1 0 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 8 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 2 2 paths since this is his path. His all-inclusive denial is an exercise in the cessation of all movements of search, through which the mind is led to freedom from even the subtlest form of experimentation (Jayakar 1986, 389–390). In this respect, we can say that negation is Krishnamurti’s unique form of internal renunciation. Krishnamurti is fully aware that this total negation requires an unusual degree of maturity compared to what he observes as the immaturity characterizing guru followership (Jayakar 1986, 388). He also understands how delicate this act is, since upon negating all paths, one may easily abandon the urgency of one’s search and sink into spiritual lethargy (Jayakar 1986, 388). His negation is an uncommon type of middle path that retains the exigency of the search while keeping its energy unwasted and undirected, gathering it instead for the state of insight (Jayakar 1986, 391): ‘ Where do you get your perceptions?’ asked Narayan. Krishnaji said, ‘[b]y not doing any of this.’ ‘By not doing will I get it?’ asked Narayan. Krishnaji’s voice came from depth, it was held in eons. ‘No.’ Since this is a mystical transformative dialogue, Krishnamurti expects his students to “see” that the brain has already tried all of these pathways and need not repeat any of them, and, in this very act of seeing, to jump out of the “circle which man has woven around himself” (Jayakar 1986, 391). After all, any movement that the mind would make is another expression of the activity of searching; thus, an unobstructed perception of the illusory is the only available action of the negating mind. In actuality, even within the intense setting of this dialogue form, which enables Krishnamurti to instantly block all mental routes of escape, his associates seem unable to face the absolute negation promoted by him. “Please answer me,” Krishnamurti implores them, “[t]his is a challenge. You have to answer. Are you still experimenting?” (Jayakar 1986, 389). But near the end of the discussion, his companions begin to withdraw from the unwavering focus and their comments are mainly attempts to diffuse the gathered energy by returning to opinion-based exchanges and balancing views (Jayakar 1986, 391). Is this because they have not truly dared to give it a try, or is it that the Krishnamurti dialogue, this example in particular, puts an unrealistic pressure on the listener to remain so incredibly awake without relief? Needless to say, Krishnamurti himself remains fully capable of holding the question: as he often does, he concludes the dialogue by leaving a question to hang in the air. 5 On Krishnamurti’s Question and Negation The close analyses of the early group discussions from 1948, as well as the two mature demonstrations of the process, have indeed unveiled recurring structures in the Krishnamurti dialogue. Among these hidden structures, however, we can identify two major methodological components that deserve greater attention, since they are, I suggest, Krishnamurti’s most notable contribution to the field of religious and mystical thought: unanswerable questions and methodological negation. It should be remarked that if we examine Krishnamurti’s philosophical constructs in isolation from his methodology, we may come to the conclusion that his metaphysics is not only unoriginal but also fundamentally feeble. However, expecting Krishnamurti’s statements to measure up to academic or even purely logical standards is, in itself, an error, since his innovation has been in offering new tools of inquiry, that is, teaching us not what to think but how to stop thinking altogether. First, we should consider Krishnamurti’s tool of unanswerable questions, which derives from such an unorthodox perspective that it brings us to reflect more generally on the philosophical and mystical functions of questions. Krishnamurti’s method shows us that one can deploy a question not for the sake of obtaining information and not even for the sake of true knowledge or solid metaphysical truths (if we consider questions in the philosophical and mystical domains as a knowledge-seeking act). It further demonstrates that a question can be practiced with the intention to eliminate existing information and even as a part of a general attempt to transmute the memory-based brain altogether. The history of philosophy has shown us another prominent figure who often employed questions to reveal the limits of knowledge and to destroy unchecked mental certainties: Socrates. Nevertheless, what Socrates attempted to achieve through his elenchus greatly differed from the motivation behind Krishnamurti’s questioning. The real difference between the two systems lies not in structure but in purpose: elenchus aims at disproving a given thesis, typically the interlocutor’s answer to the principal question (Hintikka 1993, 8), whereas Krishnamurti was not looking to detect and refute logical incoherencies, but to enable the question itself to meditatively operate on the discussants’ minds. Rather than a logical entity whose role is to lead to judgment, the question is practiced as the compulsive drive to face and explore the existential mystery, a drive that is so primordial that it resides at the core of the mind and only takes the shape of verbal questions. Ordinarily, this driving force behind all
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=