Sunday, October 04, 2009
Personal Experience?
If I understand Krishnamurti, most religions emphasize personal experience. You will be saved if you do this or that thing, follow that person, or belief. But if we are to believe modern science, Krishnamurti, the Buddha, and other deep thinkers, there is no such thing as personal experience. What I mean is that if every being is an observer participating in this reality or world we live on, then every observer is only perceiving a fragment of the whole of reality. When two or more observers observe the same event, the result is a shared experience. This is just as true for two human beings, a human being and a pet cat, dog, or bird, or any combination of human and other animals. We humans tend to think of ourselves as unique, but I know my cats have their needs and wants and their own ideas about how their world should be. Dogs are not as fussy, but even dogs have their own personalities and talents, and wants and needs.
So, if shared experiences are the most common events between human beings, how can a religious belief system work by emphasizing that people have personal experiences? Personal experience seems to be an oxymoron. Krishnamurti uses the ocean as an example and says that the ocean is there for any one to look at and admire, but it is not YOUR ocean. You don't own it, so it can't be a personal experience. But the same holds true for most everything else on the planet. The only people who may have had a personal experience were the command module pilots on the Apollo Moon missions who orbited around the Moon alone while their colleagues were on the lunar surface, and they weren't entirely alone except when their spacecraft went into the radio shadow of the Moon.
I believe that what Krishnamurti and other people are emphasizing is that spiritual growth is the lessening of the "me", the "me" identity of the mind. Others call it the loss of self. When I was born, there was no "me" - no conscious "me". There was a baby, but there was no "me" yet. When this body dies, there will be no "me" as well. The mind will have died with the brain. So, what is it that strives to understand whatever it is? What is it that loves, knows joy, laughs, cries, and tries to find happiness and contentment in the here and now? What is it that recognises itself in others, but is not the "me"?
So, if shared experiences are the most common events between human beings, how can a religious belief system work by emphasizing that people have personal experiences? Personal experience seems to be an oxymoron. Krishnamurti uses the ocean as an example and says that the ocean is there for any one to look at and admire, but it is not YOUR ocean. You don't own it, so it can't be a personal experience. But the same holds true for most everything else on the planet. The only people who may have had a personal experience were the command module pilots on the Apollo Moon missions who orbited around the Moon alone while their colleagues were on the lunar surface, and they weren't entirely alone except when their spacecraft went into the radio shadow of the Moon.
I believe that what Krishnamurti and other people are emphasizing is that spiritual growth is the lessening of the "me", the "me" identity of the mind. Others call it the loss of self. When I was born, there was no "me" - no conscious "me". There was a baby, but there was no "me" yet. When this body dies, there will be no "me" as well. The mind will have died with the brain. So, what is it that strives to understand whatever it is? What is it that loves, knows joy, laughs, cries, and tries to find happiness and contentment in the here and now? What is it that recognises itself in others, but is not the "me"?
Labels: shared experience
