K Publications Krishnamurti'S Notebook

A deep insight into the teachings of K in raw material if you likeHe probably didn't mean to write it as he did not believe in accumulation of thought or experience for later referenceBut probably the writings literally happened to him from his expanded consciousness, probably to pass on the teachings and keep them aliveIt is a profound book, not to be read casually or as entertainment but as a reference to the mystical states of great mastersAlso it is important to read it AS IS without any personal interpretations or reasoningBy doing that one might be just able to scratch the surface of a vast ocean that K spent most of his incarnate life inHappy experiencing

I heard the audio version of it on YT music. Loved it. So decided to buy the book.

Life changer.....read it. Namaste!

Krishnamurti's teachings hinge on the mystical experiences he underwent as a youth. K underwent "initiations" when he was young, and he experienced an ongoing "process" throughout the rest of his life. Those experiences are the key to his teachings. Without the key, the "pathless land" remains uninhabited. I don't think K comprehended the significance of those experiences, although they certainly altered his consciousness and were the basis of his spiritual life. To K, there was an "other" that was the source of his insights. References to the "other" can be found throughout his Notebook. This is a clue whose significance is elucidated in reference to his youthful out-of-body experiences with the Lord Maitreya.___Krishnamurti did not derive his "teaching" from reading his own books (or the books of others). Nor did he derive it from watching his own videos (or watching others). K was not born with it. In fact, according to the testimony of some, K was a rather moronic child with "a vacant mind." So where did his "teaching" come from? He certainly didn't teach the Theosophy in which he was raised.K underwent occult experiences as a youth in India, culminating in experiences he underwent in California. The occult "process" that had begun in him then continued throughout his life and served as a continual inspiration to him. Without those foundational experiences, K would have had nothing of his own to teach. But those foundational experiences remain unexamined and unexplained, even by K himself. This is why I regard K's "teaching" as "testimony," because as long as the basis of it remains a mystery he is really only testifying to its results rather than "teaching" it. If people could achieve those same foundational experiences by reading his books or watching his videos, then those books and videos would in fact constitute a teaching.Consider Copernicus. If a man asked Copernicus to teach him about the orbits of the planets, Copernicus would refer to a process of scientific observation and mathematics. The teaching of Copernicus would reside in the scientific process of observation and in mathematics, not in merely a conversational approach to the subject. If he merely stated that the Earth rotates around the Sun, his mere statement of the fact would not in itself constitute "proof" or even a "teaching" but merely his own simple testimony which would bear no greater weight (perhaps less weight) than the prevailing belief of the Church.Now consider Krishnamurti. He "taught" using ordinary conversational English. He did not use a specialized language (like mathematics) but instead confined himself to ordinary language with which he addressed ordinary people. The use of ordinary conversational language, in itself, can pose innumerable problems for accurately communicating on a subject as subtle as consciousness. For instance, what one person means by any given word (such as "awareness") is not necessarily what another person means by the word. (Krishnamurti was never very systematic or methodical with his use of words.) In addition to this, rather than employing the scientific method, K denounced the application of "method" and instead advocated "choiceless awareness." Specifically what "choiceless awareness" means is utterly subjective and dependent on whom you ask at any given time.In the absence of applying the scientific method, it is likely that you will merely presume that you are "choicelessly aware." The absence of the scientific method typically implies the presence of mistaken assumptions.K spent decades traveling the world to reach millions of ordinary people through his talks, books and videos. Did the millions of ordinary people who studied his "teaching" fail to understand it because of faults of their own, or was their lack of understanding the fault of K's "teaching"? After more than fifty years, if the millions of students of K's "teaching" failed to understand it, then what's the point of the teaching? Is it comparable to trying to teach calculus to a little child? That would be the fault of the teacher, not the student. But K's "teaching" is not a science, and so the question of why so many people failed to transform remains as unanswerable as the question of what it means to be "choicelessly aware." It remains as much a mystery as the means by which K himself arrived at his spiritual experience.When Einstein published his Theory of Relativity, there were relatively few people who were in a position to grasp it. Those few people were not special or lucky, they simply had the background (the science and mathematics required) to get it. It's a matter of science, not a matter of getting lucky. With K's "teaching," however, understanding is a matter of "getting lucky," as he himself admits.If learning a subject is a matter of luck, like winning at roulette, then I'd say the subject is not susceptible to being taught because to me teaching does not amount to a recommendation to get lucky. You can't teach how to get lucky.I regard Krishnamurti's collected works as brilliant testimony but not a teaching. There is no doubt in my mind that K was an extraordinary human being and that he possessed an extraordinary experience. What he talked about, and what he wrote about, constitutes a testimony. It can inspire. And it can also confuse. Without the scientific method, the likely result is in fact confusion and the absence of consistent results.

Krisnamurti qui nous a quitté en Février 1986 à plus de 90 ans nous transporte dans un autre monde si tant est qu'il aurait cautionné ce genre de "projection".A coté de ses conférences, de ses livres, ce journal nous transmet cette bénédiction authentique et naturelle, cette communion intérieure et extérieure.Certains de ses livres - commentaires sur la vie, ou la révolution du silence par exemple - outre ses causeries témoignent de cette conscience et de cette fusion, ce journal s'y ajoute merveilleusement.K. est toujours vivant.

Love JK