5. Language of Krishnamurti

The readers of the philosophy of Krishnamurti might have been at a loss to grasp the full and clear significance of his teachings. While one may enjoy and appreciates the lucidity, serenity and directness of his approach, many could not comprehend the influence in bringing about a change in one’s attitude and disposition. One of the widely felt difficulties is the particular style of expression of Krishnamurti. He used most of his keywords in a rather restricted, special sense based on his own perception of life which were very different from the normal connotation. That is, the meaning which is literally used is very different from what he tries to convey. Another difficulty in understanding his approach is because of one’s own way of thought. An individual expect from him what he/she understands to be positive measures of dealing with one’s problems in life, while his simple emphasis is on ‘negation.’ One generally desired to be taught, to be led etc., which is completely absent in Krishnamurti’s life and teachings.

Rohit Mehta (1988) rightly said that,

‘There are many who find it difficult to understand Krishnamurti because of his language. No doubt, he uses the English language, but he has put a new content into the words of this language. Those who do not understand this content many a time feel utterly shocked at the language he uses. Being a mystic of very high order, he has evolved his own language and one must understand the special content of his language before accepting or rejecting his approach to life and its problems.’^[1]

Krishnamurti is always seeking to express himself in different way, keeping in mind to keep himself in consonance with the mental set-up of his audience and their language. He would always try to avoid the use of any technical words belonging to the vocabulary of any particular philosophy, system of thought, any science or form of belief or religion. This is because of the reason that the ideological associations of those vocabulary could prove to be a distractions in the minds of the listeners. Besides, such words are naturally tainted with the authority of the system to which they relates, and as such are loaded with different implications for the listeners of different backgrounds.

According to R.K. Shringy (1996),

‘Krishnamurti’s talk is to generate the understanding of a radically different point of view. He is oriented in his approach, in the choice of his words and in the style of his expression, by the paramount consideration of striking a note of harmony in the gathering, of carrying his audience with him on the journey of exploration and the discovery of truth without inviting the least resistance from them and without causing any emotional or intellectual distractions in their minds.’^[2]

Besides, he thinks that to communicate with one another is extremely difficult, although one knew each other very well. One may use words that may have significance which is different from others. Understanding comes when two persons meet on the same level and at the same time. That happens only when there is real affection between people, between intimate friends etc. That is real communion. Thus, he opined that to communicate is not enough for the purpose for which he speaks. For him, to establish communion between himself and his audience, and to make them self aware, free from mental pre-occupation is more significant.

To quote his own words:

‘It is difficult to commune with one another easily, effectively, and with definitive action. I am using words which are simple, which are not technical, because I do not think that any technical type of expression is going to help us solve our difficult problems; so I am not going to use any technical terms, either of psychology or of science. I have not read any books on psychology or any religious books, fortunately. I would like to convey, by the very simple words which we use in our daily life, a deeper significance; but that is very difficult if you do not know how to listen.’^[3]

So, he generally opens his talk with a few words on the art of listening in order to prepare the audience for receiving his talk. He therefore, said that,

‘There is an art of listening. To be able to really listen, one should abandon or put aside all prejudices, pre-formulations and daily activities. When you are in a receptive state of mind, things can be easily understood; you are listening when your real attention is given to something. But unfortunately most of us listen through a screen of resistance. We are screened with prejudices, whether religious or spiritual, psychological or scientific; or with our daily worries, desires and fears. And with these for a screen, we listen. Therefore, we listen really to our own noise, to our own sound, not to what is being said. It is extremely difficult to put aside our training, our prejudices, our inclination, our resistance, and, reaching beyond the verbal expression, to listen so that we understand instantaneously.’^[4]

His talk is an experiment in which many people participate, not in order to gather ideas or for solving the problems of life, but is for accompanying him on the journey that would transport them from the known to the unknown. This would be possible only through self-awareness. That is, a process of being in meditation and self-discovery. Only those who listen to him in this spirit could be in communion with him.

Krishnamurti in fact, uses simple words to convey a deeper significance. He has created a vocabulary of his own, sometimes altering the very connotation of a vocabulary. For instance, the literal connotation of intelligence is ‘the ability to learn, understand and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason.’ But to him, it means to see directly or have direct perception, without the past or the known. Direct perception means total attention, understanding, wisdom, seeing, listening and observation without the observer. Thus, he is against having a pre-conceived notion or opinion in order to be intelligent, which is against the literal connotation. The reason for Krishnamurti’s rejection of opinion is that, one cannot observe clearly if one is prejudiced, and have an opinion. Intelligence implies that one see the beauty of the earth, the beauty of the trees, the beauty of the sky, the lovely sun set and the stars etc.

He therefore said that,

‘What most people call intelligence is merely deftness in some technical activity or cunning in business or political chicanery.’^[5]

‘Intelligence comes into being when you understand the total process of the mind. It arises when there is no fear–which means really there is a sense of love.’^[6]

Another instance could be made with the words ‘meditation.’ In common parlance meditation is giving attention to only one thing or concentrates only in a particular matter. One takes meditation as a state of concentration of the mind on one object to the exclusion of all other objects. But to him, meditation is not an exclusive process which is building resistance against encroaching ideas. One who is interested in anything is naturally concentrated. Such concentration is not meditation but is merely exclusion. To him, meditation is a ‘state of enlightenment,’ which is wholly different from meditation in the former sense.

To justify his statement Krishnamurti said that,

‘It is one of the favourite sayings of the meditator or the teacher who practices or teaches meditation that people must learn concentration–that is to concentrate on one thought, drive out every other thought and fix your mind on that one thought only. This is a most stupid thing to do. When you do that you are merely resisting, you are having a battle between the demand that you must concentrate on one thing and your mind wandering to all kinds of other things.’^[7]

So, meditation is constant learning about oneself. It is watching the way one does various things. It is a form of self-recollected awareness, form of discovery and a form of cutting loose tradition, from ideas, conclusions and a sense of being completely alone. It is an integration of feelings and understanding, which is devoid of self-centred activity.

The beauty of Krishnamurti’s language style and usage is that, he would not rely or trapped himself within the boundary and jurisdiction of common parlance of a vocabulary. He would go deeper beyond the normative connotations and establish another meaning which is worth significant. But, he is very careful in using technical jargon to ease the confusion of his audience and listeners. He generally begins with establishing a relationship of communion with his audience and opens the topic that is probably the most burning issue of the time. He never deals with any problem exclusively but sooner or later includes it in a bigger issue and finally arrives at the fundamental cause. His talks are generally followed by question hour asked by the audience. The questions are not confined to a particular issue and the answers are open ended, giving enough liberty to the questioner. The audience never gets direct answers to the questions asked or problems raised. He would rather make realize the listener that the answer to the problem would not come from others or be given by somebody else, but is within and not outside. His simple logic of teaching is that he awakened the mind of the listeners to be free from illusive instruction, that is, not to be instructed.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Mehta, R. (1988). ‘The Intuitive Philosophy: Krishnamurti’s Approach to Life’, Bombay: Chetana, p. 293

[2]:

Shringy, R.K. (1996). ‘Philosophy of J Krishnamurti: A Systematic Study,’ New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, p.13.

[3]:

Krishnamurti, J. (2008). ‘The First and Last Freedom,’ Chennai: Krishnamurti Foundation India, P 10.

[4]:

Krishnamurti, J. (2008). ‘The First and Last Freedom,’ Chennai: Krishnamurti Foundation India, Pp 10-11.

[5]:

Lutyens, Mary, (Ed.), (2014). ‘The Second Krishnamurti Reader,’ Haryana: Penguin Books, pp. 224-225.

[6]:

Lutyens, Mary, (Ed.), (2002). ‘The Krishnamurti Reader,’ Haryana: Penguin Books, Pp 224-225.

[7]:

Krishnamurti’s Third Talk in Bombay, India, (1967). Retrieved from, http://jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/print.php?tid=917&chid=2191, dated, 12^th May, 2014.