Daily Quote, Monday March 2, 2009
Good morning,
Not too bad with the freezing last night it seems, though I haven't been outside yet!
I was caught by the last line of today's quote, the jist of which is that without understanding the whole problem of looking, with images making a screen that separates the observer from the observed, taking that screen away through inquiry and just seeing the other person could lead to cynicism as, and this is where I'm reading on from what is said, there is no longer togetherness, intimacy, and all of that in the traditional sense. The cynicism must surely come from a misunderstanding of love and affection. Love is to see another person without images and affection is to feel one's awareness move towards another. It is not isolating, not built upon the idea of possession. Once we feel affection our sense of the other person can widen and deepen; it becomes an inquiry. The question of love is about what is an adequate response to the other. It is to simply see without looking from a center. Is love the only ethical way of living?
Let me now what you make of the quote today. :-)
(PS. There is a really interesting set of comments to yesterday's quote that are all about yoga. It begins with a fascinating insight from Laureen from one of her yoga classes. Jackie and I added our reflections too.)
Robert
Here is today's quote:
My relationship undergoes a tremendous revolution.
I generally look at my wife, husband, at a person, with all my prejudices and memories. Through those memories I look; that is the center from which I look; therefore, the observer is different from the thing observed. In that process thought is constantly interfering, through association, and with the rapidity of the association. Now, when I realize the whole implication of that instantly, there is an observation without the observer. It is very simple to do this with trees, with nature; but with human beings, what takes place? If I can look at my wife or my husband non-verbally, not as an observer, it is rather frightening, isn't it? Because my relationship with her or with him is quite different. It is not in any sense personal; it is not a matter of pleasure, and I am afraid of it. I can look at a tree without fear, because it is fairly easy to commune with nature, but to commune with human beings is much more dangerous and frightening; my relationship undergoes a tremend ous revolution. Before, I possessed my wife, and she possessed me; we liked being possessed. We were living in our own isolated, self-identifying space. In observing, I removed that space; I am now directly in contact. I look without the observer, and therefore without a center. Unless one understands this whole problem, merely to develop a technique of looking becomes frightful. Then one becomes cynical, and all the rest of it.
Collected Works, Vol. XV - 145
What if the process of being a conscious observer aids in the understanding of the person being observed, thus ultimately leading to greater intimacy?
ReplyDeleteI think of this in the context of living in rural Hungary at the moment, where all taught notions of 'nice', 'sad', 'rude', 'angry', 'impolite', etc. are reared invalid in the midst of a different culture from my own. In this instance, it is very helpful to rid yourself of the prejudices that come with being the observer, but will it help foster a connection? However, what if you learn that the fact that your fellow community members working at the local market never smile, ever, no matter how polite and friendly you are, is completely normal behaviour. What if in digging a little deeper into the history of communism, economy and social norms helps you to discover that values differ, and that this label that you put on 'un-friendliness' is just that, another ambiguous label? Thus, in the process of observing, you would ultimately work through the barrier. In this instance, would being the observer help melt away your cynicism and allow you to truly commune with humanity?
Perhaps this is all the surface layer of questioning which Krishnamurti is encouraging us to see beyond. Maybe ultimately, this inner dialogue wouldn't exist if we 'removed the space'.
I think first of all it's a question of what is intimacy and what this entails? To be intimate is to possess, to psychologically occupy a self-identifying space with the other as Krishnamurti puts it. In this way of being intimate you are not aware that you are the observed.
ReplyDeleteThen I think if you can observe yourself and then observe the other without images, it doesn't matter if their behaviour is normal culturally for them or not. It's not really about what they do, what they say, their physical and facial expressions and what this might or might not communicate. It's about you and how you see. As you see yourself the space between the observer and the observed is removed. Then you can work together.
It's different from wanting to work with them because you want to understand them. Notice how wanting to know, wanting to understand, and wanting to be of some help, makes that space. Can you see how the act of wanting to know, understand, and be of help puts the "I" in place, creates a centre? (Maybe you have experienced this in your interactions with people where you are? It's easy to think it through here at home but does it relate at all to what you have observed?)
I went into my reflections on your comment a bit more in my reflections on the Tuesday March 3 daily quote.
I think you had answered the questions you posed for yourself by the end, which is the idea behind inquiry. I could feel how you were observing yourself writing and the thought process you were going through. :-)