Essay:
Too Radical for the World's Good
People as a rule steer clear of radicals. We are conditioned against the very word itself. There is great comfort and security in going along with the status quo, in sticking to conventional wisdom. There is safety in toeing the line with the majority, where everything is accepted and nothing is challenged in any serious way. To conform to the prevailing social ethos is the first major rule one learns in life.
In the stock market, in finance and economics, they call it the herd mentality. (It was dramatically present during the bubble preceding the recent global financial crisis.) It's silent, it's omnipresent - and it determines everything.
Just as in the historical prevalence of teen gangs (a reactive, groupthink mentality), the sense of belonging to a tight-knit gathering (from sporting clubs to political parties) is a powerful psychological soporific. This mindset is strong in social organizations like the police and the military - indeed, throughout all groups and institutions in society, to varying degrees. All independent and critical thinking is actively discouraged, despite protestations that people are forever searching for so-called ideas out of the box. (Ideas that appear to be actually out of the box - which is an oxymoron - are cleverly side-stepped or flatly ignored.) And all the leaders of these various power groups (political, business, the legal profession, bureaucracy) are the very epitome of conformity, with the occasional idea that they have borrowed or stolen from others thrown in for good measure.
If the group goes down, or indeed society as a whole goes down, then at least everyone can be comforted by the fact that they are all in the same boat.
Whereas a radical by nature is one who challenges accepted dogma, breaks longstanding traditions, stands up to social inertia. He or she can expose the hidden assumptions on which so much of human behaviour is based. This is always seen as courageous and people do not like displays of psychological courage, for it highlights their own weaknesses and perceived faults. (This explains, of course, why whistleblowers are universally shunned by both the mass media and the public; though this situation is slowly changing, with enabling legislation in some countries.) They feel threatened by the individual who exercises critical thinking, who challenges their comforting ideas of respectability, conformity, and loyalty. So they invariably shun radical thinkers. (The description is not the described; the word radical, not used as a label, is used merely to point to someone outside the heavily conditioned mind.)
That is, of course, until (or if) their new insights - so-called memes - are eventually accepted into mainstream thought.
This inherent wariness of radical people is instilled in all of us at a very early age by our parents, who have known the thought-prison of conformity their whole lives. They want their children to blend in at all costs, to not stand out from the crowd, and never to challenge the social order. Fit in - or else. Your whole livelihood depends upon it.
This raises a central point in the whole discussion about the creativity of the individual, about self-inquiry: Krishnamurti's insights have never entered the mainstream and show no sign of doing so.
* * *
The reason is simple: his philosophy, so-called, has never been accepted into the lofty halls of academe, the U.S. Ivy League. Sure, there are some universities in America where it slots into the curricula in a marginal way. But his books are not accepted in the pre-eminent eight universities comprising the League, which are the world's breeding ground for all textbooks and subject knowledge. Thus, countless millions of graduates from across the world come out of these hallowed halls of learning with no understanding of him and what he said at all. This ignorance thus ripples through every level of society, as these graduates become the new leaders of society.
Of course, the reason he is not accepted into higher education (inter alia) is because he flatly rejected all the respected authorities in the field of thought and philosophical knowledge. That is, he did not take as a commencing standpoint the extensive writings of Descartes, the father of philosophy (to take the most prominent example) from which to build his discourse (he had, of course, never even read the books of Descartes). Thus the current leading professors in their various fields would never take him seriously (if they bothered to read him at all, which they don't), as he was and is not considered to be 'learned in any way. He is not, therefore, an authority, to whom they can defer for inspiration and the furtherance of their established ideas.
Hence he has been completely ignored, and there is no sign this situation will change.
(On a related note, the writer, in one of a number of tangles over the time with Wikipedia editors, was confronted with a responding casually dismissive statement on an article background Talk page that Krishnamurti was, to quote, "a historical curiosity" - thus in one brief phrase tossing out the entire edifice of self-inquiry and self-understanding put out by this man over 60 long years. The author of this comment had inevitably never even read him. Such is the avoidance of looking at the facts of oneself that exists at the very core of the human condition.)
Of course, the talks do not address the social problems of the mass public, for these are only individual problems writ large. Transformation begins and ends and is solely concerned with the individual - using this word advisedly, pointing to a single human being. It is each of us who are important, not society at large. Nevertheless, consider this excerpt, addressed to a Saanen gathering:
"... the difficulty is society is so strong, the temptations of the young person who wants to be with other young children who are already corrupt, who have already, you know, have accepted all the nonsense of society, and it becomes extremely difficult to bring up a child who will not yield to the tremendous weight of society."
(Fifth Question & Answer Meeting, in Saanen, July, 1980; ellipsis added)
Here it is: "The tremendous weight of society." Society, which is the outer environment, is the predominant factor in conditioning (there appears also to be unconscious, innate brain conditioning, but this is another issue). It applies not only to children of course but more especially to adults. For people who are married with children and jobs, with innumerable social and work commitments, this weight is a heavy burden indeed. Beyond money itself, which brings all the basic necessities of life - never mind the social status and seductive material goods and all the rest - the biggest threat in self-inquiry is to ongoing relationships. Wife, husband, friends, relatives, work colleagues, acquaintances and social networks. The potential loss of all these is reason enough for one to shrink from self-exploration - in fact to actively react against it, which is what is happening in the mind all the time. This crushing weight of the status quo is a major factor in the resistance of the mind to radical understanding.
* * *
It is bad enough that the talks systematically discard all the crutches that thought has built up over millennia. They are also a great negation: for he came not to build, but to destroy. Tear down, that is, in order to bring about the new. (In destruction lies creation; ending is the beginning of something new; only through complete negation can one come to the positive. In this sense the insights would bring about a transformation of human consciousness, ending once and for all the complete domination of thought over the mind and the brain.)
Here are some of the major lifelong psychological crutches that are systematically demolished:
* Security - there is no such thing in life, either physically or psychologically (there is in fact security, but not as we know it);
* The acquisition of psychological knowledge, over time (knowledge is always limited and only brings with it ignorance);
* Attachment to people, authorities and things (attachment brings dependence, preventing the energy of the mind from being aware of the fact);
* All psychological memories, good or bad (beyond essential practical memories for everyday living).
Any way you look at it, this is a radical approach at its worst. Moreover, one can voluntarily give up all these things and yet there are no guarantees about what comes next. Indeed, any motive involved at all in this renunciation/destruction heralds the immediate end of perception, insight, and clarity. The self is motive, all action with motive only perpetuates this self, hence you are back precisely where you started.
However, the most fundamental issue addressed in the talks is the ending of time. This means the destruction of all self-achievement. self-improvement, self-fulfillment, all goal-oriented living. Yet this is what everyone wants, for these lie at the very core of the desires that make up the self. Of becoming someone, someday. Of recognition: of fame, fortune and so-called freedom of choice.
It only gets worse. The total negation of time also means the end of all hope. To live entirely in the present, with no desires or wishes for the future; to forgo all gradualism, arrival, or result; that is, to deeply understand that the now is all that there is. (Of course, one has to take the future into account in all practical matters in daily living.) Indeed, this self-inquiry flatly denies any and all evolution of the psyche. The mind has turned the obvious outward evolution inward, hoping that over time the mind (hence society at large) will experience enlightenment; it simply will not happen that way. Insight is now. Most consider this to be such a revolutionary view they cannot even contemplate it, much less live it.
The truth is that this man's words are uncompromisingly radical, beyond doubt. He did not bring comfort, and he unequivocally brooked no guides or help or techniques for awareness. You have to stand alone, with no support, and with no self-identity. The mind must be completely silent. And so people have walked away from these insights, in their millions. Billions remain ignorant of his very existence, and hence of the pivotal issue of self-awareness. It will be a long time, if ever, before people will be willing to look at all this. That is, to look at the fact. It may first require a complete social collapse.
* * *
The evolved human mind today is predominantly sensation-seeking, intensely reactive, and consequently immensely petty. Take a look around. Such a mind does not have the energy to observe. Energy is wasted and dissipated in gadgets, in endless entertainments and distractions - the new opium of the people. The human race is asleep. Hence is it any wonder, after all these decades, that no-one has changed?
Yet, all this is not to suggest for one moment that self-transformation is impossible, which is what most people tacitly hold to be true. To the contrary, it is definitely possible.
After all, it's been done.
Daniel Marks
September, 2009
[Note: This essay had been accepted by the editorial board for publication in the upcoming Link, which would normally be issued in early 2010. However, The Link Editor, Javier Gómez Rodríguez, has advised this writer that the magazine itself has been discontinued.]
Too Radical for the World's Good
People as a rule steer clear of radicals. We are conditioned against the very word itself. There is great comfort and security in going along with the status quo, in sticking to conventional wisdom. There is safety in toeing the line with the majority, where everything is accepted and nothing is challenged in any serious way. To conform to the prevailing social ethos is the first major rule one learns in life.
In the stock market, in finance and economics, they call it the herd mentality. (It was dramatically present during the bubble preceding the recent global financial crisis.) It's silent, it's omnipresent - and it determines everything.
Just as in the historical prevalence of teen gangs (a reactive, groupthink mentality), the sense of belonging to a tight-knit gathering (from sporting clubs to political parties) is a powerful psychological soporific. This mindset is strong in social organizations like the police and the military - indeed, throughout all groups and institutions in society, to varying degrees. All independent and critical thinking is actively discouraged, despite protestations that people are forever searching for so-called ideas out of the box. (Ideas that appear to be actually out of the box - which is an oxymoron - are cleverly side-stepped or flatly ignored.) And all the leaders of these various power groups (political, business, the legal profession, bureaucracy) are the very epitome of conformity, with the occasional idea that they have borrowed or stolen from others thrown in for good measure.
If the group goes down, or indeed society as a whole goes down, then at least everyone can be comforted by the fact that they are all in the same boat.
Whereas a radical by nature is one who challenges accepted dogma, breaks longstanding traditions, stands up to social inertia. He or she can expose the hidden assumptions on which so much of human behaviour is based. This is always seen as courageous and people do not like displays of psychological courage, for it highlights their own weaknesses and perceived faults. (This explains, of course, why whistleblowers are universally shunned by both the mass media and the public; though this situation is slowly changing, with enabling legislation in some countries.) They feel threatened by the individual who exercises critical thinking, who challenges their comforting ideas of respectability, conformity, and loyalty. So they invariably shun radical thinkers. (The description is not the described; the word radical, not used as a label, is used merely to point to someone outside the heavily conditioned mind.)
That is, of course, until (or if) their new insights - so-called memes - are eventually accepted into mainstream thought.
This inherent wariness of radical people is instilled in all of us at a very early age by our parents, who have known the thought-prison of conformity their whole lives. They want their children to blend in at all costs, to not stand out from the crowd, and never to challenge the social order. Fit in - or else. Your whole livelihood depends upon it.
This raises a central point in the whole discussion about the creativity of the individual, about self-inquiry: Krishnamurti's insights have never entered the mainstream and show no sign of doing so.
* * *
The reason is simple: his philosophy, so-called, has never been accepted into the lofty halls of academe, the U.S. Ivy League. Sure, there are some universities in America where it slots into the curricula in a marginal way. But his books are not accepted in the pre-eminent eight universities comprising the League, which are the world's breeding ground for all textbooks and subject knowledge. Thus, countless millions of graduates from across the world come out of these hallowed halls of learning with no understanding of him and what he said at all. This ignorance thus ripples through every level of society, as these graduates become the new leaders of society.
Of course, the reason he is not accepted into higher education (inter alia) is because he flatly rejected all the respected authorities in the field of thought and philosophical knowledge. That is, he did not take as a commencing standpoint the extensive writings of Descartes, the father of philosophy (to take the most prominent example) from which to build his discourse (he had, of course, never even read the books of Descartes). Thus the current leading professors in their various fields would never take him seriously (if they bothered to read him at all, which they don't), as he was and is not considered to be 'learned in any way. He is not, therefore, an authority, to whom they can defer for inspiration and the furtherance of their established ideas.
Hence he has been completely ignored, and there is no sign this situation will change.
(On a related note, the writer, in one of a number of tangles over the time with Wikipedia editors, was confronted with a responding casually dismissive statement on an article background Talk page that Krishnamurti was, to quote, "a historical curiosity" - thus in one brief phrase tossing out the entire edifice of self-inquiry and self-understanding put out by this man over 60 long years. The author of this comment had inevitably never even read him. Such is the avoidance of looking at the facts of oneself that exists at the very core of the human condition.)
Of course, the talks do not address the social problems of the mass public, for these are only individual problems writ large. Transformation begins and ends and is solely concerned with the individual - using this word advisedly, pointing to a single human being. It is each of us who are important, not society at large. Nevertheless, consider this excerpt, addressed to a Saanen gathering:
"... the difficulty is society is so strong, the temptations of the young person who wants to be with other young children who are already corrupt, who have already, you know, have accepted all the nonsense of society, and it becomes extremely difficult to bring up a child who will not yield to the tremendous weight of society."
(Fifth Question & Answer Meeting, in Saanen, July, 1980; ellipsis added)
Here it is: "The tremendous weight of society." Society, which is the outer environment, is the predominant factor in conditioning (there appears also to be unconscious, innate brain conditioning, but this is another issue). It applies not only to children of course but more especially to adults. For people who are married with children and jobs, with innumerable social and work commitments, this weight is a heavy burden indeed. Beyond money itself, which brings all the basic necessities of life - never mind the social status and seductive material goods and all the rest - the biggest threat in self-inquiry is to ongoing relationships. Wife, husband, friends, relatives, work colleagues, acquaintances and social networks. The potential loss of all these is reason enough for one to shrink from self-exploration - in fact to actively react against it, which is what is happening in the mind all the time. This crushing weight of the status quo is a major factor in the resistance of the mind to radical understanding.
* * *
It is bad enough that the talks systematically discard all the crutches that thought has built up over millennia. They are also a great negation: for he came not to build, but to destroy. Tear down, that is, in order to bring about the new. (In destruction lies creation; ending is the beginning of something new; only through complete negation can one come to the positive. In this sense the insights would bring about a transformation of human consciousness, ending once and for all the complete domination of thought over the mind and the brain.)
Here are some of the major lifelong psychological crutches that are systematically demolished:
* Security - there is no such thing in life, either physically or psychologically (there is in fact security, but not as we know it);
* The acquisition of psychological knowledge, over time (knowledge is always limited and only brings with it ignorance);
* Attachment to people, authorities and things (attachment brings dependence, preventing the energy of the mind from being aware of the fact);
* All psychological memories, good or bad (beyond essential practical memories for everyday living).
Any way you look at it, this is a radical approach at its worst. Moreover, one can voluntarily give up all these things and yet there are no guarantees about what comes next. Indeed, any motive involved at all in this renunciation/destruction heralds the immediate end of perception, insight, and clarity. The self is motive, all action with motive only perpetuates this self, hence you are back precisely where you started.
However, the most fundamental issue addressed in the talks is the ending of time. This means the destruction of all self-achievement. self-improvement, self-fulfillment, all goal-oriented living. Yet this is what everyone wants, for these lie at the very core of the desires that make up the self. Of becoming someone, someday. Of recognition: of fame, fortune and so-called freedom of choice.
It only gets worse. The total negation of time also means the end of all hope. To live entirely in the present, with no desires or wishes for the future; to forgo all gradualism, arrival, or result; that is, to deeply understand that the now is all that there is. (Of course, one has to take the future into account in all practical matters in daily living.) Indeed, this self-inquiry flatly denies any and all evolution of the psyche. The mind has turned the obvious outward evolution inward, hoping that over time the mind (hence society at large) will experience enlightenment; it simply will not happen that way. Insight is now. Most consider this to be such a revolutionary view they cannot even contemplate it, much less live it.
The truth is that this man's words are uncompromisingly radical, beyond doubt. He did not bring comfort, and he unequivocally brooked no guides or help or techniques for awareness. You have to stand alone, with no support, and with no self-identity. The mind must be completely silent. And so people have walked away from these insights, in their millions. Billions remain ignorant of his very existence, and hence of the pivotal issue of self-awareness. It will be a long time, if ever, before people will be willing to look at all this. That is, to look at the fact. It may first require a complete social collapse.
* * *
The evolved human mind today is predominantly sensation-seeking, intensely reactive, and consequently immensely petty. Take a look around. Such a mind does not have the energy to observe. Energy is wasted and dissipated in gadgets, in endless entertainments and distractions - the new opium of the people. The human race is asleep. Hence is it any wonder, after all these decades, that no-one has changed?
Yet, all this is not to suggest for one moment that self-transformation is impossible, which is what most people tacitly hold to be true. To the contrary, it is definitely possible.
After all, it's been done.
Daniel Marks
September, 2009
[Note: This essay had been accepted by the editorial board for publication in the upcoming Link, which would normally be issued in early 2010. However, The Link Editor, Javier Gómez Rodríguez, has advised this writer that the magazine itself has been discontinued.]
Site best viewed through Internet Explorer;
there are some page display issues with Chrome & Firefox
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright © 2007-2010 Daniel Marks | beyondthemind.net. All Rights Reserved.
This website went online on November 22, 2007 and is being continually developed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
(Photo courtesy beachhunter.net; Clearwater Beach, Florida)
Photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons, taken by Nicholas; under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 Generic License
|
Beliefs -
The Anchors of the Mind
'“All men need the gods,” as Homer has it, and nothing since then — not Galileo, not Darwin,
not the Enlightenment, nothing — has changed the intrinsic impulse to organize stories and
create belief systems that give shape to life and offer a vision of what may lie beyond the grave.'
(Thine is the Kingdom, Book review by Jon Meacham, Sunday Book Review, The New York Times, April 1, 2010)
Beliefs, which are essentially conclusions, or ideas, are the most destructive forces in human society. All of history has shown it.
When you look at the innumerable divisions in the world - nationalities, ethnic identities, religious beliefs, political and ideological differences (liberal and conservative, left and right, capitalism, socialism/communism), you can clearly see that the foundation stone behind all of them is a set of conclusions. The mind readily accepts a mindset of conclusions that gives the individual the greatest comfort, which itself gives the mind a sense of security. This security becomes a continuity, carried over from day to day. And it is this 'permanent' comfort and security that the self is always seeking. (This in itself brings about stress, which is rooted in fear: the potential loss of one's security blanket results in a continual underlying tension, arising from the concern that once having gained it, one risks losing it.)
There are beliefs of all kinds - the mind can convince itself to believe in anything. Beliefs are the reactions of the mind to the environment. They are inherently divisive as the minute they are thought up there exists a counter-belief to contradict them. Hence you have a social culture of division, of immense fragmentation, when life itself is one complete whole. This contradiction lies at the root of all confusion.
Beliefs do not need to be based in fact. All the mind needs to do is to conclude that its conviction is the correct one (implying of course that all other beliefs contradicting it are incorrect). All beliefs - religious beliefs in the mind are no different from any other belief* - are thus self-referential, self-sustaining and self-justifying. That is, evidence later seen by the believer either confirms the beliefs that are held or is carefully glossed over, ignored or refuted outright. In all cases, you are correct and the other believer, and their entire belief system, is wrong. As beliefs are invented by thought, based on some external past authority, they immediately clash with other invented ideas. (Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, two prominent atheists, have attacked religious beliefs across the board as founded on faith and not science/logic, but they have not gone further and seen the danger of beliefs per se - they are thus both believers in their own way.)
The essence of belief is the notion of superiority. Beliefs are the quintessence of the inherent arrogance of the self - what one believes in is always right. (Beliefs of course can also be self-demeaning and self-destructive; behind all depression, deep long-held trauma and suicidal thoughts are irrational beliefs one holds about one's past experiences, hurts, and memories.)
Then of course you have the various global religions: Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam. Organized religion as a set of ideas is especially comforting, as it has its own particular reward system promised at the end - heaven, resurrection, nirvana, etc. The follower is instilled in the belief system of his or her immediate environment, which means his ideas are derived from parents, teachers and local past traditions. Rare is the person who switches religions during his lifetime (though belief in many instances becomes less influential, supplanted by other dominant ideas - such as the blind faith in future new technology, new supercomputers, which will supposedly solve all our problems - that become more satisfying, and more logical, to the holder than the beliefs instilled by their religious upbringing).
What sometimes occurs is that believers become more radical, more fundamental, more literal in their interpretations, again according to their environment (internationally, via the internet, or via local religious authority figures). They (in the current case followers of Islam) see an overarching oppressive and demonic power in the world (currently, the perceived hegemonic US-Israel alliance) and in their reaction against it their beliefs harden in order to rebel against it. (The ongoing Islam/Christian conflict is ultimately a power game, as are all conflicts between nations.) The rigid beliefs held are also a welcome relief and escape from personal isolation, disenchantment, disillusionment, disenfranchisement, and the sense of not belonging. Once imbedded - a creature of habitual thinking in the mind - this rigid structure seldom breaks down by itself.
The most dramatic example of this, of course, is the case of the suicide bomber. He (or she) has convinced himself or herself that their cause (in the present case, global jihad) is just, their actions are true and righteous, and for this cause they will sacrifice their own life. Behind this personal sacrifice is the firm belief that by this act they will be rewarded by Allah, in heaven, with virgins and other indulgences. To receive the reward at the end is the single greatest motivation for the act. They have developed this belief by either their own reading of the Koran or by the interpretations of the Koranic verses by an authority on the subject, as stated above. In either case, the belief forms and then becomes unshakeable, as all their self-identity - and national/group identity, which is far more powerful - depends upon it. Belief gives one identity and the self clings to this central image to feel secure.
Patriotism is a belief system: that your country is special, is unique, is morally, socially or religiously superior to others. Other countries and nationalities are therefore inferior in some way (in Islam all other non-Islamic countries are classed as infidels). War against these countries is thus justified, on the grounds that their opposing beliefs and perverted morality taint the purity of the believers' cause.
An example here is the longstanding belief in society of a "just war." This is equally true in Western Christian nations as it is in Islamic nations. Christian leaders have sanctioned and supported this idea back to Augustine, even though their religious founder advocated a love of one's enemy. There are very few who reject war per se; room is always left open for a particular war against a threatening enemy, such as the current Western 'war against terrorism.' The US President Barack Obama recently gave a speech at West Point reaffirming yet again this just war principle. What is not so freely acknowledged in the West is that muslims are also in their view waging an equally just war - against oppression, injustice, invasion and imperialism. They are as firm in their belief as the Christians are in theirs. Thus wars are justified. Under this principle they will never cease, only change in the manner of warfare.
Beliefs lie, of course, behind all national wars. Beliefs are centered on the arrogance of the self, immersed in its traditions, conditioning and conclusions. The self never understands that in seeking security through the wars against inflated "enemies," that it lays down the fertile soil for the very next conflict. The ends do not justify the means. Thus you will never have a war to end all wars, as history has shown.
The central feature of all these hard and fast conclusions is that they block the mind from all further inquiry. They are anchors in the mind, which are clung to for ongoing comfort. Thought settles for a particular set of conclusions (which are all borrowed from others; these fundamental ideas are never original) because this gives them the greatest satisfaction and security. They provide ongoing certainty and continuity, something that is there every day. Fixed in the past (all beliefs are creatures of the past) the mind cannot see the dynamically changing present. It stops listening and becomes closed - and a closed mind is the most dangerous thing of all, for there is very little that can be done to physically stop the person who has formed his hardened belief (thus, suicide bombers have proven to be the hardest people of all to stop, even with all the latest scanning and cctv technology).
Transient ideas come and go, to be replaced by other ideas. But beliefs are far more stable - in fact one's core belief, whatever it is, forms a central pillar of one's entire mind. They can be relied upon as something unchanging over the life of the believer. One can change an idea or opinion one has, but a full belief system with all its internal rationalizations cannot be easily discarded; it can only be replaced by some other similarly comforting set of conclusions - another belief system.
But are beliefs essential to live in the first place? Can one live without any beliefs at all? This would mean living without any crutches of security, without basic conclusions to fall back on in the face of life's many challenges. It would mean living life as it is meant to be led, as a dynamic process that is renewing itself all the time in the endless present. Without the interference of the past. It is the past that conditions the mind, that prevents all freedom.
Of course, most people will argue that to reject all one's beliefs is impossible, for they are a supposed.fact of human nature. Human nature can never be altered, it is maintained (the fact that at least one person lived without beliefs at all is discarded). But this notion too is a conclusion, which prevents one from looking at all one's beliefs in the mind and why they are so important for self-identity and security.
So the mind is perpetually caught in a trap of its own making. Freedom lies only in breaking out of the trap.
Further Reading:
* Belief in the Brain, by Allison Bond, Scientific American, March 2010 issue; Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts, by Carol Tavris & Elliot Aronson, Mariner Books, Reprint Edition, 2008; A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives, by Cordelia Fine, W.W. Norton, 2006.
* * * * * * *
The Anchors of the Mind
'“All men need the gods,” as Homer has it, and nothing since then — not Galileo, not Darwin,
not the Enlightenment, nothing — has changed the intrinsic impulse to organize stories and
create belief systems that give shape to life and offer a vision of what may lie beyond the grave.'
(Thine is the Kingdom, Book review by Jon Meacham, Sunday Book Review, The New York Times, April 1, 2010)
Beliefs, which are essentially conclusions, or ideas, are the most destructive forces in human society. All of history has shown it.
When you look at the innumerable divisions in the world - nationalities, ethnic identities, religious beliefs, political and ideological differences (liberal and conservative, left and right, capitalism, socialism/communism), you can clearly see that the foundation stone behind all of them is a set of conclusions. The mind readily accepts a mindset of conclusions that gives the individual the greatest comfort, which itself gives the mind a sense of security. This security becomes a continuity, carried over from day to day. And it is this 'permanent' comfort and security that the self is always seeking. (This in itself brings about stress, which is rooted in fear: the potential loss of one's security blanket results in a continual underlying tension, arising from the concern that once having gained it, one risks losing it.)
There are beliefs of all kinds - the mind can convince itself to believe in anything. Beliefs are the reactions of the mind to the environment. They are inherently divisive as the minute they are thought up there exists a counter-belief to contradict them. Hence you have a social culture of division, of immense fragmentation, when life itself is one complete whole. This contradiction lies at the root of all confusion.
Beliefs do not need to be based in fact. All the mind needs to do is to conclude that its conviction is the correct one (implying of course that all other beliefs contradicting it are incorrect). All beliefs - religious beliefs in the mind are no different from any other belief* - are thus self-referential, self-sustaining and self-justifying. That is, evidence later seen by the believer either confirms the beliefs that are held or is carefully glossed over, ignored or refuted outright. In all cases, you are correct and the other believer, and their entire belief system, is wrong. As beliefs are invented by thought, based on some external past authority, they immediately clash with other invented ideas. (Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, two prominent atheists, have attacked religious beliefs across the board as founded on faith and not science/logic, but they have not gone further and seen the danger of beliefs per se - they are thus both believers in their own way.)
The essence of belief is the notion of superiority. Beliefs are the quintessence of the inherent arrogance of the self - what one believes in is always right. (Beliefs of course can also be self-demeaning and self-destructive; behind all depression, deep long-held trauma and suicidal thoughts are irrational beliefs one holds about one's past experiences, hurts, and memories.)
Then of course you have the various global religions: Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam. Organized religion as a set of ideas is especially comforting, as it has its own particular reward system promised at the end - heaven, resurrection, nirvana, etc. The follower is instilled in the belief system of his or her immediate environment, which means his ideas are derived from parents, teachers and local past traditions. Rare is the person who switches religions during his lifetime (though belief in many instances becomes less influential, supplanted by other dominant ideas - such as the blind faith in future new technology, new supercomputers, which will supposedly solve all our problems - that become more satisfying, and more logical, to the holder than the beliefs instilled by their religious upbringing).
What sometimes occurs is that believers become more radical, more fundamental, more literal in their interpretations, again according to their environment (internationally, via the internet, or via local religious authority figures). They (in the current case followers of Islam) see an overarching oppressive and demonic power in the world (currently, the perceived hegemonic US-Israel alliance) and in their reaction against it their beliefs harden in order to rebel against it. (The ongoing Islam/Christian conflict is ultimately a power game, as are all conflicts between nations.) The rigid beliefs held are also a welcome relief and escape from personal isolation, disenchantment, disillusionment, disenfranchisement, and the sense of not belonging. Once imbedded - a creature of habitual thinking in the mind - this rigid structure seldom breaks down by itself.
The most dramatic example of this, of course, is the case of the suicide bomber. He (or she) has convinced himself or herself that their cause (in the present case, global jihad) is just, their actions are true and righteous, and for this cause they will sacrifice their own life. Behind this personal sacrifice is the firm belief that by this act they will be rewarded by Allah, in heaven, with virgins and other indulgences. To receive the reward at the end is the single greatest motivation for the act. They have developed this belief by either their own reading of the Koran or by the interpretations of the Koranic verses by an authority on the subject, as stated above. In either case, the belief forms and then becomes unshakeable, as all their self-identity - and national/group identity, which is far more powerful - depends upon it. Belief gives one identity and the self clings to this central image to feel secure.
Patriotism is a belief system: that your country is special, is unique, is morally, socially or religiously superior to others. Other countries and nationalities are therefore inferior in some way (in Islam all other non-Islamic countries are classed as infidels). War against these countries is thus justified, on the grounds that their opposing beliefs and perverted morality taint the purity of the believers' cause.
An example here is the longstanding belief in society of a "just war." This is equally true in Western Christian nations as it is in Islamic nations. Christian leaders have sanctioned and supported this idea back to Augustine, even though their religious founder advocated a love of one's enemy. There are very few who reject war per se; room is always left open for a particular war against a threatening enemy, such as the current Western 'war against terrorism.' The US President Barack Obama recently gave a speech at West Point reaffirming yet again this just war principle. What is not so freely acknowledged in the West is that muslims are also in their view waging an equally just war - against oppression, injustice, invasion and imperialism. They are as firm in their belief as the Christians are in theirs. Thus wars are justified. Under this principle they will never cease, only change in the manner of warfare.
Beliefs lie, of course, behind all national wars. Beliefs are centered on the arrogance of the self, immersed in its traditions, conditioning and conclusions. The self never understands that in seeking security through the wars against inflated "enemies," that it lays down the fertile soil for the very next conflict. The ends do not justify the means. Thus you will never have a war to end all wars, as history has shown.
The central feature of all these hard and fast conclusions is that they block the mind from all further inquiry. They are anchors in the mind, which are clung to for ongoing comfort. Thought settles for a particular set of conclusions (which are all borrowed from others; these fundamental ideas are never original) because this gives them the greatest satisfaction and security. They provide ongoing certainty and continuity, something that is there every day. Fixed in the past (all beliefs are creatures of the past) the mind cannot see the dynamically changing present. It stops listening and becomes closed - and a closed mind is the most dangerous thing of all, for there is very little that can be done to physically stop the person who has formed his hardened belief (thus, suicide bombers have proven to be the hardest people of all to stop, even with all the latest scanning and cctv technology).
Transient ideas come and go, to be replaced by other ideas. But beliefs are far more stable - in fact one's core belief, whatever it is, forms a central pillar of one's entire mind. They can be relied upon as something unchanging over the life of the believer. One can change an idea or opinion one has, but a full belief system with all its internal rationalizations cannot be easily discarded; it can only be replaced by some other similarly comforting set of conclusions - another belief system.
But are beliefs essential to live in the first place? Can one live without any beliefs at all? This would mean living without any crutches of security, without basic conclusions to fall back on in the face of life's many challenges. It would mean living life as it is meant to be led, as a dynamic process that is renewing itself all the time in the endless present. Without the interference of the past. It is the past that conditions the mind, that prevents all freedom.
Of course, most people will argue that to reject all one's beliefs is impossible, for they are a supposed.fact of human nature. Human nature can never be altered, it is maintained (the fact that at least one person lived without beliefs at all is discarded). But this notion too is a conclusion, which prevents one from looking at all one's beliefs in the mind and why they are so important for self-identity and security.
So the mind is perpetually caught in a trap of its own making. Freedom lies only in breaking out of the trap.
Further Reading:
* Belief in the Brain, by Allison Bond, Scientific American, March 2010 issue; Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts, by Carol Tavris & Elliot Aronson, Mariner Books, Reprint Edition, 2008; A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives, by Cordelia Fine, W.W. Norton, 2006.
* * * * * * *
(40-Page site;
Page last updated September 1, 2010)
Page last updated September 1, 2010)
"Each of us has an image of what we think we are or what we should be, and that image, that picture, entirely prevents us from seeing ourselves as we actually are."
(Freedom From The Known - Collected Works, Vol XI)
(Freedom From The Known - Collected Works, Vol XI)
Pupul Jayakar: "But if one is born blind, only when a person like you comes and says, look, something happens. Most people would not understand what you are talking about.
Krishnamurti: Most people would not listen to all this. They would brush it aside.
David Bohm: The other is easier. It gives something whereas this gives nothing.
Krishnamurti: This gives everything if you touch it."
(Tradition and Revolution: Dialogue 1, New Delhi, 12th December, 1970 - 'The flame of sorrow')
People don't listen to all this because they see it as too hard and no method is given to "achieve" it - yet it is not something that can be achieved because that involves time; and the truth is now and is beyond time. Without a self, the mind is unlimited, uncircumscribed, so it is open to everything.
Krishnamurti: Most people would not listen to all this. They would brush it aside.
David Bohm: The other is easier. It gives something whereas this gives nothing.
Krishnamurti: This gives everything if you touch it."
(Tradition and Revolution: Dialogue 1, New Delhi, 12th December, 1970 - 'The flame of sorrow')
People don't listen to all this because they see it as too hard and no method is given to "achieve" it - yet it is not something that can be achieved because that involves time; and the truth is now and is beyond time. Without a self, the mind is unlimited, uncircumscribed, so it is open to everything.
Education: Re-Engineering the Noblest Profession
Restructuring the philosophical basis & social intent that lies behind the educators and teaching in general. Can major change be effected?
Restructuring the philosophical basis & social intent that lies behind the educators and teaching in general. Can major change be effected?
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
