Krishnamurti was groomed to be world teacher by Theosophy organization but withdraw from it. According to Wikipedia he constantly stress the need a "revolution in the pyche of every human being and emphasized that such revolution cannot be brought about by any external entity, be it religious, political, or social." He even said "I used to be an atheist until I realized I was god".
In a 1929 statement he said "Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence" (Wikipedia). This statement has quite a close connection to the quote. His purpose is to stress the ability to observe without limitations of any form.
Since he has quite a close association with psychology, the quote is basically a psychological term adapted to his philosophy. In psychology, it is a practice to "observe without evaluating". In other words to observe without conclusion. The facts collected this way reveals the truth about the subject being observed an not the observer's opinion. This practice is also used in many other fields.
The beginning of the quote "The ability to" and the last part of the quote "is the highest form of intelligence" is probably Krishnamurti's "conclusion." In his purest sense, one should not come to any conclusion (evaluation). By adding the extra words, it is already a conclusion. But by the word "observe without evaluating", it has no value except for the fact that it is a sort of practice or action. Inevitably, the quote must have some value (conclusion) so that people will see and accept its value thereby appreciate the practice or action.
Now, observation is fact (data) collecting. What do you do with the facts? Without forming conclusion, what is the use of facts? What is the good of having large amounts of facts without conclusion?
Sherlock Holmes (a fiction figure by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ) said "you see but you do not observe". He made this comment when Dr. Watson admit he did not know how many steps let up to the sitting room of 221B Baker Street. Obviously, Sherlock Holmes have a keen observation ability. But what can Watson do with the knowledge that there are 17 steps? It is just one fact that by itself does not have much use. It has to be put together with many other facts to produce a result. In other words, it has to produce a conclusion. Sherlock Holmes is able to put all the observations together to produce an analysis to solve crimes.
Krishnamurti may have a purpose in his quote. It is, in my view, just a part of his broader philosophy to encourage people to not be limited by external factors (religious, political, personal) that may obstruct one's view of reality. By the quote itself, one cannot easily grasp what is the purpose of the quote.
I do not agree with his view that religion limits one's view of reality. One can be religious but still able to see reality itself. I accept this quote's value but not his full philosophy.
Also by not taking the values of religion, he is already not open. By holding an absolutism view, he is excluding the values of religion (including politics and personal views) thus putting his philosophy in an exclusive view. Surely, this is not what "freedom" means. His freedom is "free from". It should be "free to". The former is restrictive, the latter is inclusive.
In actual fact "free to" is already limiting. You only choose what you want but all are available to choose. "Free from" is you already say certain area is out of bound before you choose what is within bound.
Most people, especially those absolutist/authoritarian, prefers "free from" because it is less troublesome and less confusing for their followers and they have control. However, it goes against the idea of "freedom". For him to choose "free from", he is trying to control of what can or cannot be included instead of his own ideology of "freedom". He did form a group of thought by his own ideology. The ideology dictates that one must be free from "external factors."
Why do I talk in length about Krishnamurti's ideology? His ideology actually interferes with this quote. By excluding, he actually evaluates when observing. He already conclude that external factors interferes with freedom (in this case "observation"). That is evaluation. He is stepping on his own feet. He says but does not practice what he says (說而不練).
No comments:
Post a Comment