After all, the ascetic is one who eschews life because he does not understand it. He runs away from life, from life with all its expressions; whereas intelligence does not seek to escape from anything, because there is nothing to be put away; intelligence is complete, and in that completeness there is no division.
This lies in sharp contrast to our brand of understanding, which inevitably seeks to assert itself. So when we say that we have understood that the self and the environment are fabricated, it leads to an effort to somehow set things right. Krishnamurti's point is that the very presence of reactions like resistance, control, acceptance and so on - all of which are based on an understanding of sorts - indicates that we have not seen "directly" that the whole affair is false.
--End of Quote.
K continues to speak about Pathless, which does not require any per-requisites. The attainment which comes, without any Path, K describes as having 'Intelligence' , 'Completeness' and having no Division, that is, there is no division of 'Me' and 'Not me'.
As this Division in Relationship is ended by being open to it with full attention, hence, it is different from other forms of Meditation which requires many pre-requisites as well as effort.
Here K contrasts the effortless, pathless attainment with other forms of meditation.
But Dev speaks about that “ the self and the environment are fabricated”, and hence, “ an effort to somehow set things right.” Then continues to say, “we have not seen "directly" that the whole affair is false.”
How superficial is the understanding of K, by Dve Singh? While K speaks about the ending of the Division within, which is the Intelligence and Completeness, Dev speaks about 'self and environment' as fabricated and as false.
What is false here is the Division, i.e Me and Not Me, and to end that Division, which is pathless, hence does not require pre-requisites as the ascetic thinks. Hence he want to eschew life as one of the pre-requisites for attainment of this goal.
Is it superficial understanding or just not understanding at all by Dve Singh?
Quote Dev Singh:
Anything that we perceive directly, understand completely, leaves no scar on the mind.
It can be rather discouraging to realize that the intellectual understanding of Krishnamurti's teaching leaves one essentially nowhere. But if you look carefully at what he himself described as the core of his message, namely that the "observer is the observed", you will perhaps agree this is what he has been saying all along. If the "I" is identical with the environment it seeks to change, then there is clearly no help to be had for that "I", neither from Krishnamurti, nor from any other source. Not because he failed somehow in his mission, but rather because truth is simply not something that the "I" can bargain with.
--End of Quote.
K speaks of the ending of Division as not leaving any scar on the mind, as the scar as suffering, insecurity and fear on the mind. When this Division of Observer (Me) and Observed (Not Me) is there, then there is insecurity, fear and suffering. Both the Observer(Me) and Observed (Not Me) are within the Mind.
But Dev brings something new. He brings 'I' instead of 'Me' which is wrong. Then he brings 'Environment' and says some bla bla of seeking a change and 'I' as identical with it.
Dev says the K's core message as “ observer is the observed", but does not say what it is. When there is a Division, then it is Observer and Observed, and both are not same. That is Me and Not Me are not same. When the division is ended, it becomes “observer is the observed", that is 'Not Me' Becomes 'Me'. Then it would be 'Me and Me', ending the Division, but not 'Me and Not Me' any more.
No comments:
Post a Comment