Krishnamurti: The Talks on Freedom - Are the Talks Clear?

                                                                               “To me, what I am saying is not brilliant: it is the obvious.”
                                                                                          (Poona, India, 7th Public Talk, October 10, 1948)
                                                                                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


                                          1): Differing approaches, changing terminology over time.

                                                  2): Are there internal contradictions?

                                                     3): Two apparent conundrums?

                                         4): Are there pre-conditions to full awareness?

                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

         The talks have a strong tendency to overstate a subject. This brings up repetition of many phrases. As we don't follow each step in logic as they go along, or because we resist some or many parts of what is being said, or because we draw conclusions while we are listening that some aspect of it is simply too hard, they invariably lose us along the way. This explains why many people involved with the man when he was alive - and many people since - have been listening, watching and reading the talks for many years and still do not understand even the basics of what has been pointed out. This implies a basic lack of interest in watching the workings of their own mind.

| Differing approaches, changing terminology ...

It is undeniable that statements are pointed out as obvious facts when they are not obvious to us at all. Yet there is equally no question they must be verbally understood. This lies behind the central premise of this site: one must intellectually understand what one is reading before one can proceed any further. If one struggles with or is confused by the actual meaning of a passage one will not see or understand or have an insight into it, is that not correct?

A central point with the talks is their origin and intrinsic nature. They were not the product of the thinking process as we know it (What’s all this talk about thought?). Furthermore, as each day was a new day to the speaker, so he was not burdened by the import of what he said yesterday or days, months and years before. There is the occasional instance where he discouraged discussion on things he had said previously, which was all in line with understanding being in the now, not in time and accumulated knowledge and memory. The issues at hand were approached in each talk in a new way and although there is consequent repetition there are decidedly new approaches to the issues in all the talks.

Consequently, one thing is certain: they have to be read across the board and as a whole, not taking out one or two selective passages without exploring the overall context. This is why a broad reading is essential.

In addition, it is quite clear that the talks are constantly expressing statements on central issues - which remained the same for sixty years - using different terminology. This terminology changed over chronological time; certain words actually changed meaning (one example is "reality"). Thus, unless you have an understanding of every passage as you read it, you may become confused by the different words used and the differing approaches, and thus the nature of the overriding principles implicit in it.

The talks, as with all of us, need words to communicate, and as with us, these very words themselves can become a trap. The word is, of course, not the thing. Certain words have certain connotations, certain accepted associations (such as "teacher", and "action"). Moreover, the meaning implied in words can be different to what we ascribe to them. So it really comes down to reading in context as far as possible, really listening overall to what is being said, as well as the intention and the feeling behind the words being expressed.

Take the following statement: “That which is eternal, new, is a living thing, therefore it cannot be made permanent; and a mind that wants to make it permanent will never find it.” (Bombay, 7th Public Talk, March 25, 1956)

A superficial reading of this would invariably draw out an apparent contradiction: if something is "eternal", then surely that thing is "permanent". Yet this is the precise issue. The word permanent is used with an entirely different connotation than the word eternal. Permanent here implies continuity in the mind, always there and of the same nature over time: a permanent state of mind, like a permanent belief. Whereas eternity, being new from moment to moment, has no continuity and therefore no permanence in this sense of the word. This is one of many instances where words in the talks can be a trap. They must be carefully considered for the implications behind them.

There is also possible confusion with the term, "self-knowledge". The word knowledge implies accumulation, yet this is precisely what self-knowledge is not. It must be fresh and new each time there is observation, with no burden of the past. Self-understanding would be perhaps a clearer term. This is another instance where we can become caught up in the associations we have with words.
~~~~~~~~
There is another important thing to understand: words are often used synonymously yet without direct cross-reference. To take just one example from many, consider the word “pleasure”. Throughout the talks this word is used as synonymous with the word “gratification”, but in many particular passages there is no indication given that the former term equates with the latter. There is pleasure to be gained, for example, in achievement and achievement is obviously gratifying. But if you do not read pleasure as gratification you are liable to be somewhat confused when you come across the latter term. This can become very important when attempting to understand the phrase: “Pleasure and fear are two sides of the same coin”.

Another example: the word “fear” is used synonymously with “pain”. However there are passages where pain itself is used without equating this with the word fear. There are many other instances of the interchangeability of words; this is all part of the varying approach to the same issues, as discussed above. The word meditation and its elaboration varies in subtle ways throughout; as does the word "reality", a word which 'evolved' in its usage over time, as already stated. Another particular example is the word awareness, which equates to attention, observation, direct perception, insight and seeing, although the word can be used without any reference at all to these synonyms.
~~~~~~~~
There is also no question many passages appear obscure and opaque upon first reading. This makes the talks as a whole appear vague and even confusing. The reason for this is clear: if definite answers were given to some perennial questions in life (eg, "is god within?"), then the mind would form a conclusion regarding the answer given, and this conclusion would color all subsequent inquiry. So it became imperative that no definitive statements were made in the talks, to precisely avoid the forming of these conclusions in the listener's mind.

Are the talks repetitive? No doubt. After all, the same issues were addressed time after time over the decades: fear, desire, the patterns of thought, the self, time. The approach to these major issues is always astonishingly varying, but the underlying points made are always the same. There was no deviation from the centrality of the talks, regarding the self and time.

If you accumulate, if you read with the intent to acquire knowledge, to gain something, you will find you reach a saturation point, an occasion when you are no longer seeing anything in what you read. There may be many people who are in that position, and their response is to stop listening. On the other hand, if you read the words closely and then set them aside to take up another day, you will find something new in them every time. This has consistently happened with the writer.

| Are there internal contradictions?...

It has been said that one must be wary of using quotations or making statements about the nature of the talks as these can be contradicted by other quotations on the same subject. Hence there is an inner reluctance and even fear to go into the talks for fear of being contradicted by others. This is unwarranted.

There is no doubt that the talks are internally consistent and do not contain internal contradictions, despite what many may perceive to be the contrary. This concern principally arises because of the frequency in which the terminology changes, as discussed above, but there is also the issue of reading the subtlety of the context, the actual nature of the point being made.

Let us be clear. An intensive and broad reading of the talks over many years has revealed that, in its essentials, the talks are not internally contradictory. If you have found what appears to be a contradictory quotation to that which appears in these discussions, you are most welcome to submit this so that it can be opened up to investigation and fresh air. It is clearly not advisable to have suppressed doubts about the integrity of the talks as these doubts will inhibit any further inquiry.

| Two apparent conundrums?

When you read the talks across the board you begin to come across apparent conundrums. There are two principal and outstanding ones, at least as they appear on the surface:

§1): How can we “see” anything clearly if the mind that sees is totally conditioned?

There has been much ongoing discussion among those interested in this subject. It is essentially derived from the following excerpt:

"Your mind is conditioned right through; there is no part of you which is unconditioned. That is a fact, whether you like it or not. You may say there is a part of you - the watcher, the super-soul, the Atman - which is not conditioned; but because you think about it, it is within the field of thought, therefore it is conditioned. You can invent lots of theories about it, but the fact is that your mind is conditioned right through, the conscious as well as the unconscious, and any effort it makes to free itself is also conditioned. So what is the mind to do? Or rather, what is the state of the mind when it knows that it is conditioned and realizes that any effort it makes to uncondition itself is still conditioned?"
(New Delhi, 6th Public Talk, October 31, 1956)

The key to this apparent conundrum lies in the final sentence. When there is a full realization by the mind of its predicament - that is, that it cannot escape its conditioning no matter what it does, a new state of mind comes into being. A quiet mind that is not condiitioned. Without that full realization, there is no way out of this conditioning.

The talks also take up this apparent conundrum elsewhere, as in the following two passages (of course, there may be others):

“All thinking obviously is conditioned; there is no such thing as free thinking. Thinking can never be free, it is the outcome of our conditioning, of our background, of our culture, of our climate, of our social, economic, political background. The very books that you read and the very practices that you do are all established in the background, and any thinking must be the result of that background. So if we can be aware - and we can go presently into what it signifies, what it means, to be aware - perhaps we shall be able to uncondition the mind without the process of will, without the determination to uncondition the mind. Because the moment you determine, there is an entity who wishes, an entity who says, "I must uncondition my mind." That entity itself is the outcome of our desire to achieve a certain result, so a conflict is already there. So, it is possible to be aware of our conditioning, just to be aware? - in which there is no conflict at all. That very awareness, if allowed, may perhaps burn away the problems.”
                                                                 (Book of Life Daily Meditations: 'Awareness may burn away the problems' - May 24, 2007)

“The questioner asks: How can I observe in my current state of fragmentation? You cannot. But you can observe your fragmentation.

In observing yourself you discover that you are looking with certain prejudices. And you forget to look at yourself and go into the question of prejudices. You become aware of your prejudice; can you look at it without any sense of distortion, without choice? Just observe the prejudices; let prejudice tell you the story, not you tell the story about prejudice; let prejudice unroll itself; the cause of prejudice, the image, conclusion and opinion. So can one have an insight into aggression? - not the remembrance or implication of it, which means constant examination, coming to a conclusion and acting according to that conclusion - that is not insight. But if one has an immediate insight into it, then one has broken the whole pattern of aggression. … One never says. " Look, I am like this, let me find out why. Why does one have wounds, psychological bruises? Why does someone live with them?"’
                                                                          (Krishnamurti Foundation Trust: Bulletin #40)

In both cases in these passages the answer is clearly stated: just observe. Observation in and of itself, not thought-based and without motive or desire for an answer, is not conditioned. This observation can prompt an insight or a full realization. This then raises the issue of laying a foundation for this observation, namely, pre-conditions attached to it.

§2): How can thought investigate the nature of itself?

You can think things out, think things through. Tne most important thing is that you can ask questions of yourself - as in the previous excerpt above. There is nothing wrong with that. The intellect is the one instrument we have; don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were. But be aware of the limitations: you will not change through thinking alone, no-one ever has. Yet, you have to verbally understand what you are reading before you can inquire into it, which means you must use the full force of your intellect - reason and logic. To verbally understand something means you must think it over, reflect on it, particularly the many difficult issues contained in these talks.

As we have seen, thought can be aware of itself and thought can come to realizations. One is not using thought in this awareness, one must only be aware of the process of thought. Thought can undeniably realize something (What’s all this talk about thought?) but it cannot be aware of its own process and movement without an observer coming into being. The whole point of awareness is to watch with the absence of the observer, which is the self.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

| Are there pre-conditions to awareness?...

                                                          (Principal reference: The Transformation of Man: Part 111, Two Dialogues, pp. 221-254.)

This is the issue mentioned above. When you read the talks across the board, there appears to be certain essential pre-conditions outlined for total or complete attention to occur. They are listed here:

Essential pre-conditions?
¨   Freedom to observe;
¨   Love, care and affection;
¨   Elimination of all fear;
¨   A quiet/still/silent mind;
¨   A serious intensity of mind/passion/curiosity;
¨   Sensitivity/aloneness;
¨   Perseverance/persistence/constant diligence.

Here are examples of freedom, not being afraid, silence, seriousness, and persistency:

“So the first requirement of a serious human being who wants to learn is that he must be free to inquire, that means, not to be afraid: to be free to look, to observe, to criticize; to be intelligently sceptical, and not to accept opinions. We are going to inquire into something that demands all your attention, and you cannot attend if you have an opinion, an idea, a formula, or knowledge of what other people have said. As we said the other day, if you walk in the light of another, that light will lead you to darkness - it does not matter who it is that offers the light. But to walk in the light of one’s own understanding, that can only come about when there is attention and silence, and that demands a great deal of seriousness.”
                                                                (Choiceless Awareness: KFA, Ojai, First Edition 2007, page 70, Revised Edition, 2001 [1992])

“To watch constantly from day to day, from moment to moment, without drawing the conclusion or living in that conclusion, to watch in relationship without judgment, without comparison, but with constant awareness requires a great deal of persistency.”
                                                                             (The Collected Works: Vol. VII, Madras, 2nd Public Talk, December 6, 1953)

At various points throughout the talks these points are individually stated as essential requirements for total attention. Off the top, some of these are not clear. For instance, does not awareness of fear bring about an understanding of fear and hence its elimination, not that fear has to end first before total awareness can take place? What comes first? (Awakening of Intelligence)

Again, is it not that the issues of freedom and the silent mind are a result of awareness, not a pre-condition for it? Is there a logical flaw here in the talks, or is there a factor that is overlooked - such as the depth of our intent? Or our capacity to ask the right questions?

This whole issue may be resolved only with a complete understanding of the immediacy of direct perception. Is it the flash of perception that sees the falseness of fear and wipes it and so total awareness takes place, all at once? It is certain that perception is instant. Do we ever have a direct perception into anything? Is direct perception the same as realization? (What's all this Talk about Thought?)

Or, does the whole answer to awareness lie in the fact that we are not serious enough, not intense enough?
                                                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May	AUG	Nov
	08
2009	2010	2011