Reflection Sito
If we have to find something that is new, we have to start from scratch, that is, set aside all preconceptions about what we know about what we intend to investigate. I had several personal conversations at the meeting in Segovia on what I wanted to call "dialectic Krishnamurtiana" because I truly believe that we have often fallen into it without realizing that in doing this we are introducing us to another pattern, the pattern of K, betraying an essential and teaching.
Let's start talking about the paradox of language. It is rare to get a total and instant understanding (insight) through of the language. As often punctuated K "verbal understanding of the war has not ended with it, but if we are required to understand each other in some way is through language.
For this reason, I decided to use a mixture of personal and philosophical parsing as a start, considering that the whole is always greater than the sum of the parties separately, but the parts being a meaning-laden words that need not be the same for some than for others. I do not think it prudent to move to investigate the question of be a light to oneself without establishing the basis of what it means, at least for me, every one of these words .
I'll split the sentence into two parts. First "be a light." This first part is undoubtedly the action, that action need be by "being" something, in this case "light." Later we will proceed with the action ("self") and what is ("light"). Now we stop a bit in the word "a" or "a" expresses many things, but mainly refers to "what can not be divided." I think this is exactly what I wanted to qualify K, that light can not be divided, must be one for all. There may be lights of different intensity to the family or work or leisure, must be a light that is present at all times and with maximum intensity. For me the word that comes to my head to signify what unites the "being" with the "light" is "unity", which according to dictionary means "unique quality," meaning turn "extraordinary or not Like no other, "ie, that uniqueness can be defined as" quality of what is extraordinary. " Therefore, we are something unique and indivisible : be a light.
But what is "being"? We all take for granted that we know what it is, but what does it mean? Of course in philosophical treatises, there is no consensus on what it means.
According to Martin Heidegger, the definition of being is one of the biggest mistakes in the history of philosophy, to define metaphysics as the forgetting of being. Parmenides is defined as what is or exists and is completely opposed to nothing. According to Aristotle, the being is composed of material substance and shape and Plato say that being is an intangible idea.
Still, the most accepted definition is "an entity able to define itself against an environment", which refers to being as being (entity) . But "being" is a verb, and as such is also defined as "having an attribute" (there are more definitions, but this is what I think is more suited to the context).
With all this on the table I will define what it means to me the word "be": I can not accept that it is an entity that defines itself, as we enter into the problem of observer and observed. I must distance myself from me to define myself and therefore what would I not be defined. But if I can accept and acknowledge that I have a life, exist, not because I think, but I am conscious of being there here and now, the only time the existence as such, is given. Also, I am also aware that there are other stocks coexist with me and with whom I interact in different media. With all this, I would say "being" is "the quality of relationship you have with the existence at every moment. "
By "light" my opinion is that K used a metaphor, and I must admit that during the talks of my group in Segovia I got a little nerves because we got to define what it really meant that "light." I remember commenting at one point of the talk: "What really means to be a light? "I become light and radiate a light-gusi?" And if someone laughed, I think others were offended, so I apologize, not wanting to offend anyone. Despite this I have to ask again: What does it mean for K this light? What does it mean for us? K impels us to have light in us, because where there is light there is darkness, where there is no absolute sincerity, no deceit, where there is love, there is mediocrity, and where there is no purity, there is no truth. For all this I will say that what K called "light" to me is "what is pure and true."
If "being a light is the action that I run, then" for himself "refers to the receiver of the action, which also me. But I can split the action between running and receiving? K tells us that understanding is instant action and not divisive. This is where the language is a bit slippery. be a light for himself is to be a light for everything else . Not only that, but you can not be a light to the other without being a light to himself, because in that process is where there is deception, self-deception, mediocrity and, ultimately, the moral preaching others without practicing it ourselves.
So, considering everything we've discussed so far and also noting that this reflection is entirely personal and idiosyncratic, the question "What does being a light for himself ? "I will answer it " drive the relationship I have with what is pure and true of me every time. "
These are my thoughts on the issue that led us to Segovia and somehow, I needed to capture and share.
nothing else, a greeting to all and see you at the next meeting.
Sito Sanchez
