After all, to understand truth, God, the unknown, or whatever name you care to give to it, mind and heart must come unprepared, insecure. In the vitality of insecurity, there is the eternal.
--End of Quote.
K speaks about his attainment, which is eternal. What is not 'eternal' is the division of 'Me and Not Me'. 'Not Me' is the 'thinking' in relation to Past knowledge, of the things one become aware of. Non of the 'thinking' about a particular same object even, after becoming 'aware' of the object, would not remain same over the time, hence not eternal.
But the Unknown, the Thoughtless would remain same over the time, hence 'eternal'.
Since, 'thinking' creates a Division within 'Me', and also thinking is not same, of the same object one becomes aware of, over the time, not eternal, it creates insecurity. In that insecurity, without seeking security and unprepared (pathless) one may perhaps understand the Unknown, thoughtless, which does not change over the time as thinking, (= Not Me), hence this thoughtless is 'eternal'.
While K speaks clearly about the attainment of the Unknown, being the result of mind being insecure and unprepared, Dev speaks about, "that the "I" can never observe freely, is perhaps the single most important point we can take from Krishnamurti."
Dev Singh has not grasped an iota of what K says, but he has created a web of imaginations of what K speaks about and explains those imaginations to the reader, even without bringing in a single factual example .
This ends the analysis of Dev Singh's article in full.
What is next? I would deal in factual understanding.
ReplyDelete