Connie got Bob's attention and pointed to the doorway of the bar they were all sitting in--Stanley's in the East Village. Bob jumped up from his seat and moved briskly toward the entrance with his hand out.
Dobbs: Mr. Jiddu, I'm so happy you found our rendezvous!
The elegant, but serious face waited for Bob to direct him. Bob signaled to the bartender to turn the jukebox down as he escorted Krishnamurti to the long table of guests. Introductions were politely made and then Bob asked Krishnamurti to address the room.
Krishnamurti: I don't know why you are here, but this is not a lecture, nor a sermon, and the speaker is not a guru. You can disregard anything or everything the speaker says and you can leave any time you want to. The speaker is not trying to help you. Actually he refuses to help you. Imagine, however, you and the speaker are walking together by a river in the forest and are having a conversation as between friends. But it's a serious conversation, on serious concerns such as: what is death, how can human beings love, why do we suffer so much, or can humanity really change? But as we listen to each other, the speaker would prefer that you not agree or disagree with him, but just listen and be aware of the thoughts that our discussion gives rise to. You don't have to express them. Just observe them with all your attention. You will notice that thought is only capable of experiencing the known. It is not able to think about the unknown. This is more than a contradiction, it is a fact. It is a fact because all thought is based on memory, and memory can only be based on the known. The known is what has been experienced. Therefore, the known is the past, which brings in the concept of time, and if you go into the experience of time, you will observe that time is the known, that the unknown is not time, that it is something else, if it is anything. But the unknown evokes emotions of excitement, anxiety, or fear which are based on past experience or memories, the known. The known is the content of consciousness-- memory or time. Did you ever observe that when you are most involved in an action, you are not aware of yourself, you have no self-consciousness? The observer is the observed. But why does one lose this experience when one suddenly becomes aware of oneself doing the action? At that point have you entered time? Are you following what I'm saying? Don't nod in agreement or shake your head in disagreement! Go into it. The speaker is not presenting an argument to be believed in. The speaker may be talking nonsense. You have to investigate this for yourself. But do it now as you are listening. Don't say to yourself, “I will listen now and go away and think about it tomorrow.” Go into it now with the speaker, but not as something to argue with. Observe your thinking as we talk. Shall the speaker continue? Yes? Okay. Human beings have lived in conflict for thousands of years. This is a fact that has not changed. There have been attempts and claims to change human behaviour through many kinds of institutions, but none have stopped this conflict. Why is this the case? We say we want the “good,” and we don't want the “bad.” But the “good” is thought of in comparison with the “bad.” We use thought to make the distinction. That is, we use the known. If we actually stopped conflict, that would be a new condition in our experience. It is presently for us an unknown situation, but we use thought, which is based on the known, to attempt to create the unknown. The speaker is not talking about the daily use of thought for the practical concerns of life--for the maintenance of our survival, for inventing new technology. That is necessary. The speaker is asking if there is an experience that does not involve thought. When one sees an object that one desires, that desire creates an image, an image in the mind. That image then creates a thought, a thought that reacted to the desire.
Follow this--first the object, then the desire, then the image, which creates the thought. Do you see? Don't answer the speaker. Go into it yourself. Observe it yourself--now. Oh, why should I go on? Is anybody listening? The speaker says there is an experience beyond thought. It is not “God.” “God” is a concept created by thought. It is not an experience created by techniques of meditation, by chants or mantras, as they advocate in the Eastern religions. It is not a product of prayer or ascetic habits as taught in the Western religions. It is not any of that nonsense. The speaker is affirming a bliss that cannot be expressed in words. But the speaker is not asking you to believe him. The speaker may be crazy, but he is asserting there is a difference between the mind and the brain. And we will go into that tomorrow.
With that said, Jiddu Krishnamurti stood up from the table and Garrett Deane guided him out the door with the utmost sensitivity and flair. The respectful silence was broken by the voice of Herbert W. Armstrong.
Armstrong: I apologize, Bob, for arriving late and missing the first five minutes of Krishnamurti's speech. And that may be the reason I'm a little puzzled about the point he was making. For example, I certainly don't agree that God is a concept created by thought. God is not something created by human beings, but human beings were obviously created by God. I don't see why he brought God into a talk that was otherwise interesting in its psychological emphasis.
Mae Brussell: Yes, his talk was fascinating as psychology. It was even bizarre. But he gave me nothing, at least so far, that helps me in my research into the Kennedy assassination, which I think is the prime cause of so many problems in our country today. As a matter of fact, if more people were influenced by Krishnamurti, I would consider him a dangerous distraction. But he's so out of touch with today's reality, he could never get that kind of attention. Tomorrow I will ask him if he will help my friends and me expose the Warren Commission's cover-up.
Dr. Peter Beter: I personally found it a fascinating talk, too. I've been studying Hinduism the last few years and I can understand the religious dimensions of the psychological aspects in Krishnamurti's talk from the Hindu perspective. But curiously he doesn't seem to have any respect for Hindu meditation rituals. As you suggested before he arrived, Mae, it seems accurate to call him a “mystical atheist.”
Lyndon LaRouche: To be blunt about it, I think he represents the worst aspects of Gnosticism. As an advocate of the Platonic dialectic, I am insulted and not surprised that he, in true Gnostic fashion, did not wait around for any questions. What are we supposed to do with a babbling, halting monologue?
Dobbs: I think Krishnamurti is going to take questions tomorrow, Lyn.
LaRouche: Oh yes, when it suits him. Well, we'll see. I will admit he has a hypnotically seducing effect while he's talking. He's a good rhetorician, a skillful Aristotelian.
Marshall McLuhan: But, Mr. LaRouche, Gnostic techniques are a valid way to explore our sensory conditioning. Gnosticism should not be considered a way to salvation. However, as an artform it attempts to replay the stages of apprehension and therein we can use its modalities to a secular end. My recommendation to Krishnamurti would be in the form of a question: isn't our bodily sensory conditioning puny compared to the collective numbness induced by our technological conditioning within these vast new environments we inhabit? How can we develop a language for awareness under today's electronic conditions? We may have to use the media as artforms to replay the stages of apprehension.
Frank Zappa: About ten years ago I started reading up on Zen Buddhism and that helped me to drop my Catholic conditioning. Krishnamurti sounds like Zen to me, and so I enjoyed his talk. Although, speaking as a composer, I agree with Alan Watts' objections to John Cage's use of Zen Buddhist inspiration in his musical compositions. Music being a technological experience today, I would say Mr. McLuhan has a more accurate diagnosis of the problems confronting the modern-day composer who refuses to die. Wouldn't a society that needs all the friends it can get use a force as powerful as today's popular music?
Dobbs: Garrett, you were so graceful in escorting Krishnamurti out the door I almost couldn't detect the twinkle of the insolent imp in your eye. Were you really so eager to get rid of him?
Garrett Deane: Oh Bobby, Bobby, Bobby! You're the Rumplestiltskin, not me! No, no, no! I feel truly blessed to hear such a river. It was the Buddha's laughter! And its chuckling slowly got louder and louder until I was crushed by the Niagara Falls of Krishnamurti's wisdom! I am amazed that I was able to regain enough consciousness to blurt out even this much bliss.
As everyone relaxed amid the laughter evoked by Garrett as he hung limply on his barstool, Connie signaled the bartender to bring on some beverages to loosen the tongues and minds. But Bob whispered, “Hold the jukebox.”
1 comment:
A good read...thank you..
Post a Comment