Krishnamurti in Dialogue with Chogyam Trungpa
Posted on Feb 25th, 2008
by 
Balder
Balder
Part 1. What is Meditation?
Krishnamurti with Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, part 1 of 5
Part 2. What is Meditation? Order and disorder.
Krishnamurti with Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, part 2 of 5
Part 3. What is Meditation? Observing disorder without the "me."
Krishnamurti with Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, part 3 of 5
Continue here with Part 4 and Part 5.
Access: Public
chogyam trungpa
August 2008 
I posted this exchange mostly because it is an historical encounter between two of the most influential mystical teachers of our age. But calling it a “dialogue” is stretching things a bit, isn't it? While I appreciated the content of the talk, I also feel an opportunity was lost because Krishnamurti really didn't allow much space for actual dialogue to take place. Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche could hardly get a word in edgewise, it seemed, and I found myself feeling a bit frustrated and disappointed watching it because I know he could have contributed meaningfully and powerfully to this exchange.
Hi Bruce,
I enjoyed this and left a couple of 'thank you seeds' here. I agree Trungpa was a foil for K's monologue on meditation more than it was a joint exploration of the subject, never the less, K spoke with his usual clarity about how observing disorder, absent a 'me' attempting to organize, brings its own order without dichotomies.
The discussion put me in mind of our discussion on my blog about the self (in TSK terms) and its level of activities, and how those activities can subside allowing a more encompassing observation. This observing with more openness, though perhaps not completely choiceless at times, seems close to the meditation K was pointing toward.
Best,
DavidHi
It seems we cross posted at the same time. I saw your post on my blog. No need for apologies. Your questions helped me look more closely and helped. Thanks brother. :-)
Hi, David,
Yes, I enjoyed the talk as well and appreciated the clarity of his remarks on meditation (most of which Chogyam Trungpa seemed to agree with). (Speaking of clarity, I posted an interview of Krishnamurti by Huston Smith recently in which he talks about lucidity and its relationship to this holistic, non-fragmented observation.)
When I listened to the interview, I was thinking of our conversation as well as another one I've been having on Julian's blog – in particular about whether experiences in meditation should be used to support propositional statements about the world. Here, Krishnamurti seems to be challenging that idea too – pointing out the limitations of experience-orientation due to the potential for projection and so on. He is suggesting that the “role” of meditation is not really to produce that sort of knowledge at all – not really to lead to particular propositions, or to generate certain exceptional experiences or to support conclusions, but to allow for the emergence of an active, non-fragmented, creative intelligence…
Hi Balder,
Talk about synchronicity–I just watched this (after having read the transcript years ago) and was going to blog on it but decided against it because the deeper I got into the “dialogue,” the more irritated I became with Krishnamurti! I didn't blog because the interpersonal dynamic so outweighed the actual content of the “discussion.”
I will echo your comments by saying I agree with you on all accounts. If Krishnamurti could have just chilled out for a few minutes and actually listened to Trungpa, we might have seen an interesting conversation. But instead we get a one-note monologue (albeit a pretty good one) from Krishnamurti, basically re-iterating what he has been saying for half a century or more.
Hi Bruce,
I watched the K talk with Huston Smith, and I also really appreciated being reminded of the thought you expressed so succinctly regarding the “role” of meditation: that experiences in meditation should not be used to support propositional statements or conclusions about the world, but rather, “to allow for the emergence of an active, non-fragmented, creative intelligence”.
In TSK terms this reminds me of “the read-out principle”, which suggests that any particular version of reality is a read-out of the starting assumptions, where those assumptions are related to a starting orientation of 'our' time and 'our' space. Using the “the read-out principle” to make statements and conclusions about what is prior to an object oriented view, is itself an object oriented view. And that was what I was doing on the TSK exercise page (here). Although, the exercise was attempting to allow for the very emergence of an active, non-fragmented knowing.
Anyway, thanks again.
Best,
Davidumm ya - i just clicked through to vent about the long-winded repetitive dominance of krishnamurti as they “entered into this question together”….
man he may have beeen a remarkable anti-guru teacher, but someone should have laid some basic active listening techniques on the dude!
it is a testimony to trungpa's meditation practice that he listened impassively for so long - and perhaps an ironic comment on krishnamurti's lack thereof that he couldnt stop interrupting!
Krishnamurti has some very clear teachings, and he engaged in some religion- and guru-trashing that would have made you proud :-) , but he clearly was NOT engaging here in the co-inquiry and dialogue he often taught. For too long, perhaps, he was “The Speaker” – and it left its mark.
There ARE some other Krishnamurti “dialogues” on the web where there is more actual give and take, but even then, he is rather prone to interrupting.
With regard to the exploitative and pathetic godmen of the 60s that you mentioned in my other blog, Krishnamurti was not one of them. He was not perfect, of course, but he was an exceptional person.
Best wishes,
B.
yup very aware of those details bruce - thats why i called him the anti-guru! :O)
i think he was birlliant - but always found his european educated accent that bounces bakc and forth between very high class aristocratic english and indian inflections a little odd - he always sounds like a bit of a stuffed shirt - nonetheless his story and his message are extraordinary!
He had a strange life – plucked from an Indian beach by a Theosophist, taken from his village and raised by British aristocrats, etc – I'm sure you've heard the biography – so, the accent and the “manner” are understandable. At least, I never let that get in the way of listening to him.