To find out what the mind is - is that not meditation? If the mind can understand the total process of its own existence, then perhaps it can go beyond itself and discover what is true. But reason and logic are not passionate, vital, and that is why, to understand and transcend itself, the mind must go beyond reason and logic. The mind that is passionate to find out what is true - only such a mind can come to know the whole process of reasoning, with its illusions and falseness, and so transcend itself. A mind that is logical, reasoning, traditional, fearful, may be enthusiastic in terms of a dogma, creed, or political formula; it may be keen to bring about a particular reform, but it can never be vitally free to find out what is true.
It would appear that this investigation into the nature of the human consciousness is unlike any other problem we have had to solve. Since our very "self" is the subject of study, it follows that in this particular inquiry we cannot avail ourselves of anything originating from that self - that is, our feelings, intuitions, understandings, and so on. This is borne out by our own trials and experiments, where neither logic, reason nor emotion have succeeded in coercing this state of "pure observation" into being.
Most definitely then, the understanding Krishnamurti speaks of is of a wholly different order than what we normally understand as understanding. The "understanding" he speaks of is a flash of insight that instantaneously does away with illusion. And that is the end of the story. No further action is required. There is nothing to oppose, nothing on which to act, to change, to control.
--End of Quote.
Before going into what Dev's explanation of the K's quote, let us examine what K says in his quote, the central message.
Be passionate, to find out what is true, then perhaps it (=mind) can go beyond itself (transcend itself) and discover what is true. (using only K's words, even the bracketed ones).
But, Dev Singh says that what K says here is about, 'investigation into the nature of the human consciousness', because Dev was mislead by the initial question posed by K. That is K asks, "To find out what the mind is - is that not meditation?"
Then Dev says, " Since our very "self" is the subject of study," but K says, "If the mind can understand the total process of its own existence" , meaning only the mind, and there is no subject of study here, but to find out what is True, which does not come through a study.
Then Dev speaks of, what this thing K want to one to archive is as, "this state of pure observation". But K indicates very clearly the desired out come as, "then perhaps it (=mind) can go beyond itself and discover what is true."
Dev says finally this understanding is in the nature of, "a flash of insight that instantaneously does away with illusion.", which K never says.
Dev never talks about the important thing here, that is the 'Transcendence of the mind'.
So it is clear that Dev has made many conclusions, which are wrong, and then he changes the words used by K, where those words do not have substitutes. Eg. For Mind he uses 'self'. Does this substitution bring more clarity?
K speaks of the attainment level of understanding which is pathless, hence reason, logic etc. which indicate a path are useless. Then what is useful?
The only useful thing here is, " The mind that is passionate to find out what is true."
If that mind is as such, then what would happen? Then, 'perhaps' the mind would " transcend itself."
Since, this is a pathless process, K uses the word, 'perhaps'. That is K says, "then perhaps it (=mind) can go beyond itself and discover what is true."
Is this Transcending itself is a flash of understanding? No it is the 'Unknown' 'state', which does not vanish in a second.
No comments:
Post a Comment