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."

Decoding consciousness

As our knowledge of consciousness and its operation improves, the description of our understanding of consciousness will require both metaphysics and neuro-cognitive sciences. The methods to understand consciousness have to be both experiential and experimental given the nature of the subject of our inquiry. Decoding the process of perception and its processing in the brain could probably be an area where experimental methods will provide encouraging results to improve our knowledge of consciousness. However given the inevitably personal and subjective nature of consciousness any understanding in this area has to be experientially validated because my consciousness is not available to others to detect, test or experiment with. Scientific experiments involve observation, hypothesis, experimental methodology, repeating the experiment and predicting the result. It can be done to understand brain chemistry and prescribing medicine to alter or induce a particular behavior by adding or subtracting chemical dosage to brain cells. Beyond that it will be difficult for science given its methods to analyze consciousness because it may not be possible to observe and repeat such experiments in many cases. It seems clear that as we move into the future of scientific discoveries, we should be able to understand better some aspects of consciousness but whether our knowledge about this subject can ever be complete is a debatable issue. After all it's an attempt by consciousness to understand itself. There might be an inherent limitation for a system to describe itself only using itself. Probably consciousness is forever going to be an elusive object for our mental faculties. (Courtesy:Sneha Sheth)

* * *

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)

The Many Meaning of Matrix

Larry Wachowski

The Matrix trilogy is the most successful cinematic venture of the past several decades. Together, The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded, and The Matrix Revolutions have grossed over three billion dollars worldwide, and the story continues with The Animatrix, The Matrix Comics, and The Matrix Online. The attention of audiences worldwide has been captured by the mind-bending storyline of these films and their phenomenal special effects, but the perennial question remains: What does it all mean? Larry and Andy Wachowski, the writers and directors of The Matrix trilogy, have been reluctant to share their interpretation of the films from day one, fearing that whatever they said would turn into dogma. However, this did present a problem for Warner Brothers when producing The Matrix DVD boxed set (to be released this fall). How do you have a director's commentary—a must for any boxed set—when the directors refuse to comment? What the Wachowskis did was to ask Ken Wilber and Cornel West to do the director's commentary on all 3 films. The following dialogue was recorded right before Ken flew to LA to meet with Larry and Cornel and do the recorded commentary. Ken and Cornel recorded 15 hours of commentary, which has been edited down to 6 hours to fit the 3 films, and the boxed set with all 3 films—and 6 hours of Ken and Cornel's commentary—will be released in October. In the following dialogue, for the first time ever, we are lucky enough to hear Larry publicly comment on this situation. As he explains, the movies were in many ways designed not to give answers, but to introduce questions. What does it mean to be human? What is reality? Who is in control? Does God exist? and so on. If he was to explain what he thought the movies meant, he would be providing people with another concept of reality to either accept or reject—either way, the open space created by the question would vanish. The Matrix injected mainstream culture with a straight shot of the surreal, where fact and fiction and truth and appearance are not grounded in a single pre-given "reality," because reality is simply what appears to be real. In a dream, the dream is real—until you wake up. In the Matrix, the Matrix is real—until you wake up. But what if you never woke up? It's questions like that that Larry wished to inspire, and he certainly succeeded. As Ken points out, the first movie is fairly easy to grok: everything in the Matrix is bad, everything outside of the Matrix is good. Everyone inside the Matrix is trapped, everyone outside the Matrix is free, and so on. But twenty minutes into part 2, Reloaded, and the audience discovers that the Oracle is a machine program, at which point most people go: um, what? What had begun as a simple good guy/bad guy movie had just become a complex piece of literature, with different levels of interpretation and a very sophisticated model of reality. Ken suggests that it's not until the last twenty minutes of part 3, Revolutions, that the key to the trilogy is revealed: although—and perhaps because—Neo is physically blind, he sees the machines as luminous, golden light—not quite how the "bad guys" are seen in most movies. And yet Neo is unmistakable in what he says to Trinity: "If you could see them as I see them, they are all made of Light...." Indeed, the machines represent Spirit, but Spirit as alienated and therefore attacking.... Thus, as Ken summarizes a more integral interpretation (that takes into account what is revealed in all three films), Zion represents body (filmed in blue tint), the Matrix represents mind (green tint), and the machines—this is the kicker revealed in part 3—represent spirit (golden tint). For those of you keeping track, this is indeed quite similar to the Great Nest of Being as taught by the world's wisdom traditions, a spectrum of being and consciousness reaching from body to mind to spirit. Borrowing from the wisdom of Christian mysticism, "The flames of Hell are but God's love denied," and so an alienated and dissociated spirit manifests as an army of machines bent on destroying humankind. It is only in the integration of body, mind, and spirit that all three are redeemed and peace returns. Ken and Larry go on to discuss their shared lifelong passion for philosophy. As Ken points out, Larry is just about as philosophically/spiritually well read as anyone you're likely to find, and The Matrix films are a stunning tribute to that fact. Larry said that when he found Ken's work, "It was like Schopenhauer discovering the Upanishads." Ken said that was grandiose enough to quote. Whereas Ken's books have been known to disrupt many a happy home (my spouse won't shut up about quadrants!), Larry's love of philosophy seems to run in the family: Larry and his father are reading Sex, Ecology, Spirituality together. Très cool! This dialogue is meant to highlight what a more integral view of interpretation involves. In chapters 4 and 5 of The Eye of Spirit, Ken suggests that any work of art can be interpreted from at least four or five major perspectives, none of which is privileged, all of which are important. These include: the artist's original intent (what did the artist himself or herself mean by this artwork?); unconscious factors in the artist; the cultural background of the artist; and the viewer response (what does the artwork mean to different viewers of the artwork?). [If you would like to download a pdf of these two chapters, please click here.] The Wachowskis did not want their own original intent to overpower the equally legitimate viewer response, and so they remained thunderously silent about their original intent. But, as this dialogue makes clear, Larry feels that perhaps the time is now ripe for some more integral interpretations of The Matrix trilogy that include all of those perspectives, which is why he and Ken have begun having these types of more public dialogues and commentaries. There is no single, definitive interpretation of The Matrix, because the sum total of perspectives is infinite. But there are more integral and less integral interpretations, and the integral interpretations—up to this point— have been getting the short end of the stick, something this dialogue is intended to end. Once again, Integral Naked is proud to present a conversation you will truly hear nowhere else.
From Integral Institute.org

AM I different?

In the maze of meandering mind
And wandering thoughts while
Meditating I realize life
Is but an existence.
The same as any other element
Of nature. Just energy, sheer peace .


Beads of events/phenomena/stimulus-response strung together on thread of thought through passage of time by the function of memory lead to solidification of functional entity called ‘I’.

“I’ gains permanence thanx to memory, solidifies to an extent it becomes a rock solid nearly real entity. Though fictional it is a pseudo reality that cannot be wished away.

Lets calls this ‘I’ a center. Thus it ‘I’ as a center is nothing but a product if thought. Rather it is a thought, an idea which is united by series of likes / dislikes, experiences, relations to people. In short phenomenal responses since childhood memories.

Such a center is akin to prison wall. Captures inside the center is being. The unconditioned, non individualistic, universal, nameless, unexperienciable. (Experiencible is ‘I’ the psendo entity, as experience is a recall if memory.Is this a hypothesis or verifiable conclusion?

Since the center is bound on the glue of memory it can be easily dissolved now itself. Simply become aware of thought & its journey. As the emergence of I – the actual process of solidification gather clarity thru observation of thoughts. Such an awareness in daily life moment to moment being constantly alert stems the process of ‘I’ forming. Then there is simply being, when observer is observed.

Observation prevents ‘I’ formation just as lack of awareness creates ‘I’ entity. Observation of a phenomena determines the possibility of the phenomena as per quantum physics.
So what does one go from here. A daily life awareness leads to right action. As there is dissolution of ‘I’ there is dissolution if desires and all encumbering qualities such as discontent, sorrow, incompleteness, hopes, fears, need for achievement.

Such a process is true meditation. Pranayam, physical exercise and seated meditation are necessary but not the sufficient conditions to become aware. It does help in taming of the mind ensuring better psychological & physical health and maintaining mind bodyvehicle.

As we realize that I is a bunch of thought as a matter of fact ,what is the next step?

Right action, right motivation, passion and compassion and right conduct follows as a natural outcome without effort. Just as two chemicals when combined release heat in exothermic reaction .Right Conduct is a natural automatic compelling outcome of aware human behaviour.

Human behaviour is destined to establish the right course of action. There is no escaping that knower knows the truth. The sky is clear just as clouds dispense. Similarly self / being is transparent when thoughts dispense.

Mind as an vehicle with thought as a tool is as much real as nails on the toe. Just as nail protect the toe mind help survival and lining. Just like clipping an outgrown nail we can clip pernicious effect of mind through meditation.

Mind is a turbulent, waterbody disturbed by stones of ‘me’ my greatness, my superiority, my achievements, my intelligence, my my, my, vs yours, yours, yours. Stop stone throwing and mind becomes a calm waterbody. Mind`s destiny is madhouse said osho.Captured in the madhouse is the "I"which when freed is a whole new world of freedom

Would a being who is not guided by ‘I’ concept live life fully, rightfully. Is there a danger of falling into non motivational sloth. Traditionally the compelling force of doing better than the neighbour has led human actions towards both extraordinary achievements as well as destructive behaviour. The so called right action / right conduct comes to enlightened Buddhas, siddhi. Yogis, accomplished beings. In daily life the discipline to be aware every moment is lost leading to yo-yo between I and non I ness.

May be each one finds out for himself. May be awareness has the power to lay the path of action.

If I have no reference to myself. What happens?

There is no memory of the past
There is no imagination of future

There is no reference to people who are around me
Or who were with me

There is no malice towards anyone
There is no attachment towards anyone

There is no memory therefore no desire
To continuity of pleasant experience,
Nor any regrets of unpleasant experience.

In such a state there is direct perception.
A ‘mindless’ existence.

There is a state of existence without
The interference of mind

Such a state is perhaps pure consciousness
A state of meditation

Can such a state exist in daily life
With usage of mind only as tool at the command of self.

Isn’t such a self, universal.
There is no such self which is personal or proprietary.

Cogito Ergo Sum

THE THINKING MAN

This article is written with a purpose to examine the difference between Cartesian philosophy which is dominant prevailing western thought vis a vis eastern system of non dualistc existence wherein self is seen as delusion.

Rene Descartes said Cogito Ergo Sum. I think therefore I am.He said that thought is always there and the fact that I doubt my existence itself proves I exist.Descartes concludes that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in that it presupposes that there is an "I", that there is such an activity as "thinking", and that "I" know what "thinking" is. He suggested a more appropriate phrase would be "it thinks." In other words the "I" in "I think" could be similar to the "It" in "It is raining."The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already pre-supposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:




"x" thinks
I am that "x"
Therefore I think
Therefore I am

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.[6]

Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.[7]

Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or pre-supposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.[8]


In due course of time despite criticisms,the credo gained currency. Thus thinker is seperated from the thought giving rise to dualism.A little later perhaps materialism took it further by saying that all that matters is matter.Everything in life can be explained by matter and the material world is an independent existence .Independent of human perception.There is a tremendous implication of such a belief system which we shall see in a short while.

In contrast the eastern philosophy propounded that I am and therefore I think.Exactly opposite of Cogito Ergo Sum.The seer is seen, the observer is observed and the thinker is the thought.There is only witnessing and no witness.Advaita,buddhism,J.Krishnamurti`s thoughts all say the same.The terminology may differ such as soul,stream of consciousness or just being.Ground of existence is without any attributes and traits of independent attributes are imprinted on the existence by virtue of delusion.The way human brain works essentially is such that it identifies,classifies and recalls.hence in the process pseudo I ,or ego self or shadow self emerges which is mistaken as a real solid identity that descartes mistook as seperate I.Yes I is a self generation mechanism of brain.When there is uninvolved,unbiased,nonjudgemental witnessing the whole process is crystal clear and therein the self delusion is evident. Choiceless awareness shows the way of selfless self almost like abra cadabra and gone.Perceived Reality is not independent of perception.As the famous Zen Kaon goes, There is a noise in the forest where there is no living being.Does the sound exist or not.

There is a deep difference between Cartesian Dictim of Cogito... and nondualistic perception of existence.If cartesian I exists as a seperate entity then it has license to do everything in its self interest.To ensure its survival and continuity it can function anarchically.It is only to facilitate social living that law and order is established to enforce social contract.Morality is a function of mutual convenience and not an ethical necessity.It was Russel or was it Shaw who said imagine if everyone started throwing pototoes at each other on streets of London.Therfore Gentleman`s contract of not misbehaving.Otherwise there is a license to plunder nature or pollute environment to promote self interest.

On the contrary the eastern philosophy believed in ethical behaviour and code of conduct to avoid Karmic repercussions.Non dualism recognises that there is no independent solid self and what is perceived as independent self is a delusion.Hence there is no need to promote self interest at the expense of others .Every action,every reaction and every thought can further replicate reactions and hence need to be clipped as much as possible.Ethics is to avoid repercussions of Law of Karma and not a function of social contract.Perhaps the nearest western phlosophy came near to non dualism is when Sartre wrote about Being and nothingness.Here again he got it wrong.He needed to take it one step further as his nothingness meant nihilism where existence loses its meaning.Perhaps it is no- thingness.

Anger,envy,violence,conflict of interest,plundering of nature,discontent ,debauchery and pleasure pursuits are all a reflection of dualism helped amply by the the functioning of human brain.Step aside and there is simply I am and therefore I exists.

WESTERN Philosophy vs ORIENTAL CARTESIAN vs Hinduism/Zen/Jainism I Think : I am vs I am. I Think Objective Reality vs Holistic Approach Objects & events vs Energy Flow Logical Intellectual vs Mystical Experiential (Verbal) vs (Non Verbal) Consciousness with ego vs Consciousness beyond ego. Egolessness. Process is different from vs Processor doesn’t exist processor Process is all. Droplets are different from Ocean vs Droplets is ocean (Objective Reality) vs (holistic approach) Illusory from oriental point of view vs Escapism from Western view Redemption Day vs Reincarnation Source : Partly Fritzof Capra Uncommon Wisdom

Everything to achieve Nobody to achieve

If everything is projection of mind then perceiving the mind deception is awareness.In that constant state of vigil human motivations,behavioural pattern, response system ,action and reaction emerge out crystal clear.What emerges is formation of individual entity creeping in stealthily like a thief and sets out to steer the life course .Can this thief (ego self) be caught as it emerges?Is it an inevitable formation? Can it be stopped,erased or obliterated and how? Is constant awareness an energy sapping vigil or energy releasing mechanism? Such questions donot render to easy answers .
How best to deploy human energy is a constant challenge.Deploying in a broader sense of relating to life itself in a manner such that life is on auto pilot.Where there is no doubt,no compulsion,no fear,no anxiety no hesitation.state In such a state of total clarity doing things one knows the best and likes the best becomes a way of life.Doing itself is an act of certainty.Doing itself is an end.Perhaps there is no need to be deeply philosophical about it then just accepting reality as it is and conducting oneself in that reality drama simply as a natural flow.Its essential to ensure that avowed vocation is of natural fit and choice.Obstruction/distraction to natural flow would be encountered and courage has to be summoned to crossover such a hump.Courage is needed to redefine success on your terms and not societal terms and once thats anchored rest is easy.For then the stealthy thief is always at bay and not at the dictates of perceived societal approval.Then there is everything to achieve and nobody to achieve.Living itself has no tomorrow.

Many Questions No answers

Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Many Questions No answers
what is the source of goodness and evil.

Is absence of evil a ground for goodness? Is evil apparent or surreptitious?Apparent such as terrorism is visible and easier to handle.What about the unrecognised aspect of evil?

Does that mean goodness neednot be cultivated.Cultivated goodness is motivated goodness.Can it sustain and deliver.Can it stand testing times?Just focus on absence of evil.

Source of evil could be many or just one.Many facets of one evil.

Would there be evil if there is no I-ness.But then how would life be without I-ness.What will be the motivation to progress in absence of it.Could there be progress without sense of I-ness.Theoritically yes but practically flawed.

What is greater sea of humanity or wave of misantrophy?

Many questions .No answers.

Sunday, September 03, 2006
Matrix, Mind and Maya
MATRIX and MIND share more than the literary alliteration.Before unravelling what is mind, Matrix needs a MENTION.

According to me the world is divided into people who have seen The Matrix trilogy and those who havenot.The former is seized with an urgency to ponder over it,decipher it and keep themselves open to newer interpretations .What is Matrix?Forget about Morpheus definition.How real is the real world?How can we say with certainty that the dream world is not real and physical world is real?

The Matrix is our mind indeed.Call it a hard drive or operating system or intangible software.Mankind is a prisoner of its mind.There is perhaps no difference between Fantasy and Mind.The only difference is that fantasy is matrix of matrix.The problem is that Rene descartes created a confusion in the world by saying I THINK THEREFORE I AM.Instead of I AM THEREFORE I THINK.

What is mind?How and where does thought arise.Is there a residency of mind within ourselves or is it all pervading.Most naive and unthinking would confuse Mind with brain and memory.Memory is a recall action of physical brain.Man does exist without mind though momentarily .What is the space between two breath? Mind generates thoughts which generate ideas which generate sense of I ness .Isnot deciphering life is just a reverse engineering process.Define I ness, unbundle the content of I ness and peel the layer till it reaches to no thought level.

Life and Line again share a lot more than alliteration.Line is a discrete series of points .Life is a discrete series of moments.Each moment a point .Each breath a point.Set of points give an illusion of line.Sets of moments give an illusion of continuity and hence of life.Krishnamurti says observer is observed.Buddha says there is there is no solid I.Hinduism says Tat svam Asi.I am That and so on.I prefer just I am or rather AM?

Can thought be thwarted to break the illusion of I .Subject object duality is a product of mind thought process.If there is no subject there is no object.There is only IS.As the famous Zen Kaon goes.There is a noise of thud in the forest where no life being exist.Was there a sound?Analysis-Analyst.Think-Thinker,Experience-Experiencer. Or just Analysing,Thinking or Experiencing.

So whats the big deal.Is intellectual understanding an end in itself? Is there a transcendence beyond intellect.Whats the prize for guessing Reincarnation phenomenon?Who reicarnates? or What reincarnates.

The polish brothers bring in Architect,Keymaker and Source in Matrix.Where does God ,creator and creation feature in.Is there a dimension beyond space and time?

The conundrum of Matrix,Mind and Maya lie in no mans land.If you get it you sense futility in describing.If you dont get it ,post a blog.

Posted by Taozen