Krishnamurti said that what he was talking about was very simple, and, being simple, the audience would miss it.
Introduction
We have reached the final installment of the series. From the previous installments, there is now a lot of information, along with ideas and contrasts, available for consideration and speculation. Also, at this point, a juncture has developed. So far, the stated positions of Krishnamurti have been contrasted with others, which may form junctures of agreement concerning views of self and ego. However, going beyond the ego is the sole province of Krishnamurti, and that is where we are now.
Psychology, as mentioned earlier, only seeks to bring about more comfort and ease within the ego. Brain science, even though it can describe the neurological processes creating representations, admits it really cannot explore the inner workings of the ego because it is purely subjective. The information collected and parallels explored will provide a platform for exploring Krishnamurti’s comments further, regarding what going beyond the ego may entail.
As in the other parts of this discussion please be aware the author is not trying to convince. The following material is exploratory and speculative; it is formatted to hopefully aid in the examination and understanding of the self and ego.
I will follow up on comments to the articles and will respond to questions or comments concerning this and the previous installments (please click here for Part I, Part II and Part III).
Who Are We, Anyhow?
The research presented in these articles indicates that the sense of self is just that, a sensation created and projected into consciousness by the brain; basically, it is an idea of who we think we are. And, like all ideas, it is a representation and not a “thing.” The idea of self is attached to identifications: heritage, family, nationality, occupation, really any kind of affiliation in any way and with any group, past or present, that it is identified with. All of these identifications blended together form a sense of self, but is that who we really are? Are they not all a composite collection of descriptions captured as fragments in memory? These fragments in memory can have a useful function for mapping and locating social and occupational positions of the self that are rather legitimate. However, it is the sense of ownership, of command and control, which may send human consciousness in a wrong direction for life’s management. And this sense of self-ownership is essentially the ego with all of its attached psychological reactions, judgments and ambitions. Krishnamurti, in discussions with Dr. Bohm, says humanity has made and continues to make this “wrong turn.” Krishnamurti also speaks of a place that thought should never go. Are these statements closely connected? In other words, is the wrong turn the place thought should never go? If so, the indication would have something to do with formulating a fixed idea of who we are and then confusing the idea for reality.
Krishnamurti said that what he was talking about was something very simple, and, being simple, the audience would miss it. He also frequently mentioned that an unconventional view of time was involved in what he was trying to say. The ending of time is presented as a necessary ingredient in gaining a negation of held false concepts. Did he mean the negation of past and future and a focus on the now? If we assemble an ending of time, the wrong turn, misplaced thought and all we have learned about how the word, as self/ego, is not the thing of who we are, is there a way to view all of this in one glance that identifies something very simple? Here, for your consideration, is a possible answer to that question: simply stated, are we what we are doing? Are we really our current, active behavior, nothing more, nothing less? The doing, though, includes not just our activities and the immediate sense of motivation and decision, but also, and more significantly, all the material in the turgid darkness of the subconscious. Most of the ego is in these depths, and from it, subtle but powerful energies from our entire psychological makeup directly, but invisibly, influence and direct what we are doing. That is the area that awareness must attempt to illuminate.
We know what the conscious is; we know we live, move, function from day to day, keep going on without knowing like a machine which is running down the hill or up the hill. When this is pointed out to you, the conscious mind then begins to watch itself. But there are hidden layers of the unconscious, which control the conscious, because the deeper layers are much more vital and much more active than the so-called superficial mind. Is not the so-called unconscious mind the residue of all the struggles, pursuits of all humanity, which expresses itself outward, as in the Hindu, with its big tradition of custom and culture?…
It is important to find out what is the unconscious. Do not read books. They will only describe what the unconscious is. But their description will prevent you from discovering it. But if you begin to enquire into it intelligently, not judging, not saying ‘this is it’ or ‘that is not it’, but watching the whole process of the mind – which is meditation – then you will see that there is very little difference between the unconscious and the conscious.
– Krishnamurti
If we are, in reality, what we are doing, some very interesting aspects appear. First, the implication would be that we are all something, along with all else, that happens in the now, and this now is a timeless place of constant interaction of all the cosmic elements from which issues constant creation. It also means we have no ownership of who and what we are; we are a manifestation in the constant stream that is the now. If this is correct, and if there is no way to capture who we are by thought, what could see or view the person as a doing entity? It would seem that, to view something in the moment, the viewer must also be in the moment, and, as far as consciousness is concerned, using images and ideas from memory would not qualify. That would constitute a past, as self/ego, invading and commandeering the present. I think a great question arises from this seemingly impossible situation. Is there a state of consciousness, an awareness, that is not filled with thoughts? If so, would that be an awareness of the present in the present by the present? And, if that is correct, would this be an awareness that could grasp the totality of what we are doing?
An Interesting Duality
Let’s take a different perspective to see if the situation can be clarified. A duality can be discovered by examining how humans tend to view existence. One view looks out at the world and sees objects and events as manifestations of creation. The human observes something, anything, in the outer world, and that thing, whether it be a tree, a mountain, the stars, an insect or whatever, is just there as something brought into existence by nature; it is essentially owned by nature, the cosmos. And everything that observed object can do is a part of its cosmic and evolutionary development. The object does not own these properties, has not created these properties. Everything just is the way it is, and it all is happening in the present moment. Now, however, when we view ourselves or fellow humans, a totally different perspective is used that is essentially from an ego’s perspective. Say someone has just accomplished something and has received recognition of some kind. Ego comes in and says, “I did this,” and there are usually many implications in this claim of ownership. Pride may be there as a part of ownership that may also spawn a sense of comparison and judgment of others, resulting in a sense of superiority. Accomplishment can feel really good, but not just as an accomplishment, but also as a sense of ambition for becoming, of finally almost getting there. One feels buoyant and energetic about the future while seeing one’s self succeeding there. This is just an example of many possible events and different evaluations, some positive and some negative, but the essence remains. There is the formation of an idea of the self associated with ownership of the self doing the event and the judgments from ego that follow to create a mood carrying into an imagined future. Even when we say we are this, that or whatever, we are fixing this position as a place in the future, because it is a fixed sense of identity going into the future.
Basically, the duality comes from viewing events and objects outside of ourselves outwardly and events concerning ourselves from an inward, ego-oriented position. Can the duality be challenged by asking if an accurate and realistic position requires all, including ourselves, to be viewed from an outward position? Let’s put the question differently. If everything our brain is observing issues from the same cosmic source then amongst what we are perceiving should we not also include our own thoughts, feelings and mental processes including ideas of who we think we are as a self/ego construct? I think that if everything is seen inclusively that the ego claiming itself as a “doer” must be seriously challenged because everything, including the “me” or the “us” is arising from the same source in the same timeless moment of now. We, along with all else, are just events happening. If this is true, it means who we are is what is being generated by the brain in the moment, and the only way the brain can maintain a sane relationship with the now is by paying close, honest attention to what it is doing via the feedback loop of consciousness. This is the only function by which the brain can observe its own functions in real time. Without close attention, the brain easily goes into fantasy realms and hallucinations. Sensory hallucinations were proven in sensory deprivation experiments decades ago. And, if ego is dominating the observation process, inevitable distortion from the defense mechanisms will occur in the information feeding back to the brain. Ego is basically a way the brain cherry picks received information. The ego protects the brain from contradictory information about who we think we are. In this way, the illusion of self buffers against the intrusion of an outside view that could dispel that comforting illusion.
Insight
Another question now arises. If the brain is observing a steady stream of incoming information in a way that it takes no position regarding that information, which would include the observation of itself mixing in a feedback loop with fresh sensory input from the outer world, it would seem the quality of the observation would be free of memory. Observation would mesh with the flow from the outward position, crystalline and be free of prejudice, as pre-judgments accompany an inward position. Pure observation. If this is possible, how would something new be received by the brain and brought to consciousness? It could not be in the form we are generally accustomed to because that process involves holding a concept as a thought in consciousness and then mulling it over. That is called thinking, and it involves thoughts from different memory representations being contrasted and compared. It is a super tool and totally necessary for designing and building things. Thoughts and ideas are contrasted with other thoughts and ideas as a stream of ideas emerging from the interactions. This works well when the materials used can retain fixed properties long enough to be useful. But nothing truly new can come of it: no radical departures, no revolutions; only modifications and extensions are possible, and that is what seems to happen when self/ego is formulated. It would seem that awareness issuing from consciousness in pure attention would be of a totally different nature and would be the only mental process that could track the brain’s own thinking processes. I wonder if Krishnamurti is describing just such a process when he speaks of insight. Is insight a coalescence in consciousness, originating from the brain’s contact with nowness?
When I act on a conclusion, my action must be continuously mechanical, though at the beginning I may have had an insight into it. Now, if one doesn’t draw a conclusion at all but only insight, then action is non-mechanical. Therefore that action is always creative, it is always new, it is always living. So a mind that has insight and doesn’t draw a conclusion and therefore acts, is in the movement of continuous insight, constant insight. Have you understood this? Understand, not verbally but actually, you see the truth of this, as you see the truth of a precipice.
This constant insight without a formula, without a conclusion which puts an end to that insight, is creative action. Please look at it, go into it yourself. It is astonishingly beautiful and interesting, how the mind, which is thought, is absent when you have an insight. Thought cannot have an insight. It is only when the mind is not mechanically operating in the structure of thought, then you have an insight.
– Krishnamurti
Insight is acknowledged and people have reported its effects. Generally, it is described as an uninvited, lightning-like event in consciousness that leaves the one having the experience feeling taken aback. Inventors and artists have spoken of it, as well as others. It has been described as an epiphany, an unexpected awakening, something profound, a departure from held views, a deep sense of inescapable truth. We know it happens, but we know nothing about it. It is a mystery; we have no control over it, and it has nothing to do with effort or plans.
I think we shall understand the significance of life if we understand what it means to make an effort. Does happiness come through effort? Have you ever tried to be happy? It is impossible, is it not? You struggle to be happy and there is no happiness, is there? Joy does not come through suppression, through control or indulgence. You may indulge but there is bitterness at the end. You may suppress or control, but there is always strife in the hidden. Therefore happiness does not come through effort, nor joy through control and suppression; and still all our life is a series of suppressions, a series of controls, a series of regretful indulgences. Also, there is a constant overcoming, a constant struggle with our passions, our greed and our stupidity. So do we not strive, struggle, make effort, in the hope of finding happiness, finding something which will give us a feeling of peace, a sense of love? Yet does love or understanding come by strife?
– Krishnamurti
Now, Krishnamurti acknowledged the place of thought; it was necessary for specific activities; it was a great tool, but it had its limits and, if it those limits were transgressed, it brought about chaos and unnecessary suffering. So, is the creation of ego that transgression? Does ego block or sever the connection to insight? Conversely, was insight a core guidance connection that Krishnamurti relied on, thus relieving his mind of a need for control and the fears that create that need? It does seem that fear, control, ego and the invention of the past/future time complex are somehow tightly interwoven.
The problem, then, is not how to free the mind from fear, or how to have a quiet mind in order to dissolve fear, but whether fear can be understood. Though I may be afraid of many things – of my boss, of my wife or husband, of death, of losing my bank account, of what my neighbors say, of not fulfilling, of losing my self-importance – fear itself is the result of a total process, is it not? That is, the “me”, the self, the ego, in its activity, projects fear. The substance is the thought of the “me”, and its shadow is fear; and it is obviously no good battling the shadow, the reaction.
The “me” is protecting itself, longing, hoping, desiring, struggling, constantly comparing, weighing, judging; it wants power, position, prestige, it wants to be looked up to; and can that “me”, which is the source of fear, cease to be, not everlastingly, but from moment to moment? When that feeling arises, can the mind be aware of it, examine it without condemnation, judgment, choice? Because, the moment you begin to judge, to evaluate, it is part of the “me” that is directing and so conditioning your thinking, is it not?
– Krishnamurti
I think we can now look at other aspects of the possibility that we are, and only are, what we are doing, by considering other statements of Krishnamurti. He speaks of reading the book of one’s self as being our only real guide. In fact, he stresses that he and his statements are not important except as an indicator of the need to carefully examine and read this book of self. Put Krishnamurti aside once this is understood; go into yourself. You will be alone on this journey without a plan or map of the terrain. It is the unknown, a place that cannot be captured by thought, idea or image. It is the pathless land. It may also be the place where the insight connection is formed. One thing is rather clear about insight, it cannot be controlled or harnessed. It seems to be beyond the grasp of ego and intent. However, it seems that, for most people who have experienced insight, there is no record of them having a profound change inwardly. But, for some, insight seems to have brought profound change. Krishnamurti and Buddha come to mind, perhaps some others, but this type of occurrence is very rare. So, what could account for the fact that insight does not always bring profound, personal change and a radical revolution in consciousness? We have to speculate here by wondering if a specific insight is necessary for a true transcendence of ego. If that is the case, logic would indicate that an insight into the ego itself might be the key that opens the door. But that could bring in an existential paradox, as the ego, which originates from the brain to protect itself from existential fear, wants to have nothing to do with losing its security blanket. Opening up to allow insight into the nature of ego might be similar to asking a person who is terribly frightened of heights to leap off a cliff by telling them that, after they leap, a parachute will magically materialize and open to save them.
This seems like a horrible dilemma, but perhaps there is a different way of viewing it. Maybe in being born we have already leapt off this cliff anyhow, and we are falling and falling to our inevitable end, all the while practicing our beliefs and struggling to maintain the ego and stay busy with all our habits and preoccupations — falling while mulling over the past and fantasizing about the future. Maybe falling is life, unavoidable and, except for some puny abilities we have, mostly uncontrollable. The upside is that, really, we have nothing to lose in deeply doubting the reality of our ego-projected world. Let’s face it, it is a pretty messed up place anyhow.
Truth Is a Pathless Land
The dilemma of life for humans has prompted much thought, speculation and proposed methods for an alleviation of our existential suffering. Different types of so-called meditation, diets, exercises, retreats, beliefs, etc. have been proposed as a way of transcendence. If the material of these articles is correct, they will not work. The reason is actually technical. The known, as in knowledge and information, is stored in memory and memory can only be of the past. The issue is, once again, time. Going beyond involves contact with the unknown, which is the unfolding of the now, that scary place the ego wants to stay away from. Plans and programs for liberation are sleights of hand whereby the past, via desire (for liberation), is working (it thinks) toward the goal. Simply put, this is just the past projecting its desires into the future. More ego, different package, new and improved! It is desire wearing the robes of spirituality.
Freedom from the Known
If the information and research presented are correct, a series of logical conclusions can be drawn regarding the teachings of J. Krishnamurti:
- We all share this thing called ego. (You are the world.)
- The ego is a creation of the brain in an attempt to manage existential fear. (The ending of fear.)
- Consciousness is filled with memory downloaded by the brain. (Consciousness is its own content.)
- As the creator of the ego, the brain is the true observer looking at itself. (The observer is the observed.)
- Conscious efforts and methods stem from the ego as a proposed path. (Truth is a pathless land.)
- Abandoning the ego is up to the brain by seeing the danger of its creation. (Choiceless awareness.)
- The brain’s surrender would happen from the brain’s silent operations. (Without effort.)
- Abandoning the ego by the brain is an embrace of the now reality. (The ending of time.)
- Undistorted observation of the brain by the brain can bring profound change. (The seeing is the doing.)
Krishnamurti shared his insights with us, and they are stunning. Only now are some of them being confirmed by science. In the years before the technology and knowledge were available, thought alone could never have come upon Krishnamurti’s claims concerning the operations of the brain. Truly, this must have issued from the action of insight. Examining the self-centered concerns of the ego probably lies beyond science’s reach. This is why I think Krishnamurti’s insight concerning the implications about the pathless land is so amazing yet so totally logical. However, a paradox seems to arise. Can there be a silent mind, or a place in the mind, that can function outside the grasp of the ego to be able to observe it? In other words, is there a silence to observe the noise? I think there would have to be, otherwise, the ego-noise goes on uninterrupted forever, or at least until death do us part. There would be no reason for Krishnamurti to even discuss it or bring it up. However, this dilemma or paradox is a valid consideration. My guess is that many people would deny that they have powerful and deeply buried fears of life and death and that their sense of self/ego has been devised by their brain to prevent paralysis. Everyday awareness says this is ridiculous; there is no paralyzing fear and self/ego is real. If this is the case, and if Krishnamurti and science are right, a different quality of awareness must be necessary for penetrating ego’s wall. A superficial view will not suffice to plumb the depths of the subconscious. Finding the quality of awareness to do the job is probably the deepest challenge facing all serious inquirers of Krishnamurti’s teachings. That, too, is part of the pathless land, and I wish you all very best in your pursuit. It will not be easy, but, after examining the consequences of a life centered around self/ego, is there really anything else worth giving one’s life to?
Article by Robert F. Steele, MA
Robert is a retired mental health counselor and lifetime student of Krishnamurti.
Series References:
Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death.
Damasio, A., (2010). Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain.
Freud, A. (1937). Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense.
Freud, S. (1952). Major Works.
Freud, S. (1973). Abstracts of the Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud.
Gazzaniga, M. (2011). Who’s in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain.
Ginot, E. & Schore, A. (2015). The Neuropsychology of the Unconscious: Integrating Brain and Mind in Psychotherapy.
Harris, S. (2012). Free Will.
Hood, B. (2009). SuperSense: How the Developing Brain Creates Supernatural Beliefs.
Horney, K., (1950). Neurosis and Human Growth.
Libet. M., (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary actions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 529-66.
Libet, M., Alberts, W. W., Wright, E. W. & Feinberg, B. (1967). Responses of human somatosensory cortex to stimuli below threshold for conscious sensation. Science, 158, 1597-600.
Milgram, S., (1974). Obedience to Authority.
Narvaez, D., & Schore, A. (2014). Neurology and the Development of Human Morality: Evolution, Culture, and Wisdom.
Opper, S., & Ginsberg, H., (1987). Piaget’s Theory of Development.
Pinker, S. (1997). How the Mind Works.
Sapolsky, R. M., (2017). Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst.
Rank, O., (1941). Beyond Psychology
Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2015). The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life.
Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptations of Life.
Vaillant, G. E. (1993). The Wisdom of the Ego.
Winnicott, D., (1967). The Maturational Process and the Facilitating Environment.
Winnicott, D., (1957). The Child and the Family.
For many years along I have been student of Krishnamurti´s theaching,and the fear in my inconsienteness, is terrible, but when I read articles like“The immensurablè, I feel a relief, and it seems to me,we are a punsh of ENERGY, CONSIENCE, and FORCE. Thanks Krishnamuri, thanks editors
In 1960, as a 26 year old mother in a frustrating marriage, I was inexplicably led to a neighbor who showed me K’s Commentaries on Living I, and the chapter on What Is and What Should Be. I had an instant insight of accepting what is, that changed my life. Intellectualizing about his insights will not help, but only confuse his meaning. It is simple, as he said. And there is no method for getting it.
I think you are asking a question that is close to one that has quietly occupied me for some time. If I have understood you rightly. The question is in the area of the following; Is there an awareness that is beyond the limits of the individual?
It has occurred to me that thought cannot answer this question because thought is limited. Therefore what can thought do? Perhaps thought can ask questions which direct attention. And if the questions direct attention towards the material activity of thought itself then a direct perception into the limits of thought may occur. Then with this perception a certain silence may arise in which something beyond thought is perceived. In other words thought cannot say there is or there is not an awareness beyond itself but can become silent in response to its own questioning and in silence ‘know’ the answer. The answer is not from thought but from silence.
I don’t know if this connects at all with you’re enquiry….
Very best
John
Hello John,
Yes, thought is limited just as a library is limited; it contains only so many books and some m contain outdated or false information. This is the nature of the brain’s memory banks. Seeing things clearly in this ever changing world is therefore quite difficult if perception is limited to the “re-cognition” process of memory’s library. Questions whose answer is not contained in the library are extremely interesting and important as they, if really taken to heart, place awareness in the presence of the unknown. In that sense, too, if we are what we are doing, then in allowing awareness to remain quietly in the presence of that unknown, we are that unknown.
I tried to submit an extensive comment and kept being interrupted by a prompt to key in a check for “I’m not a robot”. Eventually, I seemed to have lost the whole comment text after repeated “verification checks” and an invalid response I was not sufficiently aware of. Though of likely little significance to “The Immeasurable” , my comment did take significant time. Perhaps, the technical staff could mitigate the repeated disruptive prompt? Thank you.
Who has not heard of “The Power of Now”, and hopefully read it, and other works of Eckhart Tolle that were written from a ‘higher level of consciousness’ or ‘insight’, words cannot describe it. Today the world’s ‘great’ religions are among the most divisive of human organisations because their teachers have for so long been teaching from the same level of consciousness as their audiences. Their founders, such as Buddha and Jesus, on the other hand were at that ‘higher level of consciousness’ and had those ‘insights’. The world’s greatest poets have had that too, Walt Whitman, William Wordsworth, etc. You are so right Dianne See and thanks for your comments.
Chris L
Diane
Thank you for your straightforward “simple” comments about the essential “simplicity” of Krishnamurti’s teaching. Of course many clever people, as I have noticed on K forums, can confidently, with a cascade of impressive words and sophisticated rhetoric, articulately speak “about” K’s simplicity. For me, it is so refreshing and rare, to hear someone speak directly “from” or perhaps “as” simplicity. After you mentioned the chapter in Commentaries, I read it again. Yes, “What Is” is quite enough to reveal and receive “all”, yes even “the entirety” of what K teaches, as far as I am concerned, though I have not yet encountered a K student who indicated that this might be true for them! It seems that even K never acknowleged knowing anyone like this! I am not sure K fully knew, appreciated or adequately emphasized this (but who cares?! What he or his proxies/surrogates might think doesn’t matter a bit!) One could forget or ignore everything else he ever said or did or anything anyone ever said or did, is doing or will do, to promote his message of “simplicity” and nonetheless live from “Simplicity” without wasting another thought about the matter, or even being slightly inclined to claim any degree of “Insight” or “Enlightenment” whatsoever! “What is” (not the words or thought!) is indeed “the Pearl of Great Price”.
It is exquisitely so beautiful and freeing to daily, moment to moment, simply see and accept (lay down our “self”) on the altar of “What Is”. Why fight it? Why not surrender, submit, “join” or “enter into” its transforming vortex? Why not face “the Fact”, merge with “The Truth”?
For me, after more than 40 years of K contemplation/reflection, much psychotherapy, Buddhist and Christian study and practice, it all boils down to “THIS”! Whatever “Is”, despite what “I” might be inclined to think, like, dislike, understand etc., there is, always has been and will be (even before birth and after death!) simply “THIS”!
You are blessed and a blessing Diane!
E.C.
“What is, is” is just one side of the coin. The other side is “What isn’t, isn’t. It is important to realize this as the human mind likes to create fantasy ego projected worlds where the self takes on a fixed identity and thereby live in an imaginary (of an image) “what isn’t” world. K talked extensively about negating the false to find the true. This would imply that seeing the unreality of the what isn’t is a vital part of being able to see the what is.
What Is? What Is Not? Further Inquiries
What can or ought we predicate, assume, imply and pronounce regarding “What Is”? By what license or “authority” may we do so—logic’s self-arrogated unconditioned objectivity? Might there be the “ego’s projected world” at play in our authoritative sounding pronouncements regarding “What Is”? Could it be true that metaphors may be helpful “as ifs” or “useful fictions”; but only if handled by the clean, pure hands of those who are not, blinded, inured, hardened, diseased or defiled by reification? Could it profitably be said “Let he who is without even the germs of reification cast the first stone on any 85 year old lady’s perhaps “simple” minded testimony of how “What Is” revealed and ushered in a new and life-transforming course for her, almost 59 years ago”?
If we have surrendered our “all”, been “negated” or emptied of self/thinker/contents of consciousness, through the actual encounter with the Reality of what we confessedly, humbly, inarticulately, refer to as “What Is”, how would that necessarily not “All-Encompassingly” include “What Is Not”–unless this brand of “What Is” is profoundly flawed, bogus, prejudiced, selective, counterfeit, fragmented, partial, incomplete, false, truth-less/tooth-less, ignorant and ruled, ruined, and polluted by a “thinker”, “thought” and “the contents of consciousness”?
Why must the whole or complete (authentic) “What Is” not be whole or a “Whole” enough, to also encompass, contain and reveal “negation” of “What is Not”? Why must “What Is” only be a “part” or a “side” of K’s overall teachings? Why must it be conveniently conceived of as half of an imagined two-sided coin, or perhaps even one of many other “parts”, rather than realized, for instance, as “One Aperture (among a myriad) from which to “See” and reveal the Kaleidoscopic Vision of “The Whole”, which is far more than; affirmation, negation, both or neither? (see Nagarjuna’s Madhyamika).
Can we or should we even attempt or give into the temptation/reflex to seek out and engage a “thinker”, to resort to its repertoire of speculative, sophistic hijinks, in an effort to answer such questions (assuming true benefits are to be found from such answers) unless “It”, rather than we as thinkers, logicians and dialecticians is revealing Itself through words?
Must “What Is” be likened to a “coin with two sides”? Does “What Is” have “two sides”? Why split it, thusly, even metaphorically? Are we assuming that K’s teaching has many “parts” which are best separated/strained out, analyzed and thereby subsequently, supposedly, we shall at last grasp or be grasped by “The Whole” or “The Totality” of K’s teachings? Might the mind, the thinker, the logician, the dialectician be “the blind leading the blind” if they claim or endeavor to add or subtract more or less than “What Is” “painting legs on a snake” (Zen saying)?
What is the difference between a humble soul who had only heard of “What Is” and lived his/her entire life from its transformative energy and Life, and a petulant, pedantic or proud scholar and authority on K, who understood, as well as could easily quote every word, thought and concept K had ever recorded or written, who knew and had many enlightening, and even profoundly subtle insights, yet whose life knew no “transformation” and whose default operating system was “Thought” and not “The Immeasurable”; one who was a “slave” to the God of “Thought” and “Thinking” never Radically, fundamentally Free from it? Would each of their lives bear the same quality of “fruit”? Would we naturally tend to praise and giddily engage with, even be suckled by one and hastily give short shrift to another?
What might be the difference between flipping “a two sided coin” (in our minds) reflecting and/or chanting meditatively “there, there is “What Is Not!”; flipping it again and reflecting “there, there is What Is!”—and simply not conjuring up any metaphor or coin or sides at all, but simply delighting in the Totality that is revealed whenever, wherever, however “What Is” truly, undeniably, Immeasurably, Immaculately, “IS”?
As human beings we associate: friends, spouses, neighbors, parties, groups, etc. We also identify: with our bodies, with our beliefs, with certain people, with groups, etc. We have experiences that live on in memory that we would like to repeat or avoid. We have our desires and so we strive or shirk or wish or in other words act in ways to please the body and/or the mind to find some level of comfort or pleasure. Thinking tends never to stop. If it does, we are none of the above and what we see and feel exists unnamed and is fresh. Such freshness does not seem to be enough and quickly we come back to seeking some kind of gratification or some kind of reduction in discomfort. We find our happiness in anticipation and in the rare experiences that happen along the way in our journey across a lifetime. We fear endings and there are many threats in that theater of the mind.
Is it that we do not understand consciousness that we live lives of quiet desperation? Or lives of pleasure seeking, goal setting and attainment, or just some kind of resignation where nothing matters very much and passivity seems to be the least disturbing of the choices we face? Life does require action to sustain it. KInd of a wonder that we do act except that we neither like to give up what we do have however meager it might be.
Given the facts of our lives and given the fact that we exist and don’t want not to exist, what is it that can change even if we should want change? But as soon as we ask that question, we are back to aspiring to something. Who is it that wants change? Isn’t he or she the same one who is already living with wants and needs and all the rest? The one who wants change is the one who has created the life that is found wanting. A dilemma. That one is unlikely to be able to live differently as that one has not the tools nor will ever have them, apparently. Quite the dilemma. Krishnamurti talks about the man who lived in a hole in the ground for forty years and came out of the hole just as he was went he went in. Still wanting to achieve something.
Time to stop with the thought that “I” am the captain of my soul and the master of my destiny. But the reality seems to be that I am this and want to be that is a perpetual motion phenomenon or rather a problem with no solution. Impossible in any case.
What if consciousness is immortal and you are not your body? Which logically would mean that you have lived many lives. For what reason? To improve? No, that would be silly, as silly as building a shelter of sand on the beach, which is what we have already been doing for some time looks like. Maybe our job is to “see” or have an insight that quiets the mind, an insight that transcends the mind and it sees for a fact that it is the problem and no amount of self-serving activity can remedy the problem? So the mind has an insight? And kills itself? Hmm. Don’t think so. If not the mind that has an insight, what is it that has an insight? Consciousness? The mind is of time and insight is of no time, right? The mind seems to be what prevents what is necessary to change from a being that is forever limited to one that is something else rather undefined by the mind thinking about it. How to get around this? But “how” is the mind talking. K says “full stop.” See the tree without naming it.
Until then one might want to supplement K’s teaching with Harold Percival’s “Thinking and Destiny” and “Man and Woman and Child.” The latter to be read first. But who am I to suggest anything!
The central issue seems to revolve around whether or not we have “free will”. If not then consciousness is the act of watching, simply watching. What difference in this watching would there be for elements outside the body or elements inside, including one’s psychological reactions.? If free will is a hoax then there is no controller with all the attached ego attributes and behaviors issuing from that belief system. It follows that it would take a great deal of careful and supremely honest observation to find out if free will is actual or not. If one clearly identified the hoax it would also follow that there would be no additional action required to dissolve the hoax. The seeing would have to be the doing. Any additional action would indicate the hoax is simply and cleverly perpetuating itself.
Dear Robert Steele, Thank you so much for these amazing articles. You did great job putting all these pieces together. While every single idea you presented seems logical to me but I am not able to bring this into practice. More I try to calm my mind, more it fires up. So my question is, Is there any person in this forum who has a first hand experience of the emptiness which Krishnamurti is pointing to? How I know that I am not deceiving myself by pretending there is a better state of mind (or consciousness) that I am already in. After reading Krishnamurti and your articles, I feel like I am trying to wake up while I am already waked up and thats why I am not able to wake up. After all these readings, I feel like I am in a dark room but don’t know where the door is. I don’t mind spending my life to figure this out but does any person ever achieved this emptiness? Is it even possible for an ordinary man like me?
Dear Saeed Kahn,
You are very welcome concerning the articles; I am glad they have been of some help. I do understand what you are asking concerning some kind of transformation but I can’t confirm I have met someone (including myself) who has experienced a transformation that puts them in league with Krishnamurti. However, for myself I can honestly say my view of self and of the human condition in general has changed greatly. My personal position is that the central issue is peace of mind and that peace requires the complete abandonment of the belief in self (ego) as a controller and seeker. An honest look back at my life see is as nothing more than wandering confusion creating disasters in its quest. For years I did not even know what the quest wanted; it moved from one object of desire to another and finally found the ultimate desire was for enlightenment. At some point it began to dawn on me that there was no essential difference in wanting a new car or a love relationship than wanting enlightenment. Desire was always a quest in time to find what I considered at the time to be the element that would provide ultimate security, satisfaction or whatever. A bundle of understanding fell into place from that denial of desire that included realizing time was a mental construct and the only reality was in the mysterious eternal movement of the now moment. This also revealed my sense of self was also an just an idea and a complex of beliefs, attachments and memberships. A growing sense of being a child of the universe seemed to seep in and replace this hunger called ego. I am just another part of creation and my sense of consciousness is not running the show at all; it only observes but its ability to observe is not not impeded by the needs of ego to sustain ego. This is a stopping place that waits for nothing because that kind of craving/waiting, so typical of the ego, is impossible. There simply is no choice in the matter the same as I cannot flap my arms and fly. All this is predicated on seeing time, ego, desire via insight. Logic is a great starting place to question the validity of assumed beliefs but it does not have the impact necessary to quell ego. Seeing the fact of the untenable human psychological position as a fraud I do not feel can be fully accomplished by logic as logic is still a mental rumination that originates from within. Insight seems to be a window of communication that exceeds the limitations of thought. There is just watching and if insight happens, it happens. If not, there is nothing more one can do. Ego is the belief that there is something more one can do. This watching is a surrender and, as such, an acceptance of what is going on in the now moment. But, in that now moment there also resides our abilities and capacities. Action is possible but it does not issue from ego directed desire. And, I am talking here about ego dealing with its own self-generated psychological states. I am not suggesting one work on becoming (another ego/desire goal) to become am inert victim of the surrounding world.
So, is this the emptiness K speaks of? I certainly do not know; I can only observe my situation in the now. I know I am different than I was and things seem to keep changing. Where it goes, I cannot know, and, to be honest, I really no longer care. Caring, in that sense it just more ego directed desire. So, if I may say so, and I wish this to come across with a deep compassion for your situation – which I know so well from my own journey – that the conflict in your mind you have described when you attempt to calm your mind involves seeking, which involves time/desire. This vortex is creating itself. The ego seeking to not be here is still an extension of the ego caught in wanting to be different. For it to stop you must look at it realizing fully there is nothing you can do to stop it by yourself. You are it. Only a quiteness in the midst of this storm can see the storm as a self created mental state. There is just withstanding it while observing it carefully and realizing you do not know what to do about it that can open the window of consciousness to possible change.
Your further comments are welcome.
My Friend Saeed
Thank you! You have expressed so much here, from the heart. Within your questions and statements there is much to unfold and realize. If only everyone who expressed themselves on this forum began with and never lost sight of such a soul wrenching confession and humble consciousness as you did!
You said: “I am not able to put this into practice”; “I feel like I am in a dark room but don’t know where the door is”; “is it even possible?”; “has anyone ever achieved this emptiness”?” Is it even possible for an ordinary man like me?”; “is there any person in this forum who has a first-hand experience of the emptiness which Krishnamurti is pointing to”? “How do I know that I am not deceiving myself by pretending there is a better state of mind (or consciousness) that I am already in?”
Imagine a whole forum concerned first and foremost with such heart-felt questions as yours! How open, how movingly vulnerable, how honest, how human, how much potentially transformative wholehearted “dialogue” or “discussion”, natural affection and communion there might be! What a difference that would make!
Most K forums in the K world of discourse tend to “fill”, rather than “empty” the “contents of consciousness”.
Dr. Moody recently quoted K saying “The Teachings are Not The Truth”! K always said “the word is not the thing”. Yet how often, presentations, talks, articles, explanations and responses are made “as if” the words are, crucial and all-important; as if, for all intents and purposes, words and concepts are synonymous with and of the same essence as “the thing”; as if Truth is dependent upon and could not do without words, concepts, contents and Thoughts. How can words, which are conditioned “contents” and “measurable”, have any “relationship” to or with “The Immeasurable”? Which master do we serve; “the measurable” or “The Immeasurable”? Are we trying to ride in two boats at once or ride two horses in different directions at once?
K’s Teachings and even K himself are treated fragmentally, as “parts” or “pieces” rather than as a “Whole”. What if neither K nor his Teachings have any such fragmented pieces or “parts” and it is we who are projecting our fragmentation on K and his Teachings? What if he and the Teachings are actually, in Fact, “One”? Remarkably unknown and largely ignored, despite being quite clear in his most famous talk, he actually says something like this; “I am… whole, not the part, not the relative, but the whole Truth that is eternal” (1929 talk).
Dr. Moody and Dr. Bohm attest that K, in his last days, said that no one understood the “entirety” or “totality” of “The Teachings”! Could he have been saying that he never met anyone who spoke with authority from “The Whole”, who took him and his teachings (which were inseparably One to him) as a Whole? It seems that most people assume or at least act as if K must have meant that no one: demonstrated the power and authority of a super-scholar over each and every “part” of his teaching; no one was a K savant or genius who had scholastically and systematically demonstrated erudite, intricate, intellectual mastery of each word’s precise meaning and all the nuances of all the concepts of K’s teachings—no one demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of all the “parts”! If this were K’s idea then, as I was recently told by a K org official; really “entirely” understanding K was likely not possible, or worth supporting or pursuing.
What if K’s position has always been far simpler; that the Whole, especially the Whole of K, is greater than the sum of the parts and that this Whole is always available in front of each and every one of us, regardless of what “parts” each of us is presently concerned, preoccupied with or even overwhelmed by? What if all of the last 90 years of strenuous care, concern and study, as well as contemplation of the complexity of all the scattered “parts” of K’s teachings, was mostly a lot of going in circles, a waste of energy, attention and Life? What if the analyses and attempts to systematize and synthesize these parts was always and still is an ego (thought/thinker) driven illusion and delusion, doomed to fail despite its convincing rhetoric, solid logic and undetectable sophistry? What if K and his Teachings are much, much simpler and directly accessible, perhaps even more accessible to an uneducated “simple person”, non scholar, non-thinker or non-intellectual than for a great mind such as Dr. Bohm?
My Friend Saeed—if you sincerely want to further and freely pursue your questions with a like-minded friend and if you are vitally interested in what K says in the “full transcript” of his 1929 talk particularly about “The Kingdom of Happiness”, then please feel free to personally contact me at upaya1@yahoo.com.
As long as What is not labelled or stamped, what is not is also part of what is. Is it not so.
In my work with myself and others I realized a great deal of mental energy was often spent resisting what is and wanting things that we had no control over to be different. This can happen at many levels, both inwardly and outwardly. Placing emphasis upon both the what is and the what is not can be helpful in revealing the mind’s conflicts. We can split hairs about semantic inclusiveness all day but why worry about this. Anything that assists in enhancing awareness, in my humble opinion, is helpful.
I enjoyed these series of articles i think you did a good analysis using logic and scientific facts. However i think that the basis of your research relies upon the idea that the ego is a manifestation of our existential fear and everything unfolds from there. And despite the scientific work you provide on the matter if we start to look back to our ancestors, in ages where self consciousness was not yet developed, early humans still striven for hierarchy positions and power, something that we now attribute to an inflated ego. My point is that ego and all it’s characteristics might be something totally engraved in our DNA. More instinctual rather than a product of self consciousness that we simply cannot avoid like other basic instincts. Excuse my poor English it is not my native language. Thanks
Your point is, that “ego and all its characteristics might be something totally engraved in (the human) DNA”. And from that point you argue, that it can not be avoided. You mean, one has to deal with it like other “basic instincts”, for example you have to care for food when you arer hungry. What you are not taking in account is the point Krishnamurti took in. This point is, said in a few sentences: Through the origin function of the senses there is a relationship to reality. But the sense has also the cability of remembrance. Through that cability the relationship to reality is mediated by the response of memory. From that mediation the relationship to reality untergoes a metamorphosis. In the outer view it receives form, structure, described in patterns. And this is the root of conflict and contradiction. And to deal with conflict and contradiction in connection to memory constitutes the process of creating the psychological. In dealing with conflict and contradiction that way, conflict appears as an outer thing, seperated from the psychological reaction, as an outer object the psychological reaction has to deal with. This seperation constitutes the base of the whole communication. About that there is broad agreement in regard to all concepts to deal with the psyche and the whole problems deriving from the psyche. Krishnamurtis point now is, that insight in the fact of the seperation beeing a deception, is the negating factor of the structured relation to reality built up by thought.
So it has to be proved what is true.
If the characteristics of ego are engraved in the DNA, in order to change life, you have to improve the concepts to deal with the constraints of the DNA or to change parts of the DNA, or the effect the chemistry of the brain and so on. That is, what is going on. And there will be a never ending task.
When the ego’s characteristics derive from the fact that the relationship to reality is mediated by the response of the memory, the whole construction of the psyche, by realizing that separation is a delusion, loses its effectiveness.
I have read to K since a few years ago, aprox in 2005 maybe or so, without so much importance, but through the years was more strong the meaning. It was like when I read 2 or 3 times the same lecture, the meaning was clearer and so on. Sometimes when I was not reading the meaning come to me clearer too, and in 2019 was the most, because a rupture with my marriage in a Country where I live and where I not was born. Suddenly alone in another Country with a language which is still difficult to me and so on. But K lectures have gave me that time a light to me to follow by myself, like a beauty Map in the life.