Now, each one tries to immortalize the product of environment; that thing which is the result of the environment we try to make eternal. That is, the various fears, hopes, longings, prejudices, likes, personal views which we glorify as our temperament - these are, after all, the result, the product of environment; and the bundle of these memories, which is the result of environment, the product of the reactions to environment, this bundle becomes that consciousness which we call the "I".
Here, Krishnamurti implies that the "I" is nothing more than a consolidation of reactions to external influences. What happens to us as an organism from birth (and maybe even before) - the joys, hurts, pleasures and fears - all leave traces. These get stored and accumulate over time into a "bundle of memories". Memories, as Krishnamurti sees them, are not just a passive storehouse of information. On the contrary, they are actively involved in naming, recognizing and interpreting the world around us.
Eventually, there comes a point in the development of a human being at which reality is more likely to be processed in accordance with complex stored information - as an added layer on top of native awareness. In practical, day-to-day matters this ability of the human mind to re-fashion reality according to its memories is extremely useful for solving practical problems. In a flash, the past can be summoned in order to deal with a challenge in the present or plan for the future. Ultimately, this reliance on subjective memory as a valid interpreter of reality seems to give rise to the sense of self and the feeling of separateness.
The difficulty, according to Krishnamurti, is that we have lost sight of the fact that this memory-based world view is abstract and we have come to mistake it for the real thing. As such, most of our day is spent dealing with problems generated from within this mental model of reality, problems related to the security demands of an imaginary "I".
--End of Quote.
Dev says at the beginning of his two para, as a summation of them, "Here, Krishnamurti implies". Here K does not 'imply' anything but K is very clear in his statement. This does not warrant an understanding of what K speaks, but to read K and understand his words, English.
Hence, there is no need to analyze the two long para, but to bring into light of what K says.
By saying that, "Here, Krishnamurti implies", Dev has shown clearly that he does not 'See together with K'. That is, what K 'experiences' within, Dev does not experience himself, hence there is no 'Factual understanding' of K, by Dev Singh.
There are a few important words in K's statement, together with K's core message we can easily understand what K speaks about.
K says that our memory, which is the bundle of the product or result of the environment, and when it is in action, that is when we think, Produces the "I" consciousness. Next K says we want to immortalize and make eternal 'the memory and its out come, i.e 'I'.
The issue here is we are trying to make eternal these things, i.e. memory and 'I', which are not eternal but subject to change.
Now the question here is, do I see together with K? That this memory is the reason for the 'I'? This answer I would get for myself, by the activity of looking at myself, where I 'experience' my memory and finding a relationship to that consciousness of 'I'.
Do we find such a relationships as K says? Does 'I' an outcome of our memory?
No comments:
Post a Comment