I’m breaking my promise again, because I think this is relevant at this point…
I think it is true that, for most of us at least, our minds - our mind being our thinking, our feeling, our emotions, our experiences and knowledge, our whole past memory of who we are and what we have done - are afraid of being nothing, of being empty.
We crave being and becoming, because this is the known world with which we are familiar. And so we resist exploring into the unknown, into the psychological or meditational space beyond or beneath our thoughts, feelings and emotions, etc. Simply put, we are afraid to be nothing.
But what is this ‘nothing’ we are projecting as something so horrible, to be feared? Is it actually something horrible? Or is it a space in which horror as such no longer exists?
Obviously we are afraid to die. We are afraid to contemplate the world without ‘me’, without the ego, without the self. We are identified with out thoughts, with our knowledge, with our experiences, with our emotional attachments and memories. And so we fear a state of being in which all this is absent, in which we have nothing left with which to feel identified. We fear a space with no known ‘things’. Emptiness. Nothingness. Death.
And yet spirituality (for want of a better world) is the business of dying psychologically before we die physically. To die before we die. Which means: to face our own nothingness, to no longer run away from our own emptiness, and to find out what this nothingness and emptiness really is first hand.
Is it something terrible, something ghastly? Is it a black abyss of total annihilation?
Or is it - compassion, intelligence… even the whole universe? (see the extract that follows)
Is it a genuine horror to be nothing? Or is the person who is nothing actually a happy person, in spite of what we have imagined?
K: If the structure of time and thought ends the now has totally a different meaning. The now then is nothing. I mean, when we use the word ‘nothing’, zero contains all the figures. Right? So nothing contains all. But we are afraid to be nothing.
PJ: When you say it contains the all, is it the essence of all human and racial and environmental, and nature and the cosmos, as such?
K: Yes. No, I would rather… You see, I am talking of the fact of a realisation that there is nothing. The psyche is a bundle of memories - right? - and those memories are dead. They operate, they function, but they are the outcome of past experience which has gone. I am a movement of memories. Right? Now if I have an insight into that, there is nothing. I don’t exist…
All one’s education, all one’s past experience and knowledge is a movement in becoming, both inwardly, psychologically as well as outwardly. Becoming is the accumulation of memory. Right? More and more and more memories, which is called knowledge. Right? Now, as long as that movement exists there is fear of being nothing. But when one really sees the fallacy, the illusion of becoming something - which is endless time-thought and conflict - therefore that very perception, that insight to see there is nothing, there is an ending of that. That is, the ending of the movement which is the psyche, which is time-thought. The ending of that is to be nothing.
Nothing then contains the whole universe - not my petty little fears and petty little anxieties and problems, and my sorrow with regard to, you know, a dozen things.
After all, Pupulji, ‘nothing’ means the entire world of compassion - compassion is nothing. And therefore that nothingness is supreme intelligence. That’s all there is. I don’t know if I am conveying this.
So why are human beings - just ordinary, intelligent - frightened of being nothing? If I see that I am really a verbal illusion, that I am nothing but dead memories, that’s a fact. But I don’t like to think I am just nothing but memories. But the truth is I am memories. If I had no memory either I am in a state of amnesia; or I understand the whole movement of memory, which is time-thought, and see the fact as long as there is this movement there must be endless conflict, struggle, pain. And when there is an insight into that, ‘nothing’ means something entirely different. And that nothing is the present…
You see, it is really quite interesting if one goes into this problem not theoretically but actually. The astrophysicists are trying to understand the universe. They can only understand in terms of gases; but [what is important is] the immensity of [the universe] as part of this human being: not out there, [but] here. Which means there must be no shadow of time and thought.
Pupul, after all that is real meditation, that’s what ‘sunya’ means in Sanskrit.
But we have interpreted it in a hundred different ways, commentaries, this and that; but the actual fact is we are nothing except words and opinions, judgements - that’s all petty affairs. And therefore our life becomes petty.
So to grasp, to understand that in the zero contains all the numbers, and that in nothing is all the world contained… Do you see the immensity of all this? …
Pupulji, especially in the Indian tradition, from the Buddha to Nagarjuna, and the ancient Hindus, have said there is that state of nothingness, which, they said, you must deny the whole thing. Nagarjuna says - he came to that point, as far as I understand, I may be mistaken, what I have been told - that he denied everything, every movement of the psyche… Why haven’t they pursued that? … Why haven’t they pursued, denying, not the world - you can’t deny the world (they have denied the world, and made a mess of their own lives!) - but the total negation of the 'me’?
(2nd Conversation between Krishnamurti and Pupul Jayakar, Brockwood Park, 1983)