1 2 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 6 Conclusion Krishnamurti’s unique form of dialogue can be generally defined as a process of questioning designed to block all ordinary pathways of thought with the intention to prepare the mind for an unfamiliar condition in which the activity of insight is made possible. The dynamic and rapid sequence of question and negation constitutes the main part of any Krishnamurti dialogue. The process itself can be described as a living demonstration of the activity of thought through the persistent mirroring effect of question and negation, with the intention of leading to the collapse of this activity. The way Krishnamurti goes into thought and gets to the end of it is by formulating a transformative question, repeating it frequently, and utilizing the paradoxical technique of demanding an answer while negating nearly all suggested answers as useless memory or conditioned reaction. This technique, Krishnamurti believes, puts great pressure on the participants’ minds, pressure whose purpose is ultimately constructive. This rapid shift from the traditional guru position to the Socratic-like approach of passing the responsibility on to one’s interlocutor is a persistent feature of the Krishnamurti dialogue: in this context, the function of the unanswered question is to throw his discussants back upon themselves. Furthermore, questions to which there are no answers force the mind to move away from the field of the known, and when held indefinitely, they gather energy that then operates on the brain. Lastly, this type of question, which naturally declines all answers, inaugurates and propels the process of negation. The process of negation in the Krishnamurti dialogue completes the act of holding questions and delaying reactions. The unanswerable question functions as a looking glass that motionlessly reflects the mind’s struggle to provide an unconditioned answer, whereas the active repudiation of the answers aims to empty and purify the mind. By energetically disconfirming nearly all of the interlocutors’ suggestions, Krishnamurti attempts to block the brain’s movement along its familiar mental circuits, thus prompting it to rise to a different type of intelligent activity. To borrow Platonian terminology, the negation is intended to lead to a state of transformative aporia (philosophical puzzlement): the brain that comes up against its own limits finds itself unable to move and its only way out is by leaping to a transcendent insight. Above all, Krishnamurti’s negative approach is founded on the premise that only through a rigorous negation of all knowledge and experience can one come upon the positive. The Hadotian reading of the two sample dialogues illuminates Krishnamurti’s method as a system that has no philosophically constructive ambitions but rather mystical and transformative ones. Although the method does engage certain elements of the philosophical mind, in terms of theory-building it is exclusively concerned with destroying existing mental structures, while its only positive end is the potential emergence of a new state of mind. It may thus be proposed that the Krishnamurti dialogue functions as a transformative mystical dialogue. Nevertheless, the method does not aim to accomplish a total or instantaneous insight; rather, it is designed for the “awakening of creative intelligence” (Krishnamurti in Shringy 1977, 197–198) by which one may achieve total insight. It was for this reason that the confusion and helplessness expressed by many participants were of no concern to Krishnamurti: his dialogue was primarily meant to provoke, agitate, and revolutionize, and in this respect, it was a successful transmission.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=