Having been in different Krishnamurti discussion forums, and collecting more and more data about K and what he speaks, the 'splash of understanding' never crossed the mind.
Then this November 10th it happened. I was in a meditation center, where I met a Buddhist monk, who had knowledge about K. He asked me a question. "Why did Dr. E.W. Adikarm became a Krishnamurti follower?"
Being a born Buddhist and following it earnestly, having established several Buddhist schools, several Buddhist Organization, and in all of which he was the head, then at the advance age of 35, he reads a book of K, and resigns from all Buddhist organizations, saying that it it not compatible to be as such, since he does not believe in Buddhism any more, which is in the Scriptures.
Having this monk's question in mind, after retiring to the bed, it dawned on me this DR. E.W. Adikaram, being a Pali scholar (Buddhist Scriptures are in Pali Language), having translated Dhammapada to English and having written another book on Buddhism, must have read something in that K's book, which have got 'Clicked' to his mind as True.
Like Charles Darwin, who collected data and knowledge of Evolution, with that information he remains for about a few years, unable to find a suitable Theorem to explain Evolution, suddenly with a splash it got clicked into his mind, and me looking at this question, 'what would have got clicked to this man? ' and it 'clicked' in my mind, what it is, and I started to understand K.
Three levels of Understanding.
In understanding K there are three levels.
Level One-Superficial level.
One understands what K speaks about with his logic, using his experience of things, where those experiences are not similar to K, But he imagines so.
Level Two - Factual level.
When K speaks about his non-attainment levels of Experience, where he talks about the Factual level of Division (Division-Thinker and Thought) of his experiences, which cause insecurity, fear, sufferings, etc., which may not be the experience of everyone, but if one has the same experience, and looking for a description and an explanation of such an experience, it would 'Click' to that person, 'Yes this is true. This is what I have been looking for'.
Level Three - Attainment level.
Third, when K speaks about the 'Solution', which does not have a Path, and which has to come about in its own, and If this has happened to that person not in total, but at least for a certain parts of his problems, He will understand K in full.
Level One-Superficial level of Understanding.
When I started to understand Krishnamurti, I searched in a K-Forum of possible people who have understood K and who express the understanding using their own 'experience'.
Though there are a few, who understand K, but they were not expressing it in any clear terms.
Most of the them are having superficial understanding, and surprisingly they are the one who claim that they understand K. They even try to educate others.
When joining these K forums there are 'interviews' , where members write something about what they understand of K. These I read. Some have written articles about K. These I read. But no where I found anything worth of explaining K.
But I found an article by an Administrator, Moderator and Editor of Kinfonet forum who have written an article about his understanding of K. That article I would analyse in parts, but the whole article would be analysed in due course, under the heading of the article itself.
The article is named as:-
Understanding and Insight
Quote Dev Singh:
Understanding and Insight
A few years before his death, prompted by his biographer Mary Lutyens, Krishnamurti wrote a summary of his entire message. In this piece, entitled "The Core of the Teaching", Krishnamurti writes:When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experience and the experiencer. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time.
Krishnamurti here seems to suggest that the human mind is not limited to the familiar state of consciousness characterized by a clear separation between a subject (the experiencer) and an object (the experience). In addition to this everyday way of experiencing, Krishnamurti claims that the human mind also has the capacity for perceiving reality "purely", that is to say in a direct, non-personal manner, one that is not processed through an egocentric consciousness.
Although it's possible to imagine what such a state of non-duality might resemble, these musings rarely go beyond the realm of the intellect. For us, the separation between the observer and the observed lies at the heart of our actual experience, unquestioned and unquestionable. In fact, the sense of separation is so real that we find ourselves in a state of constant tension with our environment. We view the environment as an external agency, one that has the power to shape and influence who we are. Despite our strong intuitive feeling to the contrary, Krishnamurti nonetheless keeps on insisting that the individual and its environment are in fact one and the same thing.
--End of quote.
This is the beginning part of the article. Dev Singh has arranged this article, where he begins with a Krishnamurti quote and states his understanding on them.
It is surprising with the beginning of his explaining of K, Dev says, "Krishnamurti here seems to suggest", showing his lack of understanding, instead of starting the sentence as "Krishnamurti here clearly shows" and to explain it with some examples to make us understand, what K has meant.
Next Dev says in the same para, "Krishnamurti claims that the human mind also has the capacity for perceiving reality "purely". Be it what K claims or not, what is the Dev's understanding of that "perceiving reality purely"? If at least, in experiencing the reality, if Dev have "perceived reality purely" to some few seconds at least, then he would have explained it using his experience of the reality. Hence, he does not understand K, but only analytically imagines what K may have meant.
Next in the next para he begins with, "Although it's possible to imagine..". Who is interested with what Dev imagines? Reader should be enlightened to of what his understanding of K by examples, of Dev experiencing the same.
Dev says. " For us, the separation between the observer and the observed lies at the heart of our actual experience, unquestioned and unquestionable." So Dev without proving that there is a separation of "observer and the observed", and not elaborating on the "his experience of the 'separation", by at least with one example of his own, he makes a sweeping statement of a conclusion not only for himself, but for, 'For us' of the 'our' actual experience. Does this throw any light on what K says about this separation? Even a grade 5 student would agree that there is a separation between him and the rest, which is the superficial consciousness of a separation everyone experience. Does K talks about this superficial separation, without?
Next Dev says, "In fact, the sense of separation is so real that we find ourselves in a state of constant tension with our environment". K does not speak about a 'sense of separation', but he speaks about the actual 'experience of separation', not with the "our environment" , but within oneself. This Dev has not understood, not only because he failed to experience the same, but he even did not read K closely.
Dev says, "Krishnamurti nonetheless keeps on insisting that the individual and its environment are in fact one and the same thing." Again wrong. What K says is, the 'Division is entirely a matter of seeing that one is divided within, and to end that division making a relationship of oneself with himself, thus ending the conflict within'. This Dev has to understand, just reading K carefully.
Dev must understand that when K speaks about the "environment", it is in relation to being Aware of the same. Being of Aware of the "environment", if that ends with that Awareness, then there does not arise a "separation", within, i.e. Observer and Observed.
So the main theme of the quote of K, i.e the division of observer and observed, was not brought into light, since Dev has a superficial understanding of K.
(There is a possibility of Dev removing the article from the site, hence I have saved it, fully. Next post will be Part-2 of the same).
Understanding and Insight -Superficial Understanding - Part-2.
Quote Dev Singh:
Now, each one tries to immortalize the product of environment; that thing which is the result of the environment we try to make eternal. That is, the various fears, hopes, longings, prejudices, likes, personal views which we glorify as our temperament - these are, after all, the result, the product of environment; and the bundle of these memories, which is the result of environment, the product of the reactions to environment, this bundle becomes that consciousness which we call the "I".
Here, Krishnamurti implies that the "I" is nothing more than a consolidation of reactions to external influences. What happens to us as an organism from birth (and maybe even before) - the joys, hurts, pleasures and fears - all leave traces. These get stored and accumulate over time into a "bundle of memories". Memories, as Krishnamurti sees them, are not just a passive storehouse of information. On the contrary, they are actively involved in naming, recognizing and interpreting the world around us.
Eventually, there comes a point in the development of a human being at which reality is more likely to be processed in accordance with complex stored information - as an added layer on top of native awareness. In practical, day-to-day matters this ability of the human mind to re-fashion reality according to its memories is extremely useful for solving practical problems. In a flash, the past can be summoned in order to deal with a challenge in the present or plan for the future. Ultimately, this reliance on subjective memory as a valid interpreter of reality seems to give rise to the sense of self and the feeling of separateness.
The difficulty, according to Krishnamurti, is that we have lost sight of the fact that this memory-based world view is abstract and we have come to mistake it for the real thing. As such, most of our day is spent dealing with problems generated from within this mental model of reality, problems related to the security demands of an imaginary "I".
--End of Quote.
Dev says at the beginning of his two para, as a summation of them, "Here, Krishnamurti implies". Here K does not 'imply' anything but K is very clear in his statement. This does not warrant an understanding of what K speaks, but to read K and understand his words, English.
Hence, there is no need to analyse the two long para, but to bring into light of what K says.
By saying that, "Here, Krishnamurti implies", Dev has shown clearly that he does not 'See together with K'. That is, what K 'experiences' within, Dev does not experience himself, hence there is no 'Factual understanding' of K, by Dev Singh.
There are a few important words in K's statement, together with K's core message we can easily understand what K speaks about.
K says that our memory, which is the bundle of the product or result of the environment, and when it is in action, that is when we think, Produces the "I" consciousness. Next K says we want to immortalize and make eternal 'the memory and its out come, i.e 'I'.
The issue here is we are trying to make eternal these things, i.e. memory and 'I', which are not eternal but subject to change.
Now the question here is, do I see together with K? That this memory is the reason for the 'I'? This answer I would get for myself, by the activity of looking at myself, where I 'experience' my memory and finding a relationship to that consciousness of 'I'.
Do we find such a relationships as K says? Does 'I' an outcome of our memory?
Understanding and Insight -Superficial Understanding - Part-3.
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.
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.
Understanding and Insight -Superficial Understanding - Part-4.
Quote Dev Singh:
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.
Understanding and Insight -Superficial Understanding - Part-5.
Quote Dev Singh:
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 pre-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.
Understanding and Insight -Superficial Understanding - Part-6 -End.
Quote Dev Singh:
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.
Superficial Understanding.
All most all the Krishnamurti followers, except for a few who have Factual understanding of K, have only Superficial Understanding. This is due to:-
1. They don't understand the K's explanation of the 'experience' of his mind. Hence they imagine those experiences through one's own 'experience' of one's mind, or they don't have the ability to look at one's own mind, therefore imagine something else, to understand based on those imaginations.
2. K explains outside world problems as an outcome of the problems within, in the mind. This leads to a superficial understanding, where the person who is unable to understand the inner problem of what K speaks about. starts from the outside problems, which is easy to understand and tries to come to the inner problems, which K explains. Then makes a lot of hypothesis of the inner problems or does not have any idea of them.
Now let us examine how K was tring to relate his inner experience of Division to the outside world.
Quote K:
When there is a visual awareness of the tree without any psychological involvement there is no division in relationship. But when there is a psychological response to the tree, the response is a conditioned response, it is the response of past memory, past experiences, and the response is a division in relationship. This response is the birth of what we shall call the 'me' in relationship and the 'non-me'. This is how you place yourself in relationship to the world. This is how you create the individual and the community. The world is seen not as it is, but in its various relationships to the 'me' of memory. This division is the life and the flourishing of everything we call our psychological being, and from this arises all contradiction and division.
-K -The Urgency of Change | Awareness
End of Quote.
When K tries as here, i.e. "This is how you place yourself in relationship to the world. This is how you create the individual and the community.", one is misled by his own understanding of the outside world. If he cannot understand the Division, which is the inner experience, what K want to explain, the reader will begin with this superficial explanation of the outside world by K, in order to come back and understand the inner experience. This will result in a superficial understanding.
But surprising thing with some of the people who have formed Superficial Understanding is that they have more conviction in K. This is due to the fact that they have definitive theorems for every aspect of what K speaks about.
Relating the 'Division'.
One who cannot understand Krishnamurti, when he explains the Division, the 'Me and Not Me' which creates insecurity, fear and suffering, he tries to understand K by his explanations relating this 'inner experience', without, the superficial, to the outside world, which I have pointed out already.
This is an attempt by K himself to understand everything, by relating the inner world of himself to the outside. This everyone do. But one must factually find out whether this is true, that is relating to outside word, by trying to agree with other people, i.e coming to a common agreement. But K seems not to follow this method of inquiry, but to stress the relationship he sees with outside world as the truth, and tries hard in discussions, to convince others to see, as he sees.
Hence, if anyone reading or listening to K, without being able to understand the real problem of Division within, he would try to come back to the issue, after getting hold of the problems without, outside world, the superficial, then he will end up with a superficial understanding, as I pointed out in the previous post.
To illustrate this, let us look at some examples of K trying to relate his inner experience of the Division, without.
Quote Krishnamurti:
Now where do we begin to understand ourselves? Here am I, and how am I to
study myself, observe myself, see what is actually taking place inside myself? I can observe myself only in relationship because all life is relationship. It is no use sitting in a corner meditating about myself. I cannot exist by myself. I exist only in relationship to people, things and ideas, and in studying my relationship to outward things and people, as well as to inward things, I begin to understand myself. Every other form of understanding is merely an abstraction and I cannot study myself in abstraction; I am not an abstract entity; therefore I have to study myself in actuality - as I am, not as I wish to be.
Chapter 2-Freedom from the known.
-End of Quote.
Here K himself tells that, to study what is within, one must begin with 'without', which is superficial.
The real error in this suggestion, which K does not seem to comprehend is due to the fact, that he was trying himself to explain to himself, what is taking place within, with without, superficial, without verifying with other people. It is his own conclusion.
Let me exemplify this. If a problem arises internally in the body, where one cannot feel the body pain due to that it is not nervously transmitted to the brain, but there will be pain and other complications felt in the Mind. So if one thries to relate this situation to outside problems he has, it will be a total error.
Quote Krishnamurti:
How do you know you are conditioned? What tells you? What tells you you are
hungry? - not as a theory but the actual fact of hunger? In the same way, how do
you discover the actual fact that you are conditioned? Isn't it by your reaction to a problem, a challenge? You respond to every challenge according to your
conditioning and your conditioning being inadequate will always react
inadequately.
When you become aware of it, does this conditioning of race, religion and culture bring a sense of imprisonment? Take only one form of conditioning, nationality, become seriously, completely aware of it and see whether you enjoy it or rebel against it, and if you rebel against it, whether you want to break through all conditioning. If you are satisfied with your conditioning you will obviously do nothing about it, but if you are not satisfied when you become aware of it, you will realize that you never do anything without it. Never! And therefore you are always living in the past with the dead.
Chapter 2-Freedom from the known.
-End of Quote.
Here again K relate the inner problem of Actual Conditioning to the superficial outside situations, which are not the 'reasons for inner conditioning' neither the inner conditioning are 'reasons for the outside situations'.
Quote Krishnamurti:
So is it possible to be totally aware of the whole field of consciousness and not merely a part, a fragment, of it? If you are able to be aware of the totality, then you are functioning all the time with your total attention, not partial attention. This is important to understand because when you are being totally aware of the whole field of consciousness there no friction. it is only when you divide consciousness, which is all thought, feeling and action, into different levels that there is friction.
We live in fragments. You are one thing at the office, another at home; you talk about democracy and in your heart you are autocratic; you talk about loving your neighbours, yet kill him with competition; there is one part of you working, looking, independently of the other. Are you aware of this fragmentary existence in yourself? And is it possible for a brain that has broken up its own functioning, its own thinking, into fragments - is it possible for such a brain to be aware of the whole field? Is it possible to look at the whole of consciousness completely, totally, which means to be a total human being?
Chapter 3-Freedom from the known.
-End of Quote.
K says, " You are one thing at the office, another at home; you talk about democracy and in your heart you are autocratic; you talk about loving your neighbours, yet kill him with competition; there is one part of you working, looking, independently of the other. Are you aware of this fragmentary existence in yourself?"
K relates the fragmentation, or Division within to superficial outside world situations as he had done always, and tries to make believe others to follow the same.
Do you feel a fragmentation within? If not, you cannot understand K.
If you feel a real Division within, do you think that it is due to the division without, in the society? Or do you think that the division in the society is due to the inner Division?
Relating Factual 'Me & Not Me' to Superficial 'I & Not I'.
Qutoe Krishnamurti:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment