'happy is the man who is nothing'

Krishnamurti is surely one of the greatest mystics ever to have walked this planet, but his teaching is still poorly understood. Only a few of his admirers are able to grasp the high flights of his thinking and even when they do, they are sometimes at a loss as to what he really meant. Why is it so difficult to really understand K. and his teaching? Why does he always seem to elude us? We sense that there is deep wisdom and truth in his words, but we are left bewildered as to the basic presumptions of his thinking. Though he was himself very skeptical about any definite knowledge, can we still phrase something that makes sense when we summarize K.'s thinking?

Perhaps our lack of understanding is partly due to the fact that the mind of K. functioned at other levels than the average mind. For it takes a mystical mind and not an intellectual one to really fathom the depths of K.'s thinking. So we shall explore in this article what we mean by 'a mystical mind'. Maybe that will give us some clues as to what he really meant. But we must also consider the possibility that K. himself was not clear enough about the origins of his thinking. But before going into this criticism let us first try to grasp his thought and take out the points that seem altogether have some clearness.

 
1. the observer and the observed are one

K. says that all psychological and social problems in the world are caused by one major fallacy: man separates his own consciousness into different parts, by splitting himself up into an agent that observes (the self-ego) at the one hand and everything that he observes (ie. all thoughts, feelings and sensual impressions that enter his stream of consciousness) at the other. Thus consciousness becomes a dual entity, with an observer and an observed. This splitting up creates all sorts of conflict in our consciousness. For the observer is judging, valuating or condemning everything it sees. It gets into conflict with 'that what is' because it wants to improve on or get rid of everything it doesn't like, eg. our feelings of jealousy, anger, aggression, loneliness etc. This conflict, this inner war, takes a lot of energy and makes us tensed and not at ease with our self. It's this inner conflict and not the outer conflicts which in fact makes us so depressed, tired and desperate.

So if we want a better world, if we want a healthier man living in a more healthy society, then we have to ask us the following questions, that are of the utmost importance: can we stop this inner conflict? Can we stop splitting our consciousness up? Can we start to function holistically, with a strong consciousness working as a whole? These passionate questions K. answers with a definite 'yes'. For it is in the nature of our awareness not to be divided, split up, dual. We our selves are making it so, but we can always rely on the original nature of consciousness. We only have to look at everything that goes on inside of us without bringing an observer into consciousness. For that's the mistake we always make.

When jealousy or anger is sensed in the mind, is it different from you? Are not pain, attachment, loneliness, happiness, in short, all that goes on inside you, part of your own human consciousness? It is all part of the you and it can't be separated from the you. You are everything that is. When this is deeply felt (and not theoretically, but very factual and with deep insight), that there is no escaping from everything that is, then awareness looks at it as pure awareness. Then there is only attention. And this attention, this awareness without a split between observer and observed, works as a healing force. For when there is this kind of attention, then our consciousness becomes restored again to its natural state. So by just being non-dual awareness (and not by applying it, because that still would entail an applier and an applied), our psyche becomes whole again and looses all its taints and imperfections. For they were there in the first place because of the split up. When there is this total and complete attention without an observer, all identification with some sort of a center in the psyche stops. Then there is no fragmentation in consciousness anymore.

And this is how it works: when there is no definite center anymore, there is nothing specific that is aware, there is only the process of awareness itself. Then there is only pure observation without an observer. And how can you feel pain, loneliness, jealousy, hate, when there is no you to experience it?

2. the essence of religion is the total and complete annihilation of the self

We human beings have an enormous energy and a very wide and limitless consciousness, but only a few of us know it and are really using it. Instead of seeing our consciousness as global human consciousness, we limit ourselves from day to day to our own little and mediocre self. We are only preoccupied with our selves, even if we say the we act for the welfare of our family, our friends, our religion or our nation. We seem to be only concerned with our own success, with our own opinions, with our own ways to confront the world. We never seem to be able to alter this Gestalt. We seem to translate everything in the 'I', the 'mine' and the 'me'. Even if we say that we think globally, even if we participate in so called objective science, even if we read or listen to holy words or study spirituality, there seems to be always this question lurking behind every thought and every act: 'what is in it for me?' This is part of our conditioning, but it is also our own choice to be so. We seem never able to transcend ourselves.

But this is the root cause of all our our sorrow and despair. For that way the mind becomes narrow and mean. This channeling and restraining of consciousness sets about a degeneration process in the brain. We are using only a part and the part can never have the strength of the whole. And it all starts when we identify ourselves with everything we think, feel and do. Instead of realizing the full scope of our consciousness, we limit ourselves to our individual thoughts and feelings. This is the cause of man's mediocrity, for man can be something greater than a male, a Chinese, a Christian, a black person, a communist etc. Every time he says 'I am ... so and so' instead of simply saying 'I am', he is limiting himself to something that he is not.

3. true being is the cessation of the will

Just like Arthur Schopenhauer Krishnamurti has the conviction that the personal will of a human being is ground cause of all evils in the world and in man himself. For K. the will is a byproduct of the ego. It rises altogether with the I-thought. It's pranic energy set in motion to realize the aspirations and needs of the ego. So it really is a limiting force, creating isolation and loneliness. It drives man to pursue petty and mediocre ends. The will is always personal, even if it is aimed at lofty goals like Self realisation or other spiritual pursuits. For even in these cases the will is the worker for the personal self. So the will has to be eradicated totally.

criticism: since the thought (or better: the experience) of K. is totally non-dual, he does not accept the concept of a higher unconscious in man. He is so totally non-dual that he even negates the distinction between a higher Self and a personal self. Such a distinction would entail a fragmentation in consciousness, a split up in two. And such a fragmentation would only bring about conflict in the psyche. K. thinks of consciousness as a whole without parts. So K. altogether denies the existence of a spiritual will in man, as distinguished from his personal will. From an enlightened perspective this is, I think, true, but if we take a more relative stance it cannot be denied that there seems to be a power at work in the psyche of an individual, that is pulling him upwards towards enlightenment and Self realisation. We can call this power, this upward pull, his spiritual will. This will is not our own, but it is, so to speak, God's will working in us to restore us to our natural non-dual state. Other mystics call this will Grace. But K. seems to deny all this.

4. true freedom is to be free from all authority

If we want to be happy and totally fulfilled we need to be free. For only in true freedom can our consciousness work in its natural form. Our mind needs to be free from all images, from all concepts and ideals. But outside authorities have influenced the mind and moulded it. It's been formed by everything around us, especially by forces we our selves gave credit to. So the mind has been formed by our parents, by our teachers, by our preachers, by our politicians, by everybody who wanted to assert their control over us. And we listened to them, because we thought they could teach us the truth about our selves and the world. But they have put all sorts of images in our mind and we have become the prisoners of these images. Because of these images we are not free anymore to reach the truth that lives by itself in our own consciousness.

So K. denied all authority. He often said that we have to look for our selves in finding the truth. Often in his speeches he said 'the speaker is not the authority' or 'are you investigating it on your own?', with a poignancy on the verge of aggression. For he did not want followers in some sort of a belief system, but he wanted fellow explorers. He wanted us to be open and unprejudiced.

That's why he denied all forms of outer religion too. For religion presents the believer with a definite view of God that is taken over by the mind as a mere concept. And so it becomes a dead thing, obstructing our experience of the living reality. God, faith, belief etc. are nothing more than images of the mind. And we have to totally free us of all these images. In this denial of all religious belief and dogma K. is labelled a Buddhist. He is compared to the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna in denying all content of mind. There is only sunyata, formless emptiness, in consciousness. But he also denied all these comparisons.

criticism: K.'s point of view leads to some sort of a double bind. For when we state 'true freedom is to be free from all authority' we imply that this is the truth, even if we accept this as a mere relative truth, even if we remain open to all sorts of objections and ameliorations. With this implication of telling the truth we have become authoritive, if we like it or not. Because if it is the truth, then it will have a tremendous power to convince. This is the case with every proposition of this kind. The problem is not of authority, the problem is the rigidity of authority. True scientific authority remains always open to falsifications, for a better truth is always to be looked for. But it is in the nature of language to be authoritive. K. was, I think, aware of this problem of language.

5. there is only one true revolution: inner revolution

Throughout history people have always tried to make this world a better place to live in. They wanted love, peace and prosperity. But they have not succeeded in making fundamental changes come about. For even today, this world is still a place full of hatred and cruelty, full of envy and competition. And according to K. this will always remain the case, if man doesn't want to make a complete transformation in his own consciousness. For every outer revolution or social reform only alters the outward aspects of the culture, but it does not affect the ground cause of all the problems in the world: man himself. So if there are to be some lasting changes in this world, then we need a total new man to do the job.

Now religion, psychology, philosophy and the arts have tried to change man, but they have not succeeded. They only have replaced one belief system with another, one set of knowledge with another type of knowledge. They have not changed the human being fundamentally and existentially. All changes in man occurred at the surface, but there was no deep fundamental revolution brought about in the inner world of man.

For this can only be done by man himself, by becoming very sensitive and very conscious of everything that goes on inside of him. He himself has to become aware that he is thinking with second-hand knowledge, feeling with second-hand feelings, out of memory of a dead past, and always in images that he is taking for granted. For the living reality of existence is always new, but man's thought is a dead thing, not in contact with this living reality.

So man can only become loving and peaceful if he will totally free himself of the past. He has to make his thought totally empty of all knowledge and all habits. He has to let go of all images. For they are not his own. The only living reality inside of man is totally free, totally calm, totally empty. It's a perfect love and a stillness beyond words. If he manages to free himself, then he will become this one living reality that in fact transcends all of his thoughts, feelings and habits.

Every one wants to change. Every one wants to be a different person, than the one now, who suffers. So every one agrees with K. on this important point. There is no question about his diagnosis. But K. is blaming man for postponing the treatment. For every one says: 'ok, I will work on myself. I will try to be aware of everything that is going on inside me. But it takes time to do so. We can't change in a fortnight.' But this is the trap man is putting up for himself. For it is just like postponing to quit smoking. We always say 'next year I'll manage to do so', but we still keep on smoking year after year.

So what needs to be done is to make a radical revolution in consciousness NOW. Will you postpone acting when your house is on fire? Will you say 'well, next year I'll might start swimming to the surface', when you are submerged and on the verge of drowning? No, you'll act and you'll act immediately. When you don't act you aren't aware of the danger you are in. And that's the case with most people. They are lulled to sleep by relative comfort and by their little pleasures experienced now and then. It takes a big crisis, so it seems, to make people aware of the great danger they are putting themselves in.

Some people are aware of the danger and start looking for a system, a method that they can follow. They'll search for some outside authority to lead them the way. They cling to this method and again they'll replace one belief system for another. But never are they able to look at their own hearts totally unprejudiced, without already formed preconceptions. They will look for some guru or some analyst, or they'll read books to tell them what to become and how to do it. But it is this 'how' that is part of the problem diagnosed. For this 'how' implies time to go from a certain stage to another. But we have to make contact with consciousness. Now the holistic consciousness we are trying to reach is outside time. So we are trying to reach something with means that aren't compatible to the desired ends. So the only thing left is some sort of a quantum leap. A sudden major shift in Gestalt. An 'ah, but THAT is it !' This kind of insight is always sudden, with no time involved.

criticism: It surely is true that consciousness is always pure and outside time, but K. is forgetting the fact that our specific, relative consciousness is here in the body. Body and mind are intertwined and interdependent. So our wrong psychological behaviour has not only taken root in our mind (our character), but it also has imprinted itself on our body. Just like consciousness has its effects on the body (eg. neurotic thinking results in neurotic traits), so it works also the other way around: the body has its effects on consciousness (eg. a drugged body makes consciousness dull). So we can deduce: wrong thinking (ie. being ignorant of the fact what we truly are) has its effects on the body; living in falsehood makes our body neurotic and sick; these bodily impressions in their turn are clouding and sickening our consciousness; so losing psychological neuroses will take time, because it will take time for the body, being relative and not absolute (in time) to loose its physical neuroses. I have written on these physical aspects of enlightenment here.

Another point of criticism can be raised against K.'s refusal to accept any guidance or support in spiritual matters. It is true that the spiritual aspirant has to find it all out for himself, but why not use the help and the inspiration of others? In fact reading or being near an enlightened person can make certain changes come about in your consciousness. The Indians have a word for it, satsang, which means 'sitting near pure consciousness'. Meeting or reading remarkable persons can change your life. For pure consciousness is outside time and space. So the words of a true master are never 'dead things from the past' but more like things from a living present. You don't necessarily have to be in the vicinity of such a person, because he or she is outside of space also. So reading or hearing about the Truth coming from his/her lips can also help. K. in fact admitted this because he gave permission to publish his talks.

6. true happiness is beyond time and space

There is only true happiness if the mind is still and calm and functions holistically as the pure consciousness it is. For fragmented and relative thought is obscuring our innate happiness. Thought is made up of memory and knowledge from the past. But happiness is always new. Happiness can only be this moment. It is here right now, when fragmented thought has ceased to function. But we somehow think that happiness and thought are one and the same. We like to think about happiness. We create all sorts of mental images about happiness. By thinking about happiness we introduce time and space into it. With nostalgic feelings we think about a past when we were young and happy. We want to be like that again in the future. So we strive for the pleasures that once made us happy. But ironically we forget that happiness can only be now. The happiness from the past is gone, and the happiness of the future is like the carrot hung before the donkey: always sought for, but never gained.

7. negation of all content of mind

Our mind is conditioned by everything we have ever experienced. It is in the nature of the mind to store these experiences into our memory. This we call knowledge. When we have to use this knowledge practically, it can be of great benefit to us, like in mechanical operations eg. in driving a car. But psychologically knowledge has a detrimental effect on our consciousness. For it creates the illusion that there are definite, unchanging factors in the world which we know. But the world that is happening in front of our eyes and also the world of our mind and thoughts is forever changing and becoming. Now real knowledge can only be unchanging and everlasting. So it seems that knowledge as such is not compatible with the world it is meant to describe. Real knowledge can only be of a world that is changeless and eternal.

It is very significant that K. never spoke about such a transcendent world. He probably felt that nothing could be said about it, because it can't be an object of knowledge, perhaps because he also felt that is was more like the subject of knowledge. So he chose to negate it. In K. 's eyes a transcendent world is just another mind image. So it seems that in metaphysics he more or less took the stance of Buddhism: all leads to emptiness (sunyata).

But K. spoke his whole life about relative consciousness and the mind. All his endeavours were aimed at making our consciousness pure and whole again, as it is the original nature of consciousness. Now every image, every concept, every idea and thought, every feeling and judgment, in short all content of mind in its particularity, is only just a part of a greater whole. And it is in all of its particularity splitting up consciousness and objectifying it, through linking it with specific content. In that way our consciousness becomes limited and relative.

8.'what is' is not to be fought against

Every time we are looking at our own thinking and feeling, we are judging. Some thoughts and feelings we like. So we try to improve on them and linger with them. Other thoughts and feelings we don't like. So we try to repress them or get rid of them. We are forever trying to make our selves better. We make ideals about our selves. We only want good and noble thoughts that will be applauded both by our selves, and by our fellow men. But all the time there is also, deep down in our (un)consciousness, jealousy and violence, hatred and anger, grief and loneliness.

By repressing these thoughts and feelings and sweeping them under the carpet, so to speak, we let them fester and grow strong in their unconscious hold on us. We have to accept them and look them in the eye. We must not condemn. We have to accept them as part of our inherited consciousness.

When we stop fighting with ourselves, we aren't creating anymore conflict in our mind. Then our mind can for the first time relax and be still. Then for the first time our consciousness can become whole and unfragmented. Then total attention can be given to all of our thoughts and feelings. And then there will be found a gentleness and a goodness in us that can embrace all that is been given in the world. Then a deep love for everything will be the result of this deep attention. For this total attention, this soft and pure consciousness that we are, is nothing but Love itself.

K. did not proclaim himself to be a mystic. He always said that he was a 'fellow explorer' of the mind. So it seems that he merely was a thinker and a philosopher. In a way he can be compared to a Socrates in always asking deep fundamental questions and in denying all positive knowledge. Like Socrates he always wanted to probe further into the deep abysses of the mind. 'Can we investigate this a little more?' was one of the stock phrases he used, in impelling us to give total attention to the philosophical questions raised.

But the thought of K., although it seems to deny concepts like the Self, the Witness, Higher Reality etc., is nevertheless deeply influenced and formed by meditative training and mysticism. In his words the whole tradition of Indian mysticism can be heard, even though he denied all tradition and did not want to be compared to anything from history. I personally think that as a boy all the tenets and dogma's of Indian mysticism were 'forced down his throat' by the leaders of the Theosophical Society and made him resent the traditional aspects of Indian religion (much like many Christians in Europe have been traumatised by their religious upbringing). Probably he decided at a very young age to go his own way and find it out for him self, discarding everything with which he had been brought up.

But fortunately K. never gave up meditation. There were periods of intense training in life and these can be considered his formative years. Especially the years before the Second World War were crucial in shaping the thought of K.. In Ojai, California U.S., he went through an extreme crisis following the death of his younger brother Nitya. Intense meditation was followed by intense suffering. Here eventually, after a lot of agony and suffering, a beautiful mystic butterfly took wing. And the beauty of this butterfly is that he decided to talk about no-mind in terms of mind. For K.'s thought really is religious and mystical. But he was so convinced by the logic of his findings that he decided to use logic and philosophical discourse and dialogue to show the world the truth. He never spoke about meditation or religious training as ways to arrive at this truth.

So a lot of his listeners and readers unfortunately had the impression that mere thinking was enough the realize the words of K. And this was, I think, the great tragedy of the life and teaching of Krishnamurti. Because mere thinking won't do to realize the state of unconditioned consciousness he so vehemently advocated. Because eventually mind and thought have to be transcended. To many he gave the impression of being a mere philosopher, but in fact he was a mystic and he should have told his listeners so. He should have told them about the need to meditate to clear up all their ignorance. But he was so afraid that they would take it as just another method to reach a desired result. And then they would again cling to this method and authority and not realize it for themselves.

So from an enlightened perspective all his words are fundamentally true. It is the highest peak your consciousness can ever attain in your life. It is pure non-dual consciousness. It is like Vedanta stripped of all metaphysics. But from the perspective of the religious aspirant the teachings of Krishnaji are very dangerous. Because they seem to suggest that 'if you don't get it, then you aren't thinking hard enough'. K. never used these words, but that's how his teaching was mostly understood. So in my opinion it had been better if he had told his listeners that his thought had been formed by meditation and that meditation was the thing to do if you want to reach this non-dual awareness.

The message of Jiddu was a message of Love and Peace, but he was no soft advocate of pink illusions. His analyziations were performed with the sharp knives of logic and keen intelligence. His message was not an easy one to understand. He always provoked and exhorted his listeners to ponder relentlessly into the root cause of a problem. He never went for the easy solution. But always his goal was to transform man by making him totally free. And only in this individual freedom could Love and Peace be found.

He worked his whole life to free the world. He should have been given the Nobel Peace Price. But probably he would have refused so. He would have said with his characteristic laughter and with that gentle glint is his eyes, so characteristic of him: 'Truth does not need prices. Truth is simply the truth.' And then he would have walked away with his arms raised up in the air and his laughter still ringing in our ears.....

Sign our guestbook!