More Articles

Associative psychology is a curse that the spiritualists of the Orient are trying to do away with. Krishnamurti insists that the word is not the thing, meaning calling a thing by its name does not mean the name becomes the thing. Berne illustrates this beautifully: When a child looks at a bird, he looks at its splendid colours, the texture of its feathers, its surprised movements, its cooing and the whole spectrum of events delights him. Then comes along Father who must intervene in the son's own interests and tell him that this is a robin, that is a swallow and that he had better know the difference. No sooner than this lesson on nomenclature is imparted than the boy stops to see the bird and becomes obsessed with the word. He starts comparing things and the joy of direct perception is lost. So K says to look at a thing is to look at it without the word coming in between. The verbal comparison is not without a complex effect, weighing down the chances at the joys of a soul. (well, I don't have a stand about the soul, but what's in a name? :)

The crisis of existentialism is acutely felt in that there's no system of philosophy that can tie down reality to a bunch of words. A solution that is popular in the east is a nonverbal approach. First, says K, you take an object to which you are not attached that much, you might want to take a flower for example, and look at it. When you look, the words petal, sepal, calyx, your botany scorecard and the rest of the associated memories might come to the surface, but continue looking and at one point you will lose the verbal play and the associated baggage of feelings. The interval is that blessed sound of silence.

And what mocks at that silence is the noise of vanity. In some it is as blatant as 'my ideology is bigger than yours' and in others a subtler condescending tone, 'well, I knew it would come to this, but when did you stop to listen?' The static upstairs wears mostly the halo of confidence. Is confidence good? A corporate dictate, you can't communicate your commitment otherwise to the task undertaken, but at the personal level, I've noticed people first clamour for something and then when it is at hand find that they can afford to exhibit their confident 'gentler' side, willing to show that they don't care much for it. And pray, What is confidence? A sense of sureness of one's own values. How confident are you about sitting at the right hand of God or striking the best deal with the Devil? Very confident so some would say, and in that confidence is killed the spirit of earnest enquiry. This is not making a case for diffidence, which is confidence again of the opposite kind, being confident about negative possibilities. But we have watched how confident people shake even those interested in earnest enquiry. This earnestness is insecurity about our beliefs which has the freedom to let me suspend our opinions and stop being that cup full of prejudices where nothing new can be poured in. Have you sensed revulsion for the good guy who felt insecure about something wrong he did? Did you feel admiration and envy for people who do wrong, but are proud about doing it? I wonder if it is not a curse of inferiority complex that most people are endowed with. How many times have you decided I will show up a public face that will be so sure that they will not dare to hurt it? I guess we can with confidence say, our insecurity is bigger than our confidence.

A Confident man is a dead human being - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Submit your responses or comments regarding this article to journal@kinfonet.org.