As per J. Krishnamurti (in conversation with Dr. Alan W. Anderson), the place of knowledge in human transformation is, quite simply, that of an inhibitor - although the word "inhibitor" is just my one-word summary and not a word used by Krishnamurti.
This kind of summary would shock many of us at some level, but no hurt is intended here. With a little explanation, the shock will disappear and be replaced by a simple and serious understanding of what Krishnamurti is asking "responsible" people to look into. Some of these themes recur in Krishnamurti's discussions and books, but let's accept that repetition has an important role in self-improvement. Repetition is required for the forgetful, isn't it? The Hindu father is far from "wrong" in asking his child to repeat the Gayatri mantra 108 times in a day. Mantras need to be repeated by the forgetful! Otherwise, knowledge will not be available for use when the need arises. That was the curse Karna carried, because his guru (as the story goes) got angry with him for a lie he told. That is also the curse mankind normally carries on itself - to forget the knowledge when the need arises. Jokes apart, repetition is helpful at times.
J Krishnamurti's dialoge with Dr. Alan W Anderson is in a set of 18 video-recorded conversations, and it seems all 18 are available on YouTube. The link to the first dialogue is - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RPAJ6Sp1VA and this essay is based only on the first four. I need to watch the others again before I can write about them.
When listening to J. Krishnamurti, we should remember that he always accepted the place of "technological memory" (like how to drive a car, how to get to one place from the other, etc.) as being essential for people to function in daily life. In these videos too, he dismisses that kind of memory as being "essential" and makes it clear that that kind of memory is not being talked about here. Apart from that kind of technological memory, which creates no sorrow or misery in life, there is another "psychological memory", which makes for the continuation of the past in human life and is the topic of many of Krishnamurti's dialogues and conversations. Once again, before going into the relationship of this memory with human problems, he emphasises more than once that knowledge has a role to play. Perhaps what he means is that the right place for that knowledge needs to be found by each person in the context of the surroundings he/she is situated in.
This "psychological memory" is the content of the individual observer (who feels separate from the observed), who carries the impressions of the past with him and views the present mainly through the colored glasses of those impressions. This heavily colored glass prevents people from meeting the present "as it is" and makes it impossible for people to react adequately to the "challenge of the present". The present is forever new, but viewed through the knowledge of the past, it is viewed as a continuation of the past and by constant repetition of the same pattern, the past carries on, even if sometimes in a slightly modified way. Ultimately, there is no relationship to the actual, images battle with other images, the past clashes with the present and the result has to be a continuation of the misery of the past. This burden of psychological memory is called knowledge here. Its content is the impressions gathered from experience. These
memories and the related desires and emotions are the essence of the observer who feels separate from the observed and has no relationship to the observed.
J Krishnamurti's dialoge with Dr. Alan W Anderson is in a set of 18 video-recorded conversations, and it seems all 18 are available on YouTube. The link to the first dialogue is - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RPAJ6Sp1VA and this essay is based only on the first four. I need to watch the others again before I can write about them.
When listening to J. Krishnamurti, we should remember that he always accepted the place of "technological memory" (like how to drive a car, how to get to one place from the other, etc.) as being essential for people to function in daily life. In these videos too, he dismisses that kind of memory as being "essential" and makes it clear that that kind of memory is not being talked about here. Apart from that kind of technological memory, which creates no sorrow or misery in life, there is another "psychological memory", which makes for the continuation of the past in human life and is the topic of many of Krishnamurti's dialogues and conversations. Once again, before going into the relationship of this memory with human problems, he emphasises more than once that knowledge has a role to play. Perhaps what he means is that the right place for that knowledge needs to be found by each person in the context of the surroundings he/she is situated in.
This "psychological memory" is the content of the individual observer (who feels separate from the observed), who carries the impressions of the past with him and views the present mainly through the colored glasses of those impressions. This heavily colored glass prevents people from meeting the present "as it is" and makes it impossible for people to react adequately to the "challenge of the present". The present is forever new, but viewed through the knowledge of the past, it is viewed as a continuation of the past and by constant repetition of the same pattern, the past carries on, even if sometimes in a slightly modified way. Ultimately, there is no relationship to the actual, images battle with other images, the past clashes with the present and the result has to be a continuation of the misery of the past. This burden of psychological memory is called knowledge here. Its content is the impressions gathered from experience. These
memories and the related desires and emotions are the essence of the observer who feels separate from the observed and has no relationship to the observed.
Radical change will not happen by modified continuity of the past. The observer must realize that he is not separate from the observed, but very much an integral part of it. In actuality, as Krishnamurti says, the observer is the observed. As long as the observer is an outsider with no actual relationship to the observed,
he will continue with the same mischief of pursuing his own continuity - even if in a modified way sometimes - and thereby allow misery to repeat itself. This does not mean that there is place for dogma in Krishnamurti's style of discussing. Krishnamurti asks responsible people to look into the matter for themselves, so that they can themlselves understand the complex created by this kind of memory, this kind of observer and this kind of experiential knowledge in life. When danger is clearly seen as danger, transformation is instantaneous. For
example, if there is fire near us, we put it out immediately - no time is involved in that kind of simple "seeing". If man could truly see the ruthlessness of "success", he would not need to slowly modify his behaviour and painfully work towards a cherished end. The seeing is the doing. The recognition of the dangers of some of these human behaviors is the end of those behaviors. However, the past, the observer and the knowledge inhibit this seeing and even seeking a way out of this mess can be merely a modified continuity of the past, because the seeking might be more verbal, and not actual. Truly seeking means truly knowing the problem created by the past, and it is the ending of the past - to use Krishnamurti's kind of language.
There is clearly a whole lot common to Krishnamurti and Patanjali, to Krishnamurti and the Vedas, etc. For example, his idea of the observer being the observed is what Patanjali defines as the state of "sabeeja samaadhi" (samaadhi with a seed of thought, idea, object etc. being present, but the observer being as though absent). However, perhaps even more important is the emphasis of both Krishnamurti and the ancient teachers on learning by doing, on implementing and testing out in one's life each of these ideas, lest they remain as merely ideas in our mind with no substance behind them. This "nididhyaasana" in daily life is
the cure for forgetful mankind which keeps answers conveniently classified in large libraries, so it would become easier to forget them in daily life.
he will continue with the same mischief of pursuing his own continuity - even if in a modified way sometimes - and thereby allow misery to repeat itself. This does not mean that there is place for dogma in Krishnamurti's style of discussing. Krishnamurti asks responsible people to look into the matter for themselves, so that they can themlselves understand the complex created by this kind of memory, this kind of observer and this kind of experiential knowledge in life. When danger is clearly seen as danger, transformation is instantaneous. For
example, if there is fire near us, we put it out immediately - no time is involved in that kind of simple "seeing". If man could truly see the ruthlessness of "success", he would not need to slowly modify his behaviour and painfully work towards a cherished end. The seeing is the doing. The recognition of the dangers of some of these human behaviors is the end of those behaviors. However, the past, the observer and the knowledge inhibit this seeing and even seeking a way out of this mess can be merely a modified continuity of the past, because the seeking might be more verbal, and not actual. Truly seeking means truly knowing the problem created by the past, and it is the ending of the past - to use Krishnamurti's kind of language.
There is clearly a whole lot common to Krishnamurti and Patanjali, to Krishnamurti and the Vedas, etc. For example, his idea of the observer being the observed is what Patanjali defines as the state of "sabeeja samaadhi" (samaadhi with a seed of thought, idea, object etc. being present, but the observer being as though absent). However, perhaps even more important is the emphasis of both Krishnamurti and the ancient teachers on learning by doing, on implementing and testing out in one's life each of these ideas, lest they remain as merely ideas in our mind with no substance behind them. This "nididhyaasana" in daily life is
the cure for forgetful mankind which keeps answers conveniently classified in large libraries, so it would become easier to forget them in daily life.
Nididhyaasana is not dogmatic following, though. Recall that no less than Shankara has said in his commentaries that "mere action" is not enough because action is not directly opposed to ignorance. (Ignorance is the forgetfulness of the essential unity in Spirit.) Only knowledge is directly opposed to ignorance. So nididhyaasana also does not mean dogmatic following of words not understood, but rather implies an understanding based on both intellectual and experiential testing. It is a way to understand what Krishnamurti means by saying that the word is not the thing, the description is not the described. The hungry man needs to go beyond descriptions of food and the man in conflict and misery needs to end the cause of the suffering. Only that in these cases, the seeing is the doing and so the revolution is instantaneous in that sense.
Sadanand Tutakne
Sadanand Tutakne
