Even without fully understanding what the self IS, it is plainly the fact that the source of any conflict IS the “me”. This in itself makes it important to understand and not to dismiss the cause of any psychological disturbance as being self-evident, or as being due to someone else or something else, it seems to me.
Therefore, when one is disturbed in some way by another or by an external event or circumstance, does one look to “the other” or to outside of “me” for the cause? If one looks outwardly, can one understand self, suffering, consciousness, time, action, relationship, and so on, as an abstraction?
Like most of us, I was not educated to question the very existence and nature of the “me” which dictates behaviour and action in relationship. (In this instance, I am using “I” functionally so as not to twist myself into a psychological pretzel to avoid it. It does not refer to the psyche. Perhaps humanity will eventually come up with a new word for the functional “I”).
I could be wrong about all this.
We are conditioned, educated, to approach the challenges which “life throws at us” with our ancient consciousness, which has been passed down to us from generation to generation. One can enquire into all these things alone or with others. Consciousness and self are so ingrained in us and complex, and understanding is so arduous that it is wonderful to have a meeting of hearts and minds with others who are looking into it. Perhaps we can give each other a hand up the mountain, perhaps not. Existential pain can’t be ended by explanations or authority. K suggested that the flame of discontent must be faced and allowed to burn brightly, not be ignored. That sounds true. Discontent cannot be extinguished through willful action. To argue and to try to prevail is to avoid discontent, as I see it.
To me, it is necessary to avoid conversations in which there is the resistance of sterile conclusions. Still, one might experiment in taking part in such conversations, to find out whether there can be a deepening of understanding in that direction. But to continue sterile conversations once one realizes their futility is a waste of energy and an avoidance of the very discontent which moved one to enquire in the first place.
If one is ignorant, blind, confused, lost, there is no shame in it. That is where we are and we can only start observing ourselves as we really are. Discontent always leads back to the necessity for understanding ME. Again, I may be wrong about all this. Nonetheless, right or wrong, the questioning arises spontaneously; it cannot be resisted or repressed. It is unstoppable, as I am experiencing it.
Frognerseteren, Norway 1st Public Talk 6th September, 1933 | J. Krishnamurti
“Understanding is like the light that dispels darkness. But if you do not understand, if you apply what I am saying only to the other man, the man outside, then you are but increasing darkness.”
Note: my computer is kaput. I have to go to the library to use one there, so it may be quite some time before I can participate…
