After attempting reading of other works by the author over the years, including his diary, I did not esteem his work highly. I tend toward finishing books, but did not finish any of Krishnamurti's. After reading other high reviews and accolades of Krishnamurti's teachings and the man himself, I decided to try this work and be open to the possibility that I had not been receptive rightly before to Krishnamurti's teaching.
I found the book to be unlike many I read, as Krishnamurti posits a spellbinding insight and manner of saying something, at times an entire entry in this selection. Yet, this forthcoming of captivating expression and profound insight is amidst much more that, to me, is a detracting atmosphere. Simply put, much of what the author presents is a 5 star, this work itself not near that.
I will posit some concerns as to Krishnamurti's style of and teaching itself. I will conclude, however, with an affirmation of why I recommend the reading of this book, and other of his works.
1) absolutist language.
Here, I mean a perfectionism that one must have arrived at in order to ascend to the esteemed heights to which the author summons the reader. While the author presents, as in Buddhism, a path not of effortfulness, his words oft do not comply. One could be left wondering, "Is what Krishnamurti teaches possible for anyone?"
This nondual spaciousness, the absolute freedom, we are told is beyond egoic grasp and known in the climate of a pure silent, openness. If so, why the repeated affirmations of reasoned effort, along with the instruction that the mind must be purged of all group belief, the body of all personal feeling? And this move to freedom, Krishnamurti presents frequently as happening suddenly, as though once the last iota of impurity is released, suddenly one is free. He negates, it seems, that freedom is not merely a perfectionistic state suddenly received, but freedom is, as well, a matter of degrees. Emergence is an acclimation slowly from the egoic state to the non-egoic non-state. And one could logically inquire, "Is such a perfection any different from the egoic grasp of escape from fallibility reflected in much dogmatic, fundamentalist religion?" Does Krishnamurti present us any beauty in being imperfectly human?
2) authoritarian tone.
Krishnamurti, first, denies the role of teaching and that he is a teacher: this is common among nondual 'teachers,' it seems. Yet, he did a lot of teaching. Indeed, more than being invitational in approach, which he is at times, mostly he presents as authoritarianly parental toward his listeners. He will even inform them that they are not living what he says, that they just are not 'there' yet, and as though he knows no one listening is. Of course, apparently, he sees himself, among them, as the beacon that alone is.
If no one can be taught the Truth, why such authoritarianism? If one questions this assessment, one may choose to look at the choice of language usage, such as the frequent use of 'must.'
A close friend, at his bedside near death, reported the author bemoaned how no one had understood his teaching. One simply cannot, in consistency, claim Truth is the authority and he or she is no teacher and, as well, project as a teacher living in the heights above the misled minions, even his immediate followers.
Possibly, Krishnamurti reflects a being beyond most others, yet, how one presents that is vital. Spiritual inflation is a subtle form of temptation to persons guiding others toward Truth. Indeed, the profound humbleness of sagacious beings is one aspect that seems to empower their teachings. They present as 'with' others, not 'above' them.
3) anti-belief, religion, tradition, ...
The first two points relate to this. Krishnamurti seemed to have a personality that led him to see in extremes. All religion is bad and to be avoided (all Buddhism, all Christianity, all Islam, all anything religion from ancient times to modern times is useless), for example, he says. Yet, he does, elsewhere, choose to redefine religion to suit his thought. Can one denounce all religion and religions, and, at the same time, in integrity redefine it to encourage it as descriptive of the freedom he espouses as the height of human evolution?
Sages tend to integrate, for that is how they "see." Krishnamurti appears to have seen more from polarity, opposites, even while teaching nonduality, or transcendence of opposites.
The denial of one extreme from the position of another extreme is still an extreme; in this sense, the author appears extremist, denoucing the gurus of this world, he seems to see himself as a modernized guru, disrobed of tradition but not role. One could refer to Krishnamurti as mirroring for us a fundamentalist nonduality, that is, if he had been consistent in applying his own premise. One, also, wonders of anyone who can so annul the entire history of any movement, including religions and governments, that like all, reflect our common shared humanness, and propound that he is showing us the way from it all to what he has to say to us: his vision of utopia. Better, it seems, and more truthful, an integrative, rather than dismissive posture.
Nonduality is generally presented as invitational, likewise as seeing into the strengths of the fallible systems we live through, not dismissive in total.
4) contradiction.
One example I offer, referring again to belief. The author informs us, often, of the evils of belief. I cannot help see in his work his own belief; and, as to belief, he speaks against dogmatism, still he speaks as dogmatically from his certainty as any dogmatic theologian or reverend I have ever heard. The contradictions, again, are linked to his tending to see in opposition not integration, and denouncing all belief leaves one with the impression that anyone who believes anything is simply wrong. One is left with the claim, also, by Krishnamurti that he is devoid of any belief. Or does he mean something other than others mean by belief? Has he redefined belief, as he did religion?
Rather, would a nondual approach not be to see that in belief one finds that which both reflects mere mentality and, also, that instrumental in inspiring and informing one toward Truth? That is, belief includes a spectrum of truthfulness, from total illusion to the threshold of transcending belief itself, truths potentially being guides to Truth.
We cannot escape belief, for we believe something about so many things, maybe all things. Even to deny belief intimates a belief that leads to such denial, meaning only through belief can I deny belief. Krishnamurti does not escape the inevitability of belief, and one could wonder what inspired him to be so against that inevitability? Why not take a middle path, not an against path, in this matter and others?
5) rationalism.
Krishnamurti's approach is different, more rational, than most guides in his general venue of philosophy. While he speaks of Truth arising only when the mind is quieted and our need to drop the mind, his pointing is highly logical and markedly reasoned out. Indeed, he stresses employment of the mind. I am not saying the approach is wrong, and each guide manifests his or her own style; yet, the guidance does not comport with the confirmations that Truth is not mental, is not conceptual.
Regardless of concerns above, I recommend this book, or others by Krishnamurti, for insight into the man and his teaching, and for his teaching. Historically, the man does hold an esteemed place. I am glad to have read this opus, and use his work in my work, for at times he soars above most guides in illuminating an aspect of Truth that can leave one in awe. In these moments of being captivated by the illumination and style of Krishnamurti, one can see why his works still speak so avidly of Truth to so many. For that, I am thankful. Krishnamurti reminds use Truth soars above all who point to Truth.