PDA

View Full Version : U. G. Krishnamurti on yoga


oak
11-06-2006, 07:06 PM
i've been reading a bit of U. G. Krishnamurti (http://www.ugkrishnamurti.net/) lately, and something really hit home so to speak:
The control of the body through thought has destroyed the possibility of humans growing into complete humans, that's all.

The extraordinary intelligence of the biological organism is all that is necessary for good living, but we are all the time interfering with its natural operation through the medium of thought. Your "natural" bodily computer is already programmed, pressed, and plugged in! You don't have to do a thing! We are a very long way from this primal condition.

Sometimes you are just sitting there and you suddenly feel a shortness of breath, almost a gasping for air. It is something like a second wind. The yogins are trying to achieve this second wind through the practice of various techniques. So do the athletic runners. If you watch the runners you will see that they have to pass a "wall" of exhaustion and shortness of breath. Once through the "wall" they are running on a second wind. It is something like that for me. But even this passes, and finally breathing stops altogether and the body bypasses the lungs, breathing with the pulse of the body alone. Sometimes, when there is nobody to talk to, I sit and allow all these strange things to happen.

One paper, done by Dr. Paul Lynn of the United States, stresses the difference in the way my thymus gland functions. But there are other glands that are affected also---the pineal, the pituitary, and others. The pineal gland, which controls the whole movement, breathing, and coordination of the body, is greatly affected. When the separative thought structure dies, these glands and nerve plexuses take over the functioning of the organism. It is a painful process, for the hold of thought over the glands and plexuses is strong and has to be "burnt" off. This can be experienced by an individual. The burning or "ionization" needs energy and space to take place. For this reason the limits of the body are reached, with energy lashing out in all directions. The body's containment of that energy in its limited form brings pain, even though there is no experiencer of pain there.

This painful death process is something nobody--not even the most ardent religious practitioners and yogins--wants. It is a very painful thing. It is not the result of will, but is the result of a fortuitous concourse of atoms.

This death process is yoga, not the hundreds of postures and breathing exercises. When the thought process stops splitting itself in two, the body goes through a clinical death. First the death must take place, then yoga begins. Yoga is actually the body's skill in bringing itself back from the state of clinical death. This is supposed to have happened to a few people, like Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana Maharshi. I wasn't there and have no interest or resources to find out if this is so. This yoga of renewal is an extraordinary thing. If you observe a newborn baby, you will have observed the way it moves and articulates its whole body, all in a natural rhythm. After the breath and heartbeat come to almost a complete stop, somehow the body begins to "come back". The corpse-like appearance of the body--the stiffness, coldness, and ash covering--begin to disappear. The body warms up and begins to move, and the metabolism, including the pulse, picks up. If you, out of scientific curiosity, wish to test me, I am not interested. I am simply making a statement, not selling a product.

So, it is much more like the Chinese Tai-Chi than classical Yoga asanas. The movements and postures that the body performs when breaking down the stiffness left over from the death process are beautiful, graceful movements, like those of a newborn baby. Yogins now prescribe savasana, the corpse posture, after the performance of any moving postures. This is backward. You start yoga as a dead stiff body, then the body is renewed through natural rhythmic movements. Probably there was some guru who went through this natural death process and his disciples, watching him return to life, tried to duplicate this death process though breathing and posture techniques. They got it backward. First, you must die, then, there is yoga.

- snipped and rearranged from Mind is a Myth - 6. The Body as a Crucible (http://www.ugkrishnamurti.net/ugkrishnamurti-net/chapter6.html)

m1thr0s
11-06-2006, 08:02 PM
Funny this should come from Krishnamurti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U._G._Krishnamurti), whom I have always found unnecessarily wordy...lol...

In part this is because he paints this image of a Guru (not-guru?) at conflict with himself...ill-at-ease with his own leadership etc. Most of his life has been spent dealing from within that conflict and, for me at least, it puts his language at a level very similar to the kinds of intellectuals he so often rails against. I pick up that conflict in his words and it always makes me feel uneasy...that may actually be his whole intent however.

There are some good insights in this...his rant on individuality is only partially true. Nature does not "discard" individuals once "perfected" since it has yet to accomplish even one such individual that we really know of for certain. It also certainly does work within certain matrixes...certain "models" which he seems to be rejecting...

All a matter of context really but he should be a little more careful about containing his own grandiose generalizations I think...

m1thr0s

m1thr0s
11-07-2006, 02:36 AM
He does say some very cool things though...I love this bit:

"I have no particular message for mankind, except to say that all holy systems for obtaining enlightenment are nonsense and that all talk of arriving at a psychological mutation through awareness is rubbish. Psychological mutation is impossible. The natural state can happen only through biological mutation."

here here!...I've been trying to explain that for years and years...don't try to change the mind...it's a trick people...if something needs changing...look to the body itself...or in other words...

free your ass...your mind will follow.
(no need to ask...no need to wallow...)

exactly opposite of what you have been taught.
saying that would make me a very dangerous person, save that almost no one is paying any heed to it anyway...
eventually it will be proven to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

m1thr0s

oak
11-07-2006, 11:04 AM
Funny this should come from Krishnamurti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U._G._Krishnamurti), whom I have always found unnecessarily wordy...lol...
yea he is, i mostly glanced over his stuff because of that, and the repetiveness. i think those are there because his "books" are basically more or less whole transcripts of his conversations with different (sometimes not so bright) people. or as he says:
This is a live mirror reflecting things exactly as they are. There is nobody here: I don't see anything; the whole of my body is reflecting things exactly the way they are out there. (link (http://www.ugkrishnamurti.net/ugkrishnamurti-net/mystiq4.htm))

i'm kinda flattered if you didn't notice the quote i posted went through my longwindedness removal system though, came out quite nicely i think. :)

his rant on individuality is only partially true. Nature does not "discard" individuals once "perfected" since it has yet to accomplish even one such individual that we really know of for certain.


i think his point with that is simply what he says here, in the same chapter i posted the yoga stuff from:
Q: But isn't it possible that the very presence of a unique person, a fully flowered individual, can be of some help to others, not in the sense of providing a model, but in possibly triggering change and uniqueness in others?

U.G. I say no. Because the unique individual cannot reproduce himself either physically or spiritually, nature discards him as useless. Nature is only interested in reproducing, and from time to time throwing out a "sport" or unique specimen. This specimen, not able to reproduce itself, is finished with evolution, and is not interested in making of itself a model for others. That is all I am saying.

Q: Don't you feel that that throwing up of uniqueness by nature is the flowering of uniqueness for the individual?

U.G.: That is bound to happen in individuals who, through some chance or accident, manage to free themselves from the burden of the entire past. If the entire collective knowledge and experience of man is thrown out, what is left is a primordial and primeval state without the primitiveness. That kind of individual is of no use to society at all. Like a shady tree, this individual may provide shade, but can never be conscious of his doing so. If you sit under the tree, a coconut may fall on your head; there is a danger involved. For this reason society may feel threatened by this individual. This society, structured the way it is, can make no use of such a person.

I don't believe in "lokasamgraha", the helping of mankind, compassion for the suffering world, lifting a little of the heavy karma of the world, and all that kind of thing. No one appointed me savior to mankind.

but yea i think that view may be kinda limited though i'm not exactly sure how.

It also certainly does work within certain matrixes...certain "models" which he seems to be rejecting...

can you elaborate on what you mean with this? not sure i understand...


...otherwise wholeheartedly agreed, especially on the "look to the body" part.
i've only been to this "death state" once, and the re-entry was everything but graceful :o_O: .
but since then, the body is pretty much the only thing i've been working on. can't/won't enter the fullblown death state, but can go partway there, which lets one access the intelligence of the body, or rather let's the intelligence of the body take a seat behind the steering wheels. feels like i'd imagine an invocation of some ancient godform to feel like. i learned later some people call it kriya (http://www.kundalini-teacher.com/symptoms/kriyas.html)(not that good article, but gives the basic idea).

m1thr0s
11-07-2006, 12:26 PM
can you elaborate on what you mean with this? not sure i understand......it's just that I am pretty keen on genetics and from that standpoint this whole idea is simple nonsense. the whole idea of nature building and thus dispensing with perfected individuals is just too many steps removed from reality to make any useful sense in my view...Krishnamurti is a peculiar blend of brilliant analytical insight and chronic self-pity from my perspective, which stains his brilliance. Many of his assertions come across as irrational complaints against things he has grossly misdefined to begin with...interesting in a poetic sort of way but not especially useful since they are in fact wildly distortional assertions stacked one on top of the other like a stack of malcontented pancakes.

I think he places too much stock in his limited personal experiences. But he still has some very interesting things to say. I am always very interested in anyone who dares to stand up against mainstream assumptions, sacred cows, etc...

m1thr0s

Anibis
11-07-2006, 02:36 PM
...interesting in a poetic sort of way but not especially useful since they are in fact wildly distortional assertions stacked one on top of the other like a stack of malcontented pancakes.

:laugh: Man, that is a funny image M1. Malcontented pancakes? I can see them now taking to the streets, whippin' stinkbombs and getting shithauled by cops... too awesome... I bet you they're vegan...
-Ibisis

oak
11-07-2006, 03:41 PM
hehe, unstained brilliance is kinda rare though. :(
and i like to think we already are genetically perfect, just suppress the expression of it. :dogma:

m1thr0s
11-07-2006, 04:35 PM
hehe, unstained brilliance is kinda rare though. :(indeed...and I wouldn't expect it of anybody whose feet were still planted on this earth. I think that's a big mistake and one he draws attention to very effectively...we seem to want our "heroes" to be perfect as if to absolve us somehow from our own imperfections. It's selfish really, and "wrong-headed" generally...

I am not so sure I can agree that we are all genetically perfect, but then I don't really feel like I know what this term means. There are many things we have inherited genetically that would not seem especially perfect to me. Many diseases are passed on genetically as well as mental disorders etc. Solving these problems, each in their turn, seems to be an integral part of our overall development as a species. We are animal addicted to knowledge and the steady advance of knowledge. We now find ourselves at the edge of a whole new dimension in genetics science where we can potentially define so-called genetic perfection for ourselves. But I don't know that any of us knows what this means so the prospects are a little "iffy" at best.

m1thr0s

oak
11-15-2006, 08:52 PM
oops dropped out for a while again, sorry for the delay :)

ye i'm not entirely sure on the correct usage of the terms, i understand our genetics to pretty much mean our dna sequence, though i may be wrong.
it is a bit weird and obscure to really know what the deal is, i mean clearly we are very capable of affecting the construction of our body, though whether it would have grown perfect had i not interfered i don't really know. but since i know i can affect it for the better now through not interfering, or through not causing interference, i like to think it would have.
beyond that, inherited deceases and such, it goes to what dna really is, a mirror or fixed blueprints given at birth or what, but i don't think i really care much for now. :)

m1thr0s
11-16-2006, 03:32 AM
Well...I have said what I don't like about Krishnamurti, but in fact, there's a lot of what he says that I do like...I think it's very useful to have somebody out there calling all the gurus a bunch of phonies...lol...

I was never much of a guru-enthusiast myself, so it's refreshing to hear...:p

m1thr0s

Ci Celli Ddu
01-28-2007, 10:28 PM
Well...I have said what I don't like about Krishnamurti, but in fact, there's a lot of what he says that I do like...I think it's very useful to have somebody out there calling all the gurus a bunch of phonies...lol...

I was never much of a guru-enthusiast myself, so it's refreshing to hear...:p

m1thr0s

Yeah, though funnily enough there's Krishnamurti kindergartens and schools out there now where you can send your little ones. Kind of ironic.

oak
01-29-2007, 11:54 AM
Yeah, though funnily enough there's Krishnamurti kindergartens and schools out there now where you can send your little ones. Kind of ironic.
hmm, are you mixing Jiddu and U.G. ?

Jiddu is the one who put U.G.'s Money Maxims (http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/ug/money-maxims/index.html) to use :laugh: