Daily Quote, Wednesday February 19, 2009
Hi everyone,
Thanks for all the great comments to yesterday's quote. Today's looks even more interesting.
It seems clear by now that the total revolution of which Krishnamurti is speaking cannot come from the will, but can it be totally unconscious? What does this mean and what is the mechanism of it? How does it relate the knowing and not knowing.
Perhaps the first question here is what does unconscious mean here? Is it the same as "the unconscious"?
Have a great day. :-)
Here's the the daily quote:
Total revolution must be wholly unconscious.
We use virtue, 'love', the action of the will, as a means of conquering ourselves, our idiosyncracies, and we think we are changing. But, essentially, when we go down to deeper layers, there it is still the same. When we are considering revolution, change, surely we are not concerned only with superficial changes, which are necessary, but with the deeper issue - which is the revolution, total revolution, the integrated revolution of our whole being. Can that change be brought about by effort, or must there be a cessation of all effort?
What does effort mean? With most of us, effort implies the action of the will, does it not? I hope you are following all this, because if you do not listen wisely, you will miss totally what I am going to say. If you listen wisely, you will directly experience what I am talking about. Total revolution must be wholly unconscious, not voluntary, not brought about by any action of the will. Will is still the desire, still the 'me', the self, at whatever level you may place that will. The will of action is still the desire and, therefore, it is still the 'me', and when I suppress myself in order to be good, in order to achieve, in order to become more noble, it is still desire, it is still the action of the will trying to transform itself, to put on a different clothing, it is still the will of the 'me' trying to achieve a result.
Collected Works, Vol. VIII - 35
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If total revolution comes from the unconscious, and the 'me' is removed, would we even be aware if it is happening? Or would we only become aware of this total transformation through the comments of others as they experience new images of us?
ReplyDeleteOr is total revolution the immediate result of the complete removal of images and the observer and observed becoming one? Is his description of total revolution the same as freedom?
I think that total revolution is unconscious insofar as as it happens (and it happens in an instant without the time delay implied in the word "as") we loose the images of ourselves. All willful action and effort ceases.
ReplyDeleteJust to say a bit more, when we have a deep interest in something we are directly related to it. We want to understand if for ourselves and the passion that the deep interest releases takes the place of the will.
Going back to the unconscious, it is our images that make us conscious of "me." Without the "me" we are unconscious?
I don't think total revolution could come from "the unconscious." It would have to come from thought observing itself. If it came from the unconscious alone would there be any change in our behaviour? Would we act differently? Can the unconscious vs. thought observing itself be an agent of transformation? Is there that quality of seeing in the unconscious that Krishnamurti says is so crucial?