Otto Duintjer is overleden las ik in de Trouw. Ik heb hem nog zien spreken op het Advaita symposium op de Rotterdamse Erasmus universiteit. Al weer in 2000. Waar blijft de tijd. Van dat symposium is een boekje uitgebracht. Met onder andere de tekst van deze professor van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Dit boekje is al sinds die tijd te koop. Ik heb het even nagekeken. Er zijn nog 34 exemplaren opgeslagen bij het Centraal Boekhuis en nog 7 hier ergens op mijn zolder. Niet veel meer en ze zullen eind van volgend jaar wel uitverkocht zijn. Maar als eerbetoon aan deze professor hier een kerstaanbieding. Vanaf morgen (29 november) voor 9,99 euro in plaats van 12.99 euro.
De Nederlandse filosoof Otto Duintjer heeft het niet zo op denkers die boekenkasten vol kletsen. 'Waarover men niet spreken kan, daarover moet men zwijgen', vindt hij samen met Ludwig Wittgenstein. Slechts enkele inzichten wil hij aan het papier toevertrouwen. Een van de belangrijkste is dat het menselijk bewustzijn iets universeels heeft. Duin tjer keert zich daarmee tegen het vooroordeel dat ons bewustzijn geheel met taal en cultuur zou samenvallen.
Professor Otto Duintjer (1932) is een filosoof die niet gelooft dat je de meest wezenlijke waarheden kan vinden door ze te zoeken. Eerder zoeken die waarheden jou, ondervond hij. Zo kwam hij begin jaren vijftig, tijdens zijn theologiestudie aan de Vrije Universiteit, tot de ontdekking dat hij niet meer kon geloven, terwijl hij nooit had gezocht naar een breuk met het geloof. En zo waren ook de mystieke ervaringen, die hij eind jaren zestig had, niet iets waar hij bewust naar op zoek was geweest. ,,Ik kreeg antwoorden op iets waar ik nooit naar gevraagd had.''
Filosofen zoals Duintjer zoeken naar de waarheid, luidt het cliché. Maar Duintjer vindt niet alleen het woord 'zoeken', maar ook het woord 'waarheid' problematisch. ,,Het lijkt mij beter als je dat woord helemaal weglaat uit ons gesprek'', zegt hij. Toch luidt de titel van zijn jongste boek 'Onuitputtelijk is de waarheid'.
,,Over die titel heb ik ook lang zitten aarzelen'', zegt hij. ,,Het had wat mij betreft ook 'Onuitputtelijk is de werkelijkheid' kunnen heten.''
Ondanks zijn aarzelingen lijkt het ondoenlijk om het woord 'waarheid' geheel te vermijden. Als bovendien iemand iets over dat woord kan zeggen, zou je denken, is het Duintjer. Van 1970 tot 1987 was hij hoogleraar kennisleer en metafysica aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Vanaf 1987 tot aan zijn emeritaat in 1997 had hij daar de opdracht filosofie en spiritualiteit. Tegenwoordig is hij betrokken bij de Stichting Filosofie Oost-West. Waarom zou hij dan niet iets over waarheid zeggen?
Duintjer: ,,Omdat de term 'waarheid' gewoonlijk heel anders wordt gebruikt. Filosofen reserveren het begrip doorgaans voor beweringen die wel of niet waar kunnen zijn. Maar de zaak die ik ermee aanduid, is een openbaarwordingsproces, iets dat er telkens weer voor zorgt dat we wat te horen, te zien, te voelen en te overwegen krijgen.''
Dit openbaarwordingsproces gaat volgens Duintjer aan het aanleren van een taal en cultuur vooraf. Daarmee gaat hij in tegen een trend in de filosofie. De filosofie van de laatste eeuw heeft zich vooral geconcentreerd op wat Duintjer talig bewustzijn noemt.
Duintjer: ,,Dat heeft waardevolle inzichten opgeleverd, maar intussen luidt het vooroordeel dat het menselijk bewustzijn niets anders is dan dit talige bewustzijn. Met mensen die met andere begrippenkaders en taalvormen zijn opgegroeid, zou je dan eigenlijk geen bewust contact kunnen hebben.''
,,Wat ik hier tegen inbreng, is dat taal en cultuur zélf bewust worden aangeleerd: je leert het terwijl je bij bewustzijn bent. Zo kan een kind bijvoorbeeld een onderscheid maken tussen de geluiden die door pappa en mamma gemaakt worden, en de geluiden van de auto en de stofzuiger.
,,Het primaire bewustzijn is wat ons allen verbindt, wat een verstandhouding tussen culturen mogelijk maakt, en waar een bron van een menselijk ethos te vinden is. Met dit primaire bewustzijn bedoel ik iets heel breeds wat je tegenwoordigheid van geest zou kunnen noemen. In het Engels wordt dat awareness genoemd: we merken op dat er iets aan de gang is, om je heen, en in jezelf. Dit bewustzijn lijkt op een open ruimte waarbinnen allerlei verschijnselen zich kunnen manifesteren.
,,Het spirituele aspect in dit verhaal gaat om wat ik 'levensbeaming' noem: je aanwennen om je zoveel mogelijk te openen voor hetgeen dat die dag aan het licht zal komen. Een van de situaties waarin we dat herkennen is 's ochtends vroeg als je wakker wordt. Je ziet aankomen aan het begin van de dag dat opstaan minstens met zich mee zal brengen dat je het een en ander te ervaren, te zien, te horen en te voelen krijgt. Maar wat er aan je bekendgemaakt zal worden, dat weet je niet. Daar kun je bang van worden.
,,Dan kun je ofwel kiezen om ten volle tot je door te laten dringen wat je geopenbaard wordt. Of je kunt in een van de twee valkuilen terechtkomen: de ene is verslaving, de andere verdringing. De manier van leven waarbij je probeert om je zoveel mogelijk open te stellen voor de werkelijkheid, noem ik 'levensbeaming'. En dat is het soort spiritualiteit waar ik over schrijf.
,,Voor zover mijn denken een religieuze dimensie heeft, is het de eerbied voor het manifestatieproces. Dat vind ik het grote mysterie. Als je 'ja' zegt tegen het leven, dan merk je gelijk ook dat er in het leven een heleboel dingen zijn waar je 'nee' tegen moet zeggen. Het betekent dus niet dat je alles wat zich manifesteert moet toejuichen of voor lief nemen. Je moet je realiseren dat je altijd, iedere keer, maar een gedeelte, een aspect, van de werkelijkheid te zien krijgt. De mogelijkheid dat je je vergist blijft er altijd.
,,Ook ik kan het dus bij het foute eind hebben. Maar als het gaat om dat soort uiterste dingen, zoals het manifestatieproces, daarvan kan ik mij niet voorstellen hoe ik me daarin zou kunnen vergissen. Want eigenlijk gaat het om uiterst eenvoudige, bijna tautologische en onweersprekelijke dingen die ik bedoel te zeggen. Waarheden als koeien dus eigenlijk. Laat ik het dan zo zeggen: we worden met werkelijkheid geconfronteerd, maar tegelijkertijd kunnen we inzien dat we de werkelijkheid altijd maar ten dele te zien krijgen.''
Klik hier voor een overzicht van alle aanbiedingen
Heerlijk. De kerst komt er weer aan. Met vele aanbiedingen tussen de 4 en 10 euro. En een bestseller van Nisargadatta Maharaj voor slechts 20 euro. En ons best verkopende boek Pranayama speciaal voor u onder de 30 euro gehouden.
AANBIEDING!! € 3,98
Speciaal voor Sinterklaas en de kerst een spetterende aanbieding. Een prachtig DIK boek voor de liefhebber. Voor een ieder die de diepte in wil. En dat voor € 3,98 !
VERDWIJNENDE SCHEIDINGEN van DOUWE TIEMERSMA.
Klik op deze link voor deze aanbieding.
Verdwijnende
Proeven van intercultureel filosoferen
276 pagina’s, paperback
Inhoud
1. Filosofie: existentieel, spiritueel, praktisch en intercultureel
2. Enkele uitgangspunten van de interculturele filosofie
3. Filosofische thema's in het hindoeïsme voor een oosterse renaissance
4. Naar een verruimde ervaring en rationaliteit door interculturaliteit. Merleau-Ponty over westerse en niet-westerse filosofen
5. De ruimte van de waarneming
6. Organische tijd
7. Over het energie-begrip in westerse en in Indiase tradities
8. De levensenergie en het energetische lichaam ervaren en beschrijven
9. Karma en reïncarnatie: een relativerende en een positieve interpretatie
10. De onderlinge verbondenheid en de bevrijding van leven en dood in het hindoeïsme
11. Etnisch-narratieve en ethische identiteit (Senghor en Ricoeur)
12. De Ander en ik in de Bhagavadgîtâ en bij Levinas
13. Advaita: de onuitsprekelijke eenheid van mijzelf en de ander
14. De actuele betekenis van de Advaita Vedânta
*
De filosofie kan er niet omheen opvattingen uit andere culturen in de beschouwing te betrekken. De reden daarvoor is niet alleen de globalisering die zich sterk doorzet. Zij zou zich filosofisch tekort doen als zij de interculturele verruiming van het eigen westerse kader zou verzaken. Dit boek bevat een aantal samenhangende artikelen op het terrein van de interculturele filosofie: over de grondslagen van de interculturele filosofie, ruimte, tijd en energie, lichaam, karma en reïncarnatie, dood en leven, de ander en ik.
Door de beoefening van interculturele filosofie verdwijnen scheidingen. Dit is het thema van de verschillende hoofdstukken. Hier worden de scheidingen tussen de waarnemer en het waargenomene, verleden, heden en toekomst, energie en leven, leven en dood en de ander en ik intercultureel besproken en gerelativeerd. Nieuwe mogelijkheden worden daarbij getoond. Theoretische en praktische moeilijkheden die uit die scheidingen voortvloeien, kunnen zo verdwijnen. Op diverse plaatsen wordt gewezen op de mogelijkheid dat alle scheidingen radicaal wegvallen in een non-duale sfeer (Sanskriet: advaita), in volledige openheid.
Het boek verschijnt bij het afscheid van dr. Douwe Tiemersma van de Faculteit der Wijsbegeerte van de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, waar hij onderwijs gaf en onderzoek deed op het terrein van de wijsgerige antropologie en de interculturele filosofie.
Tekst uit het boek
Voor de filosofie lijkt het belangrijk de spirituele ervaringen en dimensies, die er nu eenmaal zijn, in de beschouwing te betrekken. Door een uitsluiting ervan beperkt de filosofie zich al in het begin, zodat de resultaten van filosofiebeoefening onnodig beperkt blijven. Een verruimde ervaring geeft ruimere mogelijkheden. [pag. 11-17] (Lees verder)
Boekbespreking
"Een specialistisch en grensverleggend boek voor een filosofisch onderlegd publiek." Drs. Marianne van den Heuvel. Bron: NBB (Lees verder)
Avinash De Sousa, MD, DPM, MS, MPhil, MBA
The present article looks at mind and consciousness from the perspective of the eminent Indian philosopher, Jiddu Krishnamurti. He believed in total awareness as being essential for a free mind. Human beings always learned from their past, and it was important that they looked inwards and freed themselves from self-perpetuated torment. It was also necessary that they avoided repression. The society in which we live should be organic, where, although individuals had no choice but to dwell in that society, it was one where the interests of the individual and society were the same. He also maintained that religion was always the result of past conditioning. A mind should be investigative and scientific. One could not get pleasure without difficulty, for which living in totality, not in segments, was a must. We often dwell on one part of the consciousness and miss its holistic aspect. One must uncover the mind layer by layer to achieve complete growth. Deeper delving into it and a study of J. Krishnamurti's philosophy is a must for the understanding of human consciousness, in a manner that is simple, yet abstract and deep.
Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895 – 1986) was an eminent writer and speaker on philosophical and spiritual issues, including psychological revolution, the nature of the human mind, consciousness and evolution, meditation, human relationships, and bringing about positive social change. Maintaining that society was ultimately the product of the interactions of individuals, he held that fundamental change in society could emerge only through freely undertaken radical change in the individual (Krishnamurti, 2008[11]) . He stressed the need for a revolution in the psyche of every human being and posited that such a revolution could not be brought about by any external entity, be it religious, political, or social. It had to be brought about by a holistic transformation from within, and an insight into the various layers of one's consciousness (Krishnamurti, 1987[7]).
Born into a Telugu family, in what was then colonial India, he lived, in his early adolescence, next to the Theosophical Society headquarters at Adyar, in Chennai (earlier, Madras). He then came in contact with influential theosophists, Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater, who educated him, believing him to be a future spiritual leader. However, Krishnamurti later broke away from the Theosophical Society and traveled internationally as an independent speaker and writer on fundamental human issues. He held many dialogs with eminent physicist David Bohm, and several Buddhist scholars and Jesuits. Whether discussing politics with Indira Gandhi, debating philosophy with Rupert Shedlrake and Iris Murdoch, or challenging the audience to test the truth of his words, Krishnamurti engaged fully with every aspect of the human condition (Fouere, 1969[2]). He also addressed the United Nations on the subject of peace and awareness and was awarded the UN Peace Medal in 1984.
Neither Krishnamurti's style of writing, nor his language, nor ideas, can be discounted. They are the major factors that made so many people follow him. He disregarded the stature of being a holy man, sadhu, saviour, and messiah. His simplicity of ideas flowed even through his language. Nothing was too complicated. His English was wonderfully elegant, British bred after all (Fouere, 1969[2]) . Rene Fouere calls his style simple, adapted to psychological investigation, and free of all mythical or religious reference (Ibid[2]). He used terms and examples that were not subject to any pre-conceived ideas and prejudices, those that were not standard and boringly repeated in the past.
His language was not meant to be convincing on first reading (Fouere, 1969[2]). It only gave a viewpoint so simple that you would not be persuaded into believing it. Belief just happened. He questioned the most obvious, and prodded into the dodgy subjects of life and the truth. The method of using many contradictions by itself served his purpose of proving that he was a mere mortal; and it was we, humans, who needed to think and question life from within; and look for answers, not elsewhere, but within ourselves. As humans, we were always told what to do and what not to do; he believed we need not be instructed with steps of life, but merely awakened. Sometimes outright hurtful or targeting words used by him were only meant to awaken those who had become dormant (Fouere, 1969[2]).
The essence of his writings / teachings was not a learning system that had many steps. The idea was to start anywhere and eventually reach the same place (within you, through life). He did not offer a school or cult of any sort. Claude Bragdon wrote that Krishnamurti did not offer something more to life; instead, he was a subtractor of everything that stood between him and his maker, which was life itself (Bragdon, 2006[1]). Krishnamurti believed life itself was God, and every action manifested itself with God. The description and writing of his subject may seem so simple that you may go over it again and again and still be left lost (Ibid[1]). His teachings leave many people with unanswered questions, but like he said, truth was a pathless land (Ibid[1]). Claude Bragdon summarized his teaching well in two words — trust life (Ibid[1]). Most of our troubles came from our fear of life, religion itself being a refuge from that fear (Krishnamurti, 2000[9]) . If we trusted life instead of fearing it, it would never betray us — only by ourselves could we be betrayed (Krishnamurti, 2000[9]).
Those who look to Krishnamurti for a new religion or a new philosophy would be disappointed. He does not offer something more, but always something less. The very simplicity of Krishnamurti's teaching confuses our sophisticated minds. His teaching shall seem anarchic and destructive only till the perception dawns that his blows are aimed at our fetters. It is then that we realise that life, unconditioned by personal fears, ambitions, and desires, is not a void but a plenum (Krishnamurti, 1987[7]).
The teachings of Krishnamurti do not have a school or organization, but, as humans with tendencies to categorize and organize, I am drawn to comparing him with Jean Paul Sartre, the father of modern existentialism. Krishnamurti's works also include the space of a human in the social and political scenario. Krishnamurti states so very well that one cannot know of something unless the other is also present. He gives the example of non-violence: one cannot know of non-violence unless you know what violence is. Life itself is a movement of relationships, and we try to manipulate and control it even in the most common events of life. For example, when someone praises us, we grow in pride, when someone insults us we have rage filled in us; and what we do is behave in ways that increase positive reactions and decrease negative comments; the point being that we are only living a half automated life, and doing something habitually. He emphasises that total awareness, and continuous awareness, will lead to living a non-habitual life, and no amount of discipline will do it – and once again, discipline is not freedom from the known (Krishnamurti, 1975[3]).
Krishnamurti does not trust ideals. He states that an ideal is what is not. A human cannot understand an ideal without knowing what the other part of it is. I cannot know what truth is without knowing what is false, and what non-violence is without knowing what is violence. Truth cannot be seen as an object of desirability or attained because of its vastness and context. It cannot be reduced to an intellectual formula for our brains, or eternity, and reduced to a mere objective perspective . One cannot ‘Know’ of something in the present. Even ‘I’ cannot know of its moment during self-enquiry other than the past, as the present shall not be understandable unless it passes into the past. Humans can only learn from their past and not from their present, as the present is this very moment. All introspection is a form of retrospection (Krishnamurti, 1986[6]).
Problems that affect our behaviour cannot be resolved without awakening the creative intelligence or the intuition within us. That will, in turn, fully grasp the circumstance and liberate us from our miseries. It is a fact that all self-consciousness is painful and is absent in the states of ecstasy and fullness. Krishnamurti states that when you are really happy and deeply in love, the ‘I’ is not. Liberation is a state in which all ‘I’ consciousness has ceased, because the duality indispensable to self-consciousness is no more. All our urges for personal aggrandizement, which have cost the world so much blood and tears, are merely a futile evasion of a fact, an endless search for the non-existing security, an absurd refusal to meet face to face, with one's own true condition. It is only in the full awareness of oneself that we can put an end to our self-perpetuated torment (Krishnamurti, 1996[8]).
It is well known that the power to think is what makes us different from other living beings, but this unfortunately is also the reason why we may consider ourselves higher in the order of nature. This very essential power is mostly used and abused over time. Our mind is misinterpreted, according to Krishnamurti, and we must start using it differently than it is used, and not as an object for self-protection and self-expansion. We are no more primitive humans, and survival instincts have to be abandoned so as to achieve higher awareness. He talks of how, if society has to remain truly human, it must be in a state of constant revolution and re-evaluation. The mind is being used more for ego-centred acquisitiveness and for personal growth and power, in turn lessening others opportunities. We must try and belong to an organic society and not an organised one; because an organised society will always follow a hierarchy; and the standards of morality may exist, but not necessarily in the nobler sense like that of an organic society . An organic society means that its members have no choice but to belong to it. However, it goes even further. It implies that they have no desire but to belong to it, for their interests and those of the society are the same; they identify themselves with the society. Unity here is not a principle proclaimed by the authorities, but a fact accepted by all the participants. No great sacrifice is involved. One's place in society may be onerous or undignified, but it is the only one available; without it, one has no place in the world. The opposite of this perspective, with rights and liberties granted to an individual, is what forms an organised society (Krishnamurti, 1986[6]).
This world is full of chaos and it is the human being who must understand that he is part of that chaos — the cause and the effect. Krishnamurti states that bringing of the unconscious to the conscious is the first fruit of intelligence. It marks the reaching of the human level and there should be no conflict. This integration of the entire mechanism of consciousness will open to awareness, vistas of perception and experience of affection and action beyond our boldest dreams (Krishnamurti, 2010[12]).
Krishnamurti statesthat every experience in our life is imprinted deeply in our mind whose strength will vary in pleasure and pain and will crystallise in our life later on. This sounds as familiar as Freud, who said childhood experiences form the base of our adulthood and our adjustment to life; but it is more than this. Krishnamurti goes on to say further, that every action we try to connect positively or negatively to, comes back to form a habit, and does not allow a free mind to grow. Sometimes, even suffering is based on our habits and when we try to overcome one habit, we form another; and eventually, as humans, we form the habit of repression. We must understand that there is no stopping of habits, but rather only a cessation. We have to understand it and overcome it, which is acquired through great alertness and patience. The idea of a free mind is to look inward with this patience and alertness. On doing so, we free ourselves of the thinker who cages us. Once we destroy this cage of controlled thoughts, man finds a new freedom, which is not a freedom from painful experiences, but a release from the scar these experiences used to leave on the mind (Krishnamurti, 2000[9]).
According to Krishnamurti, we all follow a religion blindly, out of past conditioning or fear. We do not question or enquire what we may believe or not believe out of fear. And who is to be responsible for this – our elders who condition us to believe without questioning. What we are doing out of fear, or so-called belief, must be questioned. He states that a true religious mind is free of fear, blind faith, and contradiction. All religion is followed by tradition, whether it is religion that is 2000 years old, or 200. The list of must do's in any religion should be questioned by itself. A mind should be investigative and scientific in its approach, and not bound by something, or compelled. Religious matters make humans irrational, insane; and all these build the walls of our conditioning.
The beginning of self-knowledge is the beginning of the religious mind and not the knowledge of the supreme self; because that will again be belief in authority; and authority makes us imitate, and dictates; and we have to learn to free ourselves from this. A religious mind does not separate the inner world and the outer. It is the unitary movement of the tide that goes out and comes in; and only that mind, which is free and enquiring, can perceive that which is immeasurable (Krishnamurti, 2008[11]).
Feeling is a part of the mind, as per Krishnamurti. The mind includes desires, love, jealousy, emotions, everything. It includes contrary beliefs, double minds, and all that we understand and feel. What is different is its manifestation and its intensity. The problem is not about feeling right or wrong, because humans will feel. What needs to be changed is the greed to have many things: people want the good things of life and yet want to feel contented and peaceful. The former brings about the need to acquire things, have power / prestige, and be ambitious. To have both is not possible: a real mind has no place for ambition and acquisitions. Pleasure is not difficult, but with it come difficulties; but we want pleasure without difficulties. It is only when the mind is capable of living in totality that remorse, difficulty, and pain will have no meaning and feeling to it (Krishnamurti, 1976[4]). According to Krishnamurti, living in totality involves not looking at life in the form of segments or as an idea, but rather as a series of ideas and segments; and experience various facets of life at the same time, along with all the joys and sorrows in each facet. The less divisive we are within ourselves, the more we shall be able to experience the totality of life (Krishnamurti, 2001[10]).
According to Krishnamurti, when one becomes aware of one's conditioning, one understands the entire consciousness. Consciousness is the total field in which thoughts, functions, and relationships exist. All motives, emotions, desires, pleasures, fears, aspirations, longings, hopes, sorrows, joys, and inspirations are in that field. Consciousness can be divided into the active and the dormant, the upper and lower levels. All daily thoughts, feelings, and activities are on the surface, and below them is the subconscious, the aspects with which we are not familiar, which express themselves occasionally through certain imitations, intuitions, and dreams. We are occupied with one little corner of consciousness, which is most of our life; the rest, that we call the subconscious, we do not even know how to get into. The subconscious does exist and it is as trivial and stupid as the conscious mind; as narrow, as bigoted, anxious, conditioned, and tawdry. When one is aware of the totality of consciousness then one is functioning in full attention, not partial attention. In such a state there is usually no friction. Friction in life arises when one tries to divide one's consciousness (Krishnamurti, 1983[5]).
We live our life in fragments. We are one person at work, another with friends, and another at home. A mind that is fragmented shall never be aware of full consciousness. One must uncover one's mind, layer by layer, in order to understand the fragments one by one. This is a process that may take weeks, months or even years (Krishnamurti, 1983[5]).
Attention is not the same thing as concentration. Concentration involves exclusion, while attention excludes nothing. It is often that we concentrate on our own problems, our own ideas, and our own world, such that we are not objectively aware. Verbally we can only be superficial. What lies beyond cannot be put into words. One needs to be aware. Awareness about how we walk, how we speak, how we talk, and how we think, is necessary. It is with a choiceless awareness that doors shall open and one would know a consciousness in which there is no conflict and no time (Krishnamurti, 1983[5]). Once we change ourselves, we can change society and the world in which we find ourselves. Understanding ourselves marks the beginning of wisdom (Krishnamurti, 2001[10]).
Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity. For Krishnamurti, every human with a mind to think will have an interpretation of the same. To be aware might not necessarily mean to give up on life and look for the internal truth, but to be able to live peacefully with an understanding of the life one leads, the relations one shares with one's environment, and one's family and friends (Krishnamurti, 2008[11]). A concept very similar to that of dharma, which I cannot help but compare it with — put simply as — Live your life the right way; do what you have to and be a good human being; and maybe that will lead to the final freedom.
Although understudied, Indian philosophers like Krishnamurti have a lot to add to the general philosophy of consciousness and mind. Simplicity and elegance mark Krishnamurti's work and writings, but one needs to put in deep thought to understand his concepts. It is essential that readers and researchers in the philosophy of mind and consciousness study Krishnamurti, to gain further insights into our mind, into consciousness as a concept, and human evolution, learning and growth in general.
Contemporary thought may have a lot to learn by a scientific study of mind and consciousness from the perspective of the eminent Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti.
Awareness of the self is an essentiality for a free mind. We have always looked at our past and troubled ourselves, but it is important that we dwell inwards and free ourselves from our own ridicule and guilt. We must do this to avoid repression and self-blame.
Society can be organised or organic. An organic society is preferred as per Krishnamurti, where individuals have no choice but to dwell in that society, but one where the interests of the individual and of society are the same.
Religiosity and orthodox thought is often the result of conditioning from an early age.
One must cultivate an investigative and scientific mind.
There is no pleasure without difficulty; and living in totality, not in segments, is a must.
We often just dwell on one part of consciousness and miss its holistic nature.
One must uncover the mind, layer by layer, to achieve complete growth.
It is very important that we promote self-awareness and develop an insight into the various layers of the self for a complete understanding of the mind and consciousness.
We have to free ourselves from past conditionings and uncover our self, layer by layer, for a holistic understanding of consciousness, and for personal growth.
Do the teachings of Krishnamurti hold relevance in the modern understanding of mind and consciousness?
Does the philosophy of Krishnamurti give us new insights into the human mind, and does it provide further impetus for studies in human consciousness?
Do Indian philosophical concepts of mind and consciousness need to be understood in, and compared with, Western concepts, and the Western context, to understand them better?
Avinash De Sousa is a consultant psychiatrist and psychotherapist with a private practice in Mumbai. He is an avid reader and has over 95 publications in national and international journals. His main areas of interest are alcohol dependence, child and adolescent psychiatry, mental retardation, autism, developmental disabilities, neurobiology and interdisciplinary consciousness studies. He is also the academic director of the Institute of Psychotherapy Training and Management, Mumbai. He teaches psychiatry, psychology and psychotherapy at over 18 institutions as a visiting faculty
Conflict of interest: None declared
Declaration
This is my original, unpublished work, not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
CITATION: De Sousa A. Mind and Consciousness as per J. Krishnamurti. Mens Sana Monogr 2012; 10: 198-207.
The following is from Rajan’s diary dated November 6, 1943:
After a brief discussion between Major
Chadwick and Bhagavan on the necessity of periodic action to ensure that the body remains healthy, there was a ten-minute silence.
Then a devotee asked, “It is stated that
one should dive into oneself with a keen one-pointed mind controlling speech and breath. Is it necessary to control the breath also?”
Bhagavan replied, “If all thoughts are controlled, automatically the breath is also
controlled. By intense and sustained practice it will become habitual.
Controlling the breath through various yogic exercises is like putting brakes to the train when the engine is working. But by watching the source of the mind with full concentration, the thoughts would get controlled. This method will be more effective and easy. It is like shutting the power of the engine and thereby stopping the train completely.”
- Face to Face with Sri Ramana Maharshi.
N.N. Rajan.
It is part of everyday reality. 'I am' forgets itself thousands of times a day. It is more often ignorant of itself than it is knowing. The awareness of presence cannot sustain itself permanently. That takes too much energy. "I am" seemingly turns on and off like light from a lighthouse. This is quite normal, but it is hardly noticed because 'I am' is only enlivened when attention on an apparent presence detects itself. "I am" is the ghost of the opera.
A chimera. Presence is imagination!
The nullity of the brain has no boarder.
Nobody is asleep. Nobody wakes up. There is nothing wrong with anything. There is no right and wrong. There is no answer to the question "Who am I ?!" There is nobody! Nothing is bound. Nothing is broken. Life is free fall from the moment it breaks out of the egg. From the moment a body rolls out of its sheath, it flies around freely in the bright light. Without past and future. Like a free bird with no destination. Inviolable and invincible. Singing of herself. There is all the freedom that doesn't have to be sought and found! Paradise is already all that appears. Nothing excepted. Nobody is born, nobody dies. Death is illusory.
Death does not happen to anyone. There is nobody! There is no death before and after life. Life propagates from the joy of Being.
Liberation is the seeming end of a nonexistent presence. Liberation is the death of the illusion of being someone. Liberation is the absolute end of seeking. In that end nothing has been found, nothing has been realized and nobody has awakened to a higher, better or an immortal consciousness. There is no higher or lower consciousness. Not a conscious entity. No center. No limit. None here and none there. Nowhere to go. Nowhere to arrive. There is no 'you' that is already there or already is what it is. No 'you' that precedes all that appears and rests as an eternal witness. Not an absolute and pure consciousness that is the truth. There is simply no one to be anything that's out there. Not now or immediately! Because that is also the dream. Everything is the dream. There is nothing else! People are nothing more or less than a dream. Imagination in the cerebral cortex. Effortlessly nonexistent. Nowhere present. Neither absolutely nor relative.
What seems to be alive is pure vibrancy. Without center. Without Borders. There is no way out of it and there is no way in. That there should be a way out and an entrance is the dream. There is no one in the dream who needs to get out or in somewhere.
The everyday is what apparently happens. Eyelid film.
Spontaneously without cause and effect. Reality is not a story. It's without beginning and end, seamless, effortless no-thing .....
Wouter van Oord.
Dit getuigt van een enorme arrogantie!
Er wordt gezegd dat neo-advaitisten 'stilstaan in hun spirituele ontwikkeling'. Ik las dat zonet in een groep over nondualiteit.
Ik kon mijn ogen niet geloven! Neo-advaitisten worden 'Extremistische nondualisten' genoemd. Een gevaarlijke soort terroristen. Nihilistische leeghoofden met de bedreigende signatuur van een dodelijk soort virus! Vooral zeer schadelijk voor de geestelijke gezondheid!
Er wordt kennelijk in Traditionele Advaita kringen een dreiging bespeurd die als zeer schadelijk wordt ervaren voor de door hen zo gekoesterde 'Waarheid' van het Advaita Vedanta gedachtegoed.
Blijkbaar zit er zoveel explosieve lading in wat de huidige neo-advaita sprekers beweren, dat het Traditionele Advaita volk er zenuwachtig van wordt. Het wringt al lange tijd tussen vertegenwoordigers van TA en NA.
Tony Parsons schreef jaren geleden al een apologie tegen Dennis Waite, de zelfbenoemde Advaita Paus, die een boek schreef met als titel: 'Back to the Truth. 5000 Years of Advaita.'
Een vette, dikke pil die een kroniek moet voorstellen van wat er allemaal leeft in de spirituele marktplaats. Het boek is bepaald niet onpartijdig. Het breekt vooral een lans voor de tradities die trouw zijn aan de basis zoals die is gelegd door Shankara in zijn werk Atma Bodha.
Het verschil tussen TA en NA is groot.
Neo-Advaita zegt dat het Absolute en het Relatieve hetzelfde zijn. This is IT!
TA ontkent dat Dit wat verschijnt alles is wat er is. Het voorziet in een heilsweg die weg leidt uit het Relatieve en naar uiteindelijke bevrijding in het Absolute. Een weg die perse bestemd is voor een zoeker/kandidaat die via diepgaand zelfonderzoek en meditatie een toestand kan bereiken die zelfrealisatie heet en uitmondt in een staat van verlichting.
Het is een spiritueel pad. Een gang naar huis.
TA is a teaching of becoming.
Neo-Advaita wijst geen paden en heilswegen.
Het spreekt over onmiddellijkheid. Over het spontane directe, wat onmiddellijk alreeds is wat het is, zonder dit specifiek te benoemen, maar wat gewoon zitten in een stoel is en het aantrekken van schoenen en het drinken van een kopje koffie.
Wat NA sprekers beschrijven in hun wijze van communicatie is iets wat kan resoneren bij een gehoor, of niet.
Er is geen agenda. Geen leer.
Geen methode. Geen speciale boodschap.
NA zegt simpelweg dat er niemand is.
Geen entiteit.
Alles is leegte en volte simultaan..
NA staat dicht bij Zen, maar mist het disciplinaire ervan. Het is direct en zonder omhaal van woorden. Wat wordt beschreven kan woorden 'gehoord'. Maar niet met oren!
Wouter van Oord.
