Factual understanding means, to experience the same, of another's experience and to understand it, when one describes the experience.
How does factual understanding take place? When one speaks about his 'experience' of something, if the other person, who is listening to him, also had the same experience already, and if he understands the 'words' used by the person who explains the 'experience' as well, then this listener would understand the speaker.
So the important two things needed to understand another person's 'experience' are:-
1. Having the same experience.
2. Understanding the 'words' used to describe the experience.
An example:
A - Do you know what is meant by the word 'Hot'?
B - I don't know. Please explain it to me.
A - When you keep a kettle with water on the gas stove and
heat it, the kettle becomes 'Hot' and the water in the
kettle also becomes 'Hot'. Now do you understand this?
B - No, I have never done it. I don't understand what is 'Hot'.
A - Then go to the kitchen and do the same, and when the
water vapor comes out of the kettle, just quickly touch
the kettle by your finger and take away the finger
immediately. What you will feel, when you touch the
kettle is 'Hot' ness.
Another example:
Mr. Anger - (an English man) I feel angry towards that
man who is beating his child.
Mr. No Anger - (A foreigner who does not know the word
'anger' and who never experienced anger in
his life.) What do you mean by the word
'Anger'?
Mr. Anger - The feeling you get against someone, when
he is doing an injustice to another or to
yourself, where you feel like hitting him.
Mr. No Anger - Yes, I have seen people hitting other
people, saying that they have done
injustice, but I have never felt anything like
that, even when someone hitting me for no
reason. Still I can't understand the word
'Anger'.
Yet another example:
Mr. Anger - (an English man) I feel angry towards that
man who is beating his child.
Mr. F. Anger - (A foreigner who does not know the word
'anger', but have experiences of anger in his
life.) What do you mean by the word 'Anger'?
Mr. Anger - The feeling you get against someone, when
he is doing an injustice to another or to
yourself, where you feel like hitting him.
Mr. F. Anger - Yes, now I understand the word 'Anger'. Yes,
your are correct, let us go and hit that man
who is beating his child.
1. An Hypothetical Discussion with K:
K - There is awareness of the tree. Awareness ends, without thinking, then everything is OK. No Division.
A - I understand.
B - Yes, it is clear.
K - But if there is a response to the 'Awareness of the tree',
then it is 'Me' who is responding. Is it clear?
A - Yes.
B - Yes, agreed.
K - The response is the 'Thought' which is past.
A - Quite clear.
B - Yes.
K - The Response, that is the 'Thought' is a Division, do you
see?
A - Yes, wonderful, I see it.
B - No, I don't see it. I see that, I am the one who is thinking
about the tree, so I don't see a Division between 'I' and
'my thinking'.
K - OK, let us go much deeper. This Division, the thought is
'Not Me'.
A - Yes I experience the same.
B - Not with me, No Division neither 'Not Me'.
K - Division, 'Not Me' brings insecurity and fear. Do you see
it?
A- Yes, there is insecurity and fear even when I think about
tree, door, flower, etc.
B - (Laughs). How can be there be fear, when one 'thinks'
about door, tree and flower? What is this Division,
'Not Me'? I don't feel any of those. I don't feel
insecure and fearful, just becuse of thinking of a
tree or even a tiger or ghosts. I have lived all alone in
jungle security posts, when I was in the army. I quite
loved that utter loneliness, a challenge, only a few of my
colleagues feared.
Hence, it is clear A understands K, Factually, having the same experience of 'Not Me', Division, insecurity and fear.
Do you understand K, as A does? And experience insecurity and fear when you think about a tree?
Or do you not understand K, as B does not?
Factual Understanding - Part 1.
It is clear now that one of the core teaching of Krishnamurti is that the idea, that when one becomes Aware of a thing, such as a neutral thing as well, A Tree, if it ends with that Awareness, no problem arises.
But if the Awareness leads to a Response from the mind, then that response is the 'Thought'. This Thought is based (conditioned) on past knowledge, hence it is a condition. This 'Thought' is 'Not Me' as well. This 'Not Me' only can be understood by people who have the same experience, that is they experience or look at the Thoughts as something alien to them. So those people factually understand K.
(Who do feel, that thinking about a tree as Response? Do you?).
The people who do not experience the thinking as 'Not Me' cannot factually understand K. But the people who understand K factually, never come out with, what they understand of K and 'Not Me', clearly.
But the situation is not so hopeless. There are definite outcomes of this Me as the 'observer', of oneself, and 'Not Me' as the Thought, the 'observed' (not the tree, but the thought is the observed), which is 'Not Me', not of oneself. What are the outcomes of this Division of Me and Not Me? it is insecurity, fear and sufferings.
When you think about a tree, if you don't feel insecure, fearful and suffer, then you will never factually understand K, but you will be able to detect people of such a disposition. Hence, I detect some, who factually understand K, but they never cannot describe themselves of K, for us to understand. Or are they reluctant to express themselves, for some reason?
Let us take an example of a factual understanding.
Quote:
Krishnamurti: Let's forget childhood memories and all that nonsense, and come to the present. Here you are, and you say you are not frightened now; you're happy for the moment and can hardly imagine the fear you were in. Why have you no fear now? Is it the quiet, clear, well-proportioned room, furnished with good taste, and this sense of welcoming warmth which you feel? Is that why you are not frightened now?
Questioner: That's part of it. Also perhaps it is you. I heard you talk in witzerland, and I've heard you here, and I feel a kind of deep friendship for you. But I don't want to depend on nice houses, welcoming atmospheres and good friends in order not to be afraid. When I go to my parents I have this same feeling of warmth. But it is deadly at home; all families are deadly with their little enclosed activities, their quarrels, and the vulgarity of all that loud talk about nothing, and their hypocrisy. I'm fed up with it all. And yet, when I go to them and there is this certain warmth, I do feel, for a while, free of this fear. The psychiatrists can't tell me what my fear is about. They call it a "floating fear". It's a black, bottomless, ghastly pit. I've spent a great deal of money and time on being analysed and it really hasn't helped at all. So what am I to do?
Chapter - Fear.
Book - The urgency of Change
End of Quote.
This Questioner factually understands K, but he cannot express himself clearly as K express himself. That may be due to the fact, that he did not look into his mind to understand the Division within, the fragmentation within.
Factual Understanding - Part 2.
There are two obstacles to factual understanding.
1. Not having the experience of Division, within, which breeds insecurity, fear and suffering.
2. The explanation of the Freedom by K, as it is Pathless, must come on its own, must happen to oneself, and in relating the outcome of it by K, to the outside things, as how the Freedom effects to outside things, misleads one, in trying to understand the Division, which is factual, in one who does not have such a Division in his thinking, as K has.
For the same reason K experienced Division within, which was not a K's act on his part, that is Division within was not brought into himself by K himself, hence, the solution, the Freedom also was not the making of K. That is Division happens to K, it is Pathless as well. K really points out one cannot do anything for it. One cannot end the Division, as it is not made by himself. In the same way one cannot attain Freedom, by going for it. As the Division came in and it must go and there should be Freedom, when the Division goes away.
So what can one do? Just be Aware of the problem, without desire and expectation, and don't try to do anything, then with that attention, one will experience Freedom.
So Freedom comes on it's own?
No, if it has to come, then one must have the Division within. Without Division within, how can one come to the Wholeness, Freedom?
If one doesn't have the Division, Me and Not Me, therefore if one doesn't feel insecure, fearful and suffer, and if one is not afraid like most people, who don't feel thinking as an alien activity, not as 'Not Me', then if one is looking for this Freedom to come about, how can it come, without having the problem, the Division, within oneself, how can there be a solution?
Hence, if one has the Division, then he can have the Freedom, the Wholeness. If one does not have the Division, then there is no Freedom from the Division, from the Fragmentation.
One's problems may be one's own creation. One gets angry and it is an act of oneself, the anger does not comes to oneself, on its own. If the anger comes to oneself on its own, then one cannot act on it to be free from the anger, it should be Pathless, the freedom from the anger. But if the anger is a creation of oneself, then one can stop creating more anger and remove the ones already created. When one finds the path of his creation, then he will find the path, to be free from it.
When one has the Division, which seems to have come on its own, hence the freedom also has to come on its own, Pathless, and is this really pathless? Why one cannot make an attempt to solve this Division?
Factual Understanding - Part 3.
When one has the Division, which seems to have come on its own (?), hence the freedom also has to come on its own, Pathless, and is this really pathless? Why one cannot make an attempt to solve this Division?
One cannot end the Division, which is 'Me' and 'Not Me', by making an attempt. The Division itself an attempt, a Response, which is 'Not Me'. 'Not Me' is the thinking, and if one tries to end the 'Not Me', that means, that he is thinking about ending this 'Not Me'. Then that second thinking on ending 'Not Me' will bring another 'Not Me' which the thinking on the first 'Not Me', to end it. This K says as Perpetuation of the Division. So instead of ending the Division of Me and Not Me, when one is thinking about ending the 'Not Me', he brings about a new 'Not Me', a new thinking, and one get caught in one's own trap, and continue to think of each thinking, as to end each of them, thus perpetuating.
Quote K:
There is the tree, and the conditioned response to the tree, which is the 'me' in relationship, the 'me' who is the very centre of conflict. Now is it this 'me' who is asking the question? - this 'me' who, as we have said, is the very structure of the past? If the question is not asked from the structure of the past, if the question is not asked by the 'me', then there is no structure of the past. When the structure is asking the question it is operating in relationship to the fact of itself, it is frightened of itself and it acts to escape from itself. When this structure does not ask the question, it is not acting in relationship to itself. To recapitulate: there is the tree, there is the word, the response to the tree, which is the censor, or the 'me', which comes from the past; and then there is the question: can I escape from all this turmoil and agony? If the 'me' is asking this question it is perpetuating itself.
Now, being aware of that, it doesn't ask the question! Being aware and seeing all the implications of it, the question cannot be asked. It does not ask the question at all because it sees the trap.
The Urgency of Change | Awareness
End of Quote.
So a desire to end the Division of Me and Not Me, is a Condition, a thinking, which increases the problem instead of solving it. So any attempt to end this insecurity, fear and suffering due to the division, by any means, such as meditation, involves an attempt, a desire, an expectation, which is 'thought', which would further perpetuate the 'Not Me'.
Therefore meditation methods and techniques, which involves, knowledge plus and an expectation for results, cannot solve this Me and Not Me and bring about the Wholeness, the Non-Division. Hence it is Pathless, it has to come about on its own.
Most of the people do not have this Division, due to a Gap in the thinking, even if they think in a good way of helping others or in a bad way of harming others. Hence, whatever way they think, the thinking does not divide within as Me and Not Me. That means there is no Gap in thinking. Therefore, they thinks as 'I am thinking'. So thinking for them is a Wholesome, Complete activity having no gaps.
Since K had this Gap, the Division, for which, the reason he never knew, and also the missing parts in the thinking, the Gap, K never knew, which causes Division in thinking, where he feels thinking is not of his activity, an alien activity, a 'Not Me'. Therefore, at any time K never disclosed the 'reasons' for the gap, and generalised it for everyone.
In that situation, without knowing what really happens in his mind, can K say, this solution which comes about as Pathless? As K did not say why this Division takes place, meaning he did not know the reasons, therefore K assumes that Division is the norm for everyone. In the same way it was K's assumption, that Non-Division, Freedom is Pathless. As he did not know how it comes about, and assumes that everyone has the division, and recommends this Pathless solution to people who are not having the Division, wholeness, no insecurity, no fear and sufferings, assuming that every one is Divided in their thinking. This K was not aware, but people who are not Divided in their thinking, would understand.
The Gaps Creates the Division in the Mind.
For Krishnamurti, awareness of a tree, that is an observation of a tree, does not necessarily ends up with the thinking of the tree. In that situation, as there is no thinking, there is no 'Observed'. This 'Observed' is the Thought about the tree. If thinking take place, that is, if 'Observed' to take place, then there is a Division between the 'Observer' and the 'Observed'. That is the Division of 'Thinker' and the 'Thinking'
Therefore there is a Gap between Awareness and the 'Thinking'. That is, there is no relationship connecting Awareness to the Thinking. Hence, if 'Thinking' is to take place, it happens on its own, rather than having any connection to Awareness.
Quote Krishnamurti:
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'.
The Urgency of Change | Awareness
End of Quote.
What is this Gap which creates the Division, which
Krishnamurti was unaware of? According to K, the function of the Mind can take two routes, two paths:-
1. "awareness of the tree without any psychological involvement", hence, no Thinking, No Division.
2. Awareness -> "psychological response to the tree, the response is a conditioned response, it is the response of past memory, past experiences", which is the 'Thinking'.
So it is, Awareness -> Past Memory -> Thinking.
But this flow of events, is broken in between to have a Gap, making the Division. Where does the Gap take place? It is in between the Awareness and the Memory.
So it is, Awareness -> <Gap > Past Memory -> Thinking.
Hence, if there is only Awareness, well and good, No Division. But if there is " Past Memory -> Thinking", then it is not related to the Awareness, because of the Gap. But when the 'Me' as the Thinker, as the Observer, observes the 'Not Me' as the 'Thought', as the Observed, there is this Division K feels. So K feels that 'Observed', that is 'Thought' takes place on its own, because of the Gap. having no relationship with the Awareness, that means 'K is not thinking', but the 'Thought' is cropping up, so it is 'Not Me'.
Hence, this division is not division into two, it is Fragmentation.
For a normal person who does not have this Gap in thinking, there are some connecting functional mind attributes, which would fill the Gap. Hence, he would not feel Divided in his thinking, and he would perceive the thinking as his own act, that is he would say, 'I am thinking about the tree."
What are the missing mind attributes or functions, form K's Mind, Which K, therefore never detects to have a feel wholeness in his thinking?
The only wholeness Krushnamurti experiences is the Thoughtless state. How does it come about and why does it 'seems' Pathless?
Awareness, Observer and Observed.
For Krishanmurti, these three things of Awareness, Observer and Observed are three separate items, not related, hence this Division is not of Two, but of three at least, so K calls it as Fragmentation, but when we take into the consideration of 'Me' as a construct of the Past memory of oneself, according to K, then it would be Four parts.
Awareness takes place on its own for K, that is, it is not an act of oneself. Since it is taking place on its own, one cannot avoid it, but if it does not creates a Thought (an Observed), well and good.
If 'Observed' (Thinking) to take place, it is not because of the Awareness of the tree, but because the mind trying to Respond to the Awareness of the Tree. If mind does not Respond with past memory, that is past condition, well and good. Hence, this Response, this thinking is a separate item.
Then this 'Me' who become Aware of the Response, That is the Thought or 'Observed' or 'Not Me', is the third item which is also separate from the 'Me', the 'Observer'.
'Me' as the construct of past memory of oneself is the Forth item.
The Division is between the 'Observer' (Me) and the 'Observed', both are within. So 'Me' is not finding any Relationship with 'Not Me'. But even the Awareness is within me, though K clearly does not indicate it.
Hence, the most important thing about this Fragmentation K feels is the outcome of it. That is the Fragmentation or Division within which makes K to feel insecure, Fearful and Suffer. No normal person, when he thinks, would ever feel fragmented as well as there would not be any insecurity, fear and suffering arising from thinking of a Tree, Door or a Flower, as it does for K.
Since, the Mind is Fragmented, at least to three parts. that is Awareness, Past Memory (Me), and Thinking based on this Past memory (Not Me), there are gaps between each pair of them:-
Awareness -> <Gap> Memory of myself -> Me -> <Gap> Memory of Tree -> <Gap> Thinking of the Tree (Not Me).
Memory of myself -> Me.
Quote Krishnamurti:
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'. Is that not so? 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.
First Talk in The Oak Grove,
Ojai, California
End of Quote.
So it is Memory which give rise to the Feeling of Me or I, according to Krishnamurti. Is it same with you? Do you feel that the memory of yourself has to arise, for you to feel as Me, or I? If the Memory of yourself is absent, do you work and talk with others 'selfless'?
Memory of Tree -> <Gap> Thinking of the Tree (Not Me).
Quote Krishnamurti:
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'
The Urgency of Change | Awareness
End of Quote.
In the next Post, I hope to look into this Gap, which creates the division or Fragmentation, within Krishnamurti, which he generalize for everyone, but many, who read this blog, (about 99%) , would never feel fragmented or Divided, when they 'Think', hence would not feel insecure, fearful and suffer, just because of thinking. But on the contrary, many may be indulging in thinking in their free time, enjoying the same.
A Glimpse into the Gaps in the Mind.
At least a Glimpse into the Gaps in the Mind, of one's past, is necessary to understand Krishnamurti, for who don't have such Gaps perpetually, but would have experienced such Gaps very rarely, at least. If that rare 'experiencing' of such a Gap is there within oneself, then he may be able to understand the Division, and how that division or Fragmentation give rise to insecurity, fear and suffering.
I have already said, that Krishnamurti's mind is Fragmented into four parts, each having no direct connection or relationship with another, all of which arise in K's mind, independently. It is Due to the Gaps in his Mind, separating, each from the other.
Awareness -> <Gap> Memory of myself -> Me -> <Gap> Memory of Tree -> <Gap> Thinking of the Tree (Not Me).
As I pointed out earlier, the important and crucial thing about this Division is the outcome of the Division, that is insecurity, fear and suffering. An Ordinary man having normal thinking, though he may have a 'sense' of separation only occasionally, when he is in conflict with others, it is only external, not within. Even when one experiences such an external separation, there is no chance of having mind Fragmented, leading to insecurity, fear and suffering, when he 'thinks', as a result of the 'thinking' alone.
The Ordinary human being, who never feels Fragmented or Divided, in his thinking, as K does, therefore having no Gaps in his functioning of the mind, can he have a glimpse at least to K's Mind, by having a rare experience of such a Gap, leading to fear, insecurity and sufferings?
Yes, it is possible to have such a rare experiencing of Gaps, to have fear, doubt, insecurity and sufferings. Let me give some examples of such a possibility. But remember, this experiencing of Gaps in the mind is a continues, perpetual experience of fear, insecurity, sufferings only for Krishnamurti.
In these examples, I am not going to say, what mind functions or attributes constitutes the Gaps in the thinking, that means what are the mind attributes which are missing, making the mind fragmented. The reason for that is, if I were to explain the missing mind attributes. most of the readers would not be able to understand them. To understand them, one should have practiced, Buddhist Bhavana practice, which is known as 'The Development of the Mind', and should have reached to Samadi state. This Buddhist Bhavana practice, is translated as Buddhist Meditation into English, which is wrong and the mediation is only a small part in that Bhavana.
But there may be very intelligent one's, such as people who are capable of learning science, Maths and computer science, engineering, etc, who have the inborn capacity look into the deeper layers of the mind, at least some glimpse, without such Bhavana. But K's explanation of the mind, everyone can understand with a little intelligence, as it constitutes what every one become aware of. That simple explanation of the function of the mind according to K is,
Awareness-> Me -> Memory -> Thinking. (I have not included the Gaps).
There the difference is, while both K and others feel this is how mind acts, only K feels, that his mind is fragmented, because of the Gaps, the Gap's attributes which he was not able to detect, but others feel that their mind are not fragmented, but is Whole, but they even may be unable to detect the mind attributes, which fills the Gaps in their minds to make it whole. Hence, I would take the above mentioned function of the mind to explain the Gaps, since everyone experiences the same and aware of those items of the mind function.
So in my examples, where do I create a Gap, if I am not ready to show the real attributes which creates a Gaps in K's Mind? It is in the Memory, where memory items itself becoming missing, to create a Gap in oneself, and one may or may not detect the Gap in the memory, but it leads to the same situation of Fragmentation, or even if one does not feel fragmented, but still creates, insecurity, doubt, fear and suffering, creating a Division without, to outside world, though one may be unable to detect the inner Division.
I feel that the mind attributes which were missing in Krishnamurti's mind, creating Gaps also included missing Memory items as well. Hence, it is possible to explain everything of K's situation of Insecurity, fear. suffering, Division, Fragmentation, etc. by taking examples of situations, where they happen due to certain Memory items to be missing.
Example A.
One goes on a trip with his friends, or family and enter into a guest house very late, tired, and goes to sleep with others in a large room, immediately, where many of his friends or family also sleep. Early morning he wakes up, to see there are many others are sleeping, covered by the sheet fully, which makes him to not to recognize them, as well as he does not recognize the room and the place, where he is, as these details were not registered in his Memory, the previous night fully, and with the normal expectation of waking up in his usual bedroom, now his is wondering where he is and who are these people sleeping with him.
Since, "these details were not registered in his Memory", there is a gap in the memory, therefore mind function is fragmented, divided, though he may not feel as such, but this situation would lead to fear, insecurity, doubt and suffering, according to the the person's temperament, to a varying degrees. Did you ever experience such a thing in your life, even for few a seconds, before the Gap in the memory get filled, by sudden remembrance?
I will cover more examples in the 'Memory Gaps' in my next post.
Gaps in Memory Creating Insecurity, Doubt, Fear, Suffering.
Now
let us look at more examples of Memory Gaps in the mind, creating
insecurity, doubt, fear and suffering. In the earlier example of such a
situation, in the previous post, it is only a temporary situation for a
ordinary man having Non-Fragmented mind, where he does not feel Divided
within, when he 'Thinks'. He regains the Memory quickly to understand
the situation.
But there may be situations, where one's Memory Gap may not regain,
leading to perpetual Fragmentation of the mind, thus 'thinking' always
generating insecurity, doubt, fear and suffering. Hence, one may not
like to think, and view the 'Thinking' as an alien process, as 'Not Me'.
This is the situation of Krishnamurti.
If
one's mind is Fragmented due to either Memory Gaps or any other mind
Attributes being missing, continuously, it may be happening throughout
his life, even beginning from the birth or early childhood, which is the
case, I think, for Krishnamurti. Then those childhood experiences would
be the strong reasons, where insecurity, doubt, fear and sufferings
would have got established in K's Mind.
Quote Krishnamurti:
Krishnamurti: Let's forget childhood memories and all that nonsense,
and come to the present. Here you are, and you say you are not
frightened now; you're happy for the moment and can hardly imagine the
fear you were in. Why have you no fear now? Is it the quiet, clear,
well-proportioned room, furnished with good taste, and this sense of
welcoming warmth which you feel? Is that why you are not frightened now?
Chapter - Fear. Book - The urgency of Change
End of Quote.
Is it not funny that K saying, "Let's forget childhood memories and all that nonsense"?
K speaks of Conditioning as the past knowledge of memory. Does not
childhood memory of knowledge, hurt, rejections, acceptance, etc. also
included in it. Here, remembering his own past of childhood
conditioning, which were not pleasant, Krishnamurti do not want to
discuss them with the Questioner, as it would bring his own childhood
memories. Is not K saying, "all that nonsense" very significant, indicating his hate for it.
So
if the memory gaps happens to be a continuous process, beginning from
birth or childhood, then insecurity, fear, doubt, suffering, etc. would
have got instilled in the mind, in early childhood, when one start to
interact with others. That is when one would have feared to 'Think', and
if 'Thoughts' to appear in one's mind, that is the time, one would have
started to view the 'Thoughts' as something alien, as 'Not Me'.
Let us take an example:
On
a special occasion of festivity, young child Krishnamurti is with his
family and family friends who are visiting K's house. All are seated
with K, young as well as old. They are served with some sweets on this
Occasion. K finishes all the sweets and goes out for a call of nature.
When
he returns back, and by the time, the Memory got erased or either it
did not get resisted at all of the gathering, where he was, and having
sweets, hence, there is no possibility of regaining the memory.
K - Why are you all here? When did you come here (to visitors)?
Others - (laugh, K is hurt).
K - Can I have some sweets as well?
Others - (laugh more louder, K is more hurt, feel divided without). You just finished enough of sweets, why do you want more?
Now
K doubts his own thinking of "I did not have sweets", as he had similar
experiences earlier, hence K does not protest. And in trying to cope
with the situation, insecurity, fear, suffering arises in K. He runs to
his room and tries to contain the 'thoughts' arising and in that
situation, K feels the 'thoughts' are the cause of his suffering and
feels them as alien, 'Not Me', as a solution. This creates the
Fragmentation in his mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment