Jiddu Krishnamurti (henceforth JK in short) uses the term ‘conditioning’ in three inter-related senses: a) Mediation: in this sense mind is conditioned because a mental state is part of a chain of cause and effect. The existence of any mental state is dependent on a previous one which is to say that the present mental state is conditioned by its predecessor. Whatever is mediated is also limited because it has an opposite and whatever is limited is finite, b) Habituation: in this sense mind is a cluster of habits of thinking and acting which are formed due to memories, past experiences, culture and tradition. To every new challenge that the world throws upon us the mind responds in accordance with its limited array of acquired responses, so while the challenge is always new, the response is always dependent on the past. Acting according to a pattern makes the mind dull and insensitive, c) Teleological: human beings act for a reason and they have a purpose or a goal for the sake of which they act. This is what is meant by saying that human actions are goal-oriented or teleological and it is the goal or the end that motivates us to act in a certain way. For JK however this teleology is the outcome of the movement of thought. Thought creates a division within consciousness between observer and observed, what is and what should be. This division engenders the drive or ambition to become something and this is the underlying motivation of all human actions. Culture and tradition and even religion and philosophy are simply the cultivation of this drive to become, to grow but this impulse is the result of the movement of thought and thought is always anchored in the past. In the next section our focus will be on the movement of thought and the resultant division of consciousness.
THE MOVEMENT OF THOUGHT
a) The Sense
of Self and Psychological Becoming
The movement of thought is the
movement of becoming and this movement occurs in the gap between observer and
observed, what is and what should be. The movement of thought is the root of
the self (CHC: 33-34). The self is the sense of me and mine and it essentially
involves identification with pleasure, pain, fear, desire, anger, jealousy etc.
All these mental states are owned by the self, we say I am angry, I want to
become, I am the minister. We identify ourselves with anger, with our position
in society and our goals and ambitions. The movement of thought is the movement
of opposites, I am angry but I want to become calm, I am violent but I want to
become non-violent, I want to become the minister, the CEO. The anger however
is the fact, the non-anger is the ideal. This split between what is and what
should be is also the division within consciousness within observer and
observed. The observer tries to control, sublimate, suppress his anger to
become calm. There is a space between his self and anger that allows him to
wriggle with the latter and to displace anger with its opposite. So implicit
within the identification of self and anger is the separation of the two, we do
not say I am anger but that I am angry, anger is something that I have, is my
possession and so is mine. The division of possessor and possessed is implicit
in taking something as mine, the me is the observer and what is mine is the
observed. The movement of becoming is however still the movement of
identification, I want to give up one possession in order to gain another like
a child lets go of one toy in order to have another. This sense of ‘having’,
‘possessing’ is the movement of becoming and all human actions have this underlying
motive. Even virtuous actions are moved by this underlying motivation to have,
to possess, to gain. The monk is as ambitious as a businessman because the monk
has not yet renounced this underlying motive of all human actions, this
psychological becoming. True virtue is incompatible with becoming virtuous,
there is no path to truth, freedom and virtue because a path implies becoming.
I will treat this topic at greater length below.
This movement of becoming is also
the movement of sensory gratification. The root of self is the root of thought
but what is the root of thought? How does thought arise. Thought itself is
conditioned and is born out of memory. The contact with the outside world
produces a sensation and this sensation is either pleasant or unpleasant. This
is recorded in memory and from memory thought takes up this feeling as it is
found in memory and then seeks to regain it and prolong it. It seeks to gain
pleasure and avoid pain; this is thought’s system of reward and punishment.
Thought identifies with the feeling of pleasure and craves for it as much as it
wants to avoid pain and its entire movement is thought seeking gratification
through sensory feelings of pleasure and pain and this is the underlying motive
or goal of all human actions. It is through this relation to pleasure and pain
that human beings regard something as good and something else as bad. Even
though something good may involve pain and suffering, we endure that because
the end is a desirable or a pleasant one and the picture of gaining something
one wants or craves for allows human beings to endure the intervening pain in
the process of acquiring some goal. Good and bad do not motivate human beings,
the locus of human actions has to be within the psyche of the individual and
what human beings know is the feeling of pleasure and pain and this feeling
guides them to what is to regarded as good or bad. It is this considering or
regarding something good or bad that explain human action, what is good and bad
themselves cannot motivate human beings nor do we have any mind-independent
access to these concepts. So, the movement of thought is the movement of
sensory gratification.
But why does thought identify
with pleasure and pain? Because thought cannot handle nothing-ness, so it seeks
security and comfort in something tangible, in sensory gratification and
thereby it prevents it own dissolution and prolongs its existence. So, the root
of all psychological becoming is the underlying sense of security and comfort
and this is the underlying basis and motivation of all human actions. It was
pointed out that the ground of motivation must be internal to the subject of
action. It is the underlying need for security which is an escape from
nothingness that pushes human beings towards sensory gratification and this is
the underlying ground of motivation. For JK this is not the realm of the
unconscious but the basic structure of human consciousness, which is not static
but a movement. The conscious goal or purpose of an action because of which an
activity is regarded as a voluntary action is external to the subject and so it
cannot determine the course of action. This does not mean that the action is
not voluntary or the goal or the aim can be dispensed with but only that the
explanation of why a goal is endearing to us has to be found within the
subject. This is the reason, as we shall see, JK believes that external
renunciation of the world by the monk without inquiring into the motive of
one’s actions does not lead to any significant change within the human psyche.
This motivational structure is the based on the illusion of the self – which is
the movement of thought – and this structure has to negated in order for true
virtue or order to take hold of consciousness and this virtue which is love,
intelligence and freedom will become the new basis of human action and this
activity will not lead to further suffering.
b) Space and
Time
What is limited is also limited
by space and time. The division within consciousness of observer and the
observed creates a space which allows the subject to control or suppress the
observed. This distance makes a person believe that there is something he can
do about the observed. Wherever there is space, there is also time. In the book
Can Humanity Change, pg. 108 JK says that the self-centred movement of ‘me’ is
put together by thought and hopes and aspirations are based on time. Without
time there is no seeking, no becoming. On pg. 70 JK says that thought has
created an image and made the image separate from ‘me’ and with this separation
time comes into picture. On pg. 72 JK adds that the movement of separation is
time and it leads to the illusion of becoming, I am hurt, I can become
not-hurt. The observer feels that from a violent state he can pass to a
non-violent state and that this distance can be traversed in time. This leads
to the thinking that virtue can be cultivated but since the process of cultivating
virtue is in time and change is gradual, the subject allows himself time to be
violent. The movement of thought is also the movement of time but time here is
psychological time not chronological time or time by the clock. The process of
becoming presupposes space and time. Psychological time is the sense of time
that we possess, the future signifies the time when I will attain my goals and
this future guides my actions in the present. But the future is also limited by
the past, it is not the unknown, experience has led me to expect that in acting
a certain way I will acquire something I desire. I know this from past
experiences and informed by culture and tradition. I know that if I work hard
spending long hours throughout the day then I will get a house, a car etc. In
order to motivate us society sets up a pattern of reward and punishment. Just
as I know that walking a certain distance at a certain pace and after a certain
amount of time, I will reach a particular destination, so I order my activities
to gain a certain goal expecting to be happy when that happens and this
end-goal will be recompense my pain and suffering. But that never comes,
because time is finite and after one goal is attained, we then led to another
and then another. All human goals that are within time are finite and it is not
possible to find any rest within these finite goals because they are ephemeral.
So, this sense of time that is within us prevents us from finding any repose
and keeps pushing us to further activities that have no end. That which is
brought about through external circumstances is not permanent just like a noisy
child who is silent when absorbed in play with a toy but gets noisy again when
the toy is taken away from him – so an integration brought by external
circumstances of inner fragments inherently in contradiction – is also
disintegrated in time again being liable to be destroyed by external factors
too. So JK says what is conquered once is conquered again and again. No
personal transformation is possible in time because fundamental change is
postponed in time and we cannot have change as a finite human goal. The
underlying structure of thought which is the order of time has to end
instantaneously in order for there to be revolutionary change that transforms a
human being and makes him virtuous.
c) Image=Content
of Consciousness
Images are defined as sensations plus thought and these images are the primary constituents of consciousness and consciousness is nothing apart from its contents (or constituents). Images presuppose identification and thought.
d) Desire
and Will
In Can Humanity Change, pg. 61,
JK defines will as ‘accentuated, heightened, strengthened desire’. The motive
of that effort JK tells us is desire. The motive is the reason and the cause of
action or effort to acquire the object of desire. The object of desire is
inessential to desire because the desired objects can vary endlessly but the
underlying desire remains constant and with strengthening of desire will comes
into operation. Further, pg. 62, choice exists only when mind is confused and
hence in choice there is no freedom. Why are desire and choice not free?
Because (pg. 64) desire is part of sensation and thought identifies with that
sensation and through identification the ego or the ‘I’ is formed. With ego
there is born will and will is resistance (Awakening of Intelligence, pg. 118),
which says I must or I must not. Motive means movement and action is
conditioned (limited) by the motive. The motive JK informs us and as was
discussed in section-a, is part of the identification process. The process of
desire JK explains as follows (pg. 203-206): you see the dress, that is the
sensation, then there is contact, you touch it, then desire arises through the
image that has built of you putting on that dress. Thought creates the image
and from that image desire is born. The last step is the most important here,
my imagining myself in that dress, that is what leads to action. Choice implies
confusion because choice is different desires pulling us in different
directions and thought chooses one over another not because any one of these
choices is better than another but because one course is more socially
acceptable and the movement of thought is a movement to preserve the centre.
e) Culture
and Tradition
The psychological identification
with mental states gives us a minimal sense of self but the self becomes a
person when imbued with culture and tradition. For JK culture and tradition too
is knowledge and all knowledge is of the past. Even in the ream of culture man
has not ceased to be a sensory being. The finite goals that we are set to
pursue due to the influence of culture like getting a job, a house or a car,
marriage and children and even social reform of the society, even these motives
are explained by underlying mechanism of thought pursuing the pleasant and
avoiding pain. So, the self has not raised itself from its particularity and is
still seeking sensory gratification while pursuing socially respectable goals.
The underlying motivational structure of actions is the same even within the
realm of culture. In Can Humanity Change, pg. 25-30, JK explains the culture,
tradition, religion and philosophy operate within the corridor of opposites.
While violence and greed are a fact, non-violence, non-greed are not facts,
they are ideals and ideals are fictions. To pursue the opposite is the evade
the fact. The duality is an illusion created by thought, what exists is the
fact and the fact is non-dual because it has no opposite. In order to be free
of greed I must not condemn it which is to say that I must be able to look at
it by putting culture and tradition aside. The word ‘greed’ is associated with
condemnation that has its root in culture. In order to look at the fact of greed
I must be able to see it without the influence of culture and tradition which
is embodied in the word, the thought about greed. Tradition, religion and
philosophy do not allow us to look at greed but ask us to cultivate the
opposite which is an escape from the fact and so no deeper personal
transformation takes place. The underlying psychological level explains the
higher-level phenomena of culture also explain why JK distinguishes external
conditioning from internal conditioning. In the external realm of culture one
can be intelligent enough to put aside media frenzy and gossip to look at facts
themselves but despite this the person might not be able to see through the
deception of the self that thought constructs. Nevertheless, such a person has
what JK calls ‘partial insight’ and doctors, scientists are capable of this
partial insight but to get rid of the illusion of the self, demands total
insight into the structure of thought.
Further, society and culture are
structures that thought creates based on patterns rooted in past knowledge and
experience and they are mechanical and repetitive and this order is really a
form of disorder. Tradition leads to acceptance of information about whose
truth we never inquire but whose validity we presuppose. Mechanical and
repetitive routine destroys sensitivity in the soul and deprives a person of
the energy to change. In culture mind is further conditioned because it
develops mental habits which is always acting according to pattern and which
pattern become routine (Ending of Time, pg. 184, 189). To follow a pattern
is also always to be seeking something (Ending of Time, pg. 223). In
Awakening of Intelligence, pg. 95-96, JK tells us that we must have order in
the sense of ‘moral rectitude’ and this comes about only when we understand
disorder, confusion. A system on the other hand is practice, repetition and an
attempt to change what is that perpetuates the conflict between what is and
what should be. System makes the mind dull and mechanical and does not lead to
freedom and goodness. Also, tradition through education sustains the
individual, in Can Humanity Change pg. 130, Mary Zimbalist asks JK why do we
have individual consciousness. To this JK replies that it is part of our
education, culture to tell us that we are individuals. To be an individual is
to be indivisible but we are fragmented, one part of us desires one thing and
another part leads us in the opposite direction leading to tension, conflict
and disorder. The dominance of one fragment over another is will (Awakening of
Intelligence, pg. 118) and no fragment has qua being a fragment any authority
over another fragment. Thought the illusion of the self we have brought these
fragments into some kind of weak unity and the purpose of education is to keep
the individual disciplined.
JK’s basic reason for denying the
possibility of cultivating virtue is that such cultivation is based on thought.
Thinking, however creates division between observer and the observed and is
limited to the sensible contents of the mind and mind can never go beyond the
sensible. This restriction of the field of mind’s activities to the sensible is
the very negation of virtue. Based on difference in emphasis we can divide his
arguments into three based on the three different senses of conditioning
mentioned before: a) argument from human motivation, b) argument
from mediation, c) argument from habituation. Let us treat each of these in
turn:
a) argument from human
motivation: any change presupposes the division between observer and the
observed which division is an illusion created by thought, no practice of
virtue brings about a deeper change within human motives because it presupposes
this division between observer and the observed.
b) argument from mediation: 1b) virtue
is not the opposite of vice, what has an opposite is limited by its opposite or
is born out of its opposite. If there is no freedom in the beginning, there
will be none is the end. Since virtue is the opposite of vice, the practice of
virtue involves resistance to its opposite but there can be no virtue without
its opposite. 2b) thought is finite and additive, any gradual progress will be
incremental and will bring no complete transformation of human personality.
c) argument from habituation: thought
brings about a system of practice which is dull and mechanical and robs human
being of sensitivity and energy to change. The system is based on the past, its
validity is dogmatically presupposed which forestalls inquiry into truth.
A Argument
from Motivation
Let us explore these arguments in
more detail. Beginning with (a), we saw how the movement of
thought through identification with self creates a division between observer
and observed. Since I and anger are different, there is a space between the two
which allows me to do something about anger. I can control it or sublimate it
or suppress it and these processes will take time because where there is space
there is also time. But if the observer is the observed then there is nothing,
I can do about it, there is no space to manoeuvre. This argument presupposes
that practice or cultivation of virtue is either self-control, sublimation or
suppression. Mind can bring about a change in habits but this is not a deeper
change, it is modified continuity of the past like bringing about changes
within a prison. Getting out of the prison is the real change. In order to
achieve that the entire movement of thought or one’s own motive to achieve
freedom must be examined. A person asks JK that despite being aware of and
closely observing his thoughts and actions, he still has not changed, JK
explains the reason as follows:
“You are really not watching at
all because your mind is concerned with gaining a reward. You think that by
watching, by being aware, you will be more loving, you will suffer less, be
less irritable, get something beyond; so, your watching is a process of buying.
With this coin you are buying that, which means that your watching is a process
of choice; therefore, it isn’t watching, it isn’t attention. To watch is to
observe without choice, to see yourself as you are without any movement of
desire to change, which is an extremely arduous thing to do; but that doesn’t
mean that you are going to remain in your present state. You do not know what
will happen if you see yourself as you are without wishing to bring about a
change in that which you see.” (On Mind and Thought, pg. 13-14, Ojai, 21st
August, 1955)
The looking involves the desire
to change, the motive of looking at something and this ‘desire to change’ is
part of conditioning and so cannot put an end to conditioning since effort is
based on a division between observer and observed. Where there is motive, there
is seeking a result. The question is not how to achieve freedom but why does
one want freedom. It is this ‘wanting’ that must be understood. It is the
seeking that is the problem, what one seeks that one gets but the object sought
will be within the field of the known and so will be finite. One already has an
idea of what one seeks and so nothing new is found, what is found conforms to
one’s idea, so it is already within the field of the known. Thought is
restricted to the field of the known and it is tethered to it because it seeks
psychological security in things of the mind. The cultivation of virtue does
not end ego-centric movement of thought and it is this movement that is
incompatible with virtue. We are never in relationship with someone else, we
are related to their images which is record of the pleasure and pain they have
caused us. Just as images create a division within us, they also divide us from
others. As we saw division presupposes space and this space builds resistance
through control and suppression of the observed and consequently our love takes
the form of gaining mastery and moral superiority over another and is never
genuine. We want to change and transform another to our own liking because that
gives us pleasure. We never love anyone when we are within the field of
pleasure and pain. Similarly, our practice of virtue is a sham, a mask for our
ego-centric actions. It is a way to hide our hidden motives in the garb of
social respectability and virtue. We are one thing in reality and appear to be
another in front of others. So, virtue is really a form of hypocrisy. The
courtier La Rochefoucauld said: “the refusal of praise is desire to be praised
twice” (Maxim, 149). Practiced humility is not humility. It is staged, it is an
act. So again, Rochefoucauld tells us that our virtues are really vices in
disguise. All virtue in short is a form of self-love which makes us incapable
of loving another.
In the following passage JK gives
a very post-modern analysis of power and the self:
“Security which is having the
essential physical needs is one thing and acquisitiveness is another. It is
acquisitiveness in the name of race or country, in the name of God, or in the
name of the individual, that is destroying the sensible and the efficient
organization of physical necessities for the well-being of man. We must all
have adequate food, clothing and shelter, that is simple and clear. Now what is
it that we are seeking to acquire, apart from these things?
One acquires money as a means to
power, to certain social and psychological gratifications, as a means to
freedom to do what one wants to do. One struggles to attain wealth and position
in order to be powerful in various ways; and having succeeded in outer things,
one now wants to be successful, as you say, with regard to inner things.
What do we mean by power? To be
powerful is to dominate, to overcome, to suppress, to feel superior, to be
efficient, and so on. Consciously or unconsciously the ascetic as well
as the worldly person feels and strives for this power. Power is one of the
completest expressions of the self, whether it be the power of knowledge, the
power over oneself, worldly power, or the power of abstinence. The feeling of
power, of domination, is extraordinarily gratifying. You may seek
gratification through power, another through drink, another through worship,
another through knowledge, and still another through trying to be virtuous.
Each may have its own particular sociological and psychological effect, but
all acquisition is gratification. Gratification at any level is sensation, is
it not? We are making an effort to acquire greater or more subtle varieties
of sensation, which at one time we call experience, at another knowledge, at
another level love, at another search for God or truth; and there is sensation
of being righteous, or of being the efficient agent of an ideology. Effort is
to acquire gratification, which is sensation. You have found gratification at
one level, and now you are seeking it at another; and when you have acquired it
there, you will move onto another level, and so keep going. This constant
desire for gratification for more and more subtle forms of sensation is called
progress, but it is ceaseless conflict. The search after ever wider
gratification is without end, and so there is no end to conflict, antagonism,
and hence no happiness.” (Commentaries on Living Vol. 2, pg. 37-38, emphasis
mine).
And,
“In possessing, in feeling that
you own, there is pride, a certain sense of power and prestige, is there not?
There is pleasure in knowing that something is yours, be it a house, a piece of
cloth or a rare picture. The possession of capacity, talent, the ability to
achieve, and the recognition that it brings – these give you a sense of
importance, a secure outlook on life. As far as people are concerned, to
possess and be possessed is often a mutually satisfactory relationship.”
(Commentaries on Living Vol. 3, pg. 342)
“Virtue is of the heart and not
of the mind. When the mind cultivates virtue, it is cunning calculation; it is
a self-defence, a clever adjustment to environment…. As a child practices
piano, so the mind cunningly practices virtue to make itself more permanent and
dominant in meeting life, or to attain what it considers to be the highest.
There must be vulnerability to meet life, and not the wall of self-enclosing
virtue. The highest cannot be attained; there is no path, no mathematically
progressive growth to it. Truth must come, you cannot go to truth, and your
cultivated virtue will not carry you to it. What you attain is not truth, but
your own self-projected desire; and in truth alone is there happiness.”
(Commentaries on Living Vol. 1, pg. 29).
Here we find together the primary
elements that undermine the practice of virtue: a)
acquisitiveness/possessiveness: when I identify with a group, a country, or
family, that separates me from others and my activity is restricted within a
field of my narrow range of interests and someone else is similarly restricted
to his field and this separates us and brings us into conflict with each other
because not only are my interests different from yours they may also contradict
yours, b) the root cause of acquisitiveness is the feeling of power and
domination which is extremely gratifying and gratification is sensation and the
entire movement of thought is tending towards sensation, c) the entire range of
activities of the self, his complete will is nothing but the desire to gain
power. Power and the self are the same. Even the attempt to be virtuous is an
expression of self’s desire for power, d) power, desire, will are expressions
conveying a single movement of thought. Will is resistance and resistance is
self-enclosing, it is to build a wall around oneself. Where there is power,
there is resistance. To resist is to not let in, by keeping something out.
Power implies to dominate by controlling or suppressing or sublimating. To
control something is to keep it under a leash, to not let it move in a
direction opposite to your will or restrict the movements to a pre-ordained
boundary overstepping which is forbidden. To suppress is to not let something
move at all, to make it non-operational or non-functional. To sublimate is to
transform something to our own way of liking, to mold something in our image.
All these are simultaneously the forms of resistance – not letting another be,
to resist its movements because it is outside the field of our ego-centric
activity and so a threat to us. We resist another because we are threatened by
it and will in operation is the elimination of threat through dominating it,
asserting our will over it. Desire is the same, I find an object outside myself
and I want to consume it, to bring it within my reach, to make it mine and in
order to do so I negate its separation-from-me - its independence. So power,
desire, will and thought are different aspects of a single movement referred to
as the movement of thought or the movement of time. This movement is one large
fire that wants to devour everything. The process of identification not only
confers an identity – limiting my field of interests and activities but the
same process is also exclusionary because it resists everything not within this
field and this resistance is the root of all conflict.
B Argument
from Mediation
In the book Can Humanity Change,
pg. 22-23, JK says love is not the opposite of hate, courage is not the
opposite of fear. Freedom born out of conditioning is not freedom. JK reasons,
that all opposites are born out of their opposites, so if love comes from hate,
then love must contain hate. But where there is love there cannot be hate.
Containment here seems to mean that love is only in relation to or as the
opposite of hate and vice-versa. One opposite is limited by its opposite and
the meaning of one term of the relation essentially depends on its contrast
with the opposite. But love, virtue etc. are unconditioned, so they cannot have
an opposite. To be unconditioned is not to have an ‘other’ or to be limited by
something else. On pg. 24 JK continues, anything born out of its opposite
contains its opposite, in the process of psychological becoming I am caught in
the corridor of opposites. On pg. 25 he says that the corridor is invented by
thought, greed is the fact, non-greed is a non-fact, simply an ideal or a
fiction. The duality is an illusion created by thought, to deal with greed one
must not create its opposite non-greed. This clarifies the sense in which an opposite
contains its own opposite, greed is the fact and as a fact is non-dual and
immediate, but thought seeks to change it and so invents its opposite which is
the ideal. The ideal has meaning only in relation to the ‘what is’, which is
greed. Non-greed cannot negate greed, because it is a fiction while greed is
the reality. Heat and cold are opposites, there will be conditions due to which
an object will be sensed as warm and conditions when it will be sensed as cold.
Hot and cold will keep alternating as and when conditions change. It is this
tension of opposites that JK wants to get rid of, so that greed and non-greed
are dissolved or negated. In ancient traditions of practice like Yoga and Early
Buddhism, the opposite was cultivated, non-greed helped to deal with greed like
a thorn being used to remove a thorn but eventually one must let go of both
greed and non-greed. JK is not happy with this incremental process and wants to
drop both greed and non-greed because both are within the field of thought and
limiting. In 2(b) he continues that by adding limits to limits we cannot reach
the limitless. Thought is always calculating and adding something to something
but it is finite and cannot penetrate to the unknown because it is tethered to
the field of known. In Can Humanity Change, pg. 9, JK says that knowledge
cannot lead to freedom because if freedom is not there in the beginning, it
will not be there in the end. A mind that has cultivated discipline cannot
later abandon discipline; this would be his objections to the ancient
traditions. Non-greed has nothing special through which it can overcome greed,
cultivating one is not any better than cultivating the other. The entire
movement of thought must be understood and dropped at once. Change is not
gradual but instantaneous. In the psychological realm, unlike the physical one,
there is no psychological growth or evolution (pg. 12). JK adds that in the
case of the oak tree, the beginning is the end because the seed is the oak tree,
this same logic is applied to the psychological realm, if there is no truth in
the beginning there will be none in the end. On pg. 17, it is suggested that
since we are conditioned, we must begin with our conditioning, to which JK
answers, not necessarily so, his point being that till we are conditioned there
can be no access to truth and no freedom. JK argues that beginning-end,
means-end, inner outer distinctions are not distinctions at all. If there is
hate in the beginning, then there is hate in the end. What is actual is the hate,
actuality is defined in terms of ‘what is’ and what is has no opposite. The
opposite is a fiction, an ideal that has no reality. In the case of means/end
JK says:
“Is not the happy means, the
happy end? The end is in the means is it not? So, there is only the means. The
means itself is the end, the result.” (Commentaries on
Living Vol. 2, pg. 36).
In the case of inner/outer
however the two may come apart as in the following example that is given by JK:
“The rulers, the representatives
of the State, may live outwardly simple lives and possess but few things, but
they have acquired power and so they resist and dominate.” (Commentaries on
Living Vol. 2, pg. 36).
But even in this case the
disparity of inner-outer is false, JK elucidates his reasons as follows:
“So, you begin with the outward
and move inwardly. Then you will find when you move inwardly, that the
inward and the outward are not two different things, that the outward awareness
is not different from the inward awareness, and that they both are the same.
Then you see that you are living in the past; there is never a moment of actual
living, when neither the present nor the future exists – which is the
actual moment. You will find that you are always living in the past – what you
felt, what you were; how clever, how good, how bad – in the memories. That is
memory. So, you have to understand memory, not deny it, not suppress it, not
escape. If a man has taken a vow of celibacy and is holding on to that memory,
when he moves out of that memory, he feels guilt; and that smothers his life.
So, you begin to watch everything, and therefore you become very sensitive.
Therefore, by listening – by seeing not only the outward world, the outward
gesture, but also the inward mind that looks and therefore feels – when you
are so aware choicelessly, then there is no effort.” (On Mind and Thought, pg.
17, Bombay, 28th February, 1965, emphasis added).
Even in case of seemingly
virtuous outer actions, their truth lies in what is within. If the inner
reality is hate, greed, apathy etc. implying absence of love, intelligence,
virtue then outer actions can be no different and their disparity is only
apparent not real. The seeming disparity is a contrivance of thought, it is an
appearance without inner reality. The fact of ‘hatred’ is unchangeable; it
cannot be changed into its opposite. There is no harmony between opposites
because the opposite is a non-fact. What is actual is hatred and this fact
remains unchanged because thought projects the opposite and the fact of hatred
remains untouched. The reason JK can maintain this view is because according to
him there is no relationship between love and hate, truth and falsehood, virtue
and vice. Where there is one, another cannot be present. Thought or human
understanding draws a distinction between inner-outer/means-end but these
distinctions have no basis in reality because they are constructed by thought.
What is, is only what is immediately present to us and that cannot be moulded
into what it is not. The fact cannot become the non-fact. JK’s strategy is to
show that two opposites have their relation within the realm of thought and he
argues for overcoming this distinction by negating or dissolving them and this
dissolution brings us to unity which is non-dual i.e. without an opposite. The
unity is incompatible with the existence of ‘particulars’ and so the latter
must end for the former to be actual. We can also notice in the above passage,
the problem of ‘greed’ is not solved and thought brings another problem into
the picture, of ‘non-greed’, but also this leads to a comparison – because
thought is measure and measurement is comparison. One finds oneself greedy and
feels ashamed and wants to change that and so invents the opposite. This
feeling of shame or guilt then smothers life without ending ‘greed’.
C Argument
from Habituation
JK argues that following a
pattern, a routine put together by thought dissipates energy required to live
wholly. The practice of virtue becomes habit and habit breeds insensitivity. Where
there is resistance there can be no energy, different fragments within
ourselves pull us in different directions and then in addition we bring the
need to change and so further resistance and this again leads to dissipation of
energy. Also, there is no energy to change if one is constantly pre-occupied
with something or other. Energy requires empty space, where there is space
there is movement of energy but constantly being preoccupied with something or
other narrows down the space like a room that has been filled to the brim so
there is no space left for bringing about change within oneself. The practice
of virtue is nothing but another form of preoccupation, the problem of greed is
not solved and we have on top of that added the problem of non-greed and this
pre-occupation with non-greed prevents observation of what is, the greed and
also inhibits any action of putting it away. In ‘The Awakening of
Intelligence’, pg. 60 JK says that analysis prevents action because that action
is within time but true action is always in the living present and the present
is what is/actual and is unconditioned by the past and future. Where there is
time, there is the opposite and the opposite is a non-fact so the action too is
not real because it cannot bring about what is not. Such a person is living in
the past and that drains energy to change, the person living in the present –
his energy is being constantly renewed because it is constantly renewing itself
like a movement from moment to moment.
Criticism:
This argument is based on the
premises: a) observer-observed distinction is contrived by thought, b) thought,
will, desire are forms of resistance because they involve identification or
acquisition of virtue and exclusion of the opposite. This entire movement is
one of gratification and the self, feeling powerful through its acquisition. Further
to use Pascal’s phrase ‘everything is biased towards itself’, so it is ‘unfair’
because it is ‘contrary to all order’. This then is the third premise c)
whatever is biased towards itself cannot be virtuous. We have seen in the first
chapter that the observer-observed distinction is introduced by thought to give
permanence to pleasure. Since the movement of thought is the movement of
gratification tied to sensory feelings, it is natural to assume that such a
movement when confronted with an ‘other’ will try to use it for its own
gratification. This is ‘unfair’ because the ‘other’ too is biased to his own
self and is smothered in being used as a tool by another. Pascal finds
‘self-love’ itself contrary to all order because “the tendency should be towards the generality, and
the leaning towards the self is the beginning of all disorder: war, public administration,
the economy, the individual body.” This is in a way representative of JK’s
views because he invalidates ‘particularity’ condemning self-love wholesale and
understands order to be moral rectitude. But JK’s universal which is antithetical
to the existence of the particular does not ‘tend towards generality’ but
towards aloneness which is different from isolation which is the movement of
possessiveness – as will be discussed in the next chapter. Here our concern is
human motivation and the cause of this motivation is self-love. Where there is
only relation with the self; there is no relation with the other – virtue. The
third premise means that human motivation being nothing but self-love is
incapable of tending towards virtue because true virtue is devoid of the self
and the virtue within the domain of the self is merely an appearance with no
inner truth. Another question that will be discussed later is that whether the
negation of the self leads to the ‘generality’ necessary for community. For
now, the question is whether human beings are motivated to act for any other
reason apart from self-love? Are they capable of self-abnegation and virtuous
action? Can human beings act for altruistic reasons? There can be no human
actions that do not involve the feelings of pleasure and pain. But is feeling
pleasure for good actions the same as taking pleasure in vicious ones? JK
abstracts from the object of motivation to concentrate on the sensuous feelings
of gratification and when we concentrate on simply the feelings abstracting
from the content then there is no basis to distinguish saint from the sinner.
The only thing that distinguished them was what made them happy, one gains
happiness by helping other while another by harming them. JK drives a wedge
between the subjective feeling and the objective end of the action; the former
has a merely contingent relationship with the latter. The same feeling can
remain constant while the external object of those feelings – the apparent
object of motivation – keeps changing. As the social situation varies so does
the object of human motivation but the subjective factor of feeling remains
constant. The usual objects of human endeavour remain fixed like wealth and
status in so far as society brings uniformity to human activities. But
irrespective of whether it is God or wealth the underlying motivation is the
same. Such views have gained currency in modern psychology especially in
evolutionary psychology. These views make the goal or the end of the action
contingent and so irrelevant to the explanation of human action.
Comments
Post a Comment