Jiddu Krishnamurti

If one has heard talks from Jiddu Krishnamurti, one would probably notice that Cico's talk bears a great deal of resemblance to Krishnamurti's. Yes, it is, not only similar but also the same.

According to Cico, "it is precisely the same in terms of the essence". Cico says, "Krishnamurti and Cico are one, not through identification in thoughts– the deceptive trick that perpetuates the self, but via living in truth – acting.

Although K and Cico don't meet in chronological time (K passed away in Feb 1986, and Cico was born in March 1986), their life is rather similar in terms of the essence, not the content, of course. Both of their life include a deep involvement in the eastern and western reality; K grew up in India, Cico grew up in China, and they both live in the western world. This life experience brings an awful lot to observe and understand, so they could stand alone beyond any realities, or else "the mind would be extremely confused at the absurd things humans across the globe have made", says Cico.

Observe, learn, inquire and apply the insight to living so that living embodies truth, not treating truth as an idea. In other words, the truth can only be sustained by living. This direct perception does not need any system of practice or authority; instead, it only requires a mind that can stand alone, never conform or imitate – a mind that can free itself of all kinds of influences from words, symbols, images and all the rest of it. Such a mind is alive, sensitive and silent with all the senses awakened.

"Such a sensitive mind is absolutely essential, but its life is challenging in this extremely ugly and violent world that demands conformity and obedience", says Cico, "but there is no conflict whatsoever inwardly; or else a conforming and initiating spirit only generates endless miseries and sufferings inwardly, rendering life meaningless."

"Cico admires K, and for Cico, this admiration is to carry on the teaching to convey this quality of mind to more people", says Cico, "to facilitate awakening human beings in this age of the internet, where the consciousness has become extremely fragmented and neurotic."

About the teachings

When one only listens to what is being said by Krishnamurti or whoever it is, one won't understand what the teachings are because one merely focuses on the utility of what is said, not paying attention to the teachings themselves.

One may find it helpful and useful to listen to the content, and one may even be motivated to spread those words for their utility, but without understanding what the teachings are, the very doing so is still a form of being a missionary (there is no judgment whether it is right or wrong, good or bad); interestingly, when one really understands the teachings, one won't do the missionary thing, because one can do the teachings in one's way.

That's to say, until one actually experiences the teachings – living the teachings and doing the teachings, one cannot understand what are the teachings. One may feel what is being said is helpful, and based on this "personal" experience, one may have an image of the teachings and spread the so-called teaching according to that image, but actually, it is a different activity from the teachings.

One can easily identify oneself with K's words, but that is merely a self-deception; the violence is still there; when one actually understands oneself, one must find out how dangerous the identification is; there is nothing safe to identify with, including K's words, after all, words are never the thing. The truth is "never identify". This may be the major challenge in K's community, the image of "K" becomes too strong, easily causing disorder.

When one actually does the teachings, one will find out that the teachings do not only include the content – what is said, which is a tiny part compared to what is not said but also contain the creative process of teaching – creating the content, and this creative process is compassion, the energy gathered to convey such a quality of mind – staying unknown.

Without the creative process, what is said is like water that loses its sources; the energy and the vitality is gone; like K's teachings, after K has passed away, the creative process of teaching passes away; K's compassion is no longer existing; K's gossip and stories become the content of many people's consciousness, but taking care of the teachings is a different matter, which must be done a mind that living in the unknown.  

With video technology, the content of K's teachings has been preserved, and people can watch the playback, but are the teachings preserved through video? This question borders on "What is the difference between video and actuality?" Living in the internet age, the mind is so confused, and to clear the confusion, this question must be answered via serious self-inquiry.

Compassion is something existing, not that has existed or will exist, so is living; obviously, video is only for "having existed", though most of the videos nowadays are heavily edited to trick people's minds, which point to the non-existence. Obviously, videos cannot preserve the teaching anyhow; the content can be recorded, but not this living quality – compassion, obviously.

To keep the teaching complete is to live the teaching, so compassion is existing, not have existed or will exist; and with live video technology, the teachings can convey the quality of mind to people all over the world; but still, the technology is auxiliary, the living quality really matters.