Chapter 5 - Conclusion

Krishnamurti is an original and free thinker who has presented his life and action with various examples and experiments. His basic objective is the awakening of intelligence in an individual through the understanding of the causes of human suffering and the way of freeing the mind from the limitations of thought, ideas and ideals. According to Krishnamurti, to have ideas is to be conditioned. An idea is the outcome of a thought-process. Without a thought-process there could be no idea. The thought-process is again the response of memory. One would not have thought if one has no memory. The response of memory brings the thought-process into action. The response of memory, which is the thought-process, creates an idea. Therefore, he says that so long as one clings to ideas, one would be in a state in which there could be no experiencing at all. It is only when the mind is free from idea that there could be experiencing. Ideas are not truth because truth is something that must be experienced directly from moment to moment. Similarly, in the process of trying to become something one projects an ideal which is to be reached through efforts and strife under the guidance of a leader, a guru and an authority. Krishnamurti however pointed that, howsoever high, noble, desirable and commendable an ideal may appear to be, it is a reaction to ‘what is.’ It is the ideal that creates the opposites to ‘what is.’ So, if one knows how to be with ‘what is,’ then the opposite is not necessary. Trying to become like someone else or like one’s ideal is one of the main causes of contradiction, confusion and conflict. By ‘what is’ Krishnamurti indicates to what actually is, that is, truth or reality. It can be understood through direct perception by still and silent mind giving total attention. To understand ‘what is’ one must observe what one thinks, feels and does from moment to moment. It cannot be understood in isolation but is seen in a relationship. It is not possible to comprehend as long as there is thought-process.

To him, the only purpose of life is living, and living is always in the present and not in the past or the future and without the influence of time, (time according to Krishnamurti has been discussed in chapter two). He opined that, the only solution to the ills of the present civilization lies in bringing about transformation of human consciousness, because through individual only the society can change. And the change Krishnamurti talks about is through mutation of the mind. The term he uses is mutation because for him, there has to be total change in the mind without any continuity from the past. He says so because to have continuity is to have continuity from the past and thus there is still the old present which he thinks has to be given up. However, Krishnamurti does not offer a new system of thought or a code of conduct to help in bringing about the required mutation of mind–which is emptying the mind from thought and ideas etc. He only helps to awaken one’s own intelligence by freeing the mind from its limitations through choiceless awareness that is, living with ‘what is’ as it is, without wanting to alter it (R.K. Shringy,1996).

To Krishnamurti, the main problem of the world disorder is because of individuals. He points out that our problems are of our own individual making. So long as individuals are there, the ‘I,’ the ‘you’ and the ‘me’ would exist and therefore, different ideals and different ideas persist. It is for these ideas that an individual holds and thinks as right that there is conflict among individuals. First, one has to see for oneself that there are in fact, no individuals as there are no selves. This is possible only for the one who can see and that comes about through intelligence. Thus, disorder according to Krishnamurti could disappear only by the awakening of intelligence in the individual, because society is the projection of an individual and an inter-relationship of individuals. The lack of understanding in oneself, that is, self-knowledge is the main reason of the world crisis. So, self-knowledge is the biggest issue in the philosophy of Krishnamurti.

The present study therefore, deals with the importance, meaning and implication of self-knowledge in mitigating world disorder according to Krishnamurti. The study discuses deep into the world crisis of his time and relate with the current situation, thereby explain the relevance of philosophy of self-knowledge as pointed by him. The present study also examines the relevance of self-knowledge in the present world context.

Krishnamurti’s basic contention is that due to lack of awareness of an individual, one is identified with innumerable norms and obligation, be it social, political, economic and religion. In the process of identification one is unknowingly under the bondage of those manmade divisions. One is therefore, conditioned in one way or the other and being conditioned to be this or that, to follow or not to follow, to belief or not to belief etc., human being were in constant conflict from time immemorial. To be free of those conflicts, one is to be self-aware, that is, to be aware of the ‘I’ process, the functioning of the mind and the whole process of identification.

Krishnamurti maintains that the process of division or fragmentation has been cultivated by human being through the ages and now has reached a critical point where everyone is out for oneself and is therefore in conflict with the other. One seeks peace, but the search for peace is only a reaction against the existing order. One is not at all aware of the underlying causes of conflict that is infecting his/her life.

The meaning and concept of ‘self’ and ‘self-knowledge’ according to Krishnamurti, has been thoroughly analyzed in chapter two. The question therefore, arises as to the implication of the two terms. By ‘self,’ Krishnamurti essentially signifies the idea, memory, conclusion, experience, and various forms of nameable and unnameable intentions projected outwardly or spiritually in action. That is, thought that creates human want are responsible for creating the self. One’s thought is one’s self. This implies that, self is the way, one talks and the belief one holds. It further implies the way one reacts to situations and people so as to fulfil one’s desire and intentions. The endeavours to be somebody or not to be, the traditions, the clans, the race etc., are the factors that constitute the self. So, as self is the product of thought, the process of identifying oneself with certain things takes place. Identification creates the ‘me’ and accordingly, the questions of possession like my property, my house, my furniture, my wife etc., emerge. All these elements including the violence, the pleasure, the fear, the agonies constitutes the self.

Thus, self is the result of considering oneself as possessing certain characteristics. But to Krishnamurti one cannot have a certain characteristic continuously, which an individual otherwise think so. This happens when one starts carrying thoughts of feelings or experiences. And thoughts are carried when one becomes loose in observation. Thinking of oneself as this or that creates the self. One falsely identifies oneself with the idea what oneself is carrying. The self continues getting stronger with every identifications one makes or ideas that it carries. What one is at a particular moment is true for that moment alone. It does not continue. Identification of oneself as honest, envious or loving is wrong as one is not continuously that. One has to stop characterising oneself with permanent characteristic to end creating the self. One has to stop thinking of oneself as an enduring entity. To put an end to the false identification one has to stop naming oneself as such-and-such. When naming is not there the self also does not get created. In naming things the self gets strengthened. The way one feels about the things and one carries forward these feelings is associated with the name of the thing. For instance, one identifies things with a name and said that this is beautiful, this is ugly, this is soft and this is hard and so on. This is because they are thought to be so and continued to be thought in the same manner on the basis of memories of past experiences invoked by their names. But, what has been experienced earlier is not what is experienced now. They are different. For instance, if one is hungry he/she is hungry not by virtue of carrying the idea of being hungry but because of the fact that one is really so. The point is one cannot be such and such by carrying the idea of it. Therefore, the idea is not the thing. When one sees the reality of it one will stop identifying oneself with the ideas. The self is nothing but mere identification of oneself with certain ideas. The self ends when there is non-identification.

To find out what the self is one has to observe oneself. The observation of oneself is not through introspection or analysis. To observe oneself through introspection or analysis involves the separation of oneself into the observer and observed. To see the whole of ‘I’ the entire thought process has to be seen. The whole of self is to be observed for a complete knowledge of it. The way to self-knowledge lies in observing oneself as one is in relationship with a thing. It is in relationship with things that one can see what one is–whether greedy, honest, jealous, envious etc.

But Krishnamurti never agreed on the actual presence of self in an individual. To him, it is an illusory construction of the mind due to certain internal and external factors. He never accepts self as a permanent entity. For him, self arises due to an image formed by an individual which is not real. In other word, it is a creation of thought and ideas. Because of this illusory attributes of self, human mind is full with fears of to be and not to be. Having the insecurity feelings in life, one wants to secure life with all forms of belief, faith, dogmas etc. Krishnamurti therefore, stresses the necessity of self-knowledge in understanding the entire process of the illusion of self. When one realized the impermanency of self through self-knowledge, the question of ‘I’ ‘my’ ‘oneself’ etc., does not arise. It further implies that there would be no division of man into various religions, sects, race and so on.

So, the basic problem encountered by humanity is because of the creation of self. The cause of suffering is the man himself. Man creates his self and self is at the root of his suffering. If one did not have a self then he would not have suffered, for there would have been no self to suffer. So, the self has to die for suffering to end. But simply telling that self is at the root of human suffering does not change the state of one’s suffering unless the individual himself enquires into the state of that suffering. Someone’s telling the cause of suffering and providing the solution to it would not bring an end to one’s problems. One has to find out for oneself what really the cause is. If the problem has to end human being alone can end it. Man suffers, has fear and physical demands, which are the real complexity of life which humanity faces every now and then. In order to find out, one has to understand what these problems are. In order to understand one has to look at them and should not expect the solution from someone else.

Now the question is whether humanity can be really free from the self, as self is the origin of human problems. Krishnamurti lucidly presents his ideas and concept that one has to end the characteristic of creating the self so as to end human suffering. But the crisis in the world since pre-historic age is still about mine and yours. That is, human being fought and is being fighting with a single factor of accumulating more and more in the name of my property, my land, my country and so on. All these are the clear projection of the existence of what Krishnamurti calls ‘self.’ World leaders unite and collaborate for more peace and prosperity but with not much success. Religious organizations and congregation sermons for better peace and harmony in the world but could not yields much results. Thus, there is something lacking in human nature that prevent an individual to free from self. Laymen knowledge suggests that self is an intrinsic value clings in an individual characteristic and could not be really separated. One lives and dies for it. Krishnamurti of course presents a beautiful path to free humanity from the root of suffering. Even if an individual consider his solution to be the solution for ending crisis, one has not yet been able to achieve it. Man has not been able to eradicate the ‘self’ yet. Had it been so, according to Krishnamurti, the world would have been marching towards a better and healthier tomorrow. He himself says that you and I are the problem and the world is the projection of one’s physical relationship with the things outside us. This indicates that you and I have to be transformed.

Nonetheless, Krishnamurti’s illustration in regard to the problem of self and the way out to be free from self, presents a narrow but significant connotation for a better world. If human being would realize that the problem starts with the creation of self, it would further have a better implication for you and me. No doubt, human being urge for peace and harmony but the problem lies in not understanding the cause of problem itself. The search and investigation for world peace is done in the form of talks, deliberation and discussion etc. Here lies the importance of the philosophy of Krishnamurti for presenting the root cause of human suffering. Human suffering cannot, says Krishnamurti, end by talks and discussions because those are the product of ideas and memories which he strongly objects to. The journey has to start from you and me so as to transform the entire human race. That is, one should realize oneself that the problems begin with oneself which Krishnamurti calls self-knowledge.

Krishnamurti understands ‘self’ in self-knowledge as what one actually is and not what one wish to be or what one think one is. Self-knowledge to him means an understanding of oneself by direct perception as one behave in daily life in one’s relationship with persons, things or events and ideas. One can understood oneself directly in the mirror of relationship with the surroundings. Knowing directly means knowing by observing without the interference of past knowledge, what is told by others, written in scriptures and taught by saints etc. To have knowledge of what one actually is the beginning of wisdom.

Self-knowledge is the understanding of the process of oneself, the process of the mind. It is to be aware of all the intricacies of person and their pursuits. To know oneself means to know one’s relationship with the world. Relationship with the world means relationship with all the ideas, the people, and the nature and with the things the world is made up of. One can observe oneself only in relationship because life itself revolves around relationships. One exists only in relationship to people, things and ideas. In studying one’s relationship to people, to outward and inward things one begins to understand oneself. Every other forms of understanding are merely an abstraction. One has to study oneself as one is but not as one wishes to be.

The problem according to Krishnamurti is that, without initially knowing oneself one accepts what one is taught and told and one accordingly begins the journey on that basis taking it for granted. That becomes the conditioning factor through which an individual looks at the world and stares oneself. And one is hardly ever aware of this fact. The burden of the past prevents one from looking directly at anything. One always looks through this burden which Krishnamurti calls conditioning. Krishnamurti therefore, clearly states that to solve the problems of the world one must approach them in a very simple and direct manner without depending on outwards circumstances. The solution is not to be found through conferences, blueprints, or through the substitution of new leaders for the old one. The solution lies in the creator of that problem which is the individual that is, you and I.

It is therefore, essential to understand the fact that self-knowledge is not knowing oneself according to what is said in the scriptures or religious tradition or else by any sort of authority. Self-knowledge needs the understanding of the relationship between oneself and the inner and the outer world. One must observe how one behaves and thinks and how one lacks the intention to understand oneself as one is. However, observing with total uninterrupted attention is necessary.

According to Krishnamurti, as one knows oneself deeply, widely, extensively and profoundly there comes a freedom, that is, liberation from the entanglements of fear. The human mind has been established with fear for generation and lives with it. The mind therefore, tries to escape from fear and resorts to rationalisation. It tries to avoid by attaining something that is not fear. The traditional mind, being in doubt and confusion of achieving what it desires gives birth to fear. Efforts to overcome fear breeds belief system, ideas, symbols, God, nationalism etc. Thus, the traditional mind is the network of thought and thought is self-centred. It always starts from the centre called the ‘me,’ the ‘self’ or ‘ego.’ The self is the seed of fear, envy and jealousy. Krishnamurti himself says that, fear is the movement away from ‘what is,’ that is, the escape and avoidance of actuality. By traditional mind Krishnamurti meant to say the mind which is confined to the realm of the known which constitutes images, formula and conclusion. The traditional mind is therefore based on the past and the accumulated knowledge. It is brought about by thought and is confined to the activity of thought-process. Thought leads its continuity through symbols, images, ideas and so on.

Krishnamurti is very much critical of anything that leads to continuity. He is therefore, against thought-process which is a continuation of past memories like experience, knowledge, ideas etc. To feel the wholeness of life the mind should be free from the continuity of thought. So, to him, to be free one has to end the thought-process, which leads to an insight into the nature of truth. Insight and understanding is possible only when thought is suspended and the mind is stilled. By ‘insight’ he indicates an inward perception of the mind on not only to be understood, but also the inward perception of the mind that is/are involved in the act of understanding. In other words, it is a holistic action and immediate perception and is not a mechanical thought-process. It is direct perception into ‘what is’ and takes place like a flash of light and cannot be captured by thought.

Despite Krishnamurti’s extensive illustration on the significance of self-knowledge for the liberation of human being, the world is still facing the problem of lack of self-knowledge. An individual’s life has not become really free from external obligation. To live a life free of conditioning, by whatever elements it may be, seems to be a complicated task for an individual. As the individual is the product of a society, there are innumerable elements like tradition, culture, religion and so on, which are very much part and parcel of an individual’s life. In trying to understand oneself through one’s relationship with others, certain conditioning elements penetrate into the life of an individual. This results in the entanglement of one’s life with several forms of bondage which human beings could not in fact understand.

Chapter three therefore, discussed various forms of bondage which is a result of fear and insecurity in one’s mind. Being insecure in life one strive for attachment with certain element and thereby leads to conditioning of oneself, that is, bondage. Krishnamurti talks of bondage not in a literal sense but in a psychological sense, that is, bondage from fear, tradition, cultures and so on. He points out that, there is a constant battle for living and in that battle one tries to create a code of conduct, which is familiar with the society. Those standards of behaviour are accepted as parts of one’s tradition. So, there is always someone before an individual to tell what is good or what is right or wrong thought. If one does not follow the particular prescribed conduct there is an apprehension that one would not reach the destined end.

These further strengthen conditioning. There are several factors of bondage, like dependence, authority, fear, and attachment. In search of fulfilling an objective in mind one depends on others. So, one depend on parents, teachers, religious leaders etc. Being dependent on them one creates a barrier to his/her own path of freedom and gets entangled in bondage. Similarly, in search of finding unanswered question in life one clings to certain authority. Authority implies conformity through fear, to a particular pattern, whether of environment, tradition, ideal or of memory. Due to this man-made authority, one’s liberty and freedom in life were deeply hindered.

Beside dependence and authority, Krishnamurti also talks of fear as a hindrance to freedom. According to him, in search for security, fear is born and one submits oneself to another who promises them that immortality. Through fear a person creates a spiritual authority, and to administer that authority there are priests who exploit through belief, dogmas and creed. But he says that fear again comes into being when one desires to be in particular pattern.

Krishnamurti says,

‘To live without fear means to live without a particular pattern.’^[1]

When one demands a particular way of living that itself is a source of fear. So, he clearly points out that fear exists in relation to the known. Fear of the unknown is fear of losing the accumulated known. The fear of losing one’s family, reputation, character, bank account, appetites etc., creates fear. Finally, attachment is another form of bondage which Krishnamurti importantly emphasized. By attachment Krishnamurti means to say that one is always trying to escape from certain complexities of life for finding better solution. For instance, one is attached to particular religion or a nation. The objective for such attachment is because of fear of not achieving something and in the hope of getting psychological satisfaction. Similarly, one is attached to work, tradition, property, to people, ideas and so on. If there were no attachment there would be no conditioning. The object of attachment offers an individual the means of escape from one’s own emptiness. So attachment, Krishnamurti says, is escape, and it is escape that strengthens conditioning.

Now, the pertinent question which is to be answered is whether there is any process or method to come out of bondage. Krishnamurti does not suggest any particular method to be free of bondage. To him, freedom implies not to follow anyone, to be free to enquire, not to accept, not to look to a guide, system, saviour or a guru, in other words not to be conditioned. So, to be free from bondage is to be free from any sort of psychological influences, whatever the characteristic it may have. It, therefore, demands involvement of self and thereby necessitates deep level of self-awareness.

Krishnamurti’s discussion on conditioning and bondages in which human being is entrapped, is found to create certain problems but with no appropriate solution. No doubt he has elucidated different factors that lead to human bondage but it also feels that to be free from those bondages would lead to chaos in the society. For instance, one cannot totally ignore the social norms and obligations and live in one’s own wish. Similarly, a student or a child cannot disobey the direction of teachers and parents. If one does so it will only lead to conflict in society and such a disobedient person will be treated as an outcast. This is exactly against the conception of Krishnamurti. He argues that to be free one has to totally keep aloof from all kinds of external and psychological influences which are seen in the form of parent-children relationship, teachers-student relationship, from religious guru and so on.

Thus, his conception on human bondage creates problems to which the philosopher of this age should find out the solution. It is generally reckoned that a person should follow all the social norms and obligations so as to adjust in society. From this standpoint, it could be attributed that Krishnamurti is reckless in understanding the social structure of his time. His view is found to be a one-way traffic which did not give space for others. Lama Anagarika Govinda brands Krishnamurti as the most conditioned man he knows. He says that Krishnamurti has been deeply conditioned by the philosophy of Theosophical Society, and thus making the transmission of his insight ineffective. Similarly, Ken Wilber, a noted thinker has charged him of being stuck midway on the spiritual ladder.^[2]

However, there is also irresistible significance of his conception on bondage. He categorically illustrates the inborn nature of human beings that prevent him/her from seeing ‘what is.’ The present society abounds with norms and obligations and an individual is found to be puppet in the hands of the society. Being directed and controlled by the external influences, one unconsciously lives according to it. In the process, one lived by thought and memories implanted by those external influences and thereby live a conditioned life. One is not free to live in the present, but is in some way or the other bound by the past experiences and the fear for future. Regardless of an individual’s desire to be or not to be, one is sometime compelled to follow and not to follow because of external influences. Thus, Krishnamurti’s conception on bondage is expected to awaken the mind of the individual and make one realise all the conditioning factors in life. From that state of realization, an individual would attain knowledge of oneself which Krishnamurti calls self-knowledge. In this aspect, Krishnamurti’s view is found to be value-free and therefore is based on fact. His simplicity in elucidating things still makes him as one of the undisputable philosopher of his time. His Highness the Dalai Lama, rightly said that Krishnamurti is one of the greatest thinkers of the age.^[3]

Chapter four examined the different elements of conflicts which human beings have experienced from time immemorial. Krishnamurti asserts that human bondage results in the conditioning of an individual and thereby leads to conflict. One may raise question on how bondage and conditioning leads to conflict. When one is under the bondage and conditioned by external influences one lives by an ideal and not according as one perceives life. Being attached with something outside one’s own creativity, dualism in one’s life takes place. One is therefore, unconsciously living a life with the images formed in one’s mind which are projected in the external world. Thus, all sorts of contradiction, division, wrong relationship etc., penetrates in one’s life and thereby conflicts arise.

Firstly, to Krishnamurti contradiction is one of the major causes of or factor of conflict. In life there are full of opposing desires, demands and opinions going on. What one thinks and believes are never akin with what another person does. In the process, contradiction prevails in the realms of culture and tradition, religion etc. Due to the contradiction, there comes a dualistic attitude towards the entire life process, where one thing is opposed to the other. Such contradiction in life results in conflict and war, which continues to capture the entire human race.

Krishnamurti again says that, relationship also results in conflicts. To him, conflict arises because of one’s wrong relationship with others. He opines that relationship is always based on images and one continues to see things with the help of images which prevents one from seeing things in actuality. The image is nothing but the memory which conditions the everyday life. The relationship is therefore superficial and not real. It is a product of thought. The thought and memories, which are images, prevent actual relationship, and are the dividing factor and therefore leads to conflict. In other words, the images and knowledge that one has of the other bring about division which leads to conflict. Because of wrong relationship within an individual, it eventually leads to a point where there is always differentiation, which is division. Every individual thinks of being separate from another. This sense of division and fragmentation within us is the basic cause of conflict. Each one is trying to express, fulfil oneself, pursue one’s own ideals, own ambitions, pleasure and desires, which create conflict.

The analysis of Krishnamurti’s discussion on the various causes of conflict shows that these causes are in fact existent in human society. The world is fragmented into various political boundary and religious organization. Conflict arises because of contradictory and opposing characteristic of human nature and the greed of human being. Considering the present world crisis, these causes of conflict are still used by humanity as an instrument of fulfilling one’s own objective. The problem is that, human being is failing to identify the internal contradiction of one’s own life as manifesting itself in the external world. For instance, one lacks the realization that he/she is violent and tries to be non-violent, which is merely an illusory creation of the mind. But the fact is that one is violent and there is no non-violence except as an ideal. In trying to be something which is not there, there arises the conflict between that which is, for example, violence and that which is non-violence. Krishnamurti’s attempt is to free human being from the internal conflict that is reflected in external conflict which captures the life of individual.

Krishnamurti does not discuss a particular methodology or process to end conflict. The solution itself lies within an individual. One should try to observe the dualistic nature of oneself so as to free from self-contradiction. By dualistic nature he means the characteristic of an individual which always tries to become something which is opposed to fact. For instance, one tries to become non-violent which is the opposite of what one actually is–violent. When one realized one’s dualistic nature in life, one will live with ‘what is’ and conflict ceases. When conflict ceases, freedom and peace automatically enter into the arena of one’s life. Krishnamurti categorically says that,

freedom cannot be accomplished by any mechanical activity like following of an authority, a system of thought, tradition or the authority of one’s own experience and knowledge. Following implies action based on idea and action based on idea implies motive which only strengthens the self. He considers man to be his own liberator. No saviour, guru, tradition and any external help could really free an individual from one’s own self-imposed bondage.

Thus, one strives for freedom as the goal of life not because one has been told so, but because one has discovered it through voluntary understanding of life as a whole. To perceive the true purpose of individual existence is to take the first step and the first step is the last step for Krishnamurti. Freedom is not an individual achievement but is the freeing of oneself from the limitation and conditioning caused by self-centred action, which gives rise to identification and craving for becoming. So, freedom is possible through voluntary and constant awareness of the ‘I’ process. It is possible through the action of understanding which is intelligence and the intuitive discernment of the impersonal law inherent in manifestation. The basic premise is that to attain freedom, there should be total transformation in the structure of consciousness. When the transformation comes into being then naturally there is right living which is free, spontaneous and creative.

As stated earlier, Krishnamurti says that life is relationship and relationship is action. So, life is movement in relationship. It includes everything–the known and the unknown. He perceives two states of existence, namely, conditioned and unconditioned. A life is conditioned through identification and the craving for continuity. To realize that there is no self to continue and to live in such a realization is to live unconditionally. Krishnamurti in fact, perceives life as ‘being’ and ‘becoming.’ Being is eternal and timeless and becoming is continuity in time through identification and craving. He argues that, dissatisfied with ‘what is,’ one seeks to change it into what should be. But, what should be is an ideal and is only a projection of the mind and reaction of the thought. His understanding of life lies in comprehending life as action. The misery, suffering, confusion and chaos in one’s daily life should be examined and understood through one’s action and response to environment. Through understanding one’s response, one must discover the true nature of self as revealed in one’s relationship to things, people and ideas. Right action can proceed only from right perception and right perception is possible only when the mind is not conditioned through identification. When action is limited through identification, with idea, with sensation and through self-identifying memories it leaves a psychological residue which conditions the mind. To him, total action or unhindered action is effortless and therefore, it is not an object of achievement. What the mind could achieve through efforts is itself a hindrance to complete action. Therefore, effort is an attributes of incomplete and self-centred action and effortless spontaneity is inherence to total action.

Thus, Krishnamurti clearly stated that action is life and freedom is in action. Freedom is freedom from the incompleteness of action and from the conditioning life that hinders living. Since Krishnamurti comprehends life as action, for him the individual and society are not different and they form a unitary process. It is the individual through the relationships with others which forms a society. The purpose and function of the society is to help the individual fulfil themselves to help freeing from the limitations of self-conscious existence. The present civilisation, says Krishnamurti, is however found to be the manifestation of action or rather reaction based on idea that is self-centred and self-motivated. So, the individual with innumerable forms of identification finds himself in conflict with society. The society, composed of individuals who are ever in competition with each other and are consumed with the desire for power and domination, is ever forcing the individual to fit into the mould of the group. The conflict between individual and society is the result of the lack of understanding with regard to life as an indivisible whole. But at present the problem in the society is the problem of who is more important–the individual or the society. The question is whether the society is for the individual or the individual is for the society.

To Krishnamurti, this is a false conflict and a result of self-centred culture. There is no such problem in actuality. Even if it is there, the problem is our own creation. As life is a relationship. To be is to be related and there can be no antagonism between society and individual. So, the conflict between society and the individual is a manifestation of the conflict in the consciousness of the individual which, in its own turn, is a product of environment, that is, a product of one’s relationship to things, to people and ideas. He perceives the present conflict and chaos in society to be a result of the individual in contradiction. The self-conscious individual is divided within oneself as self and not-self. It is therefore, torn into a perpetual conflict which is reflected in one’s relationship to other individuals and ultimately to society. A self-centred individual is by oneself a source of conflict. The entire social structure is therefore based on mutual exploitation and personal gratification.

Krishnamurti is very categorical in this aspect and asserts that the individual problem is the world problem and vice versa. According to him, the problem of living is rooted in human consciousness and it is there that a fundamental revolution is required. By fundamental revolution, Krishnamurti means, a complete and radical transformation of the human psyche or the total structure of mind. The real change in society can be brought about by change within the individuals who constitute it and it is therefore, more of a psychological perspective. This revolution cannot be the outcome of action based on idea or of the mind. It cannot be either brought about through any organisation. It is the creation of the individual in society and no external element can solve it. All the human problems can be mitigated if action is freed from the narrowing limitation of class, creed, nationalism and religions that divides humanity. In further elucidating the problem of conflict and its solution Krishnamurti presents two approaches. One is individual approach and the other is collective approach. In individual approach, one is left free to create individually in the field of thought and in understanding the significance of life. In collective approach, one should work collectively in close cooperation and collaboration with all others, in the conduct of daily affairs of life and in organising the necessities of existence. The individual must be free to think for there is no collective thinking. Collective thinking means conformity to authority, to tradition or the society which only breeds fear and chaos. His main premise in this regards is that one should have the liberty to think individually but act collectively.

Krishnamurti is one of the most challenging thinkers of our generation who laid new bases of thought which are not akin to any other contemporary philosopher. To study his discourses is to expose oneself to a state of unrelenting disturbance, for he challenges every norms and values of individuals as well as social life. He encourages every individual to move towards a total transformation of the very centre, the ‘me’ and the content of one’s being. To him, there must arise a ‘new man’ before a new society could be brought about. His approach is always positive, but asks his listeners to discover the positive in the ground of the negative, for the former can bloom only in the soil of the latter

The entire discussion of Krishnamurti is related to the cause of human suffering and to be free from it. His whole argument is around a single perspective concentrating on the significance of knowing oneself for mitigating world problems. Sometimes, it create confusion as to whether he could be treated as a philosopher.

The problem in understanding Krishnamurti’s philosophy is that they are not presented in a systematic manner. A scholar would have a liberty to organize them in any manner, as per his/her convenience. So, from Krishnamurti’s thought one could not probably arrived at any conclusion.

He rightly points out that,

‘To be grounded in a conclusion, whatever that be, is to be conditioned by an idea, and to be conditioned by an idea is to developed a resistance to the overflowing stream of life and to isolate oneself from the stream of eternity in to a small stagnant pool of continuity in time under the shadow of fear and anxiety.’^[4]

Raymond Martin (2008) opined that Krishnamurti was not a philosopher in the usual sense. Krishnamurti did not study philosophy. He rather discouraged his listener and the people in general from disregarding what he had to say as a contribution to philosophy. He would not try to clarify what he said in the same ways that philosopher at the academic level do, and he never argued for his views. Instead of encouraging people to take what he had to say as a contribution to philosophy, Krishnamurti urged his listener to take it as an invitation to meditation. To him, meditation did not mean retreating from one’s ordinary life. Rather it meant being extremely sensitive, without thought or external motivation to whatever in one’s normal environment a person is experiencing or doing in the moment.

So, there are different views among various scholars on the question as to whether Krishnamurti could be regarded as a philosopher. While one school of thought opined that he could be well accepted as a philosopher, another school of thought would not accept him. The former school of thought argued that he is not a philosopher since he does not lay claim to either system building or a particular doctrine. The other school however, regarded him as a philosopher as he developed a well rounded philosophy which encompasses metaphysics, pedagogy and ethics. K. Satchidananda Murty (1991) says that, so far as the intellectual vigour and power of analysis is concerned, Jiddu Krishnamurti is not inferior to anyone among the Indian contemporary philosophers of his time. However, he does not find a place in most of the listed Indian philosopher.^[5] His philosophy provides guidance to human life, and his overall emphasis remains that it is only by means of negating our present concept that we could learn about our reality. But looking at his entire talks and discussion, we find that he never attached himself with any philosophical school or tradition, nor did he have a philosophical predecessor. He did not identify himself with any school of thought and his teaching are not in reaction to any school of philosophy. His teaching is neither related to any integrated view of a religion, philosophy or a psychological theory. P. Kesava Kumar (2015) rightly says that his teachings are the outcome of his direct perception of truth or an expression of the truth that he realised. To him, truth is beyond speculative theories or doctrines and it could not be comprehended through a system of concept.

Krishnamurti himself said,

‘I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies.’^[6]

The core concern of Krishnamurti is to set man psychologically free. He holds that freedom would come about only through a complete transformation of the human spirit. His approach is basically individual which could be called a spiritual phenomenon, that is, in order to change the society we have to change the individual. To him, the individual is of first importance and not the society or its system. The unusual characteristic of Krishnamurti’s approach is that contrary to all types of tradition, his way of discovery is not through belief and surrender but through doubt and revolt. This makes him very significant to the modern generation who are essentially betrayed by the innumerable political, socio-economic, religion and technological know-how; each entrenched in his or her limited field, refusing to see the whole part of it.

In his own words:

‘I have long been in revolt from all things, from the authority of others, from the instruction of others, from the knowledge of others; I would not accept anything as Truth until I found the Truth myself. I never opposed the ideas of others but I would not accept their authority, their theory of life. Until I was in that state of revolt, until I became dissatisfied with everything, with every creed, with every dogma and belief, I was not able to find the Truth. Until I was able to destroy these things by constant struggle to understand what lies behind them, I was not able to attain the Truth I sought. Naturally, I did not think of all these things while I was young. They grew in me unconsciously but now I can place all the events of my life in their proper order and see in what manner I have developed to attain my goal, and have become my goal.’^[7]

Krishnamurti urged man to enquire into truth. But he never provided a way to find truth. His rejection of any method, system, and technique of knowing, lay on his understanding of his very understanding of truth. He said that method depends upon a question of ‘how.’ He points out that the question of ‘how’ suggests a thought-process, a mental habit, and an imitation and repetition. It is only a way of movement, from the known to known. The unknown on the contrary requires a different source of solution, which is free from all dualism. Hence, to him, all systems are useless so far as truth is concerned. Krishnamuti’s philosophy did not provide us with truth; what he left for his posterity is that one realizes the urgent need to see truth. He did not provide a way to see as there cannot be a ‘how’ to see truth. Truth just has to be seen and one does not have to try to see it. And it is in this seeing that peace can ever find its place.

Krishnamurti’s philosophy is essentially a talk on love of truth. He taught to love truth or life without being caught in the network of thought. By truth, it indicates nothingness of the mind and is therefore beyond the grasp of the intellect. Truth indicates life which is undetermined by thought. To him, philosophy is living life independent of a system, image, ideal or belief. It is living life from moment to moment in total freedom of the mind. It is the art of being nothing and living life in the present.

He therefore said that,

‘Life is what is happening at this instant, not an imagined instant, not what thought has conceived. So it is the first step you take now that is important. If that step is in the right direction, then the whole life is open to you. Right direction is not towards an ideal, a predetermined end. It is inseparable from what is taking place now. This is not a philosophy, a series of theories. It is exactly what the word philosophy means–love of truth, the love of life. It is not something that you go to university to learn. We are learning about the art of living in our daily life.’^[8]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Krishnamurti, J. (2008). ‘The First and Last Freedom,’ Chennai: Krishnamurti Foundation India, p. 71

[2]:

As cited by Luis S.R. Vas (2004). ‘J Krishnamurti: Great Liberator or Failed Messiah?’ Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, p.5.

[3]:

As reported by the Indian Express, a reputed National dailies, on 22nd January, 1995.

[4]:

As found in R.K.Shringy (1976), on ‘Philosophy of J. Krishnamurti: A Systematic Study’ New Delhi: Munshiram Manuharlal Publisher, p. 348

[5]:

Murty, K. Satchidananda. (1991). ‘Philosophy in India: Traditions, Teaching and Research,’ New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, p. 178

[6]:

Krishnamurti, J. (2008). ‘Total Freedom: The Essential Krishnamurti.’ Chennai: Krishnamurti Foundation India, p.2

[7]:

Krishnamurti, J. (1928). ‘Life in Freedom.’ Retrieved from http://www.jiddu krishnamurti.net/en/1928-life-in-freedom/jiddu-krishnamurti-life-in-freedom-04, dated, 21^st may 2016.

[8]:

Krishnamuti, J. (1981). ‘Letters to the School.’ Chennai: Krishnamurti Foundation India, P. 72.