The fragmentation of the I and the not-I is surely the basic cause of this division, though the I tries to identify itself with the not-I, which may be the wife, the family, the community, or the formula of God which thought has made, The I is ever striving to find an identity, but what it identifies itself with is still a concept, a memory, a structure of thought.
Is there a duality at all? Objectively there is, such as light and shade, but psychologically is there? We accept the psychological duality as we accept the objective duality; it is part of our conditioning. We never question this conditioning. But is there, psychologically, a division? There is only what is, not what should be. The what should be is a division which thought has put together in the avoiding or the overcoming of the reality of what is. Hence the struggle between the actual and the abstraction. The abstraction is the fanciful, the romantic, the ideal. What is actual is what is, and everything else is non-real. It is the non-real that brings about the fragmentation, not the actual. Pain is actual; non-pain is the pleasure of thought which brings about the division between the pain and the state of non-pain. Thought is always separative; it is the division of time, the space between the observer and the thing observed. There is only what is, and to see what is, without thought as the observer, is the ending of fragmentation.
Thought is not love; but thought, as pleasure, encloses love and brings pain within that enclosure. In the negation of what is not, what is remains. In the negation of what is not love, love emerges in which the I and the non-I cease.
J. Krishnamurti The Only Revolution Europe Part 1.
The Only Revolution
-End of Quote.
Obviously K is not speaking about the factual inner division of 'Me and Not Me'. Therefore, 'Not Me' is not 'Not I'. 'Not Me' is the thoughts which brings in the past, the Division within.
Then what is 'Not I'? According to K,it is "not-I, which may be the wife, the family, the community, or the formula of God which thought has made.". Then this 'Not I' is the superficial outside things, which K tries to point out as the outcome of the inner division. (Or is the inner Division the outcome of superficial outside division?).
Hence, people who cannot understand this factual inner Division of 'Me and Not Me', would try to come to understand the same from, this superficial outside division of 'I and Not I'.
Here is a further proof of such a situation of misunderstanding:-
Quote Dev Singh:
The whole struggle is between the result of environment with which mind identifies itself and becomes the "I", between that, and environment. After all, the "I", the consciousness with which the mind identifies itself is the result of environment. The struggle takes place between that "I" and the constantly changing environment.
Krishnamurti's viewpoint is that if we were able to discover that our perception of reality - including the feeling of "I" - is basically a thought construct, the abstraction would come to an end of its own accord. What would remain in its stead is the natural ability to perceive, or to see "without any shadow of the past or of time".
Yet even with a fairly solid understanding of what Krishnamurti is saying, few can claim that this fundamental transformation actually has taken place. Why is this the case? In hindsight, it seems rather obvious. Despite the intent to question the entirety of our experience, the information contained in what Krishnamurti has to say simply causes new elements to appear on the radar of our consciousness. In this case, an "I" and "its environment". These are subsequently labeled as as "false". We then proceed to adjust our mental model to be in accord with this reworked paradigm. All the while, though, the sense of self remains in the background, the neutral implementer of this information. As such the state of affairs we know as "I" and "not I", the status quo as it were, continues without interruption.
--End of Quote.
This piece of Dev Singh's explanation in his article of 'Understanding and Insight', I have already analysed under the topic of,
and pointed out that K was not speaking about 'I and Not I', but only about 'I'. Hence it is clear that most of the people who read K, and as they are unable to understand the factual division which K speaks of, grab at this superficial division K speaks of, that is 'I and Not I'. And When K speaks only about 'I' even, as in this quote, they jump into the conclusion that K is speaking about both 'I' and 'Not I', as in this Dev's conclusion.
So it seems most of the time it is not Superficial understanding, but a confused non-understanding.
K "Is there a duality at all? Objectively there is, such as light and shade, but psychologically is there? We accept the psychological duality as we accept the objective duality; it is part of our conditioning. We never question this conditioning. But is there, psychologically, a division? "
ReplyDeleteK is questioning the reality of inner psychological duality as inner division - and the the outer 'viewed' from a I and not-I way of 'seeing.'
K seems to be questioning our unaware assumption of the inner division as well as the outer division. Here, the 'outer' division is based on the I looking at 'outer' objects as separate form itself.
Your usage of the word 'superficial' has no meaning in this context.
Your are inventing and dividing up different kinds of reality, as well as 'understanding' into superficial and non-superficial. Is this actual? No, I do not think so.
K, in the texts you quote, is speaking of the I and non-I inwardly - using the word 'psychologically', and as well with the perception of 'outer', as the observer = 'I', and 'not-I' = the observed. K comments on the inward psychological I and 'not-I' several times within the quoted texts that you put forward on this blog.
It seems you are not reading the K texts properly that you are analyzing.
You do not put forward your own understanding, how life is for you inwardly, yet you are measuring other peoples expression of their understanding.
To make interpretations of K's texts is not expressing how the subject that K is putting forward is for you.
I would say you are in fear of learning in relationship, this online stuff is an escape - perhaps it is for us all. We can all write clever and criticize others, yet at the same time remain hidden and unapproachable.
The ending of the 'me', or at the least learning about what the 'me' is and then applying oneself to end it would need to be the primary activity in any inquiry into inward change - all else is speculation and interpretation of K's and other people commentaries.
Have you changed? Have you ended the 'me'? What does 'the observer and the observed' mean to you - not as an intellectual understanding, but in actuality, in daily life?
Ano wrote: "Have you changed? Have you ended the 'me'? What does 'the observer and the observed' mean to you - not as an intellectual understanding, but in actuality, in daily life?"
ReplyDeleteYou are prompting me. I have only covered Superficial Understanding. If you think that you can confuse me, in order to save someone, or to protect the ideas that you have already formed, or guard the K's philosophy thinking that I am distorting it, etc., it will not work. But patiently wait until I cover, the next two headings, namely, Factual Understanding, and Attainment Understanding.
Are you really interested in Truth? Then you must be ready to face it, without trying to protect any ideas and opinions one has formed, and must be open.