JIDDU KRISHNAMURTI PDF S

adminComment(0)

We listen with the various depths of our being, but our listening is always with a Krishnamurti: You are listening to yourself, and not to the speaker. If you are. Jiddu Krishnamurti. The Only Revolution .. MEDITATION IS NOT an escape from the world; it is not an isolating self- enclosing activity, but rather the. The impact of the philosopher J. Krishnamurti on the educational ethos of alternative It is Krishnamurti's moral passion that formed the basis for his relentless.


Jiddu Krishnamurti Pdf S

Author:JEANINE TIPLER
Language:English, Dutch, Arabic
Country:Canada
Genre:Biography
Pages:530
Published (Last):14.11.2015
ISBN:915-9-20093-492-1
ePub File Size:16.52 MB
PDF File Size:10.81 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration needed]
Downloads:33153
Uploaded by: KANDIS

PDF | The present article looks at mind and consciousness from the Deeper delving into it and a study of J. Krishnamurti's philosophy is a. The Awakening Of Intelligence is collection of transcribed talks Jiddu Krishnamurti. Download the more than page long free ebook here in. Mind Without Measure Krishnamurti free pdf ebook Mind without measure by Jiddu Krishnamurti is a huge collection of public talks held by.

By doing so he rejected estate, money, power and all claims to authority or guru status. He kept himself away from theosophy and its organisation. In fact, by Krishnamurti developed doubts about the application of theosophy to human problems. In , he questioned and negated the very idea of his future Messianic role. After keeping away from the shadow of theosophy, from to his speeches strongly concentrated on finding an apt form of expression for an effective and faultless delivery of his message while after that from onwards one discovers within him a certain stability of expression and approach.

He adapted himself gradually to psychological probing into the nature of existence, the psychological structure, substance in the function of the mind and the constitution of human consciousness etc.

After disbanding the Order of the star, he declared that truth cannot be found through any sect or religion but only by freeing oneself from all forms of conditioning.

He dedicated his whole life to set man absolutely free. For the next sixty years after disbanding the Order of the Star in the East, Krishnamurti travelled to different parts of the world giving discourses on his vision of life.

For six decades until his death in , at the age of ninety, he travelled over the world bringing his thoughts to those who were ready to listen. In all that time the message of his talks was that truth is pathless land, each one of us represents all humanity and one needs to be a light to one self, free from all authority.

He spent the last sixty years of his life in going all around the world and speaking to the mixed audience of varying temperaments and of different intellectual capacities, of different cultural marks, without distinction of sex, age, class, creed, nation or race. In conveying his teachings, Krishnamurti explored them as of thought, time, suffering, death space, silence and sacredness.

In his speeches and dialogues, he addressed the evils of civil society and the irrationality of organised religions, futility of existing social structures, inertia in conforming to beliefs, dogmas and Print to PDF without this message by downloading novaPDF http: By mid, he had developed notions about education, human relations and communications, which were not found in his earlier discourses.

The range of his teachings further grew to embrace a number of new concerns such as nationalism, ecological despoliation, unemployment, hunger, poverty, with an almost contemporary sensitivity and the social issues that were once on the periphery of his perceptions came closer to the center stage.

Though he uses very simple words, yet every word has profound significance and establishes an intimacy with his audience. His teachings are free from all mythical or religious reference. His style is even free from standard terms, which are of having a traditional as well as established meaning and often infuses a word with an unusual and unexpected significance and opens within the most common words depths and heights and expressive charisma. Krishnamurti embraces within himself life in its totality.

He rejects every ideology and every system of thought. He does not hold any viewpoint and so he does not propagate a theory, neither does he preach any dogma, or presents a philosophical doctrine and his teachings do not expand a definite theme. And yet he speaks of life, freedom, revolt and revolution and about suffering and self-knowledge.

It pierces the clouds of philosophy which confound our thought and restores the springs of action. He initiated no new faith or dogma, questioning everything, cultivated doubts and perseverance, freed himself of illusion and enchantment of pride, family and every He was able to reach the core of the problems with which humanity has grappled for centuries.

More From Morais Martins S. Kalil

His teaching explores the reasons why mankind has lived in chaos and misery for thousands of years. The discussion brings to light, as the chief cause, the fragmentation of the mind deeply conditioned by race, nationality, religion and ideology which produces division, fear and conflict. Krishnamurti humbly says, I have nothing to offer you since he views that people need to be awakened not instructed.

But in reality, his teaching demands not only a self- correctness, a life free of self-centred activity but the awakening of enormous energy, radiating and integral to perception, which alone frees man from the bondage of time. He advocates self-knowledge in the pursuit of truth.

The miseries of the world can be ended only if man changed his own psyche to develop a broader outtook towards all creation, an outlook of love and compassion and sharing—as society and its ills were the creation of the psyche. He challenged the existing patterns of human living, thought, feeling and action. He urges us to look at life directly without the glasses of erudition and traditional wisdom.

He perceives the unity of human existence, through insight and intelligence. The perception of truth, of the reality of what is—is essentially an individual problem he says. He refuses to accept the role of world teacher. The message of Krishnamurti is the message of love, compassion, self-criticism and freedom from past inhibitions. He covers the entire gamut of human thought, aspiration and endeavour.

He often discusses the relations between idea and action, contradictions of effort, the perils inherent in the acceptance of traditions and dogmas uncritically. His teachings do not propose any ideals since he considers the ideal is always what is not. Krishnamurti did not hesitate to adopt them to new historical circumstances and spiritual quests. In that way, his teachings are creative as well as without change in the essence despite the use of different terminology to suit the situation.

Human Crisis and World Disorder We are at the threshold of the twenty first century. No one can deny the fact that there has been an unprecedented advance in science and technology. Even as we make certain claims about the progress that has been achieved, we experience a sense of loss or decline in certain aspects of human life and civilisaisation. On the one hand, there is a definite change in our living conditions while on the other humankind is engulfed in a series of ideological battles— religious, political, or economic.

Then in what sense can we assert that our civilisaisation has achieved progress? What does it then mean to say that we have more knowledge about nature, the world and of man than ever before? Can we accept without any reservation or unconditionally the claim about progress?

We cannot deny the fact that the fragmentation of humanity into caste, class, nation, religion, ethnic groups is also unprecedented. Human beings are leading their lives not in a state of joy but under a constant fear of being destroyed. Mankind seems to be obsessed with the idea of domination in various forms like amassing wealth, monopolising trade and colonising nations. This domination is carried out with the help of certain institutions which are supposed to serve as custodians of moral life.

Life is no more an expression of joy but a vulgar display of human weaknesses resulting in the increase of human suffering. We find ourselves trapped in activities that are really meaningless. That humanity is facing a deep rooted crisis, is not a recent revelation and that there is a crisis is one thing on Print to PDF without this message by downloading novaPDF http: The symptoms were recognised long before and there have been many attempts to emancipate man from such a situation.

But there is no unanimity among thinkers about the nature of the crisis and the way to overcome it. People from all walks of life—scientists, economists, spiritual leaders and political thinkers are concerned with the problem and their analysis of the situation and also their attempts to solve it are helpful in understanding the complex situation.

However, the failure in overcoming the crisis is partly because the various thinkers are not clear in their diagnosis of the fundamental problem, and therefore, their solutions are not comprehensive and lasting.

For instance, the economic solution to the problem is limited as human beings cannot be explained in terms of economics alone. The core of the problem lies in understanding the human nature in its totality. According to Krishnamurti, a solution to the crisis would emerge not from politics or religion, but from the insights about the human mind or psyche and also from understanding of the nature of human consciousness.

To understand the nature of man, we have to comprehend the nature of human consciousness. Therefore, Krishnamurti pays more attention to understand the nature of human consciousness. However, his attempt to characterise the nature of human consciousness is not the first of its kind; but what distinguishes Krishnamurti from others is his way of perceiving the problem. Krishnamurti feels that our inquiry must begin with an understanding of our traditional notions and attitudes that we cherish.

He, however, feels that the various solutions that have come to us are conditioned by tradition and our past. The tradition, whatever may be its structure, can offer us only a partial view of the problem, and therefore, any attempt to offer a solution based on it would inevitably be conditioned by the limitations of the tradition.

Krishnamurti would, therefore, like to encourage us to explore the psychological reasons behind the crisis which, according to him, would alone bring about Print to PDF without this message by downloading novaPDF http: So far we have made an attempt to present some of the basic features of his thought and what follows is an attempt to highlight the problem that forms the focus of my study.

Along with stating the problem of my study, I also try to point out the limitations of previous attempts by others. What forms the core of my thesis are his ideas on tradition and revolution which so far have not received their due attention. The problem of tradition and revolution is one of the most crucial problems that Krishnamurti has tried to analyse and understand in his writings as well as in his talks. At the same time we also realise that the past which comes to us in the form of tradition has conditioned us and our ways of looking at and understanding things.

What is required is clarity in terms used in negotiation with the past in understanding our place in and relation to the tradition. Moreover, the emerging world order also makes us rethink about our relation to the past.

Thinkers of various ideological persuasions have tried to address themselves to this problem in their own ways. The objective of my critique is twofold. Firstly, to discuss the various ideologies like Marxism, different versions of liberalism and religion in general with a view to understand their approaches to the problem of tradition and revolution as well as their understanding of the problem itself. The second one is the major thrust of my thesis to which the first serves as a backdrop or introduction.

Problem of Tradition and Revolution Tradition represents the past that is carried over into the present in the form of ideas, beliefs and images. It is not static but something which flows in one form or other and is ingrained into contemporary thinking and practice. Revolution, on the other hand, aims at breaking away with the past or tradition and encourages constant questioning before accepting anything.

Its object is to emancipate humanity from the past and its conditioning and to create a new world order. It tries to free mankind from the burden of tradition, so that the creative human energy finds an intelligent expression.

By helping in creating a new social order based on human equality, it aims to end the exploitative structure of the traditional society.

Tradition tries to negotiate with revolution by appropriating it; revolution demands a total break from tradition. For Krishnamurti, tradition is something one has to do away within order to bring about a new world order. According to him, thought serves as a medium for the continuity of tradition. By the same token one may say that it tries to perpetuate the traditional values and ideas. Krishnamurti views thought as a response of our memory that is conditioned by our modern challenges and situation.

Such a response would, therefore, be both incomplete and inadequate and would only help in strengthening the process of conditioning of our minds. The values, ideas and beliefs inherited from the tradition inhibit spontaneous response and free action as they condition our thinking and attitudes. It hinders the possibility of seeing and experiencing things afresh. The different kinds of knowledge that we have are rooted in tradition and are, therefore, incomplete and limited.

Its possibilities are also limited. We generally feel a sense of optimism about human situation with the advancement in science and technology.

But to reduce human activity to science and technology is to limit human nature and its possibilities. Science and technology are due to a kind of human endeavour and imagination. Therefore, their claim to solve all the problems under the sun must be examined.

Jiddu Krishnamurti, Exploration into Insight.pdf

Krishnamurti does not fail to acknowledge the progress that sciences have made and their value and importance to the progress of humankind. But the knowledge that sciences provide must be utilised with a lot of caution.

According to Krishnamurti, the emancipation of mankind from the crisis requires overcoming the past, its ways of thinking and understanding. To substantiate his position, Krishnamurti considers religion at length to throw light on the human crisis. Generally, religion is seen as the custodian of moral values and as final authority and solution with regard to human life and its problems.

However, as science makes great advances, we find that religions of different kinds are losing their hold and authority over human life. Science has done us a great favour by questioning the beliefs upheld by different religions. In the modern world, science has replaced religion as the final authority but failed to alleviate human misery and suffering. One may even say that it has succeeded in turning human life more miserable.

Communism is another major attempt to break away from all existing traditions. It envisages a social order which will be conducive to human welfare, free from all domination and exploitation. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and other east European countries, thinkers have started characterising communism as a false prophecy. Identities are asserted with the help of traditions. This tendency is exemplified in the various movements that address the problem of cultural identity.

In this context, it may not be far from truth to say that secularism is also rooted in the past. One can definitely argue that secularism is motivated by humanism, accepts rationality and tolerance. Various notions like rationality and tolerance may themselves be motivated by not so apparent ideologies. Thus, we find that both the models tradition and secularism are equally problem ridden.

What differentiates Krishnamurti from others is his approach. He makes it very clear that ideologies, religions and the so called social reforms cannot bring about any substantive change in the existing situation.

While attempting to provide a solution, he raises a few pertinent questions. Is the brain conditioned by scriptures, economic structures and other forms of ideologies? And if the brain presents us with continuity, can we put an end to it? Can the brain be free of psychological time? Is it possible for the brain to be totally free from memory or tradition?

Is the brain capable of bringing about its own transformation? If the brain cells are keepers of memory of the tradition, then is it possible to transform the brain in order to get away from the conditioning memory? Does the brain have mechanism to carry this out?

This change should take place in each and every cell of our brain. The revolution must take place spontaneously and in the present moment. It can happen only when the brain is totally free of all patterns and dominating structures. And that puts an end to the continuity of time which is the carrier of the past. Thus, a mind which is capable of transforming itself faces the challenge from moment to moment.

And such a transformation enables us to be aware of and experience love, compassion and human relationships in an altogether different light. Krishnamurti has left behind a huge collection of writings and audio-visual records of his teachings.

My study is concerned mainly with the teachings of post-realisaisation period, i. However, one may find a change only in his expression during this period but not in the essence of his teaching that is to set man unconditionally free.

It also enables us to have a clear understanding of the issue involved. The role of tradition in our day to day life is highlighted. Krishnamurti holds that man is a product of tradition as well as its guardian. He defends it and strengthens it by his own contributions. Taking up different examples like family, religion, nation and moral values, I tried to discuss, how they act as barriers in attaining a clear understanding of the human nature.

My effort is only to introduce his thoughts along with the thought of other prominent thinkers who made significant contribution to the problem. Traditional mind is viewed as a product of psychological evolution and as a shadow of certain images, formulae and conclusions that find their expression in thought.

The role of thought in this process is analysed along with a discussion on the construction of certain structures of consciousness which are its correlate. Time, knowledge, memory and thought form a unit and condition the mind.

Such a conditioning, according to Krishnamurti, results in an inability to respond creatively to different problems humans face in their day to day life. A conditioned mind fails to perceive the truth as a whole. This is because tradition supplies the mind with a sense of security which it does not want to forego in favour of adventure and freedom. Traditional mind by its very nature is fragmented, divisive and full of conflicts.

It is rooted in fear, envy, insecurity and jealousy. The discussion of the operation of traditional mind paves the way for a detailed analysis of its implications in giving rise to a world order. It begins with a discussion on the predicament of modern age that is reflected in personal relationships, politics and a disbelief in the claims of science, technology and religion.

The fragmented responses of a conditioned mind only succeed in the revival of certain traditions. The emphasis on cultural identity is one among many identities. Religions with a long history and political ideologies have failed to make sense of the situation.

War and fragmentation of nations, only affirm the point further. According to Krishnamurti, the root of the problem lies in the structure of the human consciousness. One can not draw a clear line of demarcation between the individual and society and both contribute for mutual sustenance. As the world, according to Krishnamurti, is an extension of human consciousness, the fundamental problem has to do with the very structure of the human psyche.

The outer is the manifestation of the inner. This becomes clear in the context of various movements that argue for particular traditions and identities. According to Krishnamurti, the solution does not lie in the application of a certain model, but in bringing about a fundamental change.

A clear understanding of the structure of contemporary society and mind are prerequisites. Revolutions of the past, political or scientific, have only brought about piecemeal reforms. What is necessary is a radical and complete change. For Krishnamurti, revolution involves a complete and radical transformation of human psyche.

Political systems or moral institutions are incapable of bringing this change. It demands a complete rejection of dominant structures. Such revolution, according to Krishnamurti, means an end to the continuity of time that carries tradition within itself. Revolution, in this sense, is not something that is to be realised in future.

It is not time bound. It is marked by the absence of thought, memory and time. An intelligent mind, according to him, is free and, therefore, capable of perceiving, the reality as a whole.

It is both silent and meditative. It lives in freedom and is free from fear and anxiety. It experiences love and compassion with freshness and that marks the beginning of wisdom. The final chapter begins with a discussion of the implications of psychological revolution to self-knowledge. An attempt is also made to argue a case for change in the global relationships sans war and violence.

The revolution must be at the level of individual psyche. Such a revolution, Krishnamurti says, will establish a new world order. But his notion of nothingness has not much similarity with that of Sartre and other existentialists.

Thinkers like Plato, Marx, Freud, Sartre and Buddhist philosophy are discussed in order to show how Krishnamurti goes beyond them, though his thought has something in common with them. Krishnamurti has contributed to the debate on tradition and modernity in his characteristic way. He finds that both of them are equally problematic and must, therefore, be rejected.

While rejecting tradition, Krishnamurti does not counterpoise it to modernity, though we may see some of the modernist assumptions in his views.

He maintains that there are no dualities and opposites. His only concern is that man should live the present or with what is. I discuss his views on tradition and modernity, along with those of Gandhi and Ambedkar, two of the most prominent contemporary Indian thinkers.

Krishnamurti is more close to Ambedkar than Gandhi in some respects though he goes much farther than Ambedkar substantially. To give an example, one may point towards Zen Buddhism or the ideas that we find in the early writings of Marx.

I conclude the chapter with a recapitulation of the controversy about characterising Krishnamurti as a mystic. In all these discussions, I have tried to take an independent stance in contrast to the dominant and the most prevailing views on Krishnamurti. End Notes 1. Krishnamurti, Education and Significance of Life Madras: Krishnamurti Foundation of India, , p.

Cited in K. Krishnamurti Comp , Krishnamurti for Beginners, p. Krishnamurti D. Rajagopal ed. KFI, , p. Scientists say man is rational but the fact is that everyday life is irrational. Now we are asking, show us scientifically why it is irrational.

That is, show man in what way he has slipped into this irrationality; why human beings accepted this. We can say it is habit, tradition, religion. And the scientists also, they are very rational in their own field, but irrational in their lives. Some of these definitions are narrow and others broad and lucid and are given to show in what way Krishnamurti accepts or rejects them.

It is often discussed in relation to authority, convention, custom, habit and prejudice, norms etc. It also means delivery or transfer. It is especially oral delivery of information or instruction. It is the act of transmitting or handing down or being handed down from one person to another or from one generation to another. Transmission may be of statements, beliefs, rules, customs, or the like especially through word of mouth or by practice without writing.

It further says that tradition is a long established and generally accepted custom, or method, or procedure, having almost the force of law. Edmund Burke, an English political thinker of the early nineteenth century, argued strongly in favour of tradition.

Reacting to the American and French Revolutions, Burke who represented conservatism, maintained that tradition is the wisdom of ages and that the life of the individual has to be rooted in the past. Institutions and customs are the products of the past. So he feels that tradition has to be preserved and sustained.

Institutions must be reformed, in accordance with their original principles and purposes. Being inclined to preserve tradition, he argues that the French Revolution was against the nature of things, a rebellion against God, a rupture with the universal order. Though his traditionalism is surely anti-enlightenment, in its epistemological rationale, it shares a belief in the progress of the era of enlightenment.

He also thinks that tradition represents the wisdom of God, working through human experience in the course of human history. Oakeshott suggests that even a revolutionary crisis invariably appears within a tradition and in order to meet and resolve the crisis a society has nowhere to turn except to the tradition itself.

Eliot, a famous poet and literary critic of the early twentieth century, attacked romanticism and humanism and so paved the way for neo-classicism in the twentieth century.

Tradition in the sense of passive is in fact repetition which needs to be discouraged. It represents the accumulated wisdom and experience of ages and its knowledge is essential for really great and noble achievements. For Eliot, tradition is not something immovable, but rather something constantly growing and becoming different from what it previously was. It carries within it both the essential and the non-essential, both the good and the bad. It must therefore be used intelligently and changes in the conditions of life must be taken into consideration so that only the best is preserved and fostered.

Eliot believes that the past directs the present and is itself modified and altered by the present. The task of the poet is to make sure that the past is examined critically and only what is significant in it is acquired.

Gadamer, who studies the problem from the hermeneutic point of view, claims that the historicity of humanity is manifested through tradition. Tradition is not simply a cultural repository for the present; nor is it an autonomous historical realm that has a life apart from concrete human activity.

For Gadamer tradition is ontological, which means that an individual comes to grips with tradition through living within it and experiencing it. Gadamer identifies authority with tradition. Here authority has nothing to do with obedience, but rather with knowledge. Authority is superior knowledge. The recognition of authority is always connected with the idea that what authority state is not irrational and arbitrary, but can be seen, in principle, to be true.

That which has been sanctioned by tradition and custom has an authority that is nameless. Our finite historical being is marked by the fact that the authority of what has been transmitted has power over our attitudes and behaviour.

Gadamer maintains that tradition is constantly preserved by an element of freedom. Even the most genuine and solid tradition does not persist by itself. It needs to be affirmed, embraced and cultivated and the preservation of tradition is active historically.

Our continually negotiated attitudes to the past reveal that we are not distancing and freeing ourselves from what has been transmitted. We stand always within a tradition. Conforming to a tradition is not an objectifying process, that is, we do not conceive of tradition as something alien.

It is seen as a part of us. It is a model or an example for us. Tradition is therefore not opposed to freedom and knowledge according to Gadamer. It is actually a legitimate medium through which one can realise freedom. It is a prejudice of the Enlightenment and Romantic eras which assert that there is no rational ground to support the authority of tradition. It is the preconditioned nature of understanding. It makes no statement about what is handed down or in what particular combination, or whether it is a physical object or a cultural constitution; it says nothing about how long it has been handed down and in what manner, orally or in written form.

The anonymity or otherwise of its authors or creators likewise makes no difference as to whether or not it is a tradition. Edward Shills maintains that tradition is what is handed down and includes material objects, beliefs about all sorts of things, images of persons and events, practices and institutions.

It includes buildings, monuments, landscapes, sculptures, paintings, books, tools, machines, practices and institutions made up by human actions. Thus traditions are beliefs, standards and rules of varying but never exhaustive explicitness, which have been received from the preceding generation, through a process of continuous transmission from generation to generation. They recommend themselves by their appropriateness for the present situation and a certain measure of authoritativeness which they possess by virtue of their being proven from the past.

Shills further says that the traditional rule possesses authority because its acceptance establishes an attachment to the past of a family, town, country or corporate body to which an inherent value is attributed. Membership in a primordial and a civil body carries with it not merely attachment to the symbol of the body at a particular moment in time but to symbols which expose a sense of creation, of a state of communion with past authority.

The affirmation of tradition, tacit or explicit, is an act which binds the recipients to the past. Shills also notes that traditions are slightly modified by both endogenous and exogenous factors.

An Indian scholar V. Varma is of the opinion that: Tradition is an inclusive concept. It connotes the initiative character of a certain dominant religious, theoretical, metaphysical and ethical values and beliefs. It also stands for the crystallisation of deference and reverence for certain symbols.

Tradition also includes folk ways, mores and semi- institutionalised patterns of action in a society. At a more extended level, tradition may be identified with the totality of the historical heritage of a nation or a community. Duncan M. An outlook is traditional if the present generation approaches the same matter in the same way. He further adds that there are two kinds of traditions as there are two ways of self-consciously employing it.

Another is the opposite of fossilisation. In it the old is continued functionally in the current and thus grows and moves in keeping with the needs and general growth of society. This form of tradition has a furtive and a slightly fraudulent air: He holds that a belief or practice becomes a tradition when, a It persists over several generations, b If it changes at all, it changes only slightly and gradually and c It is not questioned by its adherents nor thought by them to need justification.

An Indian sociologist Sachidananda holds that tradition is transmitted value and behaviour pattern of a community. Traditions are tested, recalled and esteemed. Their age long succession is an assurance of value which has already occurred in the process of their instrumental functioning as a constituent of social cohesion or social solidarity.

Old traditions die and new ones are continually being built up. Leaving aside external influence, there are also, endogenous factors of change in tradition. We will use the typology suggested by S. Sharma says that it is possible to distinguish at least three meanings of tradition in sociological literature, i.

Anthropologists frequently use the term in this sense in their field studies of tribes and pre-literate societies. Another meaning of tradition is ideal-typical which signifies a set of values common to a community or society. In this sense tradition is shorthand for such values as sacredness, ascription and slow change. Such a conception of tradition offers a criterion for determining what a traditional society is like.

The last one, which is analytical- referential, is a more acceptable meaning of tradition. Analytically tradition connotes routine acceptance of a body of beliefs and action patterns from the past out of sheer reverence for the wisdom of the past.

According to the functional approach, all traditional cultures are sustained by a consistent corpus of norms and values. Traditionalism When we encounter tradition in our lived experience, especially in our own Indian context, we seldom evaluate it neutrally or classify it according to types; we in fact live it, either as an unexamined habit or as an oppressive structure. Very often we see it manifested concretely in strongly held ideas and rigid institutions.

In other words we encounter it as traditionalism, an attitude examined below.

Traditionalism is the self-conscious, deliberate affirmation of traditional norms, with full awareness of their traditional nature. It is based on the feeling that the merit of the norms derives from their traditional transmission or from sacred origin.

This could be manifested as a revivalistic and enthusiastic attitude. It is usually dogmatic and insists on uniformity. It insists on a thorough-going adherence and, does not discriminate between what is workable and what is unworkable. It regards all elements of tradition as equally essential.

Traditionalism is not content with the observance of a tradition in a particular sphere only, as in family or in religious life. It is satisfied only if the traditional outlook permeates all spheres—political, economic, cultural and religious and unifies and subordinates them to the sacred as it is received from the past. Traditionalism is almost always ideological and fanatical. It insists passionately on the full and conscious adherence to tradition with a form and elaboration unknown in the ordinary observance of tradition.

It treats exceptions, qualifications and deviations as unhealthy or aberrant and wicked. It regards the pristine tradition in all its fullness as an adequate guide to conduct. Traditionalism is not only hostile to liberty, it is also radically hostile to tradition, the vague, flexible tradition which even Print to PDF without this message by downloading novaPDF http: In oligarchic societies traditionalism prevents further growth of elements which can give rise to freedom.

In the process of an ideological upsurge of traditionalism, tradition may be changed, stretched and modified by unified and national search for a consensual base for political authority and economic development. The Invention of Tradition The creation of tradition is not a short-term process. What we regard as tradition is the result of a long period of development. In the course of time, the personal experience of many becomes the collective experience of the community which is then enshrined as a tradition.

Theosophical World Resources

Time-honoured customs pervade and regulate most aspects of daily routine. Wisdom is often equated with age and knowledge of the past rather than with youth or education or a vision of better future. To carry forward tradition, certain human agencies and institutions are needed.

Generally, tradition is transmitted from one generation to another through the family, schools and religious institutions. At present, the media also play a significant role in this regard. Tradition should be understood in the context of social change. Today, tradition is being revived worldwide in various forms. It is invented by interested groups to suit modern day politics.

It is argued that tradition is renewed, created and discovered towards a goal which man aspires for and appeals to in some specific historical guise. As Gusfeild puts it: Men refer to aspects of the past as tradition in grounding their present actions in some legitimating principle. Traditional continuity and authenticity appear as mere shadows of reality, in spite of territorial restoration, genealogical restoration and cultural renewal.

Salient Points From the above discussion we may say that tradition has the following general features: Tradition is related to the past. It is the knowledge about the past and, by and large, it is a mode of uncritical acceptance of the past. It works as authority, in which an individual believes and regulates his attitudes and daily life accordingly. Tradition generally lacks the total adaptability that would allow its followers to adjust their behaviour to new circumstances.

Tradition elevates the cultural and religious aspects of life and its values. It forms a coherent pattern giving men reason, an orderly rationale for a relatively stable life, at whatever level of society they find themselves in. Tradition is a more or less homogeneous body of rules and ideas. As such, it is used as a normative or coercive force upon the people who are subjected to it. Traditional structures can supply skills and traditional values can supply sources of legitimisation, which are capable of being utilised in the pursuit of new goals and with new processes.

Tradition has the capacity to evoke conformity even though it has undergone some modifications or changes. It is selective as only some of the elements of the past are useful for fulfilling needs of society. According to Krishnamurti, tradition, broadly means carrying the past over to the present. It is to hand down, to pass on, to give from generation to generation a certain set of ideas, systems and beliefs. That is, tradition is following a belief or an idea without much reflection.

Krishnamurti, while reiterating some of the current notions about tradition, also gives a subtle and fundamentally new meaning to the concept. He suggests that tradition means betrayal. It is the betrayal of the present by the past. But tradition, which is of the past, cannot understand the beauty of actual life.

It may imply a remote or a recent past. Yet all tradition is profane. Krishnamurti says: The brain carries the memory of yesterday, which is tradition and is frightened to let go because it cannot face something new. It is through the brain that an individual carries the past over to the present. Somewhere along the line of evolution, the mind began recording and repeating the past in the psychological sense. It started creating for itself a tradition by way of security.

Thus the mind immersed in tradition has become an instrument which functions in a groove of imitation. The brain or mind becomes traditional by conditioning or programming itself through social, cultural and environmental conditions.

It becomes mechanical and interacts with people, nature and ideas mechanically. The traditional mind functions strictly within tradition because it is afraid of public opinion. Krishnamurti says that a person who is born a Brahmin continues to be the same till he dies, moving in the same circle, in the same pattern, in the same framework.

The traditional mind is not free from thought that is born of experience, of tradition, of memory; it is anchored in the past and therefore cannot be free. Apart from the conditioning of the mind by the factual past which is history, the mind is also conditioned by the psychological past, which is tradition. Culture and human environment all over the globe are structured so as to make the mind conform to tradition. The brain derives power from this psychological inheritance, defends and limits itself to its own groove.

The psychological past is no better than the physical past. The cultivation of positive thinking involves a somewhat better understanding of the world around us and makes us free of tradition to a certain extent. But this freedom is illusory. The traditional mind always thinks and functions in a positive way. All its actions, however radical or negative they may be, are still traditional. They are the products of the past. They are the continuity of the tradition in a modified form.

Positive thinking is no more a thinking; it is merely a modified continuity of what has been thought; the outward shape of it may change from time to time, depending on compulsions and pressures, but the core of positive thinking is always traditional.

Positive thinking is the process of conformity and the mind that conforms can never be in a state of discovery. The traditional mind is the product of time. Its evolution is a process by which the past modifies the present and passes into the future. Krishnamurti says that the past constitutes the background of mind and includes the racial, communal, religious memories and experiences. The old traditions perpetuate themselves. This has been going on for millions of years and basically, there is no basic change in human beings.

Because of this, Krishnamurti says: And that has been our evolution. Pleasure lies in the repetition of past pleasant experiences and in the avoidance of the painful ones. The traditional mind lives by hoarding such memories from the past. Then thought comes along and says: So it brings affair, memory, reaction to memory as thought, thought building images, demanding images.

The habit of repeating the past is stronger in the mind which is ancient. As Krishnamurti observes: The mind consciously acts on the basis of the unconscious past. The conscious part of the mind is confined to the immediate present. It constitutes the superficial part of the whole of the traditional mind.

It is more potent than the superficial mind. It is made up of the racial, religious and environmental influences and appears as though it is mysterious. But in fact the unconscious can be understood and revealed.

According to Krishnamurti: It is the storehouse of all the unreflective factors. It is the past or the tradition which influences the present and the future.

Imitations of all this are given to the superficial mind through dreams and in various other ways when it is not wholly occupied with everyday events. To Krishnamurti, there is in fact no such thing as the unconscious. The unconscious is part of the whole consciousness. The unconscious is what is suppressed or pushed behind as it were, by the mind.

The mind has the tendency to be conscious of what it likes and it suppresses what it does not like. Everything that is there in consciousness is that which has come from outside. The whole of consciousness is the result of conditioning by external factors.

So, the unconscious is not independent of the influences of society: But Krishnamurti tries to delve deep into the matter and wants to trace the psychic and mythical origins of tradition.

He explains the origin and source of tradition, working backwards from a discussion of our immediate perceptions in everyday life. Our mind which is conditioned by the past, by culture and tradition, organises the stream of perceptions from the world. Whereas in actuality, truth is changing from moment to moment, as far as the perceptual act is concerned, we experience the world around us without having the total experience.

Krishnamurti maintains that all our experiences and perceptions, however modern they seem to be, are traditional. Our perceptions are traditional since they are based on conclusions and prejudices. They are the products of the mind which is traditional and dominated by the past.

Krishnamurti holds that knowledge also is traditional since it is the repository of conclusions and ideas. Tradition is not only belief but also knowledge. Tradition is knowledge, since it is knowledge of the past.

To know is to be in the past. To know is to be in tradition. So science is also tradition-bound in the sense that it works on the basis of the past. Scientific knowledge, however experimental or rational it may be, is still traditional.

It is the continuation of the tradition with some modification. Thus scientific knowledge is limited like any other knowledge. Scientific knowledge is essential for biological survival. But it is also destined to be limited and traditional and that which is limited and tradition-bound is always a source of misery. Krishnamurti argues: And tradition is the cultivation of memory.

They think that life is impossible without knowledge. Knowledge is treated as the guiding factor in all areas of life. But Krishnamurti contends that knowledge which is limited cannot help us to live a holistic life or in the present. But human beings accumulate knowledge in the hope of becoming secure and certain.

In the words of Krishnamurti: But knowledge is itself tradition and freedom is beyond tradition.

Tradition or knowledge is the continuity of the past which includes disposition, control, sublimation, suppression. So knowledge, being on the side of tradition, cannot achieve freedom; it is a barrier to freedom. According to Krishnamurti, it is not possible to attain enlightenment through knowledge.

He asks: Why did they not see that knowledge means the past and that the past cannot possibly bring enlightenment? Why did traditionalists not see that discipline, Sadhana, comes from knowledge? By identifying with tradition, the mind feels anchored and ultimately gets conditioned by it. Not content with this security, the mind seeks to make tradition an authority to govern its actions.

It has a desire to be secure and therefore strongly defends the authority which is exercised in various forms: Krishnamurti explains how authority comes into being and how it is imposed on young minds by parents, teachers and society. People desire to find a safe and acceptable form of behaviour, or they would like to be guided as to how they should behave in different situations and to be told what to do. Being confused and worried, the people go to a priest, or to a teacher, or to their parents or to somebody else, seeking a way out of that confusion.

So it is the desire in us to find a particular way of life, a way of conduct that creates authority. So I create an authority. Outward authority is what others impose on us which comes in the form of rules, regulations and laws enforced by society. Discipline and living according to an external ideal is itself tradition.

Krishnamurti wonders: You get crushed, you are just broken. You never think, act and live vitally, for you are afraid of all these things. You say that you must obey, otherwise you will be helpless.

Which means what? That you create authority because you are seeking a safe way of conduct, a secure manner of living. The very pursuit of security creates authority and that is why you become a mere slave, a cog in the machine, living without any capacity to think, to create.

As it has been already mentioned, tradition and freedom do not go together. Any acceptance of authority is the very denial of truth.

The truth of the past is the use of memory, memory is of time and in the dead ashes of yesterday there is no truth. It is not with in the field of time. Do we not? Tradition is full of symbols which are of knowledge. And the symbol is an outward sign of what is in the past, but truth is in the present. Do you know what I mean by symbol? The symbol is the shadow of truth. The word, the symbol, the image, the idea is not the truth, but we worship the image, we revere the symbol, we give great significance to the word and all this is very destructive; because then the word, the symbol, the image becomes all important.

Tradition has its continuity through thought. Thought gives permanence to symbols, words, images of the tradition. Krishnamurti maintains that thought ensures the continuity and persistence of tradition in the present.

Ebooks by J. Krishnamurti

There is nothing permanent either on earth or in our mind. But thought can give continuity to something it thinks about. It can give permanency to the word, or to an idea which is tradition. It can build an image and give to that image continuity and permanency. That is why we say good is permanent, or truth is absolute.

In its nature, tradition is divisive and is a source of conflict. Tradition not only conditions our thinking but also separates us from others. If one identifies oneself with a particular tradition, which he claims as real, it means he isolates himself from the whole or that which includes all other traditions.

As Krishnamurti says: Life is discontinuous whereas tradition is associated with the past and maintains continuity. Traditional life which is irrational and incomplete is no life at all. Krishnamurti declares that man is basically irrational, for he is tradition-bound. Man gives undue importance to thought and knowledge which are the source as well as the expressions of tradition. Duality is the root cause of all our problems. So far tradition has been discussed in its psychological and subtle sense.

To Krishnamurti society is the psychological extension of the traditional mind. Society does not have an independent existence. Society is what you and I, in our relationship, have created; it is the outward projection of all our own inward psychological states. But many of the structures and values that have been built in the course of human development are inhuman and anti-developmental.

That is why there have been movements struggling against political, social and cultural structures which are inherently violent and oppressive. It is a fact that where the power-relations exist, there the conflict starts. Krishnamurti says, our social structure is based on the principle of pleasure. The individuals who are powerful dominate and exploit others for the sake of pleasure and they build institutions or structures starting from the individual to the collective level.

The dominance, the authority, is institutionalised, which can be seen in the form of state, law and justice. As Krishnamurti puts it: So gradually there comes into big society with laws, regulations, policemen, with an army and navy. Biological evolution is a fact whereas the psychological evolution is a product of thought. It becomes internalised in our psyche and this becomes potentially violent also.

There is also violence pervading institutions like family, caste, religion, education and so on. Internalised violence does not look like violence even to those who are subjected to it. But it is only a modification and the basic structure of the mind has never changed. One of the reasons is that these institutions, not only have limited transformation, but also sustain themselves due to human failure to change. Ultimately they are tradition-bound and perpetuate exploitation. For all these institutions combine in themselves necessity, stability, emotion and sentiment.

Several of these institutions are human at one level and violent at another level. That is precisely the reason why none of these institutions remained the same either in form or content. All these are characteristics of tradition. Krishnamurti, in all his talks, refers particularly to religion, family, state and nationality, where one can locate tradition in an effective way.

They have a divisive character and they are being continued, because they lack creative potentiality. Human Relations To be is to be related. Most of our troubles came from our fear of life, religion itself being a refuge from that fear Krishnamurti, [ 9 ]. If we trusted life instead of fearing it, it would never betray us — only by ourselves could we be betrayed Krishnamurti, [ 9 ].

Those who look to Krishnamurti for a new religion or a new philosophy would be disappointed. He does not offer something more, but always something less. The very simplicity of Krishnamurti's teaching confuses our sophisticated minds. His teaching shall seem anarchic and destructive only till the perception dawns that his blows are aimed at our fetters.

Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive

It is then that we realise that life, unconditioned by personal fears, ambitions, and desires, is not a void but a plenum Krishnamurti, [ 7 ]. Krishnamurti: The Man and His Mind The teachings of Krishnamurti do not have a school or organization, but, as humans with tendencies to categorize and organize, I am drawn to comparing him with Jean Paul Sartre, the father of modern existentialism.

Krishnamurti's works also include the space of a human in the social and political scenario. Krishnamurti states so very well that one cannot know of something unless the other is also present. He gives the example of non-violence: one cannot know of non-violence unless you know what violence is.

Life itself is a movement of relationships, and we try to manipulate and control it even in the most common events of life. For example, when someone praises us, we grow in pride, when someone insults us we have rage filled in us; and what we do is behave in ways that increase positive reactions and decrease negative comments; the point being that we are only living a half automated life, and doing something habitually. He emphasises that total awareness, and continuous awareness, will lead to living a non-habitual life, and no amount of discipline will do it — and once again, discipline is not freedom from the known Krishnamurti, [ 3 ].

Self-Consciousness and Krishnamurti Krishnamurti does not trust ideals. He states that an ideal is what is not. A human cannot understand an ideal without knowing what the other part of it is.

I cannot know what truth is without knowing what is false, and what non-violence is without knowing what is violence. Truth cannot be seen as an object of desirability or attained because of its vastness and context. It cannot be reduced to an intellectual formula for our brains, or eternity, and reduced to a mere objective perspective.

Humans can only learn from their past and not from their present, as the present is this very moment. All introspection is a form of retrospection Krishnamurti, [ 6 ]. Problems that affect our behaviour cannot be resolved without awakening the creative intelligence or the intuition within us.

That will, in turn, fully grasp the circumstance and liberate us from our miseries. It is a fact that all self-consciousness is painful and is absent in the states of ecstasy and fullness.

All our urges for personal aggrandizement, which have cost the world so much blood and tears, are merely a futile evasion of a fact, an endless search for the non-existing security, an absurd refusal to meet face to face, with one's own true condition. It is only in the full awareness of oneself that we can put an end to our self-perpetuated torment Krishnamurti, [ 8 ]. The Nature of Mind as per Krishnamurti It is well known that the power to think is what makes us different from other living beings, but this unfortunately is also the reason why we may consider ourselves higher in the order of nature.

This very essential power is mostly used and abused over time. Our mind is misinterpreted, according to Krishnamurti, and we must start using it differently than it is used, and not as an object for self-protection and self-expansion. We are no more primitive humans, and survival instincts have to be abandoned so as to achieve higher awareness. He talks of how, if society has to remain truly human, it must be in a state of constant revolution and re-evaluation. The mind is being used more for ego-centred acquisitiveness and for personal growth and power, in turn lessening others opportunities.

We must try and belong to an organic society and not an organised one; because an organised society will always follow a hierarchy; and the standards of morality may exist, but not necessarily in the nobler sense like that of an organic society.

An organic society means that its members have no choice but to belong to it. However, it goes even further. It implies that they have no desire but to belong to it, for their interests and those of the society are the same; they identify themselves with the society.

Unity here is not a principle proclaimed by the authorities, but a fact accepted by all the participants. No great sacrifice is involved. One's place in society may be onerous or undignified, but it is the only one available; without it, one has no place in the world. The opposite of this perspective, with rights and liberties granted to an individual, is what forms an organised society Krishnamurti, [ 6 ]. This world is full of chaos and it is the human being who must understand that he is part of that chaos — the cause and the effect.

Krishnamurti states that bringing of the unconscious to the conscious is the first fruit of intelligence. It marks the reaching of the human level and there should be no conflict. This integration of the entire mechanism of consciousness will open to awareness, vistas of perception and experience of affection and action beyond our boldest dreams Krishnamurti, [ 12 ].

This sounds as familiar as Freud, who said childhood experiences form the base of our adulthood and our adjustment to life; but it is more than this. Krishnamurti goes on to say further, that every action we try to connect positively or negatively to, comes back to form a habit, and does not allow a free mind to grow.

Sometimes, even suffering is based on our habits and when we try to overcome one habit, we form another; and eventually, as humans, we form the habit of repression. We must understand that there is no stopping of habits, but rather only a cessation. We have to understand it and overcome it, which is acquired through great alertness and patience. The idea of a free mind is to look inward with this patience and alertness. On doing so, we free ourselves of the thinker who cages us.

Once we destroy this cage of controlled thoughts, man finds a new freedom, which is not a freedom from painful experiences, but a release from the scar these experiences used to leave on the mind Krishnamurti, [ 9 ]. We do not question or enquire what we may believe or not believe out of fear. And who is to be responsible for this — our elders who condition us to believe without questioning.

What we are doing out of fear, or so-called belief, must be questioned. He states that a true religious mind is free of fear, blind faith, and contradiction. All religion is followed by tradition, whether it is religion that is years old, or The list of must do's in any religion should be questioned by itself.

A mind should be investigative and scientific in its approach, and not bound by something, or compelled. Religious matters make humans irrational, insane; and all these build the walls of our conditioning. The beginning of self-knowledge is the beginning of the religious mind and not the knowledge of the supreme self; because that will again be belief in authority; and authority makes us imitate, and dictates; and we have to learn to free ourselves from this.

A religious mind does not separate the inner world and the outer. It is the unitary movement of the tide that goes out and comes in; and only that mind, which is free and enquiring, can perceive that which is immeasurable Krishnamurti, [ 11 ]. Feeling and the Human Mind Feeling is a part of the mind, as per Krishnamurti.

The mind includes desires, love, jealousy, emotions, everything. It includes contrary beliefs, double minds, and all that we understand and feel. What is different is its manifestation and its intensity. The problem is not about feeling right or wrong, because humans will feel. What needs to be changed is the greed to have many things: people want the good things of life and yet want to feel contented and peaceful.

To have both is not possible: a real mind has no place for ambition and acquisitions. Pleasure is not difficult, but with it come difficulties; but we want pleasure without difficulties. It is only when the mind is capable of living in totality that remorse, difficulty, and pain will have no meaning and feeling to it Krishnamurti, [ 4 ]. According to Krishnamurti, living in totality involves not looking at life in the form of segments or as an idea, but rather as a series of ideas and segments; and experience various facets of life at the same time, along with all the joys and sorrows in each facet.

The less divisive we are within ourselves, the more we shall be able to experience the totality of life Krishnamurti, [ 10 ]. Consciousness and Krishnamurti According to Krishnamurti, when one becomes aware of one's conditioning, one understands the entire consciousness. Consciousness is the total field in which thoughts, functions, and relationships exist. All motives, emotions, desires, pleasures, fears, aspirations, longings, hopes, sorrows, joys, and inspirations are in that field.Every word he spoke has been recorded and printed.

Time, knowledge, memory and thought form a unit and condition the mind. In that process, he is critical about any preconceived notions about reality and demands for the suspension of judgment to understand a thing in its essence. That the brain could empty itself is an odd phenomenon. Let us not reduce the living truth of his philosophy through a dead tradition by repeating it in terms of words and concepts and proliferating books on him.

The relationships between man and woman, among different castes, among different religions, among different classes, constitute our life. To him, freedom is the first and last step in the observation and understanding of truth.

KRISHNA from Trenton
I do love reading novels adventurously. Review my other posts. I absolutely love wolf hunting.
>