Well, read the speech.. He makes his meaning pretty clear - doesn't endorse any religion, sect, cult, or such things, which are 'man-made cages' that enslave rather than liberate. And yet:

Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. — Krishnamurti

Solo climb, no ropes, definitely no sherpas. Good luck with that!

If "Truth is a pathless land" why would it necessarily be on a mountain-top?

↪Wayfarer If "Truth is a pathless land" why would it necessarily be on a mountain-top? — Evil

Probably a swamp. Hot, humid, treacherous, snaky, leechy, malarial, pathless.

The PATH trains have so many problems that the town of Truth would have another system. Hence it's PATHless.

If Truth is a pathless land" why would it necessarily be on a mountain-top? — Evil

Do you know the story of Krishnamurti?

He was a reluctant guru. Fate cast him in the role of ‘world spiritual teacher’. That speech was given when he formally dissolved the organisation which had been built around him, the ‘Order of the Eastern Star’, in (I think it was) 1929. He might then have returned to anonymity in India but as it was he continued to talk, always on the same themes, up until his death in 1986.

He’s definitely worth reading in my opinion even if only one or two books. First and Last Freedom, foreword by Aldous Huxley, is a modern spiritual classic.

Yeah known about him for many years. I used to listen to the 'Freedom from the Known' dialogues with David Bohm, in which they were talking about 'truth' being distinct from 'reality'. Apparently we live in reality but not truth.

They said reality cannot reach truth and the twain can only meet in a one-sided movement where truth visits reality from the 'ground of being'. Or something like that...

If "Truth is a pathless land" why would it necessarily be on a mountain-top? — Evil

That does sound like the voice of Evil.

Well played.

I think you make a good point. A complete absence of structure would be unintelligible. Some kind of minimal journey somewhere vaguely good is presupposed. Blake might mention the crooked roads without improvement.

definitely no sherpas — Wayfarer

Why are there no sherpas? Many of us need a sherpa or two to get through the day. Somebody to carry the groceries home; somebody to help us off the bus; somebody to clean the eave troughs out in the fall.

Tongue in cheek, of course. Krishnamurti jettisons the image of ‘the path’ by which he means any kind of organisation, church, dogma, or religious ideology. But - there’s still a mountain to climb! And, the implication clearly is, climbed alone. (People often seem to remember only the first point, and forget the second.)

What does Jiddu Krishnamurti mean when he said: "Truth is a pathless land"? — Posty McPostface

Yea, a Krishnamurti thread, thanks for that. It's cool to see how many of us are already interested in his work.

I think I should leave JK to explain what he meant by this. I can only report my own interpretation.

I understand "truth" to be a living thing, reality in the present moment. Religions, philosophies and ideologies typically try to capture truth in some collection of ideas, but by doing so they kill it, because truth is not an object one can possess, just as one can not capture a breeze blowing by.

At this point in my life I probably disagree with JK that there is no path. Simple mechanical exercises can train our minds to shift focus on to the present moment. Such exercises are likely more useful than doing what I did in my youth, reading every JK book 19 times in an attempt to "figure it out".

JK can be very appealing to people like us because he gives us a million things to think about. However, it's possible that thinking is not the cure, but rather the "disease". That is, thinking shifts our focus away from the present moment where truth resides. It doesn't really matter what we're thinking, thinking is thinking.

I find it quite interesting that all of JK's books put together are actually not as useful as these three simple words....

Be here now.

To me, that's what philosophy is largely about. A process of digging through vast mountains of unnecessary complexity to find the often quite simple wisdom hiding at the bottom.

A path is made by walking on it. — Chuang Tzu

There's a snippet of conversation where someone asks Krishnamurti about another of his sayings, "You are the world." , asking, "When you say it, it seems true, but would it still be true if I said it?" And K's answer is something like, "It would still be true, but there would be no truth in it." I take this to mean that there is a world of difference between understanding the theory that all is one, and experiencing the fact. Krishnamurti speaks the truth as he experiences it, not as he understands it theoretically, and as Jake intimates, there can be no path to here and now, one is present, or else one is absent.

I take this to mean that there is a world of difference between understanding the theory that all is one, and experiencing the fact. — unenlightened

Yes, I think what JK is referring to is not something one understands, but something one experiences.

If true, this premise is somewhat undermined by the process of writing many books (or forum posts) on the subject. Such an prolific process suggests that what is being discussed is some complex, sophisticated, mysterious thing one has to analyze, dissect, take apart piece by piece etc. And so JK books can be quite inviting to philosopher peeps like us, as we tend to be looking for complex, sophisticated, mysterious things to analyze.

I now tend to see JK books (and similar writings) as a kind of circus act which draws us over thinkers in to the tent. The bait in the trap, so to speak. Once within the tent we may come to realize that overthinking isn't the solution, but rather the obstacle to overcome.

I credit JK with teaching me that "thought is inherently divisive" which imho is the key to understanding much about the human condition. I still find this insight philosophically interesting (see my many mentions of this in many threads) but the understanding on it's own is of limited value. What one does with that understanding seems rather more important.

More to the point, the understanding is actually unnecessary. Simple meditation techniques, walking, fishing, a thousand ordinary actions can get the job done without any understanding being involved. As example, food provides nutrition to our bodies even if we know nothing at all about the processes of digestion. It doesn't matter what we understand, it matters only whether we pick up the food and eat it. Like that.

You need to first define you terms.

You forgot to do this.

You need to first define you terms. — hks

Terms are a pathless land.

The way I handle this problem myself and also recommend to others is the instant that you mention any technical term or word that requires a deeper understanding of its meaning is then to stop and define it right then and there, before you proceed further with any other sentence. While this may not be the only solution it is the one I recommend and use myself.

I went through a period of fascination with Krishnamurti’s books, starting with the Penguin Krishnamurti Reader. When I read that it had immediate, intuitive appeal. Over the next five years I read everything I could get my hands on including the two biographies by Mary Lutyens and Pupul Jayakar. But I found in the end that his talks didn’t really penetrate, they didn’t bring about the ‘revolution in consciousness’ that he spoke about and exemplified. Around the same time I had become interested in Buddhism and it seemed to provide a better means. And also Krishnamurti’s teaching has a great deal in common with Buddhism, much more so than with Vedanta, even though he would of course never agree. I definitely learned some important things from reading Krishnamurti’s books, which became part of me, but I question the ability of his teaching to bring about the radical change that he demands.

I don't think there's much of a philosophical connection but there are similarities in appearance and especially their voices.

And, the implication clearly is, climbed alone. — Wayfarer

Why would pathlessness entail lone climbing?

but I question the ability of his teaching to bring about the radical change that he demands. — Wayfarer

But, surely K would agree that his teaching, indeed no teaching (and that is his main point) could bring about the radical transformation.

Why would pathlessness entail lone climbing? — Janus

Because there are no paths, and everyone is lost.

I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment. I've always felt that concepts link to other concepts in the mind and lead to new ideas. Cross domain fertilisation is part of the process. So I'm not sure truth is completely pathless?

If all lost together then not alone, no? If we all find or make our own paths, we need not do so in isolation, do we? Indeed it would be impossible to find your own path in isolation, but that does not necessitate that you follow a teaching. you might take what you need from all teachings and from the others you meet. Alone or follow a teaching: seems to be a false dichotomy.

If all lost together then not alone, no? — Janus

No.

Sorry for being blunt, I just fucking hate it when people end questions with "no?"

Well then you obviously need to broaden your horizons.

Since you seem to think thought is the enemy you might prefer U G Krishnamurti.

Horizons are a broad land?

In a broad land the horizons are vaster; if the land is broad enough the horizons are broadened to infinity. No path is needed, no?

The point about pathlessness is that to follow a path is to slavishly submit to others; to a guru, a formula or to traditional beliefs, rather than to exercise your own creativity and forge your own way.

No path is needed, no? — Janus

My reaction

Is that you in the video? If so you need help, and if not, then it was not your reaction, no?