Question: Rinpocheji, when and how did you first hear about Krishnamurti and his teaching? When did you first meet him in person?
Rinpoche: I think this is a great opportunity to recall how I have been fortunate enough to see Krishnaji and have a long association with him. It was in 1971 that I was appointed as Principal of the Central Institute of the Tibetan Studies in Sarnath near Varanasi. At that time the Head of the Department of Buddhist Studies of the Sanskrit University in Varanasi was a close friend of mine, the late Professor Jagannath Upadhyay. Also, in Varanasi at the time, in the Krishnamurti Centre in Rajghat, was Achyut Patwardhan, a senior trustee of the Foundation who was also a close friend of mine. Achyutji was reading a Buddhist text—Shantideva’s Bodhicaryavatara—with Upadhyay and they wanted to clarify some passages in this text which were not very clear, through the Tibetan version or Tibetan commentary. We met and had several discussions on the text.
Then Achyutji told me, “You must see Krishnaji” and gave me a complete set of the publications—about twenty volumes. Of course, I could not read them all. But I could go through a few chapters of these books and naturally my interest and also curiosity about Krishnaji arose. Then I had the intention to see him. But somehow, I could not meet him in Varanasi. During his stay in Chennai I was invited by the Theosophical Society to conduct the ‘School of Wisdom’ there. Radhaji (Radha Burnier) the librarian of the Theosophical Society’s library fixed an appointment for me with Krishnaji, but on that day he was unwell and I could not meet him.
The next year when he was in Varanasi, Achyutji made an appointment for me with Krishnaji. And also, we had dialogues with other Buddhist scholars. We used to have a small group of about nine to ten people and we often had a dialogue with Krishnamurti. Radhaji used to interpret for Upadhyay and some of the Sanskrit pandits who did not understand English. So, we used to discuss quite leisurely with them. That is how we started a connection with Krishnamurti.
And after several years, it was in 1980, my root teacher passed away. I was so shocked that I went through a kind of mental imbalance, some kind of depression. Then again Achyut advised me to see Krishnaji. He was in Varanasi for four to five weeks. I had very personal meetings with him. One to one. He tried to console me and practically healed me from that kind of depression. Since then, not only the teachings, but the person with whom I became quite intimate, helped me with my difficulties and mental problems. The person and the teachings both became very important for me. Whenever he came to Varanasi, I tried to attend all the talks and dialogues. Then he would come to Delhi and invariably he used to give one or two talks at Delhi. I also came to Chennai whenever he had major talks here. Radhaji was also interested to see that I managed to come. So, that is the story of how I became very much attracted to, or in other words, had been blessed or protected by Krishnamurti personally. Although to understand his teachings in depth is more difficult, but to receive his affection and love is more natural.
Question: Could you say a little more, Rinpocheji, about how your meetings with Krishnaji, both one to one, as well as the dialogues, have had an impact on you?
Rinpocheji: Dialogue has an impact on everyone, whosoever attends the dialogue. His dialogues with the Buddhists scholars were a little different from the usual dialogues. Also, you will find two different kinds of dialogues. One is with the Theravadin Buddhists and the other is with the Sanskrit tradition of Buddhists, to My Association with Krishnamurti which we belong. Among the Theravadins, the dialogues with the venerable Walpola Rahula of Sri Lanka—he was a great scholar of Pali and Buddhism—are recorded. You can see even today that he used to relate K with the Pali canon. As soon as K concluded his sentence Walpola Rahula used to laugh and say, “Yes, the Buddha has said the same things 2,500 years ago”, and then he would quote extensively from the Pali canon. So that is one kind of dialogue.
With us, of the Sanskrit Buddhist tradition, we would not quote from the Buddhist canon, nor try to compare the Buddha’s teachings with K’s teachings. For us they go parallel. For us, K’s words give a different kind of understanding about Buddha’s teaching, and in the same way, Buddhist philosophy is very useful and helpful for understanding K more easily or more in depth. We try not to compare, particularly myself and Jagannath Upadhyay. We belonged to that group which is against the system of comparative study in religious and philosophical subjects. Comparative study is feasible or appropriate in the social sciences or material sciences. In the sphere of philosophy and religion or spiritual things, no one can make comparisons. Comparison means putting them into ‘positions’, and trying to find the similarities or dissimilarities. And similarity and dissimilarity both are in the sphere of duality. To multiply duality will not help in the understanding of reality or truth. So, we try to understand both in parallel, side by side . . . how to understand the Buddha’s words and how to understand K’s words.
Of course there are many things similar; but we cannot label them as the same. The Buddha’s words are Buddha’s words, and K’s words are K’s words. Apart from that, K speaks in modern English language and Buddha spoke in ancient Indian languages. So, the nature of language is different, and therefore to draw comparisons will not help in understanding. But what kind of negation the Buddha is making, and what kind of negation K is making, both work on your mind to reduce or eliminate the egoistic holding, that is the root cause or problem of everything. So, in this way, to study the Buddha and K together is very convenient and also helpful for understanding. And anyone can study these two teachings spontaneously and in parallel, without contradicting or making similarities. To understand them in more depth is possible. That is why many of the Buddhist scholars are very much influenced and have been greatly impacted by K’s teachings—for better understanding of the Buddha’s teaching, and at the same time to internalize what K is talking about.
Question: I would like to go back a little bit and ask you a little more about the way you think K’s direct engagement with you, one to one, has personally helped you? You said that he played a role at a difficult time in your life. If you can share a little bit with us, in what way did that happen?
Rinpocheji: In the one to one stint, when I was in a depressed mood, there was not much talk. He only held my hand and sat very near to me, and spent in that way more than an hour’s time… Then after an hour had passed, we might have spoken a few words to each other. Otherwise, it was just silent sitting together…Just sitting with him (it was repeated two to three times) was a kind of healing effect. So that helped me and thereafter I was able to lead a very normal life. The great impact on the Buddhist scholars is due to the fact that K does not build up or make any position to hold. He also encouraged people all the time to examine, to enquire, not to a find a conclusion or solution. So, the way of communicating or teaching is very similar. Buddha also does not give any position to be defended. His first teaching was to encourage the monks and disciples not to accept his words because they have been said by the Buddha, or due to their devotion or commitment to the Buddha. Nagarjuna praised Buddha for dismantling all kinds of positions.
The Buddha has not put any position and all the positions are negated. Thereby his way of looking at things is at two different levels—at the relative truth level and at the absolute truth level. The Buddha always talked at both levels. Buddha’s teachings to ordinary disciples are by and large at the level of relative truth. In relative truth there are many things, some things are to be accepted and some things to be negated. When he goes to the absolute level, then nothing holds on. So, this is Nagarjuna’s interpretation and commentary.
The one difference between Buddha and K is that K never comes down to level of the listener or to the level of the relative truth. Whatever he has to say, or argue or enquire, he always completely remains at the level of the absolute truth. Therefore, there is a big difference between Buddha’s words and K’s words. In Buddha’s words, we have to differentiate between two categories. The technical terms are Netharth and Neyarth. Netharth means ‘to be accepted literally’, whatever he said. The other is Neyarth, which means ‘to be interpreted in different ways’, not to be taken literally.
So, in the Buddhist canon, in Buddha’s words, there is no consistency. So many differences, contradictions, you will find in the sutras and Tripitaka. So, to make them consistent, you have to differentiate between what is to be taken literally and what is to be interpreted in a different way. But K has absolute consistency all the time. In terms of words there may be some differences or some inconsistency, but what he meant or what he used for these expressions, has consistency, because he always talked at the level of the ultimate truth. So, therefore, although we do not compare these two, we never find any contradiction, that is, a real contradiction. Of course, the usage of words is a different matter. At the level of connotation, the intention or the meaning, there is nothing which is contradictory between the Buddha and K. So that is why we find it useful. Many times, we gain a kind of deeper understanding of Buddha’s words, which we were not able to have only through Buddhist teaching or commentary. But listening to Krishnaji’s arguments, his logic, or his way of inquiry, when we come back to the Buddhist canon, we gain much more realization and much more understanding.
Question: Rinpocheji, I have two slightly connected questions which I am formulating right now because you have already answered fully the question I had in mind. But one thing we are all aware of is that Krishnaji had a very high regard for the Buddha. In fact, there are various situations where he has even said, “The Buddha was here…did you feel it?” So my question is, what do you think was K’s relationship with the Buddha, and secondly, do you think K himself had some kind of a special mission in the world?
Rinpocheji: I think this is a very difficult question. I don’t know how to deal with the question. Just apparently, K used to negate or criticize many teachers, or many traditions; he used to just negate almost every tradition as another cause of conditioning for the human mind, so on and so forth. But we never heard at any time that he used such harsh words towards Buddha or the Buddhists teachings. But he had a kind of impression that the Buddhist philosophy prevailing today has a lot of new inclusions, like the commentators. So, therefore, many times he used to ask the Buddhist scholars and he asked me too several times! “Can you tell me, what exactly the Buddha has said?” At one time, we joked about this. At that time the audience was quite a bit larger than just the Buddhist scholars. It was in Varanasi and I was sitting near him. He was just shaking me and he asked me, “Can you tell me what the Buddha has said exactly?” So, then I said, “I don’t know”. He said, “Why?” I said, “I was not there when Buddha was teaching” (laughs). He laughed and everybody laughed. I still remember that. So, he tried My Association with Krishnamurti to find out what exactly were the Buddha’s words, which are not interpolated by later commentators. But of course, no Buddhist scholars will be able to tell that. We consider that the commentators, particularly Nagarjuna and Ashvaghosha, the two great commentators, have commented on Buddha’s words based on exactly what the Buddha has meant. That is our belief. Apart from that, the idea that the Buddha passed through the Rajghat premises when he came from Bodhgaya to Sarnath appealed to him, and K used to tell this story a number of times. He used to say that, “It was said that the Buddha was here.” At Rajghat us paar (on the other side of the Varuna river), there is a group of mango trees and it was considered that the Buddha rested there on his way to Sarnath. So, I don’t say that he was a believer. But he used to take an interest in this kind of tale. So, it is our inference that he had a kind of soft corner, a kind of liking, towards the Buddha and Buddhist teachings. We could say that K’s mission was to awaken the humane in our intelligence, which is buried under so many layers of conditioning. And this conditioning is the root cause of all the miseries, pains and sufferings of all living beings. To relieve such suffering, we have to wake up or to enquire oneself as to how to get free from the conditionings of various things. Whatever we have conceived as the way to de-conditioning ourselves has become further cause of conditioning ourselves—the spirituality, the dharma, the religion, the traditions, the culture, the education. Everything becomes a cause of conditioning. So, he wanted to tell people, the humanity— you are using everything in a wrong way; you are converting everything into a cause of conditioning. That is something we are unable to comprehend by ourselves. So, his task or his mission is to remind us of that dichotomy, that contradiction. We are looking to many traditions to find a way to de-condition ourselves, to get freedom from conditioning. But whatever means or methods we are using, our thought process very easily converts them to another cause of conditioning. I think his mission was to warn us about this inherited problem and make us more sensitive to feel this predicament and become aware of this. Thereby we might be able to a find our own inner nature, and get out of conditioning. So, his mission was to sensitize humanity to all the things which we are unknowingly or unconsciously converting into the causes of conditioning. We must ourselves see this and thereby we might get some different way to awaken. That was his mission and he was very much successful in this mission.
Question: I want to pick up from there, Rinpocheji, on two things you say. One is that unlike the Buddha who spoke both at the absolute level and at the relative truth level, Krishnamurti always spoke at the absolute level. You also said earlier on that his teachings are actually very difficult to really fully grasp. He had been broadcasting these in multiple ways throughout his life time and you feel that he has been in some ways successful. So, I would like to understand from you, what do you think has been the impact of Krishnamurti’s lifetime on human consciousness? Given the present state of the world, which is in great chaos, what do you think might be the impact in the times to come? How do you see it?
Rinpocheji (silent for some time): The impact of any teaching cannot be measured at the global level or universally. It has to be measured at the individual level. In this world, a number of sages and seers have appeared and they have taught their wisdom. They have had their own impact on countless people. But no one has completely changed the world entirely. And it will not be possible to do so, whosoever may come, whosoever may preach or teach. The impact would be on individuals or at most on communities or groups. The entire humanity cannot be changed over a period of time. Human destiny is infinite and immeasurable and within My Association with Krishnamurti that immeasurable or infinite, the impact is always measurable and finite. So that has to be kept in mind. Today, in the world, in mostly the so-called educated society, there are very few who have not heard Krishnamurti’s name or who have not heard what he has taught. Of course, there are not many people seriously reading or studying him, his thoughts or his teachings. Their number is not very high. But there is an awareness among people.
Apart from that, it has now been many years since he passed away and yet the work which is carried out, in an organized way, by the various foundations or groups or societies, and much more so by individuals—reading, discussing, listening to him—is quite large. And across the different religious traditions and different philosophical traditions, even among the non-believers, there are many people who are interested in K’s words. So that means it has reached an enormous number of people and that is the impact. In India alone how many sages and seers have come. The Buddha appeared. The Shankaracharya appeared. Mahavira appeared. And everybody says that they had a great impact on humanity. Similarly, K’s impact is also in that category.
I think in the future also for several hundred years people will not forget K; people will not give up talking about, reading and listening to K’s words. It will go on generation to generation. At least the students of our various schools run by the Foundation in India or abroad, they will definitely remember, their children and their grandchildren will remember. So, that is the continuity of the impact of his words and his mission. That will benefit a great number of people, sensitize many people, and through them a great deal of goodness will be shared with even those who have never heard about K or read K. In spite of this, from persons on whom he has had an influence the goodness will radiate to many other people. It is, of course, not a political project, the result of which can be measured through statistics. It is the immeasurable and we can only feel how very vast a legacy or influence Krishnamurti has left behind.
Questioner: Thank you very much, Rinpocheji, for so fully and deeply sharing your responses to our questions. Krishnamurti and Tradition Some reflections on the teachings of Krishnamurti
*This interview was conducted by Alok Mathur during the KFI trustees’ meeting at
Vasant Vihar, Chennai, on 22 September 2019