We listen with the various depths of our being, but our listening is always with a Krishnamurti: You are listening to yourself, and not to the speaker. If you are. Jiddu Krishnamurti. The Only Revolution .. MEDITATION IS NOT an escape from the world; it is not an isolating self- enclosing activity, but rather the. The impact of the philosopher J. Krishnamurti on the educational ethos of alternative It is Krishnamurti's moral passion that formed the basis for his relentless.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Japanese|
|PDF File Size:||15.16 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
PDF | The present article looks at mind and consciousness from the Deeper delving into it and a study of J. Krishnamurti's philosophy is a. The Awakening Of Intelligence is collection of transcribed talks Jiddu Krishnamurti. Download the more than page long free ebook here in. Mind Without Measure Krishnamurti free pdf ebook Mind without measure by Jiddu Krishnamurti is a huge collection of public talks held by.
Krishnamurti's Notebook. Krishnamurti to Himself: His Last Journal. Last Talks at Saanen, Letters to the Schools: Volume Two. Volume One.
Life Ahead: On Learning and the Search for Meaning. Meeting Life: Mind Without Measure: Talks in India, Authentic Report. On Conflict. On Education. On Fear. On Freedom. On God. On Love and Loneliness.
On Nature and the Environment. On Relationship. On Right Livelihood. On Study Centres: Selections from the Talks and Dialogues of J. On Truth. Perennial Questions: Questioning Krishnamurti: Krishnamurti in Dialogue. Questions and Answers. Social Responsibility. Talks With American Students.
The Answer is in The Problem: Collected Works 9. The Art of Listening: Collected Works 1. The Awakening of Intelligence.
The Beauty of Death: The Book of Life: Daily Meditations With Krishnamurti. The Collected Works - The Dignity of Living: The Ending of Time. The First and Last Freedom. The Flame of Attention: Selected talks given by the author during 31st October to 4th September in India, U.
The Flight of the Eagle: The Future Is Now: Last Talks in India. The Future of Humanity: Two Dialogues Between J. Even the so called modern or post-modern people are traditional, for their ideas and actions, too, are traditional in the sense that they are only the reactions of the past to the present.
Tradition also means to hand over the ideas mechanically without understanding and appropriating the spirit of their meaning and living by it. Freedom from tradition is of paramount importance for bringing about a radical change in the social reality. Revolution means the total transformation of the traditional mind, not through time and knowledge but awareness without choice, attention without concentration, or observation without the observer, the product of thought, knowledge and time.
Psychological revolution brings about a new mind which is free from the structure of the known, which is repetitive and mechanical. The new mind is not a novel mind but a creative one in constant revolution of being able to meet the present, the fact, as it is without distorting it. The novel mind which can only react to the past without ever cleansing itself of it may be an idiosyncratic and a bizarre one; but a creative mind in its true sense is supremely intelligent in the sense that its actions are logical, sane and compassionate.
The creative mind is of wisdom imbued with a sense of inclusion and integrity and harmony. To Krishnamurti, creativity does not mean creative writing, creative painting, creative cooking and so on, but the birth of something totally new which is possible only when there is freedom from tradition, the known.
That which is totally new is precisely the truth which is antithetical to tradition. Truth and tradition do not go together; where the one is, the other is not.
Truth begins where the tradition ends; tradition is continuous and repetitious, whereas truth is ever new and from moment to moment; the former is [of] time and the latter is timeless. Tradition is accumulative, evolutionary but regressive, where as truth is negating, denuding, but Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF http: Truth can never be repeated and truth repeated is a lie; truth is totally outside the structure of tradition which is the past modifying itself as the future through the present.
Only a quiet mind can understand the truth or the falsity of a statement. Truth is not at a distance and there is no path to it, either of knowledge, devotion, or action. There is absolutely no need to confirm to any tradition, philosophical, religious, or scientific to perceive truth.
Paths and knowledge and the practice thereof are isolating and exclusive, whereas truth is integrating and inclusive. Fundamentally, truth is a state of being that arises when the traditional mind wedded to the past and naturally seeks to divide and disintegrate the individual and society has come to an end without a vestige.
The traditional mind which is basically corrupt in the sense of being fragmented in terms of the maze and the complexity of mutually conflicting, confusing and competing ideas and symbols can never see the truth which is blatantly obvious and right in front of its eyes. Being intrinsically untrue and untruthful to that which is true, the traditional mind is a problematic mind which comes to end only when there in an insight into the whole nature and structure of it.
A traditional approach to the transformation of the traditional mind is a contradiction in terms and practice. Truth or the true mind is not a matter of knowledge but a freedom from it. It is not a thing to be remembered and repeated, to be written about or propagated. Truth is that which is the nameless, which a traditional mind cannot approach. Only the mind which is in constant revolution of being ever fresh and new alone can comprehend it.
Truth lies in meeting life afresh and seeing things anew which is possible for a mind that does not identify or confirm itself to any pattern of thought or belief and never becomes traditional or old. He does not subscribe to the concept of philosophy as a corpus of justified true beliefs or an activity of advancing arguments to convince others of something. Philosophy is not an intellectual activity of clarifying conceptual confusion, nor a theoretical enterprise, nor an exegetical exercise of disputing the prevalent ideas and inventing novel ones.
Philosophy is not a speculative activity of system building, a construction of grand eloquent theories which have industrialised the human mind and dehumanised the human being.
To Krishnamurti, philosophy is not the love of concepts, not a series of theories, but the love of truth in the sense of its actual realisation and living by it in daily life.
It is not a pursuit of abstraction but a practical discipline of bringing about a radical change in the mind by comprehending truth beyond thought, wisdom beyond knowledge. The function of philosophy is discovering intelligence which is holistic, sane and compassionate. Philosophy is the praxis of living in accordance with facts without fiction, truth without reducing it to ideas. Its concern is the creation of a new, a true and an integrated human being who is in harmony in relationship with people and nature.
Philosophy is setting out on the voyage of the uncharted sea of truth, a meditative journey into the unknown. It comes close to the Advaita Vedanta if Vedanta means the actual realisation of the non- dual absolute truth by ending all knowledge about it. Vedanta literally means, the ending of knowledge, and, not merely the Upanishads, which are the end part of the Vedas.
Krishnamurti maintains that freedom from knowledge which is tradition is absolutely essential at the very beginning of the inquiry into the truth. In this sense, Krishnamurti claims, that he begins exactly where the traditional Vedantins stop. To him, freedom is the first and last step in the observation and understanding of truth.
To Krishnamurti truth is emptiness of everything that thought has put together. He holds that emptiness is the truth of being of everything——things, people and ideas. To both, truth is all inclusive, harmonious and quiescent which is beyond desire, attachment and hatred. To Nagarjuna, transcendental truth comprehends the absence of intrinsic nature of the phenomenal truth. To Krishnamurti, truth is freedom from the nature and structure of thought which is conditioned and limited.
He has discussed many other issues related to the two seminal philosophical problems. I must say that this book is a bold venture to present the philosophy of a remarkable thinker whose life is intriguing and the teachings vast and difficult Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF http: This work is one of the few books which seek to bring to light a rare thinker like Krishnamurti who is less known, rather less studied than many other contemporary Indian thinkers in the academic circles.
His philosophy embodies truth which is more concrete and practical than conceptual and theoretical. He is extremely relevant to the resolution of the crisis of the world of ideas as well as of action.
He has to be studied more seriously and widely at the college and university level, for his teachings are pregnant with the profound truth which can form a basis for meaningful living with a culture of supreme human values. However, writers on Krishnamurti should show a diligent restraint in interpreting and commenting on Krishnamurti, lest they may distort his teaching.
His philosophy is concerned more with the actual and the urgent realisation of truth and the transformation of the individual and society than a mere intellectual or conceptual understanding of it.
Let us not reduce the living truth of his philosophy through a dead tradition by repeating it in terms of words and concepts and proliferating books on him.
Let us live the teaching more than writing about it. Krishnamurtiy often asked his listeners to live the teaching besides discussing and having dialogues about it.
He warned people against claiming authority over his teachings, for truth cannot be a monopoly of anybody. Krishnamurti is one of the prominent thinkers of contemporary times. He did not expound any philosophy or religion but engaged in talking about problems of everyday life. His lectures and writings have global appeal. Every word he spoke has been recorded and printed.
He emerged as a phenomenon in contemporary times. As a researcher my fascination for Krishnamurti lies in his being a thinker of Indian origin who was boldly critical about tradition and looked for radical change. His immediate concern throughout his life was human predicament and the way out of the labyrinthine world. He picked up many themes, such as identity, division, conflict, violence, world disorder, education and religious life. Though both these concepts are popular concepts of his time, the way he presented them adds new meaning.
Tradition and revolution are historically constructed categories and considerable literature is available in this respect. The discourse of social change and world order are invariably linked with the ideals of tradition and revolution. There is a difficulty in doing this as he does not allow any method or approach in understanding world or his Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF http: I am conscious of my position as a scholar, it is important to depict the philosophical position of Krishnamurti and equally important for me, not to be carried away by him.
To bring relevance to his thought, I place him into the socio-political developments of contemporary times of the world. I came to an understanding that Krishnamurti provides new way in approaching the problems of life. His approach seems to be philosophical and logical rather than practical and political in bringing about the transformation of the world order. In this study, I took liberty to locate him in larger philosophical systems and even to explore the limitations of his thought in terms of contemporary relevance.
I see tradition as a problem because of its oppressive and authoritative character in most of the issues of social life. In Indian context, caste system and patriarchy are bound by tradition. Tradition is regulated by religion and its texts, systematically executing by the priestly class in association with ruling class. Tradition and its value systems have manifested through the social institutions and had continuity for generations.
The victims of tradition will definitely admire the change, the idea of revolution which is promising a new vision of life. We can see the crisis of contemporary society that has manifested in many forms, especially from the decade of eighties. On one hand, the idea of revolution has been confined to Marxist sense and become limited to economic equality rather than life as a whole. On the other hand, tradition in the form of religious nationalism becomes a rallying point for many struggles in a crisis ridden society.
For me, the significance of Krisnamurti lies in his ideas to think about the problem of human freedom from repressions and constraints of internal life of mind. Modern ideologies are concerned with well-being in the external world. Looking at freedom as an issue of mind than the world, he is critical about any other identity other than human.
He is critical about all historically, socially, culturally, religiously and politically constructed identities. He argues that any identity based on past, memory, or thought, not only distorts the present existing reality , what is, but also responsible for fragmentation of human consciousness leading to conflict and world disorder.
The spirit of universal human consciousness can be appreciable and tends to be logical. As we are aware, the decade of nineteen eighties are known for identity politics that countered the liberal and Marxist conception of life.
For Krishnamurti, individual is central. He treats the individual as rational and universal. He extends this rationality to criticise the tradition, past, religion and belief. In order to understand the reality as a whole in its freshness as what is, he even rejects the verbalisation, thought, memory and the social-cultural process.
He rejects the social, which he considers as a source for the existential problems. He understood the problems are due to partial and prejudiced understanding rather total understanding. He demands nameless experience for better understanding of the world. He thinks choiceless awareness keeps the individual away from the existential problems and conflicts. He finds the solution to all existential problems in individual.
He argues for change in the individual psyche or psychological revolution. It is a state of joy filled with love and compassion. On maintaining the scientific understanding of the world, especially on critique of tradition, his thought comes close to a Marxist stream. He not only extends this word to connote total change in the psychological realm of the individual, which he believes that it encompasses all the fields of life, but also calls it a religious revolution. As we know, in the context of revolutionary change, religion has negative connotation.
One thing is clear that Krishnamurti has invented new language of his times, which has predominantly liberal tone. He is critical of both tradition and revolution in his own terms, which goes against the historical notions of both of these terms. This kind of position makes it difficult to locate him in known philosophical and political positions. In contrast to western modernity, the western educated Indian intellectuals are engaged with Hindu religion or tradition either by redefining or reforming it.
The social reformers tried to reform the religion. The nationalists, such as Gandhi, redefined the Hinduism by making it universal and opposing the problems linked with caste and gender.
Another Indian thinker Ambedkar, too, came out with an idea of religion as rational, social, moral and righteous, thereby denying the Hinduism as a religion.
At an alternative level, he proposes Buddhism to fulfill his notion of religion. Krishnamurti goes against all the organised and historical religions but retains the idea of religiousness by redefining it. Krishnamurti reduces the problems of the world and society to the individual level and provides solutions accordingly. In other words, his philosophical perspective goes beyond known positions on science and religion, modern and postmodern positions and liberal and communitarian theories of contemporary times.
It is a challenge for anybody to capture the essence of thought without understanding the social and political context of the Krishnamurti and its implication to world order. His social and political background may provide some clues to understand him better. Krishnamurti was born in a Telugu Brahmin family and groomed by Annie Besant with a mission of making him a messiah through her Theosophical Society.
He was trained according to her vision. Theosophical Society was based on the mystical insight into divine nature and claimed to be derived from the sacred writings of Brahminism and Buddhism. It has its belief in reincarnation and spiritual evolution. It believes in speculative mysticism and occult powers. Its emphasis is on universal brotherhood. It has its organisations both in India and the West. The Theosophical Society in India has become a hub of liberal Brahmins.
These foundations became platforms for his meetings. But there is no significant change in his articulation of various issues and his approach towards problems of the world. We may find a thread of continuity from Theosophical Society to the audiences of his speeches.
However, he has become an international figure and got established as a phenomenon. He is a religious guru with modern attire and with cosmopolitan appeal. He dismisses any identity other than human which is an abstract and universal ideal that came up with liberalism. I have observed closely the people engaged with Krishnamurti and found that Krishnamurti provides a solace for a particular set of people.
As individuals they proved better than others but collectively Krishnamurti has exercised no impact. As a complementary to struggles against injustice, his thought is helpful in overcoming problems of hatred and egoism within social struggle.
He can be seen as going along with theorists in talking of love. He reminds us of the limitation of our struggles by keeping in front of us, the total transformation as an ultimate end.
However, he makes us cautious of limitations of our struggles by broadening our understanding of the reality if we read him properly. In other words, these struggles came with alternative philosophical frameworks against the dominant liberal position. His ideas expose the limitations of liberal ideas aimed to transform the world on the path of progress and limits of identity struggles.
Liberal thought aims to eliminate the traces of the past totally from human memory and identity. Simultaneously, it formulates new bonds of mind in the form of rationality yielding freedom.
This freedom is a new kind of bondage tying mind to the world. On the other hand, identity struggles invent new pasts for one self supposedly ensuring a sense of belonging in times of swift changes in the world.
Liberalism invents new desires and identity struggles offer securities in times of radical erasures of the past and the construction of delusive ambitions.
Krishnamurthi would look at both the streams as offering new forms of bondage. Freedom from bondage does not come from nervously possessing objects in the world. It comes from total cessation of attachments not just to things but to ideas as well. His idea of total freedom from the known is this in brief. It comes close to existentialism of Sartre. By looking at divisions within the self, one could go beyond them.
Both the streams assume radical individual responsibility for the kind of self one is. Their axis of thinking is internal freedom of the mind, not external freedom. It emphasises internalisation of responses to the external world. Both call attention to be critically aware of thought constructions shaping response to world.
But, there are differences as well. Sartre factors in worldly affairs in achieving such freedom while Krishnamurthi totally focusses on the processes of mind for bondage as well as freedom.
They have become better persons in relation to others. It also made them introspective humans highly obsessed with ones thought processes. In practical struggles against injustice, they have been found withdrawing from the mud of the routine life. In other words, they view fights against injustice as one more suffocating thought pattern which one needs to be free from.
His ideas and followers stand in indifference to the injustices of every day. It cannot encompass liberative catharsis that the oppressed feel in their quest for justice because of extreme subjectivism. It should be enriched and brought in touch with objective world. One should be able to conceptualise the experiences of freedom in criticising injustice and freedom of the self should be seen as freedom of self being in the world.
However, the importance of Krishnamurti lies in his wholistic approach of understanding the reality against reductionistic approaches. For him, any of our understanding must be comprehensive and contemporary without having any distortion.
In that process, he is critical about any preconceived notions about reality and demands for the suspension of judgment to understand a thing in its essence.
He extends this in rejecting the tradition, belief, self, thought, knowledge and even time Psychological. But at the same time, he was aware of philosophical wisdom of both eastern and western thought. He has reinvented new language in articulating the issues. In simple terms, he appealed for freedom from the known for total understanding. He is not claiming as the philosopher or r eligious guru. But today we are introspecting the very notion of philosophy.
Philosophy describes, interprets and comprehends the everyday life experiences and social reality. Philosophy is a reflexive engagement of making meaning of our life. As cognitive enterprises, it differentiates the factual from the conceptual.
We often find a gap between concepts and the facts. Our dominant philosophical theories are to an extent disconnected from the concrete contemporary experience. Krishnamurti opposed the binaries, such as materialism and idealism, tradition and modernity, culture and nature, empirical and analytical, conceptual and factual.
Major theories are facing challenges from the unfolding of the historical events. His notion of philosophy has a role of critical, transformative and emancipator character. He is a philosopher of life. There is a possibility to caricature his approach and its significance in contemporary times. My study is an attempt in this direction. There is no doubt that his philosophical approach has its novelty and importance in addressing the vital problems of life but the qu estion remains, how far it succeeds in transforming life, society and the world.
Ramamurthy, University of Hyderabad for helping me in organising the structure and content of the manuscript. I am extremely thankful to Prof G. Raghuramaraju, Prof S.
Pradhan, Dr K. Prasad and Mr. Anand Wazalwar. I am thankful to Krishnamurti Foundation of India, Chennai and Rishi Valley School, Madanapalle for giving me an opportunity to collect material and to engage in discussion with members of the foundations. I am thankful to Dr Narayana Reddy Late of University of Hyderabad, who helped me with a lot of enthusiasm all the way in finishing this manuscript. Bindu for meticulously going through the manuscript and for their valuable suggestions.
I am thankful to my friends Dr J. Shoban Babu, Mr N. Bhanutej, Dr B. Eswar Rao, Dr Y. Lakshmi Prasad, Dr V. Vijay, Prof R. Ramanamurty, Dr Sudhakar, Dr K. Ratnam and Dr P. Thirumal of University of Hyderabad, Dr T. Thirupati Rao, Dravidian University, Kuppam. My heartfelt thanks are to my friend Mr Kanaka Rao, Faculty at Assam University, Silchar for always engaging me in both academic and political discourses.
I am especially thankful to my friend and well wisher, Dr J. Ravindranth, Dept. I am thankful to my colleagues at Department of Philosophy, Pondicherry University for their support in the Department and my research students for their help in preparing the index of the manuscript.
I am greatly indebted to my mother late P. Nagendramma and my grandmother late Kattupalli Chandra Mahalakshmi for their immense emotional support in my life. My special thanks to my family members, my brother P.
Vijaya Kumar, my sister Dakshayini and my brother-in-law Dr Ramesh Babu for showing their affection towards me. Finally, I am thankful a lot to my wife Dr P. Rajeswari and my beloved daughters Akshara and Asmitha for keeping me always in good spirits. Several attempts have been made to characterise the teachings of J. Krishnamurti or to identify his thought in terms of the known categories of thought like religious, philosophical, psychological etc.
Is it a kind of philosophy dealing with some general problems of philosophy like nature and meaning of human existence? Is Krishnamurti a free thinker generally concerned with the decline of moral values? Are his writings psychological explanation of human behaviour related especially to religion and spirituality?
Or is his thought religious with a view to reconcile the traditional religions with the modern thought which is influenced and shaped by reason and positive sciences? Or can we say that his thought is revolutionary in nature which means that his intention is to bring about a radical change in human attitudes and ways of thinking?
Krishnamurti himself does not want to be placed in terms of any traditional categories as he thinks such classification of himself and his thought would be rigid and reductionistic. We find him making a constant effort to keep himself away from traditionally accepted roles and labels which are parochial as he is basically a universal man and Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF http: According to Krishnamurti the nature of definition is such that it overlooks the richness of the thing defined and to define human life in terms of certain categories is to miss the richness of life and its integral character.
For him, there is no distinction between human life, thought and action. Krishnamurti has shown interest in human existence and its problems related to truth, freedom, self-knowledge and revolution. And in dealing with or discussing these problems, he has neither identified himself with any particular viewpoint or school of thought nor does he claim to have propounded a new theory or philosophy about anything.
For him reflective understanding must not miss the uniqueness of the situation which may happen when one adheres to certain static notions and theories. We began our introduction with a set of questions which one would normally like to pose in order to situate or identify a thinker.
But what is more important, according to Krishnamurti, is not the problems which these questions address but the manner in which one approaches these problems. The traditional way of understanding these problems may not be adequate and inspiring. One must rethink these issues not by caricaturing the traditional understanding of them as it is often done but by revisiting them in their own freshness.
The holism that we find in his reflections is not congenial to any kind of reduction or binary poles of opposition. Questions about epistemology or ontology are of least interest for him. To debate over the cognitive status of values is to indulge in a controversy over the primacy of mind or matter which is to miss the point.
To understand and appreciate the thought of Krishnamurti, one should dispense with accepted philosophical techniques and categories and face the issues directly without too much indulging in conceptualisation etc. Most of the philosophical concepts are not free from presuppositions and prejudices peculiar to the system of philosophy or to the thinker who has formulated them.
For instance many of the ideas we have about the world, human existence and social system to which we belong are mostly traditional and accepted uncritically. Because of these reasons Krishnamurti emphasises on looking at the problems and understanding them afresh without accepting the various ideas and values uncritically. Though Krishnamurti has remained a popular and creative thinker, he has not been taken seriously by the academic community.
We may even characterise him as a free and creative thinker who has tried to reconcile the wisdom of the East and the West. Though he is not a materialist or an idealist in the accepted sense, yet he has something new to offer in understanding the controversy between materialism and idealism. However, the implications of his thought may prove helpful and even insightful in understanding some of the problems of philosophy. He has not generally concerned himself with the problems which worried the academic philosophers or bothered him to revisit or re-interpret the traditional philosophical problems.
One may find meaningful solutions from his thought to some of the philosophical problems, but that is not the main concern of his thought. Both idealists and materialists have their own ways of avoiding the complex problems of suffering; both are consumed by their own craving, ambitions and conflicts and their ways of life are not conducive to tranquility.
One must be wholesome or integral in his approach not to miss the truth. A suspension of judgment would lead to real self-knowledge which is what Krishnamurti calls the beginning of intelligence.
Therefore all our inquiries must be spontaneous and free from preconceived and inherited notions. Brief Biographical Sketch of J. His father was a retired revenue officer who moved to Theosophical Society, Madras along with Krishnamurti and his other three sons, where Annie Besant offered a job for him.
At that time accidentally, CF Lead Beater, one of the associates of Annie Besant, the president of Theosophical Society, sensed something unusual in the young Krishnamurti. In Krishnamurti was adopted by Annie Besant to herald him as a vehicle for the coming messiah and he was groomed for that role.
In , he was taken to Europe and was tutored privately under the supervision of learned theosophists like George Arundale, AE Woodhouse and Jinarajadasa. The theosophical program of drawing these diverse spheres into a unified and peaceful brotherhood attracted a large membership all over the world. Keeping this program in mind, a suitable course of study was drawn up for Krishnamurti to serve the role of world teacher as predicted by the Theosophical Society.
England to which Krishnamurti was introduced had been breaking out of smugness of the Victorian life and the growing prosperity helped to foster a liberal, progressive, intellectual and scientifically advanced culture. At the same time people were inspired with socialist ideals all over the world. He was trained to use better expression. He was kept away from the religious scriptures, systems of philosophy and was allowed to think on his own.
In , Krishnamurti was formally proclaimed as world teacher, but in he disbanded the order with his spiritually radical speech, Truth is Pathless Land. By doing so he rejected estate, money, power and all claims to authority or guru status. He kept himself away from theosophy and its organisation. In fact, by Krishnamurti developed doubts about the application of theosophy to human problems.
In , he questioned and negated the very idea of his future Messianic role. After keeping away from the shadow of theosophy, from to his speeches strongly concentrated on finding an apt form of expression for an effective and faultless delivery of his message while after that from onwards one discovers within him a certain stability of expression and approach.
He adapted himself gradually to psychological probing into the nature of existence, the psychological structure, substance in the function of the mind and the constitution of human consciousness etc.
After disbanding the Order of the star, he declared that truth cannot be found through any sect or religion but only by freeing oneself from all forms of conditioning. He dedicated his whole life to set man absolutely free. For the next sixty years after disbanding the Order of the Star in the East, Krishnamurti travelled to different parts of the world giving discourses on his vision of life.
For six decades until his death in , at the age of ninety, he travelled over the world bringing his thoughts to those who were ready to listen. In all that time the message of his talks was that truth is pathless land, each one of us represents all humanity and one needs to be a light to one self, free from all authority. He spent the last sixty years of his life in going all around the world and speaking to the mixed audience of varying temperaments and of different intellectual capacities, of different cultural marks, without distinction of sex, age, class, creed, nation or race.
In conveying his teachings, Krishnamurti explored them as of thought, time, suffering, death space, silence and sacredness. In his speeches and dialogues, he addressed the evils of civil society and the irrationality of organised religions, futility of existing social structures, inertia in conforming to beliefs, dogmas and Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF http: By mid, he had developed notions about education, human relations and communications, which were not found in his earlier discourses.
The range of his teachings further grew to embrace a number of new concerns such as nationalism, ecological despoliation, unemployment, hunger, poverty, with an almost contemporary sensitivity and the social issues that were once on the periphery of his perceptions came closer to the center stage.
Though he uses very simple words, yet every word has profound significance and establishes an intimacy with his audience.
His teachings are free from all mythical or religious reference. His style is even free from standard terms, which are of having a traditional as well as established meaning and often infuses a word with an unusual and unexpected significance and opens within the most common words depths and heights and expressive charisma.
Krishnamurti embraces within himself life in its totality. He rejects every ideology and every system of thought. He does not hold any viewpoint and so he does not propagate a theory, neither does he preach any dogma, or presents a philosophical doctrine and his teachings do not expand a definite theme. And yet he speaks of life, freedom, revolt and revolution and about suffering and self-knowledge. It pierces the clouds of philosophy which confound our thought and restores the springs of action.
He initiated no new faith or dogma, questioning everything, cultivated doubts and perseverance, freed himself of illusion and enchantment of pride, family and every He was able to reach the core of the problems with which humanity has grappled for centuries. His teaching explores the reasons why mankind has lived in chaos and misery for thousands of years. The discussion brings to light, as the chief cause, the fragmentation of the mind deeply conditioned by race, nationality, religion and ideology which produces division, fear and conflict.
Krishnamurti humbly says, I have nothing to offer you since he views that people need to be awakened not instructed.
But in reality, his teaching demands not only a self- correctness, a life free of self-centred activity but the awakening of enormous energy, radiating and integral to perception, which alone frees man from the bondage of time.
He advocates self-knowledge in the pursuit of truth. The miseries of the world can be ended only if man changed his own psyche to develop a broader outtook towards all creation, an outlook of love and compassion and sharing—as society and its ills were the creation of the psyche.
He challenged the existing patterns of human living, thought, feeling and action. He urges us to look at life directly without the glasses of erudition and traditional wisdom. He perceives the unity of human existence, through insight and intelligence. The perception of truth, of the reality of what is—is essentially an individual problem he says. He refuses to accept the role of world teacher.
The message of Krishnamurti is the message of love, compassion, self-criticism and freedom from past inhibitions. He covers the entire gamut of human thought, aspiration and endeavour. He often discusses the relations between idea and action, contradictions of effort, the perils inherent in the acceptance of traditions and dogmas uncritically.
His teachings do not propose any ideals since he considers the ideal is always what is not. Krishnamurti did not hesitate to adopt them to new historical circumstances and spiritual quests. In that way, his teachings are creative as well as without change in the essence despite the use of different terminology to suit the situation. Human Crisis and World Disorder We are at the threshold of the twenty first century.
No one can deny the fact that there has been an unprecedented advance in science and technology. Even as we make certain claims about the progress that has been achieved, we experience a sense of loss or decline in certain aspects of human life and civilisaisation. On the one hand, there is a definite change in our living conditions while on the other humankind is engulfed in a series of ideological battles— religious, political, or economic.
Then in what sense can we assert that our civilisaisation has achieved progress? What does it then mean to say that we have more knowledge about nature, the world and of man than ever before? Can we accept without any reservation or unconditionally the claim about progress? We cannot deny the fact that the fragmentation of humanity into caste, class, nation, religion, ethnic groups is also unprecedented. Human beings are leading their lives not in a state of joy but under a constant fear of being destroyed.
Mankind seems to be obsessed with the idea of domination in various forms like amassing wealth, monopolising trade and colonising nations. This domination is carried out with the help of certain institutions which are supposed to serve as custodians of moral life. Life is no more an expression of joy but a vulgar display of human weaknesses resulting in the increase of human suffering.
We find ourselves trapped in activities that are really meaningless. That humanity is facing a deep rooted crisis, is not a recent revelation and that there is a crisis is one thing on Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF http: The symptoms were recognised long before and there have been many attempts to emancipate man from such a situation.
But there is no unanimity among thinkers about the nature of the crisis and the way to overcome it. People from all walks of life—scientists, economists, spiritual leaders and political thinkers are concerned with the problem and their analysis of the situation and also their attempts to solve it are helpful in understanding the complex situation.
However, the failure in overcoming the crisis is partly because the various thinkers are not clear in their diagnosis of the fundamental problem, and therefore, their solutions are not comprehensive and lasting. For instance, the economic solution to the problem is limited as human beings cannot be explained in terms of economics alone.
The core of the problem lies in understanding the human nature in its totality. According to Krishnamurti, a solution to the crisis would emerge not from politics or religion, but from the insights about the human mind or psyche and also from understanding of the nature of human consciousness. To understand the nature of man, we have to comprehend the nature of human consciousness. Therefore, Krishnamurti pays more attention to understand the nature of human consciousness.
However, his attempt to characterise the nature of human consciousness is not the first of its kind; but what distinguishes Krishnamurti from others is his way of perceiving the problem. Krishnamurti feels that our inquiry must begin with an understanding of our traditional notions and attitudes that we cherish. He, however, feels that the various solutions that have come to us are conditioned by tradition and our past.
The tradition, whatever may be its structure, can offer us only a partial view of the problem, and therefore, any attempt to offer a solution based on it would inevitably be conditioned by the limitations of the tradition. Krishnamurti would, therefore, like to encourage us to explore the psychological reasons behind the crisis which, according to him, would alone bring about Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF http: So far we have made an attempt to present some of the basic features of his thought and what follows is an attempt to highlight the problem that forms the focus of my study.
Shills also notes that traditions are slightly modified by both endogenous and exogenous factors. An Indian scholar V. Varma is of the opinion that: Tradition is an inclusive concept. It connotes the initiative character of a certain dominant religious, theoretical, metaphysical and ethical values and beliefs. It also stands for the crystallisation of deference and reverence for certain symbols. Tradition also includes folk ways, mores and semi- institutionalised patterns of action in a society.
At a more extended level, tradition may be identified with the totality of the historical heritage of a nation or a community. Duncan M. An outlook is traditional if the present generation approaches the same matter in the same way. He further adds that there are two kinds of traditions as there are two ways of self-consciously employing it.
Another is the opposite of fossilisation. In it the old is continued functionally in the current and thus grows and moves in keeping with the needs and general growth of society. This form of tradition has a furtive and a slightly fraudulent air: He holds that a belief or practice becomes a tradition when, a It persists over several generations, b If it changes at all, it changes only slightly and gradually and c It is not questioned by its adherents nor thought by them to need justification.
An Indian sociologist Sachidananda holds that tradition is transmitted value and behaviour pattern of a community. Traditions are tested, recalled and esteemed. Their age long succession is an assurance of value which has already occurred in the process of their instrumental functioning as a constituent of social cohesion or social solidarity. Old traditions die and new ones are continually being built up.
Leaving aside external influence, there are also, endogenous factors of change in tradition. We will use the typology suggested by S. Sharma says that it is possible to distinguish at least three meanings of tradition in sociological literature, i. Anthropologists frequently use the term in this sense in their field studies of tribes and pre-literate societies. Another meaning of tradition is ideal-typical which signifies a set of values common to a community or society.
In this sense tradition is shorthand for such values as sacredness, ascription and slow change. Such a conception of tradition offers a criterion for determining what a traditional society is like.
The last one, which is analytical- referential, is a more acceptable meaning of tradition. Analytically tradition connotes routine acceptance of a body of beliefs and action patterns from the past out of sheer reverence for the wisdom of the past.
According to the functional approach, all traditional cultures are sustained by a consistent corpus of norms and values. Traditionalism When we encounter tradition in our lived experience, especially in our own Indian context, we seldom evaluate it neutrally or classify it according to types; we in fact live it, either as an unexamined habit or as an oppressive structure.
Very often we see it manifested concretely in strongly held ideas and rigid institutions. In other words we encounter it as traditionalism, an attitude examined below. Traditionalism is the self-conscious, deliberate affirmation of traditional norms, with full awareness of their traditional nature.
It is based on the feeling that the merit of the norms derives from their traditional transmission or from sacred origin. This could be manifested as a revivalistic and enthusiastic attitude. It is usually dogmatic and insists on uniformity. It insists on a thorough-going adherence and, does not discriminate between what is workable and what is unworkable.
It regards all elements of tradition as equally essential. Traditionalism is not content with the observance of a tradition in a particular sphere only, as in family or in religious life.
It is satisfied only if the traditional outlook permeates all spheres—political, economic, cultural and religious and unifies and subordinates them to the sacred as it is received from the past. Traditionalism is almost always ideological and fanatical. It insists passionately on the full and conscious adherence to tradition with a form and elaboration unknown in the ordinary observance of tradition. It treats exceptions, qualifications and deviations as unhealthy or aberrant and wicked.
It regards the pristine tradition in all its fullness as an adequate guide to conduct. Traditionalism is not only hostile to liberty, it is also radically hostile to tradition, the vague, flexible tradition which even Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF http: In oligarchic societies traditionalism prevents further growth of elements which can give rise to freedom.
In the process of an ideological upsurge of traditionalism, tradition may be changed, stretched and modified by unified and national search for a consensual base for political authority and economic development. The Invention of Tradition The creation of tradition is not a short-term process. What we regard as tradition is the result of a long period of development. In the course of time, the personal experience of many becomes the collective experience of the community which is then enshrined as a tradition.
Time-honoured customs pervade and regulate most aspects of daily routine. Wisdom is often equated with age and knowledge of the past rather than with youth or education or a vision of better future.
To carry forward tradition, certain human agencies and institutions are needed. Generally, tradition is transmitted from one generation to another through the family, schools and religious institutions.
At present, the media also play a significant role in this regard. Tradition should be understood in the context of social change. Today, tradition is being revived worldwide in various forms. It is invented by interested groups to suit modern day politics.
It is argued that tradition is renewed, created and discovered towards a goal which man aspires for and appeals to in some specific historical guise. As Gusfeild puts it: Men refer to aspects of the past as tradition in grounding their present actions in some legitimating principle. Traditional continuity and authenticity appear as mere shadows of reality, in spite of territorial restoration, genealogical restoration and cultural renewal.
Salient Points From the above discussion we may say that tradition has the following general features: Tradition is related to the past. It is the knowledge about the past and, by and large, it is a mode of uncritical acceptance of the past. It works as authority, in which an individual believes and regulates his attitudes and daily life accordingly. Tradition generally lacks the total adaptability that would allow its followers to adjust their behaviour to new circumstances.
Tradition elevates the cultural and religious aspects of life and its values. It forms a coherent pattern giving men reason, an orderly rationale for a relatively stable life, at whatever level of society they find themselves in.
Tradition is a more or less homogeneous body of rules and ideas. As such, it is used as a normative or coercive force upon the people who are subjected to it. Traditional structures can supply skills and traditional values can supply sources of legitimisation, which are capable of being utilised in the pursuit of new goals and with new processes.
Tradition has the capacity to evoke conformity even though it has undergone some modifications or changes. It is selective as only some of the elements of the past are useful for fulfilling needs of society. According to Krishnamurti, tradition, broadly means carrying the past over to the present. It is to hand down, to pass on, to give from generation to generation a certain set of ideas, systems and beliefs.
That is, tradition is following a belief or an idea without much reflection. Krishnamurti, while reiterating some of the current notions about tradition, also gives a subtle and fundamentally new meaning to the concept.
He suggests that tradition means betrayal. It is the betrayal of the present by the past. But tradition, which is of the past, cannot understand the beauty of actual life. It may imply a remote or a recent past. Yet all tradition is profane. Krishnamurti says: The brain carries the memory of yesterday, which is tradition and is frightened to let go because it cannot face something new. It is through the brain that an individual carries the past over to the present.
Somewhere along the line of evolution, the mind began recording and repeating the past in the psychological sense. It started creating for itself a tradition by way of security. Thus the mind immersed in tradition has become an instrument which functions in a groove of imitation.
The brain or mind becomes traditional by conditioning or programming itself through social, cultural and environmental conditions. It becomes mechanical and interacts with people, nature and ideas mechanically. The traditional mind functions strictly within tradition because it is afraid of public opinion.
Krishnamurti says that a person who is born a Brahmin continues to be the same till he dies, moving in the same circle, in the same pattern, in the same framework. The traditional mind is not free from thought that is born of experience, of tradition, of memory; it is anchored in the past and therefore cannot be free. Apart from the conditioning of the mind by the factual past which is history, the mind is also conditioned by the psychological past, which is tradition.
Culture and human environment all over the globe are structured so as to make the mind conform to tradition. The brain derives power from this psychological inheritance, defends and limits itself to its own groove. The psychological past is no better than the physical past. The cultivation of positive thinking involves a somewhat better understanding of the world around us and makes us free of tradition to a certain extent. But this freedom is illusory. The traditional mind always thinks and functions in a positive way.
All its actions, however radical or negative they may be, are still traditional. They are the products of the past. They are the continuity of the tradition in a modified form. Positive thinking is no more a thinking; it is merely a modified continuity of what has been thought; the outward shape of it may change from time to time, depending on compulsions and pressures, but the core of positive thinking is always traditional.
Positive thinking is the process of conformity and the mind that conforms can never be in a state of discovery. The traditional mind is the product of time. Its evolution is a process by which the past modifies the present and passes into the future. Krishnamurti says that the past constitutes the background of mind and includes the racial, communal, religious memories and experiences. The old traditions perpetuate themselves. This has been going on for millions of years and basically, there is no basic change in human beings.
Because of this, Krishnamurti says: And that has been our evolution. Pleasure lies in the repetition of past pleasant experiences and in the avoidance of the painful ones. The traditional mind lives by hoarding such memories from the past. Then thought comes along and says: So it brings affair, memory, reaction to memory as thought, thought building images, demanding images. The habit of repeating the past is stronger in the mind which is ancient.
As Krishnamurti observes: The mind consciously acts on the basis of the unconscious past. The conscious part of the mind is confined to the immediate present. It constitutes the superficial part of the whole of the traditional mind.
It is more potent than the superficial mind. It is made up of the racial, religious and environmental influences and appears as though it is mysterious. But in fact the unconscious can be understood and revealed. According to Krishnamurti: It is the storehouse of all the unreflective factors. It is the past or the tradition which influences the present and the future.
Imitations of all this are given to the superficial mind through dreams and in various other ways when it is not wholly occupied with everyday events. To Krishnamurti, there is in fact no such thing as the unconscious.
The unconscious is part of the whole consciousness. The unconscious is what is suppressed or pushed behind as it were, by the mind. The mind has the tendency to be conscious of what it likes and it suppresses what it does not like.
Everything that is there in consciousness is that which has come from outside. The whole of consciousness is the result of conditioning by external factors. So, the unconscious is not independent of the influences of society: But Krishnamurti tries to delve deep into the matter and wants to trace the psychic and mythical origins of tradition. He explains the origin and source of tradition, working backwards from a discussion of our immediate perceptions in everyday life.
Our mind which is conditioned by the past, by culture and tradition, organises the stream of perceptions from the world. Whereas in actuality, truth is changing from moment to moment, as far as the perceptual act is concerned, we experience the world around us without having the total experience. Krishnamurti maintains that all our experiences and perceptions, however modern they seem to be, are traditional. Our perceptions are traditional since they are based on conclusions and prejudices.
They are the products of the mind which is traditional and dominated by the past. Krishnamurti holds that knowledge also is traditional since it is the repository of conclusions and ideas. Tradition is not only belief but also knowledge. Tradition is knowledge, since it is knowledge of the past.
To know is to be in the past. To know is to be in tradition. So science is also tradition-bound in the sense that it works on the basis of the past. Scientific knowledge, however experimental or rational it may be, is still traditional. It is the continuation of the tradition with some modification. Thus scientific knowledge is limited like any other knowledge. Scientific knowledge is essential for biological survival. But it is also destined to be limited and traditional and that which is limited and tradition-bound is always a source of misery.
Krishnamurti argues: And tradition is the cultivation of memory. They think that life is impossible without knowledge. Knowledge is treated as the guiding factor in all areas of life. But Krishnamurti contends that knowledge which is limited cannot help us to live a holistic life or in the present. But human beings accumulate knowledge in the hope of becoming secure and certain.
In the words of Krishnamurti: But knowledge is itself tradition and freedom is beyond tradition. Tradition or knowledge is the continuity of the past which includes disposition, control, sublimation, suppression. So knowledge, being on the side of tradition, cannot achieve freedom; it is a barrier to freedom. According to Krishnamurti, it is not possible to attain enlightenment through knowledge. He asks: Why did they not see that knowledge means the past and that the past cannot possibly bring enlightenment?
Why did traditionalists not see that discipline, Sadhana, comes from knowledge? By identifying with tradition, the mind feels anchored and ultimately gets conditioned by it. Not content with this security, the mind seeks to make tradition an authority to govern its actions. It has a desire to be secure and therefore strongly defends the authority which is exercised in various forms: Krishnamurti explains how authority comes into being and how it is imposed on young minds by parents, teachers and society.
People desire to find a safe and acceptable form of behaviour, or they would like to be guided as to how they should behave in different situations and to be told what to do. Being confused and worried, the people go to a priest, or to a teacher, or to their parents or to somebody else, seeking a way out of that confusion. So it is the desire in us to find a particular way of life, a way of conduct that creates authority.
So I create an authority. Outward authority is what others impose on us which comes in the form of rules, regulations and laws enforced by society. Discipline and living according to an external ideal is itself tradition. Krishnamurti wonders: You get crushed, you are just broken.
You never think, act and live vitally, for you are afraid of all these things. You say that you must obey, otherwise you will be helpless. Which means what? That you create authority because you are seeking a safe way of conduct, a secure manner of living.
The very pursuit of security creates authority and that is why you become a mere slave, a cog in the machine, living without any capacity to think, to create. As it has been already mentioned, tradition and freedom do not go together. Any acceptance of authority is the very denial of truth. The truth of the past is the use of memory, memory is of time and in the dead ashes of yesterday there is no truth. It is not with in the field of time.
Do we not? Tradition is full of symbols which are of knowledge. And the symbol is an outward sign of what is in the past, but truth is in the present. Do you know what I mean by symbol? The symbol is the shadow of truth. The word, the symbol, the image, the idea is not the truth, but we worship the image, we revere the symbol, we give great significance to the word and all this is very destructive; because then the word, the symbol, the image becomes all important.
Tradition has its continuity through thought. Thought gives permanence to symbols, words, images of the tradition. Krishnamurti maintains that thought ensures the continuity and persistence of tradition in the present. There is nothing permanent either on earth or in our mind. But thought can give continuity to something it thinks about.
It can give permanency to the word, or to an idea which is tradition. It can build an image and give to that image continuity and permanency. That is why we say good is permanent, or truth is absolute. In its nature, tradition is divisive and is a source of conflict. Tradition not only conditions our thinking but also separates us from others. If one identifies oneself with a particular tradition, which he claims as real, it means he isolates himself from the whole or that which includes all other traditions.
As Krishnamurti says: Life is discontinuous whereas tradition is associated with the past and maintains continuity. Traditional life which is irrational and incomplete is no life at all. Krishnamurti declares that man is basically irrational, for he is tradition-bound. Man gives undue importance to thought and knowledge which are the source as well as the expressions of tradition. Duality is the root cause of all our problems. So far tradition has been discussed in its psychological and subtle sense.
To Krishnamurti society is the psychological extension of the traditional mind. Society does not have an independent existence. Society is what you and I, in our relationship, have created; it is the outward projection of all our own inward psychological states.
But many of the structures and values that have been built in the course of human development are inhuman and anti-developmental. That is why there have been movements struggling against political, social and cultural structures which are inherently violent and oppressive. It is a fact that where the power-relations exist, there the conflict starts. Krishnamurti says, our social structure is based on the principle of pleasure. The individuals who are powerful dominate and exploit others for the sake of pleasure and they build institutions or structures starting from the individual to the collective level.
The dominance, the authority, is institutionalised, which can be seen in the form of state, law and justice. As Krishnamurti puts it: So gradually there comes into big society with laws, regulations, policemen, with an army and navy. Biological evolution is a fact whereas the psychological evolution is a product of thought. It becomes internalised in our psyche and this becomes potentially violent also. There is also violence pervading institutions like family, caste, religion, education and so on.
Internalised violence does not look like violence even to those who are subjected to it. But it is only a modification and the basic structure of the mind has never changed. One of the reasons is that these institutions, not only have limited transformation, but also sustain themselves due to human failure to change.
Ultimately they are tradition-bound and perpetuate exploitation. For all these institutions combine in themselves necessity, stability, emotion and sentiment. Several of these institutions are human at one level and violent at another level.
That is precisely the reason why none of these institutions remained the same either in form or content. All these are characteristics of tradition. Krishnamurti, in all his talks, refers particularly to religion, family, state and nationality, where one can locate tradition in an effective way.
They have a divisive character and they are being continued, because they lack creative potentiality. Human Relations To be is to be related. Relationship is the basis of our existence and of our society. The relationship may be with people, property and ideas.
The relationships between man and woman, among different castes, among different religions, among different classes, constitute our life. They are rigid, hierarchical, authoritative and divisive. These relations are exploitative, prejudiced and preconceived. They are based on images which are the product of thought. Such relationship ceases to be creative, they become dead. The image is nothing but the memory which conditions our everyday life. So the relationships are superficial. Thought, which regulates relationships, is always rooted in the past, so that relationship is not real and fresh but dead and old.
The relationships are also often traditional, in the sense that they are based on mutual need and use. They involve exploitation and violence. So the very basis of society is violence. As Marxists have argued, all human relations are economic in character.
They hold that the uneven distribution of wealth and resources is responsible for social conflicts. Though Krishnamurti does not discuss much human relations from the economic point of view, he recognises the fact that economic factors also play Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF http: He reiterates that human relations are bound by political, social and economic factors. Religion as Tradition Religion, according to Krishnamurti, is the product of tradition.
It is put together by thought and is rooted in the past. All our religions are organised sets of beliefs and superstitions and are conditioned by the tradition which carries beliefs and superstitions to the future. Religions are institutions which affect all aspects of human life and demand conformity with tradition.
Belief will never free your mind, belief only corrupts, binds, darkens. God is believed to be omniscient and omnipotent. God is also believed to be the creator, the sustainer and the destroyer of the people and the world. But God, according to Krishnamurti, is an idea invented by man as an escape from his misery, anxiety, despair and loneliness.
It is such pain. God is the product of thought, an abstraction of the hopes and feelings of the people. God is the product of human thought and knowledge and as thought and knowledge are limited, God is also limited. You can still think. Thinking about God is within the field of thought. The man who has not thought at all, to him there is no God. That was the product of thought.
There is no scope for free inquiry and understanding in religion. In religion, rituals are repeated and symbols are copied. Why do older people perform rituals? Because their fathers did it before them and also because it gives them certain feelings, sensations, it makes them inwardly quiet.
They chant some prayers, thinking that if they do not do so, they might be lost. And young people copy them, so your imitation begins. There is no place for skepticism or doubt in religion. Krishnamurti holds that organised religion with its set of beliefs is irrational. According to Krishnamurti, religion is not doing pooja or performing ritual, nor is it wearing a particular kind of dress.
Organised religions with all their paraphernalia have nothing to do with what is truly religious. Doing pooja, performing rituals in front of an idol or altar may give one a sense of satisfaction but it is not religion. The fact that an ordinary stone or stick becomes God is testimony to the traditional attitude of the mind. The mind hypnotises itself in the name of religion. It tends to believe anything to be sacred and divine. It deceives itself into believing as God what is not really so.
Krishnamurti explains: Do this for a month and you will see how holy those stick or stone has become, although of course only your devotion has made it so and it is Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF http: The religious man prays for the grace of God and totally surrenders to him.
Prayer is supplication. In prayer, the person underestimates himself. He suppresses his own potentialities. Prayer is self-hypnosis. It works like a drug which calms the superficial layers of the mind for the time being. It helps one to escape from the actuality of life. Being repetitive and mechanical, prayer in fact renders the mind dull and inactive.
The mechanism of prayer It has all kinds of ideas, concepts and beliefs about the unlimited and is enclosed in a system of explanations, locked up in a mental prison. Prayer binds, it does not liberate. They approach it for the answers to their problems. The sacred book is one of the basic requirements of religion in the sense of tradition. Every religion considers its scriptures as the ultimate authority.
Scriptural authority is considered the source for religion. Scripture means the written word, which is past. Religious people exploit other people in the name of sacredness. It is essentially based on fear, though you may call it the love of god or truth; it is if you examine it intelligently, nothing but the result of fear, therefore, it must become one of the means of exploiting man.
But the sacred is adulterated by the profane. Since the scriptures are ancient, they are interpreted and re-interpreted several times and in the process they are deprived of their original core or essence. Ultimately what remains are the rituals and dogmas in all religions and the seekers get caught in their net: Some traces remain and it is because of them religions are still attracting men of integrity and goodwill.
But yet the religions have not disappeared and hold on to their symbols, rituals and beliefs in the name of eternity. The religious world-views are proved to be irrational and baseless and yet they maintain their dogmas through propaganda and force. On one hand, the religions try to come to terms with science and on the other they claim to be the custodians of eternal truth. They seek to get hold of children to condition them better. The religions whether of church or of state demand from man every virtue, but their history shows a succession of violence, terrors, tortures, massacres, horrors beyond imagination.
Belief and truth do not go together. Therefore, beliefs divide people. It is the most effective and powerful institution in carrying out tradition. All kinds of conditioning start within the family and family is the source of continuity of tradition from generation to generation. It is through the elders in the family that the beliefs, culture and values are handed down to successive generations.
In the family, the relationships among members are fixed and defined and individual members have to play their parts accordingly. The relationships among them may be close and intimate but still are authoritative and hierarchical.
The family dictates the code of conduct to the individual according to his background. The customs, ceremonies and norms are part of tradition and in the family they are carried out without questioning their validity. The individual adheres to them because his family gives a kind of security to him. In the family, the ownership of property and its protection are involved.
Obviously, the family is an institution which seeks power and domination, thus leading to oppression. Though some families claim that they are totally free, in practice, the freedom in them is very limited, for essentially, the family as an institution is tradition bound. And the tradition is bound to the past which is limited.
At present the family and its values are contested due to their traditional character. The family is an especially oppressive institution for women and in most traditions, the family is patriarchal in character. Women are treated as second-rate human beings. They are used as objects for the pleasure of man. Krishnamurti says that it is a tradition to treat women contemptuously, almost like a door-mat.