In a previous comment Chris asked about the theosophical model of the human constitution, which proposes the existence of a Higher and a lower self, and the statement by Krishnamurti that such a separation is “an idea, not a fact”.
In this kind of subjects, the focus of Krishnamurti and Theosophy differs—but only the focus, not the essential teaching, as I’m going to illustrate below.
The denial of (the idea of) a “higher self” is found not only in Krishnamurti, but also in the Buddha, for example. He denied the existence of anything beyond the five skandhas, that is, what we call the “lower self”. However, we consider Buddhism as part of (the universal) theosophy.
I think it is a mistake to go to Krishnamurti’s or Buddha’s teachings trying to find a metaphysical exposition. Neither of them intended to engage themselves in teaching a philosophy. They where supremely interested in a way of perceiving reality in a direct way, not through concepts. It is not that concepts, metaphysics, etc., are useless. But they are insufficient.
In Krishnamurti’s case, moreover, he had a very non-dualist (advaita) view. In many aspects, he was more advaita than even Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj (two very well-known contemporary advaita jnanis). Nisargadatta, for example, said:
Questioner: Krishnamurti too speaks of living in awareness.
Maharaj: He always aims directly at the ‘ultimate’.
(I Am That, Talk 26)
Ramana Maharshi also, when asked about Krishnamurti’s teachings, answered that he always spoke from the absolute point of view (I’m sorry, I couldn’t find the quote).
That is a key point when understanding Krishnamurti’s teachings. He speaks always from a non-dualistic point of view, and those who are familiar with this “philosophy”, or rather, yoga (jnana yoga), are very used to that kind of statements (I will quote, in another comment, an example of Nisargadatta talking about the concept of the higher and the lower self, in relation to Krishnamurti teachings).
What Krishnamurti denied, however, is mainly the concept of the higher and lower self. I’ve already talked about this before. Any so-called “direct path” (mysticism) requires a supra-conceptual perception (involving the theosophical “buddhi”). Therefore any concept, no matter how accurately it may resemble truth, must be abandoned in order to actually perceive truth, since, as HPB said: “TRUTH lies beyond any ideas we can formulate or express” (How to Study Theosophy, Robert Bowen). That’s why the Christian mystical work The Cloud of Unknowing says:
For no matter how much of our spiritual understanding a man may have in the knowledge of all created spiritual things, he can never, by the work of his understanding, arrive at the knowledge of an uncreated spiritual thing, which is nothing except God. (Chapter LXX)
In this philosophical context, Krishnamurti says:
We need a fresh mind, obviously; we need a mind that can look at things anew, without awakening the whole power of memory. And it is only possible if you can look at yourself – the self being not the higher self or the lower self, but the ordinary self; this division as the High with a capital H, an idea, not a fact. If you can see the motives, all the movements – conscious as well as unconscious – of every desire, of every thought, of every feeling, if you are totally aware of all that without any choice, if you can just observe, neither condemning nor comparing, if you can see this in operation, then out of that comes a fresh mind, a mind that is spontaneous. And it is only such a mind which has emptied itself of all memory, that can function, if necessary, with freedom; it is only such a mind that can meditate. And that is real mutation and nothing else. (J. Krishnamurti, Rajghat 2nd public talk 1st December 1963.)
He never denies the existence of the Real beyond the illusion of our conditioning. What he does deny is that we can perceive that through our ideas. And being aware of that we arrive at this “fresh mind”, “emptied of all memory”, which I propose is what HPB calls manas-taijasa, that is, the mind illumined by buddhi, being a vehicle of it (in opposition to kama).
Frankly speaking, for most of us this division of a Higher Self and a lower self “is an idea, not a fact”. The idea may be correct but still, it is an idea. Most of us have not perceived the Higher Self as a distinct and separate entity. We may perceive the effects of it; we may feel inspired, we may feel drawn to do the correct, we may experience certain sense of unity. But we don’t know about the existence of a Higher Self. A person who has never opened his eyes may be told about the light, the colors, and he may even see a reflection of them through his closed eyelids. But he will know what the colors are only after he actually opens his eyes.
Now, is the idea of the Higher Self we usually have even correct? Does Theosophy states the existence of a Higher Self as a really different entity from the lower one? This is a point where many are confused, because it is not easy to grasp. HPB wrote:
The “principles,” as already said, save the body, the life, and the astral eidolon, all of which disperse at death, are simply aspects and states of consciousness. There is but one real man.
The Key to Theosophy, Section 6, “The Greek Teachings”
Only “aspects and states of consciousness”. Would you say that when dreaming, your character in the dream is yourself, as a physical personality? No, obviously it is not. But would you say it is different from you? No, either. You are the one dreaming. In a similar way, our Higher Self is not our personality, but it is not something different from it. According to HPB the distinction between those two selves is only a “philosophical symbolism”, not a reality:
Q. But they exist as separate entities for mathematical purposes, do they not?
A. That is a different thing; there is a great difference between nature and science, reality and philosophical symbolism. For the same reason we divide man into seven principles, but this does not mean that he has, as it were, seven skins, or entities, or souls. These principles are all aspects of one principle, and even this principle is but a temporary and periodical ray of the One eternal and infinite Flame or Fire.
Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge, III
To conclude this post, HPB is reported to have said that:
The moment one lets it [the concept of unity] go (and it is most easy to do so when engaged in any of the many intricate aspects of the Esoteric Philosophy) the idea of SEPARATION supervenes, and the study loses its value (How to Study Theosophy, Robert Bowen).
That happens a lot in our studies, and that is why I think the non-dualist view of Krishnamurti may help us to understand more deeply the Theosophical teachings.
Here is an excerpt of that Nisargadatta’s talk I’ve promised in the post, where he speaks about this subject:
Questioner: Some forty years ago J. Krishnamurti said that there is life only and all talk of personalities and individualities has no foundation in reality. He did not attempt to describe life — he merely said that while life need not and cannot be described, it can be fully experienced, if the obstacles to its being experienced are removed. The main hindrance lies in our idea of, and addiction to, time, in our habit of anticipating a future in the light of the past. The sum total of the past becomes the ‘I was’, the hoped for future becomes the ‘I shall be’ and life is a constant effort of crossing over from what ‘I was’ to what “I shall be’. The present moment, the. ‘now’ is lost sight of. Maharaj speaks of ‘I am’. Is it an illusion, like ‘I was’ and ‘I shall be’, or is there something real about it? And if the “I am’ too is an illusion, how does one free oneself from it? The very notion of I am free of ‘I am’ is an absurdity. Is there something real, something lasting about the ‘I am’ in distinction from the ‘I was’, or “I shall be’, which change with time, as added memories create new expectations?
Maharaj: The present ‘I am’ is as false as the ‘I was’ and ‘I shall be’. It is merely an idea in the mind, an impression left by memory, and the separate identity it creates is false. This habit of referring to a false centre must be done away with, the notion ‘I see’, ‘I feel’, ‘I think’, ‘I do’, must disappear from the field of consciousness; what remains when the false is no more, is real ( … ) As long as the observer, the inner self, the ‘higher’ self, considers himself apart from the observed, the ‘lower’ self, despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when the observer (vyakta) accepts the person (vyakti) as a projection or manifestation of himself, and, so to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of ‘I’ and ‘this’ goes and in the identity of the outer and the inner the Supreme Reality manifests itself.
This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes conscious of himself as the seer, he is not merely interested in the seen, which he is anyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention to attention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucial factor that brings Reality into focus.
Q: According to the Theosophists and allied occultists, man consists of three aspects: personality, individuality and spirituality ( … ) The spirituality aspect is still in abeyance. It cannot manifest itself in an atmosphere of duality. Only when the personality is reunited with the individuality and becomes a limited, perhaps, but true expression of it, that the light and love and beauty of the spiritual come into their own. You teach of the vyakti (observer), vyakta (observed), and avyakta (ground of observation). Does it tally with the other view?
M: Yes, when the vyakti realises its non-existence in separation from the vyakta, and the vyakta sees the vyakti as his own expression, then the peace and silence of the avyakta state come into being. In reality, the three are one: the vyakta and the avyakta are inseparable, while the vyakti is the sensing-feeling-thinking process, based on the body made of and fed by the five elements.
Q: What is the relation between the vyakta and the avyakta?
M: How can there be relation when they are one? All talk of separation and relation is due to the distorting and corrupting influence of ‘I-am-the-body’ idea. The outer self (vyakti) is merely a projection on the body-mind of the inner self (vyakta), which again is only an expression of the Supreme Self (avyakta) which is all and none.
Q: There are teachers who will not talk of the higher self and lower self. They address the man as if only the lower self existed. Neither Buddha nor Christ ever mentioned a higher self. J. Krishnamurti too fights shy of any mention of the higher self. Why is it so?
M: How can there be two selves in one body? The ‘I am’ is one. There is no “higher I-am’ and “lower I-am’. All kinds of states of mind are presented to awareness and there is self-identification with them. The objects of observation are not what they appear to be and the attitudes they are met with are not what they need be. If you think that Buddha, Christ or Krishnamurti speak to the person, you are mistaken. They know well that the vyakti, the outer self, is but a shadow of the vyakta, the inner self, and they address and admonish the vyakta only. They tell him to give attention to the outer self, to guide and help it, to feel responsible for it; in short, to be fully aware of it. Awareness comes from the Supreme and pervades the inner self; the so-called outer self is only that part of one’s being of which one is not aware. One may be conscious, for every being is conscious, but one is not aware. What is included in awareness becomes the inner and partakes of the inner. You may put it differently: the body defines the outer self, consciousness the inner, and in pure awareness the Supreme is contacted.
( … )
Q: You spoke of the person (vyakti), the witness (vyakta) and the Supreme (avyakta). Which comes first?
M: In the Supreme the witness appears. The witness creates the person and thinks itself as separate from it. The witness sees that the person appears in consciousness which again appears in the witness. This realisation of the basic unity is the working of the Supreme. It is the power behind the witness, the source from which all flows. It cannot be contacted, unless there is unity and love and mutual help between the person and the witness, unless the doing is in harmony with the being and the knowing. The Supreme is both the source and the fruit of such harmony. As I talk to you, I am in the state of detached but affectionate awareness (turiya). When this awareness turns upon itself, you may call it the Supreme State, (turiyatita). But the fundamental reality is beyond awareness, beyond the three states of becoming, being and not-being.
Nisargadatta Maharaj, I Am That, Talk 62, “In the Supreme the Witness Appears”
interesting. I don’t know much about turiya, but i have not seen it used in this fashion before. usually is it not said to be a state “higher” than dreamless sleep? correlated with something like arupaloka- whatever that experince might be like.
What’s the difference between personality and individuality?
within ts nomenclature,the individuality would be atma plus the first 2 koshas- something blavasky refered to as the monad. this is the part of us that endures through all lives, whatever their state. the personality is the self we normally consider to be ourselves. the remaining koshas. lower mind or kama manas, plus our emotions, memory, etc. the psychological elements that are particular to a specific incarnation, most of which do not last from incarnation to incarnation. some of this stuffs is said to pass into the “higher” elements.
Latebrake: Yes, turiya is higher that the other three, but includes them all. That’s why an enlighten being is always in turiya even if the lower consciousness is in the lower states.
R.J.: The Individuality involves Atma (Spirit), Buddhi (spiritual Soul), and Higher Manas (human soul). The personality is formed by Lower Manas (mind), Kama (emotions), Prana (life), Linga sharira (eteric body) and the physical body.