Q: The understanding that there is that dualism, the coming of that understanding... U.G.: Understanding is dualism. If that division is not there, there is nothing to understand. So the instrument, which you are using to understand something, is the only instrument you have. There is no other instrument. You can talk of intu-ition; you can talk of a thousand other things; they are all sensitized thoughts. The intuition is nothing but a sensitized thought—but still it is a thought. When **U.G. Krishnamurti** says _“there is no how,”_ he is expressing a central tenet of his radical philosophy: that there is **no method, practice, or path** by which one can attain enlightenment, transformation, or “truth.” Here is what he means in depth: --- ### **1. The Rejection of Method** U.G. Krishnamurti insists that all systems promising inner change—meditation techniques, spiritual disciplines, philosophical inquiry—are inherently false because they **presuppose a division** between what you are now and what you should become. - To ask _“how?”_ implies that there is a goal (“enlightenment,” “peace,” “truth”) and a method to reach it. - He rejects this entirely: the _“how”_ belongs to thought and [[Time]], but reality or “truth” is not a product of time or effort. Thus, when he says _“there is no how,”_ he means **there is no process that leads to what you seek**, because the very seeking maintains the illusion of a separate self striving toward an imagined ideal. --- ### **2. The Collapse of the Seeker** For U.G., spiritual striving is a self-perpetuating trap: > “The very search for [[Freedom]] is what prevents it.” In his view, enlightenment is not an attainment but a **biological event**—something that may occur [[spontaneously]] when psychological striving collapses. It cannot be caused by will, intention, or [[Practice]]. --- ### **3. The Futility of Prescription** Traditional teachings, even those that deny method (like Zen), still end up offering one. U.G. regarded all such instruction as **fraudulent**, because any _“how”_ implies that there is something missing that must be added or achieved. He maintained that humans are already “wired” perfectly; the rest is conditioning. --- ### **4. What Remains** When the _“how”_ falls away, so does the idea of _“becoming.”_ What remains is simply **what is**—raw, unmediated [[perception]] without the interpretive interference of thought. It is not mystical; rather, it is **the end of the psychological search.** --- ### **In Summary** When U.G. Krishnamurti says _“there is no how,”_ he means: - There is **no path** to enlightenment or transformation. - Any search for a method reinforces illusion and separation. - Truth or liberation is not something achieved, but what remains when the search itself ends. --- > _God or Enlightenment is the ultimate pleasure, uninterrupted happiness. No such thing exists. Your wanting something that does not exist is the root of your problem. Transformation, moksha, and all that stuff are just variations of the same theme: permanent happiness. The body can't take uninterrupted pleasure for long; it would be destroyed. Wanting a fictitious permanent state of happiness is actually a serious neurological problem._ > _Your experiencing structure cannot conceive of any event that it will not experience. It even expects to preside over its own dissolution, and so it wonders what death will feel like, it tries to project the feeling of what it will be like not to feel. But in order to anticipate a future experience, your structure needs knowledge, a similar past experience it can call upon for reference. You cannot remember what it felt like not to exist before you were born, and you cannot remember your own birth, so you have no basis for projecting your future non-existence._ U.G. describes a natural, bodily intelligence that is far more advanced than the intellect's acquired knowledge. This is the intelligence behind the body's complex systems, like immunity. However, he insists it is completely separate from the intellect. Therefore, it cannot be used to solve the problems of thought, in which it has no interest. U.G. flatly rejects an independent "self." He states there is no thinker, only thinking. We merely assume a thinker exists. For U.G., thought is a dominant force. He sees no real separation between thought, feeling, or even sensation; everything is permeated by it. This is why he uses the broad term "movement of thought." This movement is powered and conditioned by memory. In fact, he asserts that thought is the movement of memory. Consequently, he also denies the existence of an independent consciousness, explicitly rejecting concepts like the Buddhist "vijnana skandha." U.G. delivers a master-stroke: you cannot observe or understand thought, because there is no separate "you" to do the observing. The idea of an independent observer is itself a creation of thought. This division is an illusion. In reality, what we call "observing thought" is just more thought—another layer of thinking about "thought." For U.G, this is why all talk of self-awareness or observing one's mind is ultimately meaningless. >Can you tell me something about yourself other than the information that you gathered, what you know? --- Q: On a certain level, yes, you can also say if you ask a ques. tion it means that you know the answer. U.G.: That's right. There's no question at all. There can't be any question without knowledge. All questions are born out of the answers you already have. --- #### Love is a four-letter word. Sex and war spring from the same source. There is nothing to your love you darling deary! When you don't get what you want out of that relationship what happens? It turns to hate. Love is a four-letter word. - U.G. - No More Questions `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:`