Hello to all in the forum,

I want to make a discussion about the similarities of the above subjects in the title.

Jiddu Krishnamurti a philosopher I like very much has in his conceptual message
a lot of criticism against traditions and says truth is a pathless land.
He mentions that to find truth, you have to be free of all conditioning in the mind, which is
the history of humanity in itself. So to create anything new in this world, the mind has to be empty
of ideas from the past of human history. Im sure a lot know the other things he is talking about in his books
and speeches. For the free ebooks go to:

http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Ebooks/Jiddu-Krishnamurti-Books.htm

He is very eager about an education for children, where learning occurs together with the adult and the child is
free to inquire into truth, without buying blind into superimposed conditioned thoughts from their parents.

This reminds me of a conceptual message of Jesus: ``You have to be like a child to come into the paradise of god

Of course this is just a conceptual comparison!

Also: `The Kingdom of God is within you`' reminds me a lot on Krishnamurtis concern to find truth and fearless joy within!

Buddha seems to be enlightened ( which is just a word) gives ways to conform ( 8 Fold Path) to find the truth and a religion was formed out of it, which creates comparison and separation. But I think, but dont know, that Buddha is non dogmatic, the teaching is just misinterpreted by many?

The same with Christian religion, it creates separation,like every other form of conformity.

There are just human beings, every other belief people have is just a belief and out of this belief comes conflict. To see this clearly without the mind, that your thought created this division is the non conceptual experience Krishnamurti talks about.

In my interpretation( belief) people like Jesus, Krishnamurti and maybe Buddha all have the same message, which is not a thought as thought creates conflict.

My question is for all people searching for Buddhahood or enlightenment.

What is the difference between enlightenment and the joy within?
Personally I experienced the same as Krishnamurti did, but I am really not sure what to make
out of enlightenment? And Actual Freedom aswell? What similarities to Krishnamurtis teachings
are there in all these concepts? Zen philosophy of zazen is truth in itself also reflects Jiddus message or as Life in itself is truth?
There is also a big conceptual conflict on the art of living if you compare Krishnamurtis teachings and buddhist
practices, so I am eager to know from people, who have non conceptual experiences maybe from buddhist practices,
if there is a difference of unconditioning the mind which leads to the non conceptual experience of who you are and coming back with no divisive conceptual opinions in mind and experiences like nirvana or stream entry and all these things?
Krishnamurti speaks of fear and loneliness as facts, who have to be looked at, that the experience of who you are can happen.
I heard in Nirvana its kind of the same, so I am eager to know opinions about that!
Also the practice of looking just deeply to bare sensate experience is maybe also a form of unconditioning the mind?
My question is, unrelated which way or no way one goes, if the mind stops, because it inself has discovered is limits and one sees actual reality, what is there more to discover? Is nirvana any different? Very interested in the answers!


Thank You!

If Buddhist practice leads to experiential realization of emptiness, then there are no divisive conceptual opinions in the mind.

After Avalokiteshvara told Shariputra that "form is emptiness; emptiness also is form," he went even further, pointing out that there is nothing—not even the Buddha's teachings—to hold on to: no three marks of existence, no suffering, no end of suffering, no imprisonment, no liberation. The story goes that many of the students were so dumbfounded by these teachings that they had heart attacks. A Tibetan teacher suggested that more likely they just got up and walked out of the talk. Like the Theosophists with Krishnamurti, they didn't want to hear this.

actually i have a book called "questioning krishnamurti" in which wahula rapulha (if i say correctly) which is the author of "what the buddha taught") asks krishnamurti this, there was no distinct answer i think.
nontheless, i think that in the "core" teaching of the buddha there are some places when he sais no teacher can show you the way, only you can find it. and other stuff which go together (or at least don't differ) with krishnamurtis teaching.

the difference though is that krish doesn't offer a method. he seemed to think that once you totally accept his teaching about "the human predicament" and the fallacy of any action in it, stream entry and stuff just knock on your door like a bad pimp after a night you forgot your wallet (is this funny?).

i think this assumption is so extreme, and differs from buddhism so much that the difference is critical. also, i as a mere meditator didnt get it however deep his insights are. i think you need to see directly and if you are blind (and still have a lot of hope) theres no way you can get enough volition to totally accept it so for the unenlightened its really hard - this the interesting part though - you are your volition, bodhichitta is to totally accept the fallacy this is the only way to step out.

but the altitude of sudden (or direct) try for enlightenment is still something that i think is very important and wouldn't dismiss. he had this brilliant insights and shared with us so we are really lucky for it.

What has become obvious is that all previously known experience (unitive, joy within, void, True Self, from heaven to hell) was self experience or the self.

(From Can Humanity Change? J. Krishnamurti in Dialogue with Buddhists)