Self-Knowledge in Krishnamurti’s Philosophy
by Merry Halam | 2017 | 60,265 words
This essay studies the concept of Self-Knowledge in Krishnamurti’s Philosophy and highlights its importance in the context of the present world. Jiddu Krishnamurti was born in 1895 to a Telugu Brahmin family in Madanapalli. His father was as an employee of the Theosophical Society, whose members played a major role in shaping the life of Krishnamur...
5. Conclusion
To conclude, it can be said that Krishnamurti’s understanding of self is of empirical in nature. It can be equated with what generally goes by the name ‘ego’ and not with what is understood as ‘soul.’ Throughout his lectures, discussion and elucidation on self and self knowledge he directly made relation with the concrete problems of human being and the world as a whole. He could be therefore, partly considered as an existentialist.
When the two concepts of self and ‘self-knowledge’ are examined, there is perplexity as to which concept comes first then the other. Krishnamurti himself does not present a detailed discussion on this perplexed situation. Ontologically speaking, ‘self’ comes first then ‘self-knowledge.’ However, in the epistemological sense, ‘self-knowledge’ definitely precedes the ‘self.’ First we have to have knowledge about what is self to describe self itself and in fact to be able to say that self exist.
If the entire discussion of Krishnamurti on ‘self’ and ‘self-knowledge’ is thoroughly studied, one can find out that, he has never presented a clear method or process of realization to attain ‘self-knowledge.’ In fact, Krishnamurti is always against using a method for the attainment of a goal. Nevertheless, an analysis of his concept of self-knowledge reveals that there is an apparent process or a method for self-knowledge. The process seems to involve the following steps:
According to Krishnamurti, self is nothing but totality of thought or in his language just ‘thought.’ So, in order to know the self one has to know the thought process. However, this thought cannot be understood in introspection as introspection divides thought itself into the observing thought and the observed thought. So, thought has to be looked at only as it gets revealed in one’s relationships–to property, to things, to people and to ideas. Self-knowledge is not possible without knowing the self in relations to the world–not only with the world of ideas and people but also nature, including the things that we possess. In relationship alone one may know that he is jealous, dependent, callous or attached. So, relationship acts as a mirror in which one knows oneself. One has to observe in the mirror of relationship, one’s attitude with regard to people, to ideas, and to things, if one can see the fact without judgment, without condemnation or acceptance, then one will find that, that very perception has its own action. That is the beginning of self-knowledge. This looking at, however, has to be without concepts if it is to gives us true understanding of ourselves. To know oneself, there must be alertness, awareness of mind in which there is freedom from all beliefs and idealization. Beliefs and ideals only give colour that prevents true perception. Krishnamurti holds that if someone wants to know what he is, he cannot imagine or possess beliefs in things that don’t exist. Besides, to know that one is greedy or violent, one requires an extraordinary perception that demands honesty and clarity of thought. That perception does not consider ‘what could be or would be, but only what is.’ If one believes in things that don’t exist, it would never lead to know the truth.
But to be honest with Krishnamurti, this method cannot be called method in the usual sense of the term. True that there seems to be a process involved, but this way of coming to self-knowledge is not to be taken as a method to be applied to acquire self-knowledge, but rather one is supposed to come to see it as one comes to self-knowledge.
This process which seems to be involved in our enquiry into nature of self also comes with a problem. Krishnamurti says that to have self-knowledge one has to be free of concepts and at places he is found to be saying that to be free, one needs to have self-knowledge. It seems to make us involve in a vicious circle–whether freedom should come first for self-knowledge or self-knowledge should come first for freedom.
Krishnamurti did not discuss the problem probably because for him this problem does not arise, as for him true understanding is not a matter of time. For Krishnamurti, time is so long as thought is. As thought disappears, time also disappears for him. However, it remains difficult to solve the problem in the light of common understanding of time.