This issue of
The Link addresses a number of significant questions. Krishnamurti spokea good deal about measure and the immeasurable, and we reproduce an article by DavidBohm that probes into this important topic in connection with the respective cultural orien-tations of East and West. The theme of violence is discussed and interpretation, an ever-present concern around the teachings, comes in for an exploratory review. The OnEducation section reproduces a report on Rishi Valley’s School in a Box programme and anarticle on the dynamic relation between knowledge and dialogue in the educationalcontext.The challenges facing the so-called ‘K world’are many. One of the main ones is whetherthe teachings offer an answer to the current world situation. People seem to prefer positivethinking when it comes to their happiness and wellbeing and may find K too negative in hisapproach. Others have said that K is too inward or psychological, that he doesn’t seem togive any concrete solutions to our pressing problems and is, therefore, too impractical orabstract. Still others postulate that he was too advanced or evolved for our time and thatitmight take a while for humanity to catch up with him. On careful reading, one is boundtofind that the teachings meet the test of these criticisms. However, what such objectionsmay be pointing to is the apparent difficulty in actualizing K’s stated observations of fact.The central domain of such observations concerns the psyche and, more specifically, thenature of thought, as it is here that K appears to place the key to the transformation of man: non-dualistic observation. From this we deduce that the inward integrity of the indi-vidual is the necessary link between the cosmic and collective or social dimensions. Suchaholistic approach may be logically coherent but it would seem to be quite a challenge toconfirm it experimentally. It is here that our capacity for creative learning is being put tothe test.The engagement with the teachings is so multifaceted that it is easy to get lost in thedetails. Our demand for certainty may also lead us at times to assert as absolutely truethat which is only a working hypothesis. The fact that the truth of the teachings is not inthe words but in direct perception may be a source of frustration as they offer no theoreti-cal haven from the fast current of life. The vulnerability and uncertainty that true observa-tion seems to entail challenge our ingrained demand for security. It seems that for K therewas no security in the physical, relational or psychological domains; fear and attachmentsustain our false securities and seeing their falseness is the security that intelligence pro-vides. The awakening of such intelligence is one of the most urgent of tasks, for we havereached such a level of participatory existence that not only are we humanity but also thewholeness of this living planet now depends on us.
Javier Gómez Rodríguez, September 2007
Editorial NoteEditorial Note