This is an attempt by K himself to understand everything, by relating the inner world of himself to the outside. This everyone do. But one must factually find out whether this is true, that is relating to outside word, by trying to agree with other people, i.e coming to a common agreement. But K seems not to follow this method of inquiry, but to stress the relationship he sees with outside world as the truth, and tries hard in discussions, to convince others to see, as he sees.
Hence, if anyone reading or listening to K, without being able to understand the real problem of Division within, he would try to come back to the issue, after getting hold of the problems without, outside world, the superficial, then he will end up with a superficial understanding, as I pointed out in the previous post.
To illustrate this, let us look at some examples of K trying to relate his inner experience of the Division, without.
Quote Krishnamurti:
Now where do we begin to understand ourselves? Here am I, and how am I to
study myself, observe myself, see what is actually taking place inside myself? I can observe myself only in relationship because all life is relationship. It is no use sitting in a corner meditating about myself. I cannot exist by myself. I exist only in relationship to people, things and ideas, and in studying my relationship to outward things and people, as well as to inward things, I begin to understand myself. Every other form of understanding is merely an abstraction and I cannot study myself in abstraction; I am not an abstract entity; therefore I have to study myself in actuality - as I am, not as I wish to be.
Chapter 2-Freedom from the known.
-End of Quote.
Here K himself tells that, to study what is within, one must begin with 'without', which is superficial.
The real error in this suggestion, which K does not seem to comprehend is due to the fact, that he was trying himself to explain to himself, what is taking place within, with without, superficial, without verifying with other people. It is his own conclusion.
Let me exemplify this. If a problem arises internally in the body, where one cannot feel the body pain due to that it is not nervously transmitted to the brain, but there will be pain and other complications felt in the Mind. So if one thries to relate this situation to outside problems he has, it will be a total error.
Quote Krishnamurti:
How do you know you are conditioned? What tells you? What tells you you are
hungry? - not as a theory but the actual fact of hunger? In the same way, how do
you discover the actual fact that you are conditioned? Isn't it by your reaction to a problem, a challenge? You respond to every challenge according to your
conditioning and your conditioning being inadequate will always react
inadequately.
When you become aware of it, does this conditioning of race, religion and culture bring a sense of imprisonment? Take only one form of conditioning, nationality, become seriously, completely aware of it and see whether you enjoy it or rebel against it, and if you rebel against it, whether you want to break through all conditioning. If you are satisfied with your conditioning you will obviously do nothing about it, but if you are not satisfied when you become aware of it, you will realize that you never do anything without it. Never! And therefore you are always living in the past with the dead.
Chapter 2-Freedom from the known.
-End of Quote.
Here again K relate the inner problem of Actual Conditioning to the superficial outside situations, which are not the 'reasons for inner conditioning' neither the inner conditioning are 'reasons for the outside situations'.
Quote Krishnamurti:
So is it possible to be totally aware of the whole field of consciousness and not
merely a part, a fragment, of it? If you are able to be aware of the totality, then
you are functioning all the time with your total attention, not partial attention. This is important to understand because when you are being totally aware of the
whole field of consciousness there no friction. it is only when you divide
consciousness, which is all thought, feeling and action, into different levels that
there is friction.
We live in fragments. You are one thing at the office, another at home; you
talk about democracy and in your heart you are autocratic; you talk about loving your neighbours, yet kill him with competition; there is one part of you working, looking, independently of the other. Are you aware of this fragmentary existence in yourself? And is it possible for a brain that has broken up its own functioning, its own thinking, into fragments - is it possible for such a brain to be aware of the whole field? Is it possible to look at the whole of consciousness completely, totally, which means to be a total human being?
Chapter 3-Freedom from the known.
-End of Quote.
K says, " You are one thing at the office, another at home; you talk about democracy and in your heart you are autocratic; you talk about loving your neighbours, yet kill him with competition; there is one part of you working, looking, independently of the other. Are you aware of this fragmentary existence in yourself?"
K relates the fragmentation, or Division within to superficial outside world situations as he had done always, and tries to make believe others to follow the same.
Do you feel a fragmentation within? If not, you cannot understand K.
If you feel a real Division within, do you think that it is due to the division without, in the society? Or do you think that the division in the society is due to the inner Division?
No comments:
Post a Comment