Sartre , Existentialism and J. Krishnamurti

Jean Paul Sartre is the most influential 20 th century thinker and writer. Credited with having coined the word Existentialism he is the architect of his famous treatise , Being And Nothingness. Heidegger alongwith Husserl was the principal source of inspiration to him. Sartre read Heidegger as a prisoner of war during world war 2 and soon authored Being and Nothingness. In this paper I shall briefly talk about sartre's main concepts and then relate it withKrishnamurti`s philosophy.

Being and Nothingness:
Sartre's main ontological proposition was Existence precedes essence.

What is it to be human? Are we our qualities such as intelligence or hardworking or a writer? Is there an existence irrespective of our essence? Though sartre was cartesian he didnot strictly mean," I think therefore I am". While  thinking precedes action it is one of the proof of my existence as it emerges in a reflective state of consciousness. Human existence is charecterised by two types of reality. One is consciousness being aware of it being conscious and other is consciousness about something. The former ,sartre called pre reflective state or for- itself consciousness and the latter as reflective state or in-itself consciousness. In layman's language for-itself is the indescribable, nameless reality. Just awareness of Being ,sheer consciousness or existence as it is.The in-itself is borne out of our choices and action, our self identity and is independent of for- itself consciousness.Thus sartre created a duality in reality and concentrated on the study of in- itself reality. Since identity of self is something it brings in the possibility of destructing this something. That which is not something is no-thing and is negation of self. Consciousness for itself is that Being which is nothing because by definition consciousness cannot grasp itself. 
Implication of Sartre's Philosophy :

 Freedom:
Since existence precedes essence, man is free to choose. If he doesnot choose thats a choice he makes.Rather he is condemned to be free. He therefore constantly chooses and is responsible for his action. There is no God or determinism which drives man's action. He is spontaneously propelled to act. He finds his meaning in his action though the outside world defies any meaning or is simply existing.

Angst and Despair:
Since existence is no-thing vs essence which is something, there is a feeling of absurdity. A meaninglessness which is overcome by intentional motivation to act. Despair is inevitable outcome of choice when the fulfillment is incomplete. Something similar to what Krishnamurti says "ME" is disorder. The content of mind creates "ME" which is actually a disorder.

To live authenthic life that is a life without conscious of any self image or other people's image about oneself is a life of spontaneity that springs from Being and nothingness. Anyone living an inauthenthic life lives in bad faith and violates existence.

The direct implication sartre's existentialism is humanism. To live freely without any inauthencity of society, past ,state, politics, divine intervention, beliefs etc. Similarly let other people live freely thereby creating a humanistic society. One is fully responsible for one's action. In his words:

We are a plan aware of itself. "Man is nothing else than his plan: he exists only to the extent that he fulfills himself; he is therefore nothing else than the ensemble of his acts, nothing else than his life."

J.Krishnamurti`s core teachings :

:“The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said, “Truth is a pathless land”. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.

Man has built in himself images as a fence of security—religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man’s thinking, his relationships, and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all humanity. So he is not an individual. Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not choice. It is man’s pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity.

Thought is time. 
Thought is born of experience and knowledge, which are inseparable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution. 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.
Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence.” 

Similarities:
Thus both examine human beings and reveal the nothingness of primordial Being or consciousness.Both accept primacy of existence before essence. Both concur about to be human is to be free . However,there are subtle differences in the terminology used . 

You can say some similarity is  found in  sartre`s facticity which is more like conditioned existence of life. Living authenthic life is living without projecting images and in reality as it is. This finds echo in krishnamurti's choiceless awareness in which one doesnot ascribe any value to one's behaviour.

Both the school believe in freedom with responsibility and the choice one makes determines one's life.

Contrasts : 
Existentialists believe life is absurd and has no meaning whereas k says living itself is the meaning of life. They start at opposites poles  of life. Life according to existentialists is nasea and despair. K finds life as beautiful and joyful if lived with understanding. Existentialists donot believe in God whereas k says donot start with belief or disbelief. Find out and a mind which is not touched by thought is sacred. Then truth or god is revealed which cannot be described.

Both existentialist and k are committed to humanism and freedom. Existentialist are cartesian who believe that I think, therefore I am. K perhaps means that I am and therefore I think. But could be saying existence precedes essence.

Existentialists are concerned with material living as a choice. Whereas "K"is concerned with pursuit of truth and setting man unconditionally free. Unlike Sartre who feels man is chained in his choice.

Reconcilation:

Note some interpretations say that Satre's freedom is the inarticulable, nameless and is borne out of nothingness. Activity is the action in the physical world borne out of choice . They also say that sartre didnot mean descartes cogito but cogito of existence or awareness of consciousness as non thingness. Such being the case it echoes what "K" talks about truth. He says, truth is that which is cannot be touched by thought.Both existentialist and k are committed to humanism and freedom. Existentialist are cartesian who believe that I think, therefore I am. K perhaps means that I am and therefore I think. He could be saying existence precedes essence.

My Perpective:

Acording to me Sartre is more interesting at a surface level  because he has expressed himself not only through his abstract philosophies but also through absurd plays like Nausea and No exit. Sartrean study of human beings through his primordial action is more interesting and humanlike but not truly emancipating.It exposes human being in relationship with others like a mirror reflection .Sartrean view that man is condemned to be free and is solely responsible for his actions is pertaining to the thinking man.It does add to the meaning of life but at subject level. Authencity of life and ethical value follow sartrean interpretation in which hope for life fulfillment overcomes despondency of despair. 

Whereas "K" goes to the roots of Being and unless we understand the roots we can never understand ourselves as man. We would then risk treating subjects as objects and pose wrong metaphysical question. The sartrean fallacy lies in studying the thinking man which is an effect. Our true motto is to study the primordial state.To study huamans before he became a subject of Being. (the bringing forth of possibilities from nothingness). Existence in world , essence of man and thinking man follow much later.  Truth is something that is not touched by thought. Do we realise that thinker and the thought is the same and in the process realise the primordial state of Being. 


Like Sartre's existentialism kirishnamurti philosophy is also about Being and nothingness. K’s nothingness, however, is no-thingness. Life is spontaneous existence like the blossoming of the flower. It is living in the present moment in the here and now of awareness. Krishnamurti's being is the unconditioned self. Whereas Sartre and other existentialists say nothing matters but life and yet there is no awareness of conditioning and rising above conditioning. Therefore it is more in the materialistic context and perhaps has got little to do with pursuit of truth itself. 

Nuggets of J.Krishnamurti`s Teachings

  J.Krishnamurti is a well respected philosopher, seer and mystic. Though labeled as mystic by his friends in Europe and America his philosophy is far from it. Famous for his plain speaking and ruthless approach to man`s problems in living .He espouses a way of life for each individual  which can usher the entire mankind into a new consciousness.Krishnamurti didnot propagate any belief system .

Nuggets of his  philosophy:

1) Existence itself is beautiful. Reality is is. Accept the isness  of is. Anything that isnot is is fiction.

2) existence and living is the same which is the same as spontaneity.Life is a flowering process.It simply unfolds.

3) Living itself is the meaning of life. There is no purpose seperate from living.

4) Man has rational faculty but he has somehow failed to act rationally.

5) The chief  reason why man is irrational is because he is a conditioned being. A victim of his repetetive mind patterns.

6) Human beings are conditioned by habit, by beliefs, by fears, anxieties,pride, prestige, sorrow and so on. Thats his psychological being.

7) The human brain and the consequent functioning of human mind leads not only to  external division between human beings of different creed,caste, religion and race but also creates an internal conflict within himself.  . In reality there is  no division as existence is unitary and homogenous.

8) Man ,internally is in conflict because he seperates himself from his being. For instance thought creates a thinker. Thats the irrationality. Thinker and the thought is the same. There is only thinking.There is only thought This nondualism vs rene descartes who said I think therefore I am. descartes is right in a way but that led to dualism whereby thinker was seperated from thought. Better way to put it waould have been, I am and therefore I think..

9) Creation of seperate identity called thinker creates a new identity . This dichotomy is everywhere. Experience is seperated from experiencer. Descriptipn is seperate from described or describer. Actually , there is only living and  only experiencing . A seperate thinker invariably compares himself with another . Comparison leads to competetion and inferiority complex. It leadsto human misery and ultimately war.

10) Fear, anxiety, despair, sorrow all occur because the thinker assumes itself to be a real self, a real identity. Anything that threatens the identity of the thinker creates fear response. Similarly pleasure and desires are sought for its continuity. Anything that disrupts the continuity of pleasure is resisted by the thinker. In a way artificial identity of thinker assumes the proportion of real person hijacking human beings on the path of violence and suffering. Does this sound familiar? Heard of Matrix?

11) Freedom from  conditioning can be found here and now. It is immediate if one sees thru the falsity of the the whole phenomenon. Its is like  a rope in a dark corner. It appears to be a snake. When the light is switched on it becomes clear that its a rope and not a snake. Real freedom is freedom from comparison.

Now a mind that doesn't compare at all - you understand? - is a totally different kind of mind. It has got much more vitality.

12) Total freedom from predictable human behaviour can be obtained by choiceless awareness. It is a way of observing inwards in which there is  no judge or censor. There is only observation. Suppose a man observes that he is violent or greedy or envious he simply records it and let it pass. He doesnot resist or attempt to be judgemental about it. This is called choiceless awareness. The observer realises that he is the observation. He is greed. He is envy. He is violence. In  this way he neither encourages it nor resists any behaviour. In a natural way the negative traits evaporates and good traits which are inherent ,intrinsic and innate surface.

When there is no judge, no chooser there is no past or future . It's everlasting Present. Timelessness. Real freedom is in timelessness and not in past or future. Real freedom therefore lies is in choicelessness and not in choice.

 Real freedom  is freedom from the known. The known is my psychological identity, my belongings, my possession, my pride ,my trauma, my fears, my achievements. Real freedom is freedom from this knowledge. This knowledge gets continuity by memory function. Memory to remeber the past is required for learning skillsets. To remeber that fire burns is an useful part of memory. To remeber that somebody insulted me is useless piece of information not to be stored. Not to be a slave of memory is  the function of choiceless awareness. It enables man to live in the present moment . He neither wallows in past nor lives in the fantasy of future. To realise that brain or mind slips into past or future is the function of choiceless awareness. You are the world. You change the world changes.Choiceless awarenes is meditation.

13) In meditation there is no meditator. Meditation is not concentration. It is complete attention. In that state there is no attender.

14) Love , joy, beauty, and compassion exists by itself. It is humanity. It cannot be cultivated. When observer vanishes there is love and compassion.

15) Love and compassion provides the path to life. Every human being is endowed with insight on the path of choiceless awareness.

16) The entire preaching is based on factual observation and is not an  imagination or belief. Renowned scientist such as Dr David Bohm have had enormous dialogue with Krishnamurti to provide scientific bulwark to his preaching. For instance, krishnamurti said that brain cell mutates under choiceless awareness and new bran emerges out of regeneration of braincells. It was heretic to say so in the early 20 th century. Dr. David Bohm , a physicist confirmed that its possible. Today Brain Plasticity is the key concept in neuroscience..

17) Albert Einstein and J. Krishnamurti: A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."Albert Einstein

18)MIND
Neither Co-operate with it.
Nor confront against it
Observe mind
Watch it by being simply aware
Slowly it is subjugated
Lead your life thru unmotivated energy i.e. Action

19) Is there an area in the human brain, or in the very nature and structure of a human being, not merely in the outer world of his activities but inwardly, deep in the vast quiet recesses of his own brain, something that is not the outcome of memory, not the movement of a continuity?"… "There is most certainly, definitely, an area where the past doesn’t cast a shadow, where time, the past or the future or the present has no meaning."… "You can’t ascend through knowledge; there must be an end to knowledge for the new to be. New is a word for something which has never been before. And that area cannot be understood or grasped by words or symbols; it is beyond all remembrances."

Universal Consciousness: A quantum World Reality!

My belief in interconnected of reality at subatomic ( quanta) level is based on substantial progress made by modern science on the same. To name a few EPR experiment by einstein, Bell's theorem, Allain Aspects experiments on seperated photon particle and Karl Pribram's theory of holonomic brain model. David Bohm called it implicate order. Einstein called it Ghosts! All these scientists have proved with experiments that there is non local intelligence which is simultaneous information transmission between two seperated subatomic particles . This information is transmitting at a rate faster than velocity of light. It is unmediated action on two seperated bodies.This moots the idea of a holograhic world in whch a whole subdivided also contains all the information of whole. In other words every part is as good as whole as in a hologram. In one experiment sets of mice seperated geographically across continents were monitored for their behavior. It was found that new learning techniques unknown to the species imparted to one set of mice was found to be absorbed by the other seperated group as well as their next generation. Similarly certain behaviour in rats were continued despite scraping off certain portions of brain in a gradual manner. A japanese researcher Dr. Masaru Emoto has shown images of water crystals to establish the effect of environment on it. Water Crystals under peaceful conditions are beautiful and harmonius whereas water crystals under stressed environment such as war display hazy structure. Thus there is universal consciousness and the whole idea of independent objective reality irrespective of the observer itself is a question.


Alain Aspect experiments in Quantum Physics involved splitting light photons. Two paths of light were created out of one. One of the paths of light photons was reoriented using a polarizing instrument. Both paths were then measured for the polarized orientation. It was assumed that one of the paths would retain the reorientation and the other path would be unchanged. No matter how many times the experiment was conducted or the measuring instruments set up, the same result was obtained. BOTH paths of light had been changed.
The results had a dynamic influence on theorists. At one time, it was assumed that you could not have action at a distance; contact of some type had to be responsible for change. The Aspect experiments changed that belief. Today, it is believed that when subatomic particles are involved, they retain their affinity for near subatomic particles no matter how far they are separated. Distance on a subatomic level cannot be treated the same as distance in our visible world.

What is Non-Locality>?

To accommodate the non-locality results described in the Aspect experiment and elsewhere, universal consciousness has to be non-local, but capable of interacting with the consciousness of the observer. To permit the observer to interact with both non-local universal consciousness and at the same time to be a part of the world we think of as real, some believe that there are components of the brain that are like the measuring instruments of an experiment and a second lot of components that act like highly coherent quantum systems. A coherent quantum system is the kind seen with superconductivity, superfluidity, and laser systems.
What is the definition of ‘local’ and ‘non-local’?

Our reality consists of local and non-local phenomenon. All things in space and time tend to be local. Nick Herbert in his book Quantum Reality explains "Yet there are things that we know exist and are real that are not local, for example a thought, love, insight, etc. Many of these things are on a psychological and spiritual level."

Mr. Herbert explains that: “… non-local is an unmediated action-at-a-distance.” A non-local interaction jumps from body A to body B without touching anything between A and B. Most people deny its existence because it does not seem to make sense.


Examples of non-local interactions are intuition, synchronicity (simultaneous occurrences), and spontaneous

Finally, no one can say that consciousness is confined to just the brain, or is local. It has to have a non-local origin, for it is not bound to space and time, nor is it physical .
What was Bell’s explanation of non-local reality?

In 1964, an Irishman named John Stewart Bell developed a mathematical proof that supported a nonphysical part of the universe. This theoretical physicist stated that any model explaining the universe entirely as local or as physical reality is incomplete for it does not include the non-local part. He also stated that there is an interconnectedness to everything in the universe. This proof was called the Bell Theorem and it was verified by many scientific experiments. Larry Dossey, M.D., points this out in his book Recovering the Soul “Whatever model of reality we wind up with in physics … it must be nonlocal… No local model of reality can explain the type of world we live in …

Simply put, the Bell theorem proves that there is another reality (non-local), which can be referred to as Spirit, beyond our current, physical (local) reality. Non-local reality interacts with our reality and is the source and cause of the physical existence or reality. The nonphysical part of the universe is the definitive proof that all science was seeking. Bell’s Theorem proves another realm exists that theology has talked about, but was unable to prove in a theoretical or empirical (experimental) sense. It means we can no longer consider objects as independently existing entities that can be localized in well-defined regions of spacetime.


Einstein ,however was not convinced about Quantum Theory as well as Bell`s theorem.Einstein worked until his death to find the 'missing link' in quantum theory that would disprove Neils Bohr's concept of random occurrence of probabilities.He emphatically stated many times that "God does not play dice", reiterating his firm belief in an underlying plan or consciousness within the quantum possibilities.  In order to disprove Quantum he conducted an experiment now famously known as EPR.The EPR experiment was based on two equal or twin particles. These tiny particles, called A and B, composed a system traveling in opposite directions from each other .Einstein and his colleagues knew they could measure some aspects of the first particle A, such as its position and momentum. From this measurement, they could predict the outcomes of the second particle B traveling in the opposite direction, while not going near the second particle.

What happened here is now very strange. Instead of disproving Neil Bohr’s school of thought that said that any measurement on A also effects B or vice versa, the EPR experiment proved it. Whatever particle was not measured reacted to the changes on the other particle. If the measured particle A began to spin in the opposite direction, instantaneously particle B also began to spin in the direction of particle A.

Since there was no force or energy transferred between the two particles, there seemed to be some form of information transferred from one particle to another.

How does the Bell Theorem prove non-local reality? To resolve this problem the Bell theorem proves that there was instant communication between these two particles. This means a message would have to travel faster than the speed of light that is 186,000 miles /sec. between them. According to the Einstein special theory of relativity this was impossible. Bell showed there is non-local communication between these two particles. This communication is nonphysical and currently science has no explanation for it.


Einstein did not know how to explain this phenomenon and objected to the ‘ghostly action at a distance .Some quantum physicists allow that the "ghosts" are a component of a "universal consciousness." Some call this "consciousness" the "ground of all being." In a short article that follows this, Werner Heisenberg refers to a "central order." David Bohm calls it as quantum potential and implicate order.He was fascinated by the interconnectedness of matter, energy and quantum events. The emerging science of holography gave him a new model for understanding the interconnectedness he documented in his experiments. Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order, published in 1980, did more than just link the various facets of science together, it transfigured them into a new way of looking at reality.
"One of Bohm's most startling assertions is that the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really a kind of illusion, like a holographic image. Underlying it is a deeper order of existence, a vast and more primary level of reality that gives birth to all the objects and appearances of our physical world in much the same way that a piece of holographic film gives birth to a hologram. Bohm calls this deeper level of reality the implicate (which means enfolded) order, and he refers to our own level of existence as the explicate, or unfolded, order"

Scientists brought up in the Eastern world appear to have less of a problem with a term like "universal consciousness." Some, such as Amit Goswami, Professor of Physics at the University of Oregon, occasionally use the word "God," as being the true reality of "universal consciousness.Two thousand five hundred agao greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus continued this philosophical probe into the fabric of nature and man, with some similar, but more holistic, conclusions. He thought it "wise to agree that all things are one"

Conclusion in Einsteins words:

 A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty" einstein

In A New World

For a moment lets conjure up a scenario where the whole world has come to an end and a new world has energed wherein human beings exists as they did before on the planet earth but there is a total amnesia about the past. Therefore there is no memory left of the past. Not even the residual vestiges. Here you are on a ground where there are no Christians with no memeory of Jesus Christ. Nor there are any Hindus with the image of krishna and concept of soul . Similarly for the rest of the belief system s.This is a world where there is no division based on religion amongst its inhabitants. There are neither believers nor non believers because the question of belief itself is non existent. Remeber what we said in the begining ,its a new world with no residual memory of the past. Then how would have one described existence? Here is a quote from J. Krishnamurti which would most aptly fit the bill. Remeber this description would have evolved without any J. Krishnamurti around there in that new world;
"…is there an area in the human brain, or in the very nature and structure of a human being, not merely in the outer world of his activities but inwardly, deep in the vast quiet recesses of his own brain, something that is not the outcome of memory, not the movement of a continuity?"… "There is most certainly, definitely, an area where the past doesn’t cast a shadow, where time, the past or the future or the present has no meaning."… "You can’t ascend through knowledge; there must be an end to knowledge for the new to be. New is a word for something which has never been before. And that area cannot be understood or grasped by words or symbols; it is beyond all remembrances."

Lets what he has to further say .....

There can be no thought if there is total amnesia. Right? But fortunately, or unfortunately we are not in a state of amnesia. And one wants to find out what thought is, what place it has in life. You understand? So one begins to examine thinking. So what is thinking? Thinking takes place as a reaction to memory. Obviously. Memory responds to a challenge, to a question, to an action, or responds in relationship to something, or to an idea, to a person. Right? You see all this in life.
So what is thinking, what is thought, how does thought exist in the human mind? So one asks then, what is memory? You understand? What is memory? Memory is you have trodden on some insect that has bitten you. That memory, that pain is registered and stored in the brain, that pain, which becomes a memory, it is not actual pain. That pain is over but the memory remains. So next time you are careful. So there is experience as pain, which has become knowledge, and that knowledge, experience is memory, that memory responds as thought. Right? That memory is thought. And knowledge, however wide, however deep, however extensive, must always be limited. Right? There is no complete knowledge. I don't know if you are following all this.So thought is always partial, limited, divisive because in itself it isn't complete, in itself it can never be complete; it can think about completeness. You understand? It can think about totality, whole, but it's not, thought itself is not whole. So whatever it creates philosophically, religiously, it is still partial, limited, fragmentary, because knowledge is part of ignorance. You understand, sir? I don't know if you understand this. As knowledge can never be complete it must always go hand in hand with ignorance. Right? That's logical, rational.

And if one understands the nature of thought, and understands what concentration is, then thought cannot attend because attention is giving all energy - you understand? - without any restraint. I wonder if you understand this. If you are listening now, I hope you are, if you are listening and attending, what takes place? There is no 'you' attending. Right? There is no centre that says, 'I must attend'. You are attending because it is your life, your interest. If you are not interested, lying down in the sun, saying, well I'll listen partly, that's a different matter. But if you are serious and giving attention you will soon find out all your problems, all that is gone - at least for the moment.So to resolve problems is to attend. I wonder if you have got it. You understand this? It's not a trick! (Laughs)Source - Jiddu Krishnamurti Fourth Public Question & Answer Meeting in OjaiFrom

Comparison ,Competetion and Attention

Questioner: Is there no difference between aggression and competition? They look different to me right now.

Jiddu Krishnamurti: Madame, please, I'll go into it, don't bother about that. Either you write the questions, I'll answer them, or let me talk a little about this.

You can see what aggression does. Right? You are aggressive, I am aggressive for the same job, the same this, that, the other. And so we are fighting each other all along the way - right? - both psychologically and physically. And we carry on. That's part of our pattern, part of our social education, and to break that pattern we say we must exercise our will. Right? Which is another aggression. I don't know if you follow this. Right? Right? Are you following this, sir? When I exercise my will, will is another form of 'I must'. You understand. That's another form of aggression.

So can you have an insight into aggression? You have understood my question, or is it too difficult? You understand my question sir? That is, I am aggressive - thank god I am not, I have never been, I don't want to be (laughs) - suppose I am aggressive and that's the pattern from childhood, that is the education, the mother, the father, and the society, the boys around me, are all aggressive, and I see, and I like that, it gives me pleasure. And I accept it and I also become aggressive. Right? Then as I grow up somebody shows me the nature of aggression, what it does in society, how competition is destroying human beings. It is not only the speaker is saying this, scientists are beginning to say this - so perhaps you will accept the scientists. So you explain it very carefully, all the reason, the cause, and the destructive nature of competition, which is to compare, always comparing. You understand?

Now a mind that doesn't compare at all - you understand? - is a totally different kind of mind. It has got much more vitality. So one explains all this, and yet we go on being aggressive, competitive, comparing ourselves with somebody, always something much greater, not with the poorer, with always something greater. So there is this pattern established, this cadre, this framework, and in which the mind is caught. And listening to it you say, 'I must get out of it, I must do something about it', which is what? Another form of aggression. You understand? I wonder if you see that. So can you, can we have an insight into aggression? You follow? Not explanations, not the remembrance of all the implications of it and so on and so on, which is constant examination, then coming to a conclusion, and acting according to that conclusion. That's not insight. Whereas if you have immediate insight into it - you understand? - then you have broken the whole pattern of aggression.

That is, sir, we compare - don't we? - both physically - you have long... I wish I could look as nice as you look, or psychologically, there is constant comparison. Which means what? I don't know if you have gone into this. To compare oneself with somebody else, greater, more intelligent, bright, and so on, is to what? Deny what you are and change what you are. I wonder if you understand this. Am I making this clear? Look, I compare myself with you and I say you are awfully clever, all that, and in that comparison I say, by Jove, I realise I am very dull. Right? You are following this? But if I have no comparison, am I dull? I begin then to discover the things 'as is'. I wonder if you see.

So what we shall do with the way we are living? Sorry to bring it home. What shall we do? You will attend meetings, other forms of other kinds of meetings, discussions, philosophers explaining their philosophy, the latest psychologist, non-Freudian, non-this, and non-that, but the latest, he will explain to you. You understand? We are doing this all the time, moving from one thing to another, and that's called an open mind. But we never say look, this is so, I am like this, let me find out why am I like this. Why I have wounds, psychological bruises - you understand? - why. Why do I live with them? I don't know if you are following all this. But reading somebody like, books of... books, attending Krishnamurti's talks, and then quoting back, it is so... I know all this by heart! (Laughter) I have been at this for sixty years and more, so you don't have to quote to me. But if you don't quote, and find out for yourself - you understand, sir? - there is greater energy, more fun, more alive, you become much more alive.

This is a good question because it affects us. That is, what is attention, what is the relationship of thought to attention, is there in attention freedom? Right? Is this a question that affects us? That is, we know what concentration is. Right? Most of us do from childhood we are trained to concentrate, and the implications of that concentration is narrowing down all energy to a particular point, and holding to that point. Right? A boy in a school is looking out of the window, looking at all the birds and the trees and the movement of the leaves, or the squirrel climbing up the tree, and the educator says, 'Look, you are not paying attention, concentrate on the book.' Right? 'Listen to what I am saying', and so on and so on. Which is what? Go into it, sir. Which is what? You are making concentration far more important than attention. That is, if the boy is looking out of the window watching that squirrel, I would help him to watch - if I am the educator - I would help him to watch that squirrel completely. You follow? Watch it. Watch the movement of the tail, the mouth, the nozzle, how its claws are, everything, watch it. Then if he learns to watch that attentively he will pay attention to the beastly book! (Laughter) You follow what I am saying? So there is no contradiction.

So attention is a state of mind in which there is no contradiction. Right? There is no entity, or a centre, or a point, which says, I must attend. In that state there is no wastage of energy. Whereas in concentration there is always the controlling process going on: I want to concentrate on that page but thought wanders off, and then you pull it back, the constant battle going on. Whereas in attention, if you go into it, it is very simple really. When somebody says, 'I love you', and he means it, you are attending, you don't say, do you love me because I look nice, or I have money, or sexual, or this or that - you follow what I am saying? So attention is something totally different from concentrationp

And this attention, the questioner asks, what is the relationship of this attention to thought? Right? None, obviously. I don't know if you follow this. Concentration has a relationship to thought because thought directs: I must learn, I must concentrate in order to control myself. Right? Thought then gives a direction from one point to another point. Whereas in attention thought has no place - you attend.

And is there a gap between attention and thought. Good lord. Sir, as we explained the other day, if you once understand, if one once has a grasp of the whole movement of thought you wouldn't put this question. You understand sir? I am not... I'll answer it, but first one has to, understand what thought is. You understand? Not somebody tell you what thought is. But to see what thought is, how it comes into being. And if you will go with me, I will do it again, we will go into it.

There can be no thought if there is total amnesia. Right? But fortunately, or unfortunately we are not in a state of amnesia. And one wants to find out what thought is, what place it has in life. You understand? So one begins to examine thinking. So what is thinking? Thinking takes place as a reaction to memory. Obviously. Memory responds to a challenge, to a question, to an action, or responds in relationship to something, or to an idea, to a person. Right? You see all this in life. So what is thinking, what is thought, how does thought exist in the human mind? So one asks then, what is memory? You understand? What is memory? Memory is you have trodden on some insect that has bitten you. That memory, that pain is registered and stored in the brain, that pain, which becomes a memory, it is not actual pain. That pain is over but the memory remains. So next time you are careful. So there is experience as p
ain, which has become knowledge, and that knowledge, experience is memory, that memory responds as thought. Right? That memory is thought. And knowledge, however wide, however deep, however extensive, must always be limited. Right? There is no complete knowledge. I don't know if you are following all this.

So thought is always partial, limited, divisive because in itself it isn't complete, in itself it can never be complete; it can think about completeness. You understand? It can think about totality, whole, but it's not, thought itself is not whole. So whatever it creates philosophically, religiously, it is still partial, limited, fragmentary, because knowledge is part of ignorance. You understand, sir? I don't know if you understand this. As knowledge can never be complete it must always go hand in hand with ignorance. Right? That's logical, rational. And if one understands the nature of thought, and understands what concentration is, then thought cannot attend because attention is giving all energy - you understand? - without any restraint. I wonder if you understand this. If you are listening now, I hope you are, if you are listening and attending, what takes place? There is no 'you' attending. Right? There is no centre that says, 'I must attend'. You are attending because it is your life, your interest. If you are not interested, lying down in the sun, saying, well I'll listen partly, that's a different matter. But if you are serious and giving attention you will soon find out all your problems, all that is gone - at least for the moment.

So to resolve problems is to attend. I wonder if you have got it. You understand this? It's not a trick! (Laughs)

Source - Jiddu Krishnamurti Fourth Public Question & Answer Meeting in Ojai
From krishnamurtidiscourses.blogspot.com

Is There A Real Freedom In Choice- II

We saw in the previous article that real freedom lies in choicelessness. Choice means an existence of me which acts as judge preventing man from seeing reality as it is. Where there is Me there is time and there lies human bondage. To end this bondage Me has to end. So how does ME end? Me is content of consciousness and it can end only by emptying it. Any attempt to empty it is still within the field of thought and continues to reel in the sphere of me. Any effort is merely strengthening me. Any methodology throws you back into the well of Me. Any process is like buying time and me continues it's whirlwind inside the human brain.

The solution lies in Seeing that ME is not real as a fact, not as a concept. The sheer act seeing the fallacy of ME is emptying it's content. It is instant and immediate . It's like a computer file which is emptied by delete command. Unlike computer you cannot command me but you can perceive it's falsehood. In seeing is the ending.

It can never end if seeing is through images. Images about myself is ME, my idea of other peoples image about me is also a part of me. Till that image is seeing there is no seeing. Seeing the mirage of Me can end Me . Then there is harmony, there is peace and there is living. It is actuality.

How does one see is an irrelevant question. The only way to see inwardly is to be choicelessly aware. Which means to be attentive,to watch ones motives or actions without any judgmental or analytical exercise. In that watching there is no choice. Choice implies duality, conformity, images and lack of freedom. In real freedom there is no choice. It's important to understand that choice is exercised by Me which is content of consciousness. Choice when excercised externally like choosing blue colour or square design is okay. But when choice is exercised inwardly it's in the loop of me. When there is choiceless awareness one discovers there is unity.it is not a concept or theory. It is reality.

Me is a disorder. The entire story of mankind is in it's content of consciousness. It is not an individual's consciousness. It is common. It is all about fulfillement,loneliness,hatred and comparison,. Pride and vanity. Frustrations and fears. Whether rich or poor, young or old, black, brown or white, educated or uneducated the content of consciousness is the same. It all gets condensed into an image. An image of a successful man or image of low self esteem, an image of moral superiority or self flagelling misery.Invariably, an image which is comparing and becoming into something.
That's not freedom. There is no freedom from self or the image of self at all. When there is a complete attention one realizes there is no centre. One sees that Me is an illusion, an idea. A fiction that acts as real though there is no solidity in its existence it appears to be a solid self.In that realization is total freedom. In that freedom there is total security,total harmony and total stability. Where there is self with all it's images there is clinging to falsehood. In the moment of complete attention there is no self, no centre. It's just existence. From such a state whatever action emerges is the right action. It is state of total awareness void of any objectified self.

In the words of J.Krishnamurti :Awareness is Non-Effort:Does not effort mean a struggle to change what is into what it is not, ot what should be or what should become? We are constantly escaping from what is to transform or modify it....Only when there is no awareness of what is there is an effort to transform. So effort is non awareness. Awareness reveals the significance of what is and the complete acceptance of the significance brings freedom. So awareness is non effort:awareness is the perception of what is without distortion. Distortion exist whenever there is effort. J Krishnamurti.

(based on teachings of J krishnamurti)

Is There A Real Freedom In Choice

When there is no judge, no chooser there is no past or future . It's everlasting Present. Timelessness. Real freedom is in timelessness and not in past or future. Real freedom therefore lies is in choicelessness and not in choice. Read on.......

• Is there a freedom in choice?

All of us now spoilt by the choice offered under free markets cannot imagine our life without freedom of choice. After all what is life without freedom and if there is no choice there is no life indeed. Our favorite store shelves stacked with different things in different colors and sizes is the hallmark of modern man's existence. But is that truly freedom? On the contrary man becomes a confused slave of choice. Ever visited an exotic restaurant with more esoteric Menu Card? A definite recipe to disastrous confusion. However such wide choice offered at material plane of existence is not really a serious bone of contention. It maybe justified or necessary or may even add some pep and jest in life.But living in the belief that choosing is real freedom is riddled with a serious logical flaw. It may not be necessarily a good idea.

When it comes to serious questions about life, freedom of choice demands a very close introspection. What are serious questions of life? We are beset with questions such as what is life all about? What are we doing to our life? What is true freedom? Freedom of choice or freedom from choice.

Freedom is negation of any conditioning of human mind by religious or political or economic or sociological divisions.What is conditioning? Is it belief system? It is all categories,thoughts,concepts,construct,myths,image that collectively reside inside a human being. It is something unreal, some kind of fantasy which passes as real inside the human mind or brain.Our main problems of life are that we are attached to conditions of past and continue living in the fantasy of future. Whether it's hope for a better future or fear of dark future specter of time never leaves it's shadow from our existence.

It was mystic philosopher J krishnamurti who prodded us to question where lies real freedom from past and future. Does it lie in choice? Or does it come about when there is choicelessness.

It's a fact that there is no choice if there is no chooser by definition. So when a man lives in choice he is constantly judging or choosing. He evades reality and refuses to see fact as fact or rejects what is. He for instance does not accept the fact that he is greedy. Instead he chooses to say that he will not be greedy in future or he should not be greedy. When he accepts just the fact that he is greedy and stops there then there is no further reaction. There is no judge or censor who acts as a controller. When there is choicelessness suddenly a man is freed from the compulsion of acting in a conditioned manner.Total inner freedom is an essential condition to see what is. Awareness cannot come without total inner freedom.

Be it greed or envy, jealousy or hurts , pleasure seeking or abstinence , regret or sorrow there is a likeable or unlikeable past, there is desire for better future and there is a constant habitual conditioned reaction to all life situation. There is a chooser who is so deeply conditioned that the art of responding freely is forgotten.He is constantly seeking permanence or continuously chiding himself for his inadequacies. Such a behavior is a enslaved behaviour living in past or projecting a better future. Obviously such life is not a free life. It is a bonded life to chains of past . And unfortunately the prisoner is not even aware that he is imprisoned and that there is a way out to freedom. As long as he is judgmental he is exercising choice and can never be outside the clutches of habitual enslaved behavior.

When we judge there is a me who judges,me a chooser. Me is the dividing factor separating him from others. Me is my country, my likes, my religion, my ideology, my sensuality, and so on. It is the complete psychological ideation about me. My ambition, my experiences, my superiorities, my achievements,my greed, my envies, my regrets all go onto become me. Me creates a conflict with external world as in me vs you as well as internal within oneself. Internal conflict create a pressure to become a better and better me. Me is self image it is total content of consciousness lying as memory. Not memory such as how to drive a car but the memory that I am a good driver. That me wants to add and subtract to the content of consciousness creating internal conflict. Me chooses to pass a judgement. Look at it differently. As long as there is a choice there is past and future but the present is really missing. span

When there is no judge, no chooser there is no past or future . It's everlasting Present. Timelessness. Real freedom is in timelessness and not in past or future. Real freedom therefore lies is in choicelessness and not in choice. In other words there is no free will in choice . Its an an illusion that there is free will. Free will means ability to respond without any compulsions or out of habit. When there is a a judge,a chooser or a ME as an idea lurking behind all motivations and human action there is no real freedom. It is there at psychological level within human brain or mind. As somebody has said there is a ghost in the machine,a voice which continuously holds human beings in it's grip. . Everything is done to protect the idea of ME and to ensure it's continuity, psychologically. That invariably predicates past and future. It only evokes known habituated reactions such as fear, possessiveness,power intoxication, self pity,envy and so on. One big time job of the judge is to keep it's radar on to pick up insult actual or imagined and another job is to lap up praise again actual or imagined from his fellow judges.All these traits involve time because either it is about perpetuation or termination of likeable or dislikeable situations. It's the same for all humans across race and levels of income. The insecurity of a ruler is no different from insecurity of a poor man. Only when there is choiceless awareness there is no dea of ME and there is free will or real freedom.

( Fully Inspired and Based on Teachings of J krishnamurti)