J.Krishnamurti , the offbeat thinker of modern times, warned , "To follow implies not only the denying of one's own clarity, investigation, .. ".
To follow means what? Putting your mind on a track that the one you believe in , might prescribe. What is wrong about it?
What is wrong is indeed a hidden reality. One has to clearly analyse its inbuilt perils.
We were imparted lessons in geometrical theorems in school days. What did we do to prove a pint? We started off with, 'suppose .... ', for if you refuse to suppose, the contemplated proof would elude. Now, once proof is achieve, and once the concept is revealed to the mind, the assumption or supposition becomes a reality, losing its original definition that assumption lent it for a while.
This kind of following is imperially justified as eligible to be preceded by an adjective, 'objective' or 'scientific' or 'rational'.
But would you define that genre of following or that class of followers which ends up in a belief system or any system of faith that refuses either to stand veracity test or to seek proof or even proved by any empirical yardstick?
It is this kind of following that Krishnamurty decries, which Marx equates with administering opium that deludes human consciousness.
Isn't India , a land that harbours a majority who would love to be for ever opium-ised by some kind of following that always seeks to stay blind?
To follow means what? Putting your mind on a track that the one you believe in , might prescribe. What is wrong about it?
What is wrong is indeed a hidden reality. One has to clearly analyse its inbuilt perils.
We were imparted lessons in geometrical theorems in school days. What did we do to prove a pint? We started off with, 'suppose .... ', for if you refuse to suppose, the contemplated proof would elude. Now, once proof is achieve, and once the concept is revealed to the mind, the assumption or supposition becomes a reality, losing its original definition that assumption lent it for a while.
This kind of following is imperially justified as eligible to be preceded by an adjective, 'objective' or 'scientific' or 'rational'.
But would you define that genre of following or that class of followers which ends up in a belief system or any system of faith that refuses either to stand veracity test or to seek proof or even proved by any empirical yardstick?
It is this kind of following that Krishnamurty decries, which Marx equates with administering opium that deludes human consciousness.
Isn't India , a land that harbours a majority who would love to be for ever opium-ised by some kind of following that always seeks to stay blind?
No comments:
Post a Comment