The notion of freedom in Krishnamurti with reference to Sartre:

(1): the world and the human being(2): the similarity and differences between Sartres philosophy and Krishnamurtis philosophy(3): the brief overview of Sartres ontology with reference to being-in-itself [en-soi] and being-for-itself [pour-soi](4): Krishnamurtis concept of freedom with reference to awareness(5): some observations and questions

(Note: these sub-topics are random, there will be overlapping in many instances)The words are used in all most all the instances of communication to communicate, but the words are not liquid and therefore they can not really communicate as desired by us. This becomes apparent to us when we read Krishnamurti. What Krishnamurti is doing by writing or talking to us is simply pointing towards the dimensions. But even if I say this much, that he is pointing towards some hitherto unexplained dimensions immediately there will be lots of problems to be faced. If we say that the organized systems can not lead us to truth, as truth is a pathless land, then the truth is pathless land becomes a new dimension to truth. Krishnamurti is aware of this and hence he says that words can not communicate. But we have to take recourse to the things world offers us, and therefore Im engaged in this fallacious activity. Whatever I will read in this classroom, whatever youll hear in this classroom will fall short of this existential reality. But at least we are aware of it and hence we can forgive ourselves and proceed.(1): the world and the human beingTo understand the world without considering the involvement of human beings is problematic. Take for example; Im now looking at tree. Can I describe the tree totally in its essence? The answer will be no, because the very act of description will involve the describer. We can look at tree from one angle; hence the human involvement in the world is essential. If we ask the question what is world and answer that world is everything that is, this creates lots of problems. How can we be aware of everything that is? So, at the most we can say that the world is everything that is perceived by me. Hence in the definition of the world the perspective of the definer will come in to the picture. The expression world then would seem always to include the point of view of the person who is talking about the world. It does not stand for something altogether independent of those who talk about it, but rather for their total environment as they are aware of it. But the world is not just everything that is but everything that forms the human environs and provides the setting in which human life has to be lived. But when I say that world is everything that is perceived by me, when I say that the definition of world should necessarily involve the point of view of the definer immediately there will be the question of metaphysical debates of realism and idealism. The involvement of the perceiver does not mean for me that he creates the world in his mind, but it simply means that the definition can not leave the definer outside the definition. Whether these trees, rock, mountains, oceans were there before the human arrival or not, whether the mountain is just the bundle of sensations and perceptions of the perceiver is not the point. The point is that when we are going to describe the world well have to admit the world and the viewer both. When we accept this, there comes tremendous freedom. Krishnamurti says that world is nothing but present fact, not the abstraction. So, in the context of freedom this is going to be very important to understand. (2): the similarity and differences between Sartres philosophy and Krishnamurtis philosophy

The notion of freedom in Sartres philosophy and Krishnamurtis philosophy (is it appropriate to call Krishnamurtis vision philosophy)? Is very interesting to study. Both would reject the traditional authority, both would emphasise on freedom and responsibility. But there are fundamental differences between these two, as we shall see, for Sartre, freedom can not be there without thought, whereas for Krishnamurti freedom is choiceless awareness, which drops thoughts altogether. For Sartre, freedom consists in the struggle for becoming, (en-soi transcending the situation), whereas for Krishnamurti freedom comes with awareness which is instantaneous. For existentialists (especially for Sartre) freedom was something intrinsic and which is necessary for human beings to define their essences. (Essence - The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something. The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things. Phenomenology and existentialism aim to observe the essence of objects. In existentialism, ones essence is his or her role in the universe. This essence changes constantly with each decision made). Like Krishnamurti the existentialists conclude that human choice is subjective, because individuals finally must make their own choices without help from such external standards as laws, ethical rules, or traditions. (However, the notion of choice for Krishnamurti immediately brings conflict. We will deal with the question of conflict later on when well ask the question about awareness and its consequences.) Because individuals make their own choices, they are free; but because they freely choose, they are completely responsible for their choices. The existentialists emphasize that freedom is necessarily accompanied by responsibility. Furthermore, since individuals are forced to choose for themselves, they have their freedom---and therefore their responsibility---thrust upon them. They are condemned to be free. For existentialism, responsibility is the dark side of freedom. When individuals realize that they are completely responsible for their decisions, actions, and beliefs, they are overcome by anxiety. They try to escape from this anxiety by ignoring or denying their freedom and their responsibility. But because this amounts to ignoring or denying their actual situation, they succeed only in deceiving themselves. The existentialists criticize this flight from freedom and responsibility into self-deception. They insist that individuals must accept full responsibility for their behavior, no matter how difficult. If an individual is to live meaningfully and authentically, he or she must become fully aware of the true character of the human situation and bravely accept it. (3): the brief overview of Sartres ontology with reference to being-in-itself [en-soi] and being-for-itself [pour-soi]

To understand Sartres position in this matter well have to briefly examine his ontology. Sartre applied the French "en-soi," which loosely means "in-self," to describe the state of being of objects -- things without self-awareness. Sartre's "Being-in-Itself" represents the idea that only concrete phenomena have any ontological status; only the concrete is real. Edmund Husserl's approach to phenomenology was embraced by Sartre as a basis for existential exploration. To simplify this concept, Sartre might state that a rock is a rock -- it cannot change what it is. In this manner, Sartre suggests there is facticity, or truth, in the existence of some objects. In contrast to "Being-in-Itself" is Sartre's "Being-for-Itself" -- a state of self-awareness and control. Professor Walter Kaufmann explains the differences thusly: The pour-soi (for-itself) is that being which is aware of itself: man. Its structure is different from that of the en-soi, and the phenomenon of self-deception serves the author as a clue: what must the pour-soi be like in order to make self-deception possible? - Existentialism; Kaufmann, p. 43

Sartre's "Being-for-Itself" describes human consciousness as possessing the characteristics of incompleteness and potency, with an indeterminate structure. The absence of a Creator leaves man without a predefined nature. Without a nature, individuals are nothingness. Lack of everything. Nothingness, Sartre thought, was freedom and free will. Applying this definition of nothingness to individuals, mankind is freedom. Sartre contended that not only was the individual free, but the essence of mankind was freedom. As a result of this freedom, individuals are responsible for all their actions and thoughts. What makes self-deception possible, according to Sartre, is that the pour-soi differs from the en-soi or, to be concrete: a man is not a coward, a waiter, if I am six feet tall, that is that. Say, as this table is two feet high. Being a coward or a waiter, however, is different: it depends on ever new decisions. - Existentialism; Kaufmann, p. 44 one might be a philosopher, while tomorrow that same person might wait tables. To Sartre it becomes nearly impossible to describe a person. He is what he is. Many of the works by Sartre address a dualism between subject and object, the subjective consciousness and the objective human being. Sartre considered freedom a subjective experience. Being and Nothingness explores this dualism: "Being" is the thing-in-itself, similar to the Hegelian Absolute and "Nothingness" refers to freedom. Sartre wrote that freedom is the ability to define and assign meaning to things and events. Without thought, we could not be free. As an example, the play No Exit is about the results of how we define ourselves -- especially those who fail to seize the freedom to define themselves.

Being-in-itself and being-for-itself have mutually exclusive characteristics and yet we (human reality) are entities that combine both, which is the ontological root of our ambiguity. The in-itself is solid, self-identical, passive and inert. It simply "is." The for-itself is fluid, nonself-identical, and dynamic. It is the internal negation or "nihilation" of the in-itself, on which it depends. Viewed more concretely, this duality is cast as "facticity" and "transcendence." The "givens" of our situation such as our language, our environment, our previous choices and our very selves in their function as in-itself constitute our facticity. As conscious individuals, we transcend (surpass) this facticity in what constitutes our "situation." (Transcendence - The mental act of projecting a consciousness beyond itself, referring to and establishing new relations with entities that are external to the self.) (Facticity - Those features of reality that cannot be transformed. Many things are not controlled by anyone, especially in nature and science. Sartre recognized these external factors, to which sentient beings can only respond). In other words, we are always beings "in situation," but the precise mixture of transcendence and facticity that forms any situation remains indeterminable, at least while we are engaged in it. Hence Sartre concludes that we are always "more" than our situation and that this is the ontological foundation of our freedom. We are "condemned" to be free, in his inflated phrase.

There is the fundamental difference between Sartre and Krishnamurti when Sartre says that we can not be free without thought. For Sartre, thoughts constitute the essence of En-soi. It is with thoughts that the En-soi can be with harmony with pour-soi. For Krishnamurti however, all thoughts are of past, he says that thoughts can not be of present. In present there can only be awareness or lack of awareness. In awareness there is no place for thought, there can not be. But for Sartre, there is no other bridge for En-soi to relate to pour-soi. For Sartre, awareness is of situation, as in the waiter is a waiter in this present situation, he has chosen to be a waiter, he could have been otherwise, but at this instant he is a waiter. . . being a waiter as pour-soi has to be lived by an en-soi to fulfil a situation. An en-soi will transcend the situation by being a waiter. This transcendence is possible because he is free, free to choose. For Krishnamurti thoughts actually curb the freedom, the chain us to past and authority. From thought you act. From that action you learn more. So you repeat the cycle. Experience, knowledge, memory, thought action; from that action learn more and repeat. This is how we are programmed. We are always doing this: having remembered pain, in the future avoid pain by not doing the thing that will cause pain, which becomes knowledge, and repeat that. Sexual pleasurerepeat that. This is the movement of thought. See the beauty of it, how mechanically thought operates.

Thought says to itself, 'I am free to operate.' Yet thought is never free because it is based on knowledge, and knowledge is obviously always limited. Knowledge must also be always limited because it is part of time. (The network of thought, 1981)So, we can understand thoughts as universal phenomena, it is irrespective of the nationality, cast. Even the time in which we live.

Freedom is lack of authority in negative sense; it is the droppage of thoughts as Ive said earlier. So, to be free for Krishnamurti will be the freedom from conditioning, freedom from thoughts and memory and knowledge. This freedom from is not the demand of mind, the demand of mind will again enslave the individual in time and the thoughts. It is the complete droppage of thoughts, it can not be clear than this, because the incapacity of words. . . (4): Krishnamurtis concept of freedom with reference to awareness

Krishnamurtis vision of the present world is reminiscent of Hobbes, the world as brutal, selfish competitive. But there is the fundamental difference between Hobbes and Krishnamurti because in Hobbes there is the acceptance of the world as it is, it is natural for human being to be violent and competitive. Hobbes would advocate the outside agency to curb this natural brutality, competitiveness. According to Krishnamurti if we really care, if were deeply concerned about it, then well have to understand that that the world is the outer manifestation of ourselves. We are cruel, fundamentally violent. This is the fact, the fact. If we accept it, not intellectually but existentially, then immediately well be free of it. This freedom is the result of the awareness of the how of ones conditioning. This existence of the outer brutality of the world, the outer hatred, the outer competitiveness is the result of our inner brutality, inner hatred, inner competitiveness. The fundamental change can come only with the awareness of this fact, not intellectual awareness, but immediate existential awareness. This awareness will bring freedom, which is immediate, instantaneous.

So, for Krishnamurti, freedom comes not as a gradual process, not by the constant effort of mind, but it comes as a flash, natural as breathing. It is not freedom from and freedom to. Both these instances of freedoms are political, they are in time. They are not beyond the field of consciousness. The real freedom for Krishnamurti lies beyond the field of consciousness. It is always the present, to say verbally that Im free is not the freedom which he is talking about. The free person will not be verbalizing his freedom in any case. It is just like the person says that he is happy. The moment he says that he is happy, his happiness has already gone, it is the past of which he is talking about.As we are proceeding to unravel the differences between Sartre and Krishnamurtis position on the matter of freedom, there is one more important point which comes to my mind, their respective position on future and past. For Sartre, past and present form subordination to future because of the struggle of man to become. He maintains that we act according to the image. We are what we can become.... Ours is a process, and our becoming is our only possibility of becoming.... Human existence is a project, in which past and present are subordinate to future, is the main residence of our existence, because it is the north of our projection of us. . . We act in respect to what we want to be. This image is our own creation, it does not condemn us as it apparently seems, but it guides us to act. Sartre emphatically maintains that this creation of image is necessary for action. For Krishnamurti however, any form of reference to past and future is not desirable for the simple reason that it creates the cleavage. It creates the schizophrenia. It provides the mind a reason to benumb itself, and the moment the mind is blunt, we lack awareness. Now, awareness is not a property of a mind, awareness is in fact irrelevant to mind. When Im aware, there is no mind. What is mind after all? The collection of thoughts which are either of past or of future. In awareness there is always the present, always this moment. There is no clock time either. Because the clock time is also the creation of mind. What happens when I see a bird on the wings? The bird was somewhere else, away from my field of vision. Then it comes for a moment in my field of vision and disappears again. Thats how we create the time, our mind creates time. Before it was not there, after it is not there. And the present is completely dropped, because there is no place for present in minds time. Present is here and now, how can we accommodate here and now in our time? The very attempt to somehow conciliate the present moment in time will make it a moment of past. . .(5): some observations and questions

This awareness is very dangerous, very dangerous indeed. When I think whether this awareness can be practiced in actuality, the great fear arises in the mind. Maybe, the question of practicing itself is wrong afterall, but as an intellectual activity we need to ask this question anyhow. After examining Sartre and Krishnamurtis position the question naturally comes to the mind, (I hope it comes to you present here) that how far is it executable? Of course Krishnamurti would not be happy with this kind of intellectualisation, but since we are studying Krishnamurti as a philosopher, (irrespective of his constant denial of any philosophical construction) this question I think is valid; we have a right to this question. Basically we understood that for Krishnamurti freedom is the direct and abrupt discontinuation with past. With This discontinuation the time, (the clock time) disappears, evaporates. Is it possible for us to live this timeless existence? Even now I can actually see your fidgeting because Ive already spoken too long, (smile)! The question of choiceless awareness is also presents great philosophical and realistic problems. Ill stop with putting in front of you my personal experience, please excuse me for that. Basically the paper should be objective, but---

In the evening a friend and I were talking about awareness in the campus yesterday. We tried to become aware of everything inside our mind with the addition of the outside environs. There was smoke rising from our cigarettes to the heavens, and we were discussing about awareness, were trying to be aware! How do you say? If we were talking about awareness, if we were trying to be aware of what was happening to us, then why in the world were we smoking in the first place? Isnt it the case that when you are aware you can not smoke?

So, if we were aware, really aware, we never would have smoked a single cigarette! What is there in smoking? Lighting a stick full of tobacco, taking that dirty smoke in, releasing it out. Taking it in and releasing it out! The whole nonsense continues until the cigarette is extinct or you are tired. What nonsense is this? What folly is this? Why do I at least hanker for cigarette? If I am aware of the hankering, then there would be no point in smoking, Id simply be ashamed of myself, repeating this nonsense at least ten times in a day.

But there is the problem waiting to jump at me. If I become aware, Ill simply wont act, then every act would appear a perfect folly. A consummated madness. I wont eat, because eating is very violent. Extremely violent. Just look how do we chew a piece of bread. We grind it between our teeth; we wet it with our saliva to grind it even more perfectly. How violent. . . I wont talk a single word in a day, just look while we are talking. What are we doing? We are talking for what? Even the act of talking is just a waste of energy; we go on throwing our energy to winds. We shower our beliefs upon others, we cut them in between because we feel that the other is just talking nonsense and only we are right. We dont have any dialogue, yes, we do have debate.

I cannot remain aware. However, this is not to happen; Ive an investment in not being aware. In fact everybody have some investment. The distinction will be that Ill be aware that I am not aware and the others might or might not be aware.

Finally the question arises is that this awareness that I do have an investment in not remaining aware is freedom, or simply Sartres bad faith, that is the act of rejecting freedom? Is it only on the intellectual plane or is it existential? Am I still rooted in the past and can not gather courage to discontinue with past? What is it?