Anyone who wants to understand what Krishnamurti was trying convey to his audience will find what he had to say about meditation most illuminating. He said that meditation is being attentive to everything one is aware of, including the thoughts that arise spontaneously and incessantly. He said that the observation of thought brings about its own discipline, which involves the emptying of the known, and the silence that comes with the mind completely understanding itself.
It sounds wonderful and practicable, but if the mind’s response is less than complete, its inquiry will be less than thorough, and ultimately inconclusive. Krishnamurti was inviting the listener to find out by applying oneself completely to the task, and of course, that can’t happen when the mind is not complete.
The mind is incomplete until it is awakened to its duplicity and duality. Is there a process or a path by which the incomplete mind can find wholeness, health, sanity, silence? Krishnamurti said there is no way, no how, yet he talked about self-knowledge, meditation, observation, and freedom from the known.
So what are we to make of these words and phrases? Should we make a religion of them; regard them as sacred and holy and repeat them authoritatively as if they are Truth itself? Should we use them as if we understand what they represent? Or might one hold them for questioning until one’s ignorance and misunderstanding is revealed?