And to be very honest, I would be lying if I said that I could COMPLETELY grasp what he wanted to say. But from whatever I understood, I can just say that he was an interesting person. If you are looking for a book to challenge your beliefs, this could be a good read.
Imagine a state where everything you have been taught by the society and your own deceptions like time and space are dissolved.
Imagine a state where you are no longer defined by the past: not just your past which includes your story, events but the entire past of humanity: our collective beliefs, our definitions etc. Even though we are living in the 21st century, our bodies and our minds contain imprints of early stages of evolution.
Imagine a state where you don't just question normal everyday beliefs but also all the spiritual beliefs that have influenced the mankind.
Imagine a person who takes complete responsibility of knowing the truth (if there is any) and knowing himself.
U.G. Krishnamurthi's ideas are radical and to be honest, they are sometimes contradictory. He says that there is nothing like enlightenment. He criticizes every spiritual leader in the history of mankind: he says that Jesus, Buddha etc were crackpots. He says that Jiddu Krishnamurthi was a bufoon and a hoax. He also criticizes psychologists like Sigmund Freud. He questions almost every piece of knowledge that human beings have discovered, saying that, the person who is acquiring the knowledge is AS IMPORTANT as the knowledge himself. One cannot separate the knower from the known.
I do not agree with everything he says. I felt as if he is also a victim of the same bias that he is accusing others of (for example: he criticizes spiritual leaders for dividing life as spiritual and material but he himself divides nature and man). It is funny when he criticizes Jiddu because his ideas are quite similar to him. Jiddu always talked about the division between the observer and the observed and U.G.'s ideas are built on the same foundation. He criticizes Buddha and Hinduism but ironically, he concludes that there is no 'self' (Buddha said the same) and that there is no duality (Advaita!). Maybe what he meant was that he stumbled upon these truths on his own, not because of any authority and that is what every human being should do. I personally, believe in both: I learn from others but try not to be overawed by those who know more than me. One might dismiss him as a old man who is still stuck in teenage but he says that he is not trying to destroy others, he is actually trying to destroy his own ideas. He says that he wants to destroy what we are going to interpret from his words.
I felt quite depressed after finishing this book because he destroys every thought that human beings ever had. And to be very honest, I would be lying if I said that I could COMPLETELY grasp what he wanted to say. But from whatever I understood, I can just say that he was an interesting person. If you are looking for a book to challenge your beliefs, this could be a good read.
October 9, 2012
The book is the diquieting conversations of Indian born UG Krishnamurti. He is not releated to JIddu Krisnamurti but like him was bought up as part of Theosophists but like Jiddu Krishnamurti, who he knew, he broke away from them.
Unlike Jiddu he rejects having any organisation but sees all religion and philosophy reduced to nothing but the body. The body is immortal - in death it simply is recycled. Soul and mind are illusions.
The body has its own intelligence and we should listen to that.
"Tell them that there is nothing to understand" he states. thought is needed fordaiy life he rejects thought as a basis for Ultimate reality or Truth.
He claimed to reside in a "natural state." The search for enlightemmet is the thing that prevents attaining it.
"I have no teaching. There is nothing to preserve. Teaching implies something that can be used to bring about change. Sorry, there is no teaching here, just disjointed, disconnected sentences. What is there is only your interpretation, nothing else. For this reason there is not now nor will there ever be any kind of copyright for whatever I am saying. I have no claims".
"I am forced by the nature of your listening to always negate the first statement with another statement. Then the second statement is negated by a third and so on. My aim is not some comfy dialectical thesis but the total negation of everything that can be expressed."
While in seeming to shatter every illusion or cultural illusion, I find myself wondering if his idea to accept the reality of our biology is to take away from it. At this point I would rather live in the simplicity of life - tha includes the soulful observance of nature. Of working kifes raw materials like an artist that reworks the thems of a picture. Much like an artist we can rework lifes opposites into a picture.
Perhaps you can do the same with UG's approach - yet I wonder if his reductionism - far more confrontationally of say Osho - who delighted in looking at the opposite to whoever his audience was at the time.
UG says he offers nothing - as that would give us another personal illusion to grab onto. We have to work it out ourself. The test for a philosophy is how I can use it. UG doesnt tell me anything I can use.
Human change, radical or mundane is impossible and non-necessary he says. I admit that like may I find change happens when we let go and accept - opening to the body or intuitive wisdom that allow for possibilty. But change impossible - perhaps in the grand scheme of things, as if seen from the distance of Pluto, our life is seen as unchanged and insignificant.
But then he forces us to relook at what we have grasped at to answer questins beyond us. Even scioence invents concepts - to test and possibly reject them. Perhaps we need to be scientists - or better yet, artists of life. some may call that 'soul', meaning an acceptance of the juice of life. Socrates may have called that therapy - a service of the gods. Perhaps UG would argue we should sewrve the body.
The skeptic in me wondered whether UG's near death experiences at age 49 may have altered his sense of perception. That is altered sense of perception - made intense by personal experience - has convinced him of his own view. My own exprerience of head injury led me to ask if he experienced the world in an a mind altering - if not enhancing way? But then, that in no way negates his life or his view validity. Perhaps I am unsettled by the extent of his challenge on everything most people cherish.
But to be challenged - to be made to think - is a good thing.
"Man is just a memory. You understand things around you by the help of the knowledge that was put in you. You perhaps need the artist to explain his modern art, but you don't need anybody's help to understand a flower. You can deal with anything, you can do anything if you do not waste your energy trying to achieve imaginary goals."
Unlike Jiddu he rejects having any organisation but sees all religion and philosophy reduced to nothing but the body. The body is immortal - in death it simply is recycled. Soul and mind are illusions.
The body has its own intelligence and we should listen to that.
"Tell them that there is nothing to understand" he states. thought is needed fordaiy life he rejects thought as a basis for Ultimate reality or Truth.
He claimed to reside in a "natural state." The search for enlightemmet is the thing that prevents attaining it.
"I have no teaching. There is nothing to preserve. Teaching implies something that can be used to bring about change. Sorry, there is no teaching here, just disjointed, disconnected sentences. What is there is only your interpretation, nothing else. For this reason there is not now nor will there ever be any kind of copyright for whatever I am saying. I have no claims".
"I am forced by the nature of your listening to always negate the first statement with another statement. Then the second statement is negated by a third and so on. My aim is not some comfy dialectical thesis but the total negation of everything that can be expressed."
While in seeming to shatter every illusion or cultural illusion, I find myself wondering if his idea to accept the reality of our biology is to take away from it. At this point I would rather live in the simplicity of life - tha includes the soulful observance of nature. Of working kifes raw materials like an artist that reworks the thems of a picture. Much like an artist we can rework lifes opposites into a picture.
Perhaps you can do the same with UG's approach - yet I wonder if his reductionism - far more confrontationally of say Osho - who delighted in looking at the opposite to whoever his audience was at the time.
UG says he offers nothing - as that would give us another personal illusion to grab onto. We have to work it out ourself. The test for a philosophy is how I can use it. UG doesnt tell me anything I can use.
Human change, radical or mundane is impossible and non-necessary he says. I admit that like may I find change happens when we let go and accept - opening to the body or intuitive wisdom that allow for possibilty. But change impossible - perhaps in the grand scheme of things, as if seen from the distance of Pluto, our life is seen as unchanged and insignificant.
But then he forces us to relook at what we have grasped at to answer questins beyond us. Even scioence invents concepts - to test and possibly reject them. Perhaps we need to be scientists - or better yet, artists of life. some may call that 'soul', meaning an acceptance of the juice of life. Socrates may have called that therapy - a service of the gods. Perhaps UG would argue we should sewrve the body.
The skeptic in me wondered whether UG's near death experiences at age 49 may have altered his sense of perception. That is altered sense of perception - made intense by personal experience - has convinced him of his own view. My own exprerience of head injury led me to ask if he experienced the world in an a mind altering - if not enhancing way? But then, that in no way negates his life or his view validity. Perhaps I am unsettled by the extent of his challenge on everything most people cherish.
But to be challenged - to be made to think - is a good thing.
"Man is just a memory. You understand things around you by the help of the knowledge that was put in you. You perhaps need the artist to explain his modern art, but you don't need anybody's help to understand a flower. You can deal with anything, you can do anything if you do not waste your energy trying to achieve imaginary goals."
August 6, 2024
Enjoyed it. I felt myself wanting to listen to it again as I was listening to it. We will see if I come back to it.
It’s a bit of a deep cut. So if you’ve stumbled across this book, you’re most likely on an internal (psychological, spiritual, etc.) quest for some undefined thing that you may not have words to describe. If that describes you, this book is worth the read.
It’s a bit of a deep cut. So if you’ve stumbled across this book, you’re most likely on an internal (psychological, spiritual, etc.) quest for some undefined thing that you may not have words to describe. If that describes you, this book is worth the read.
January 9, 2020
The amount of "mindblowingness" of this book's content quite likely depends on how much you are familiar with (or embracing) nihilist thinking.
That said there's a strong balance in Krishnamurti's views as they are exposed here, and the perspective of a full-blown nihilism that denies to be of any use for humanity itself (his disillusionment towards the other, more famous Krishnamurti made sure he wanted to avoid embodying a "guru" figure).
He is convinced that the event that led him to his realizations is fully biological in nature, therefore denying any form of spiritual awakening or, even worse, merit. It just happens.
He's not a guru trying to sell you his stuff, but a man with a peculiar, extreme vision sharing it with people who went visiting his home.
This makes the book relatively safe, because it's free from subliminal persuasive discourse, but nevertheless is providing food for thought that has to be taken critically, pondered and evaluated independently (even though he would warn you that doing that would be totally pointless).
That said there's a strong balance in Krishnamurti's views as they are exposed here, and the perspective of a full-blown nihilism that denies to be of any use for humanity itself (his disillusionment towards the other, more famous Krishnamurti made sure he wanted to avoid embodying a "guru" figure).
He is convinced that the event that led him to his realizations is fully biological in nature, therefore denying any form of spiritual awakening or, even worse, merit. It just happens.
He's not a guru trying to sell you his stuff, but a man with a peculiar, extreme vision sharing it with people who went visiting his home.
This makes the book relatively safe, because it's free from subliminal persuasive discourse, but nevertheless is providing food for thought that has to be taken critically, pondered and evaluated independently (even though he would warn you that doing that would be totally pointless).
November 23, 2014
This is a book containing a brief profile of UG Krishnamurthy and the Q&A with him by different people. UG is even more radical than J Krishnamurthy, who at least believed that "Truth is a pathless land". UG believes that there is no truth at all and all we know as truth is myth and fiction. His thoughts are extremely unconventional hence difficult to understand. You learn nothing after reading this book nor you unlearn anything that you know.
March 17, 2018
Tengo que hacer una reseña más larga sobre esto pero en general no le recomiendo este libro a nadie, porque de verdad va a perder su tiempo leyendo. Esta lectura trata de transmitir lo siguiente: no vas a poder conocer NADA, el conocimiento es imposible, jamás lo alcanzaremos y es mejor no hacerlo. Me parece muy peligroso que este tipo de filosofías se impriman y se lean.
January 15, 2021
No revelations, no answers, nothing like guidance
October 31, 2023
Helpful for eradicating Spiritual Hangover.
(Very very Dangerous)
Disclaimer: Hard to Digest.
(Very very Dangerous)
Disclaimer: Hard to Digest.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 30, 2007
Fantastic intro to "anti-guru" U.G. Krishnamurti. In the form of dialogue, question and answer. The answers are great, in that they do their utmost to avoid giving any answer. Indeed, U.G. constantly tells the questioner that they are wasting their time, that he has no answers, that there is no such thing as enlightenment. It is like talking to a black hole. U.G. acts as a simple information processer. Question goes in, he rearranges it, regurgitates it. A great book for reminding you not to take your beliefs so seriously, and blows a lot of popular and silly notions out of the water. Of course, you better form your own opinion on the matter, and not just parrot U.G., which is exactly his point. There is no escape!
April 26, 2016
Denies enligtenment and spirituality but uses other words to describe the same and categorize it as a physical transformation that causes the dropping of the individual ego that projects into the past and future. Some interesting a significant concepts are discussed - UG comes through as a unique personality who spoke uncompromisingly about the human confusion caused by centuries of conditioning
May 31, 2022
If greatness can be surmised in one person, it would be UG. There are many books that have tried to pen down his state. This book has captured my interest as it comprised the point of view of someone as brilliant as UG brilliantly. Mind has fascinated me only to be marked as myth.
This edited version has managed to bring out UG's thoughts in a wholesome manner.
This edited version has managed to bring out UG's thoughts in a wholesome manner.
May 31, 2012
Will totally strip away all the misconceptions you have about the world and how societies operate. It's a really scary read, but one worth the discomfort. Not sure I'll ever look at my daily life the same way after reading this.
February 2, 2007
This book will literally twist your mind. It pretty much ripped up the shreds of any concept of life I had ever constructed and left me with nothing to stand on at all. But I couldn't put it down.
Read
September 23, 2011i have gone through this book a few yrs back.which changed my approach to handle my life in different manner
June 10, 2012
I wanted to read this book and contradoct thing UG would say and I ended up agreeing to most of the things he says. Such is the clarity of thought of this man. A must read
February 11, 2016
This Book is..............
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews