On The Teaching of J. Krishnamurti
by Bubba Free John
The Dawn Horse Magazine, Nbr 5, 1975


People often equate the Teaching relative to understanding with the ideas of J. Krishnamurti but if you examine the work of Krishnamurti you will see that he is a modern representative of the mind dharma, the way of dissolving, by-passing, or transcending thoughts and mental inclinations or impressions in order, as a result, to enjoy such a state of sensitivity to the rising world that it may be felt and known directly and even unqualifiedly. He recommends no method for this attainment other than attention to the mind itself to the point of seeing that it is not identical to the realities it seems to contain (in language, symbols, experiences) but is a process of obstruction to real awareness of things.

This teaching is certainly not identical to the Way of Understanding, as must be clear to anyone who reads The Knee of Listening, The Method of the Siddhas, and Garbage and the Goddess. It's only basic similarity to the Way of Understanding is its denial of the value of motivated techniques for attainment. However, it relies on a form of attention that is methodical or deliberate and certainly oriented toward 'a specific goal' ("choiceless awareness"). It does not enforce a technique of attainment that meditates upon that goal itself in order to acquire it, but pursues a process of examination and insight, in the perfect event of which the thinking mind is undone. The final stroke of that process is the subjective realization that the perceiver (limited self active as mind) and the perceived (the mind or stream of perceptions and cognitions) are the same event. In that realization, the process of mind is halted, at least temporarily, and a state of openness, quiet, or choiceless (non-mental, or non-reflexive) awareness appears.

But this state of non-reflexive awareness or "meditation" is not identical to Truth. It is only a functional state, one of many conventional ways in which we may enjoy conscious awareness in and of the world. The Way of Understanding involves spontaneous insight into even this strategy of self-observation and this meditative state which we may call the goal of Krishnamurti's path of conscious awareness. One who understands does not depend upon any experiential state, nor can his enjoyment be equated with any functional condition. He knows that no process, high or low, in any plane of manifestation, is Truth or leads to Truth. Therefore, he releases both the quiet mind and the obstructive mind from the burden of being either a way to Truth or, in itself, the very antithesis of Truth. Krishnamurti is speaking from the traditional point of view of dilemma, search, and goal, even though he pursues his path with a great deal less baggage than most. But he is asking his listeners to settle for a meditative state, and his way pursues a change of state as a specific exercise. Truth is not a matter of the quiet mind, the empty mind, the blissful mind, the transcendent mind, or even the Divine Mind, Truth is of a radical and most prior nature, and our initial entrance into the domain of Truth involves insight into the entire process of the world and our own event. In that case, no experiential state or condition or path or attainment fascinates any longer. The possibility of release no longer moves the man of understanding. No meditative condition attracts him or seems hopeful to him. He has no functional condition to recommend. He only confounds his friends with paradoxes, until they no longer seek or depend upon any experience, even any insight. For him, not only is the mind not identical to what it denotes (the world in fact), but nothing that arises is either obstructing Truth (so that it must be eliminated) or leading to Truth (so that it must be followed, maintained, meditated upon, or known). The man of understanding does not recommend a meditative state, but he abides in the radical Condition that is Truth, which is prior to all states, and thus not separable from any state.


Krishnamurti, however, is an exponent of the path of the meditative mind. Apart from this we may also ask: What sadhana does Krishnamurti recommend? What Siddhi does he represent among friends? What, other than their thinking minds, is exercised, transformed, or undone the process? Does not such a communication attract the most mediocre and sophomoric inclinations in men, who always seek and settle for a little subjective calm rather than pass through the fire of utter transformation, perfect sacrifice, absolute knowledge, and the unspeakable dissolution of every consolation, state, or attainment? It is all such adolescent philosophizing?

Krishnamurti is himself an essentially honorable and serious man. He is attractive, even fascinating, by virtue of a certain intellectual purity and a superiority founded in a profound sense of separate, subjective, and personal freedom. But what is he teaching? How does it compare to the incomparably graceful communication of the Siddhas and even the greatest of mystics, yogis, saints, and sages?

Krishnamurti's teaching work is related to certain of the lesser dimensions of Buddhist meditative teaching. And certain of his attitudes represent a self-purifying sophistication relative to common cultural, religious, and spiritual nonsense. As such, he serves a popular social and philosophic role. But once you have stood up from your silly, primitive way of thinking and seeking, you still remain bound to an ignorant, sophisticated way of thinking and seeking. In either case there is suffering only, and bondage to what is hidden and actually controlling life and consciousness. And one who is thus made an advocate of the quiet mind is typically self-involved, bereft of the juice of grace, incapable of yielding to God or Guru, insensitive to the Presence of the Siddhas and essentially disgusted by his fellow men. It would be better to be cooked alive than to gain a little peace by method and trickery. And even if there is a little quiet, real sadhana must begin at last.

Bubba Free John, April 5, 1975


By Sandy Bonder and Tony Montano

Krishnamurti tells people to think, and they start believing immediately. - Bubba Free John


The last issue of The Dawn Horse (No. 5) included a short article by Bubba Free John, "On the Teaching of ]. Krishnamurti." Essentially, this was Bubba's brief and characteristically exaggerated response to the often repeated suggestion that what he teaches is the same thing Krishnamurti teaches. His remarks there were probably not -entirely comprehensible to someone who is either unfamiliar with Bubba's own work or personally attached to Krishnamurti s work. The article was not fundamentally a criicism of Krishnamurti himself or the content of some of his best statements, but rather of his teaching as a whole and as a living event. It was principally a criticism of how others tend to understand and use Krishnamurti's statements and considerations.

In any case, the article prompted a flurry of responses and reactions, some of them quite shrill and vehement. Of the several letters we have received, we have printed a single representative below, one which voices the major arguments that have been brought forward. Following that is our own response, with lengthy quotes from Bubba's recent talks and writings, which we hope will clarify matters generally as well as address the specific objections raised in the letter. We hope to show, among other things, that Bubba's apparently severe appraisal in the first article was not an ill-conceived string of epithets, but a humorous, strongly worded but nonetheless accurate picture of J. Krishnamurti's teaching work.

Read more >>>


return to Dawn Horse Magazine