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.
Here Dev starts in much a different way than the previous analysis of K's quote. Dev says, "Krishnamurti's viewpoint is that" indicating that Dev 'see together' with K, as if Dev is also 'experiences' within his mind, the same what K experiences and trying to point out in order to 'see together'. But the word 'viewpoint' defeats that effort, showing again that it is a conclusion of Dev, rather than experiencing the same as K, thereby not understanding K.
Then further down in that same sentence Dev says, " the feeling of "I" - is basically a thought construct". It is surprising that Dev fails again and again to understand the precise words of K, which is English, and now I feel that even to understand the precise words of K, one requires at least some basic understanding of K. What K says is not about 'thought construct' which give rise to 'I', but the memory consciousness which is the 'I'. The exact words of K here in this quote is, " result of environment with which mind identifies itself and becomes the "I"-". In the previous quote of K, K referred to this as the 'Product of environment' as well, which is memory. K said this memory is a bundle and the entire bundle is the cause of 'I'.
Then with that wrong understanding of K's quote, Dev is indulging in explaining some of his imagined understanding of the same, which is not worthwhile to examine.
And Dev concludes saying, "As such the state of affairs we know as "I" and "not I", the status quo as it were, continues without interruption." as the final message K was trying to give us, in that quote.
But the message K is saying here in his own word is, "The struggle takes place between that "I" and the constantly changing environment." Here K does not mean anything about 'I' and 'not I' as the struggle. But K said in the previous quote, referring to the same situation, which I have explained there, "Next K says we want to immortalize and make eternal 'the memory and its out come, i.e 'I'."
This is the struggle, that when the environment changes, and we try to hold on to our previous memories and the 'I', making it eternal, and denying the change.
No comments:
Post a Comment