A young student walked up to me as I was drinking water at the water machine. And she asked, "What is one to do with what one observes, when one observes one's actions?" She continued, "I feel I have to do something about what I see of myself, and don't know what to do. It leave a troubled feeling. When I see something outside I do something about it. But the same approach does not seem to work here. What am I to do?"
At 16. 17 did I ask such questions? Dis I see the world as these young people are seeing? Surely not!
In the world that I grew that anger, hatred, jealousy, envy, sadness and sexual feelings were all to be pushed away, out of sight. It was not till one came in touch with the teachings of J Krishnamurti, that one heard a profound question. "Can you look at anger like a jewel? Can you look at it without judging it as good or bad, without any condemnation or justification?" What a profound question!
Is not anger bad to be seen, recognized and to be subdued? Or is not righteous anger to be used in certain places, where there is obvious injustice? What could he mean when he says, can you look at it as jewel? Is it a jewel? Or is anger something to be ashamed of, afraid of and to hold in shame?
All one's life one has grown up absorbing the message that some feelings and emotions are positive and others are negative. When K says that there are no positive felings or negative feelings, only feelings. And like thought they arise and then On meeting such a radical view, what does one do? Can one drop the earlier perceptions and beliefs? This would mean that such beliefs were false.
One is confronted with a dilemma. Do I deny all that I have been taught, all that I considered truth? And then enter this difficult zone? Is Krishnamurti saying, it is all right to be angry and express it, and be envious and be vengeful?
After some pondering one realises that Krishnamurti is not endorsing expression of all one feels. He seems to point out that we all go through various emotions and we either justify them or endorse them. He seems to be asking if one can do neither but just look, as one would a cloud in the sky or a bird on the grass. He seems to be suggesting that such a look is possible, an inward gaze, one where one can come close to oneself, understanding oneself, understanding what memories we carry, what hurts, what anger and sadness.
One is of course tempted to ask, if such an observation will free one of the painful feelings, as my student asked me. May be the past survives with such strength as it is denied and pushed away or justified. If one were to just observe, and one stops resisting looking at oneself, moment to moment, one begins to know oneself.
K suggests that "Understanding what is transforms what is!"
It was wonderful to be part of a conversation with young minds, some obviously engaged, some looking bored, but with deep contributions accurately, and others listening with care except for a word her or a statement ot elaborate what someone else said. The evening sun, stone benches, shade of neem trees and a deep and gentle conversation, real as the young people comprehending themselves and life. What a privilege to be have access to this space of digntiy, grace and enquiry!
