Oh my gosh, what am I thinking? Arguing with J. Krishnamurti?
Here is my beef with the old sage. Actually it is a point of contention I have with most of eastern, new age, new thought – er thinking. Here is what Krishnamurti says:
When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts, he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep, radical mutation in the mind.
Okay, so what is the problem with what he is saying? First off let me state categorically that I agree with everything that he says. It is the absolute truth. So where’s the issue? My issue comes in the first sentence: “When a man becomes aware of the movement of his thoughts.” This sort of statement has been made in various forms for thousands of years. So what’s the issue?
The issue is so obvious that we never question it. What exactly is the movement of thought? More precisely; what is thought itself? This is never explained. In fact, it is left to the ego-mind of the reader to fill in the blank. This turns out to be a very dangerous thing. The role of the ego is to trick us into thinking we “get it” when we don’t really get it. In the process, the ego becomes spiritualized and then we are pretty much lost forever.
The key to understanding thousands of years of eastern thought and spiritual teaching is to confront the question what is thought? And, in Krishnamurti’s case, how do we become aware of its movement? For without this little gem of truth, the rest of what he is saying is not only irrelevant to our growth but dangerous fodder for the ego-mind.
This is where my work comes in. A number of years ago I made a startling discovery that produced and almost immediate awakening in my clients visiting me in my therapy office. Today I call that teaching Witness Thought Transformation™ and it is an amazingly simple practice that makes the movement of thought and the mind obvious. And I don’t just mean in the setting of meditation or some spiritual practice. I mean walking around in everyday life.
Our new age culture is full of people who think they understand what Krishnamurti is saying. This is intellectual understanding. But the fruit of actualizing this revelation comes in the form of better relationships, experiencing joy even when there are problems, and a personal quality of life that others enjoy about us. If we are instead still in the drama and the struggle then clearly there is no awareness of the movement of thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Krishnamurti would say that there is practical thought untainted by psychological elements, and psychological thought which is reactive and larely shaped by personal experience. Therefore, it is limited and highly conditioned. One becomes aware of the activity of thought through meditation, which is an observation of the thinking process as it occurs. Obviously he opposed all systems of meditation, although he did suggest a silent watching of the mind as it operates.
As I see it, though, a more basic inquiry would be into what the nature of the "self" is. He often observed that the self was merely a bundle of memories, which may be true, although I think that may be a bit simplistic.
ken
Thanks for that comment.
How would you ever distinguish one form of thought over another unless you learn to witness all thought? This must be done in everyday life, not just when meditating. Plus it is unlikely that conditioned thought will present itself during meditation. It does present itself in relationships, on the job, and all those kinds of inconvenient places.
J Krishnamurti never, to my understanding, gave much value to meditation in isolation of everyday activities. In fact, he seems to insist that one can find oneself, find what one is, only in the relationship we have with our environment. He calls this the mirror of relationship, I think.
Krishnamurti says something not easily comprehensible when he says, "When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts...": because this is not something you take up and see- this comes about at the point where one does not have any choice in matters of awareness, and also when the naming activity of the mind has ceased: if this is meditation, this goes twenty four hours a day and there is no verbalisation.
This is not something that happens prior to 'waking up', this is the 'waking up'.
I have this simile that helps me in gaining a perspective on Krishnamurti's teachings: the truth which he is trying to convey, the insight, is like a flame. You either catch fire, or don't. There is nothing to practice. As such it is rather an empty activity to argue about what Krishnamurti said, or whether he is right or wrong. Such concepts have no validity to his teachings- his teaching and its meaning are not to be found in the words he spoke, they can only come alive when we respond to it with our whole being.
Regards,
Baskar
"When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts..."
This is not difficult, but it is the awakening to be sure. All you need to see clearly is that the voice in your head that sounds like you talking to you - that is the movement of thought. Witness that. It leads directly to an awakening.
One aspect of Ramana's teaching has been hard for me to grasp. Maybe you could throw some light on the subject. In effect he said if you are watching your thoughts, then who is watching the "watcher". He implies some deeper essence than the "watcher" himself. What do you think he was trying to teach? Thanks in advance.
Wow! What a great question. This gets to the heart of my whole argument here. You cannot simply will yourself to move to the deeper essence. Normally one experiences a state called the “watcher first.” This is known in the Buddhist tradition as “witness consciousness.” This is what I teach with my practice of Witness Thought Transformation. This transition of the identified thinker to the witness is in and of itself a huge awakening! This is what Krishnamurti is referring to as “the movement of thought.”
Every awakened teacher then takes this a step further telling us that the witness does not exist, that the watcher is just a thought. Ramana calls this the “I” thought. I call it the feeling of “me.” When “me” disappears or when the awareness of the watcher is finally discovered – this is the essence of Who is.
But it is a huge mistake, in my experience, to try to jump over the intermediate step. And this is the problem I am pointing to. One needs absolutely to learn become the witness and dis-identify from being the thinker. Otherwise the step to essence is a crap shoot – a bolt of lightning. And yes, some get struck by lightning. But some of us have to do it the hard way. What I have discovered is there is an easy way to do it the hard way.
Hope that helps.
Post a Comment