The Book of Yourself Newsletter
Issue 50: January 2026
|
|
One of the issues that we face in the exploration of the human condition is the relationship of thought and language and whether language is a factor of conditioning. Philosophers have explored this question extensively and in very subtle ways. Linguists such as Ferdinand de Saussure, the founder of semiotics, and philosophers such as Alfred Korzybsky, founder of general semantics, stated as a fundamental principle that the word is not the thing, a phrase which in K’s teachings seems to have a special meaning. The distinction between the word and the thing might seem too obvious to deserve any further consideration, but it has significant implications, particularly as language is an abstraction that can affect perception and be mistaken for reality. While in relation to things existing independently of thought this potential confusion might be easily corrected, that correction becomes ever more difficult in relation to those things which are created by thought. The understanding of the nature of language is therefore one important aspect in establishing the right relationship between thought, feeling, perception and action.
|
|
“The word is never the thing. The word ‘wife’ is never the person; the word ‘door’ is never the thing. The word prevents the actual perception of the thing or person because the word has many associations. These associations, which are actually remembrances, distort not only visual but also psychological observation. Words then become a barrier to the free flow of observation. Take the words ‘Prime Minister’ and ‘clerk’. They describe functions, but the words ‘Prime Minister’ have tremendous significance of power, status and importance, whereas the word ‘clerk’ has associations of unimportance, little status and no power. So the word prevents you from looking at both of them as human beings. There is ingrained snobbery in most of us, and to see what words have done to our thinking and to be choicelessly aware of it is to learn the art of observation – to observe without association.”
|
The Whole Movement of Life is Learning, pg. 93
|
The word is never the thing, the person, the door or whatever else, but the word, the name of the thing comes with its own remembrances and associations, both visual and psychological, which distort and prevent the actual perception of the thing, impeding the free flow of observation. The associations or meanings of the word are what we now see the object or person with, projecting and attributing the implied sense of relative status, importance and power, for example between the Prime Minister and the clerk, which implied social gap prevents us from perceiving their shared humanity. This sort of discriminating and snobbish perception clearly conditions our relationships making, among other things, for a class-conscious society, with its resulting calamities. So the awareness of how words have shaped and continue to shape our thinking and its consequences, for example in distorting human relationships and social values, is of fundamental importance. This follows from the danger that words represent. But then we have the challenge of being aware of the effect of words on thinking and of thinking on reality without distorting that observation, which logically implies observing without choice, which is without the associations of the word, for then we are back in the very same predicament. That’s why such an observation is an art.
|
“Does language condition the brain? Does English, French, Russian or Chinese, does the very use of those words shape the brain so that it becomes conditioned? Language does condition the brain. If you talk to a Russian or a Frenchman, or to a British or American speaking English, if you watch, their whole outlook is limited by the language they use. Have you noticed all this? So, to use a language, like English, and not allow it to shape our outlook on the whole of existence. Not to be caught in the network of words! That’s quite complex. When you say, ‘I am a communist’, your whole reaction is different. As you have had a recent war in the Falklands, when you talk about the Argentine... The label is more important than the person. So there must be freedom from the word. Then the brain is utterly quiet, though it has its own rhythm!”
|
Where Can Peace Be Found?, pp. 106-107[1]
|
Here K would seem to answer the question as to whether language conditions the brain in the affirmative. It is, of course, not just the language but the cultural and historical baggage that comes with it. That historical baggage ties language to the past and that past then shapes or dominates our outlook on existence. Each linguistic or nationalistic identity has its own outlook. Although the British and the Americans speak English, their respective versions of their common language reveal their different backgrounds. So it is not only the words, which may be the same, but the whole intonation and content that denote their cultural and political gaps. What goes for nations goes for ideologies such as communism, which determine our reactions, especially to opposing views like capitalism. The nationalistic and ideological divides generate conflict and reinforce our conditioned and antagonistic outlook on others, like the image the British made of the Argentinians after the Falklands War (1982). The result, as K says, is that the label is more important than the person. The perpetuation of that label or image means that the causes of conflict remain, as these linguistic fixations determine our reactions. And that’s why freedom from the word, from its time-bound experiential and ideological content is fundamental in human relationship. The word is the noisy image that prevents us from seeing and listening, from being in contact with what is. When that noise is not, the brain is utterly quiet and can listen and see without distortion. So that would seem to be clear. Except…
|
|
|
|
“It seems that language really doesn’t condition the brain; what does is the theory of the language, the abstraction of a certain feeling and the abstraction taking the form of an idea, a symbol, a person – not the actual person but a person imagined, or hoped for, or projected by thought. All those abstractions, those ideas, conclusions, however strong, condition the brain. But the actual, like the table, never does. Take a word like ‘suffering’. That word has a different meaning for the Hindu and the Christian. But suffering, however described by words, is shared by all of us. Suffering is the fact, the actual. But when we try to escape from it through some theory, or through some idealized person, or through a symbol, those forms of escape mould the brain. Suffering as a fact doesn’t and this is important to realize. Like the word ‘attachment’; to see the word, to hold it as if in your hand and watch it, the fact that we are attached – the fact, not the word; that feeling doesn’t shape the brain, put it into a mould, but the moment one moves away from it, that is, when thought moves away from the fact, that very movement away, movement of escape, is not only a time factor, but the beginning of shaping the brain in a certain mould.”
|
Krishnamurti to Himself, pp. 108-109
|
This is a short quote from the entry dated Monday, 9 May 1983 (pp. 106-110) in which K and some friends addressed the question concerning the meaning, content, depth and quality of words. He reiterates that the word is not the thing, though words are necessary to communicate. For him the factor of conditioning is not the actual but the concept or image to which we give great significance and to which we have a deep sentimental attachment. That is what ‘the theory of the language’ would seem to mean, i.e. the abstraction of a certain feeling projected by thought as idea, symbol or imagined entity. It is these ideas, abstractions and conclusions that condition the brain. But aren’t word and concept inextricably linked, inseparable? In that case, to take the conceptual abstraction out of the word is to destroy its meaning. Or is it? He takes a couple of words in an attempt to clarify the matter. The first is the word ‘suffering’, which has different meanings in different cultural and religious contexts. This amounts to different ‘theories’ of suffering, which K views as an escape from the actuality of it, in the first place because it is shared by all of us, so that suffering is not Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu. Suffering, like the chair, is the actual and, as such, does not condition the brain. What does is the escape from it through abstraction and symbols. It is these, K says, that shape the brain, not the fact of suffering. As he puts it, “The table never conditions the brain but god does”. (pg. 108) The second word is ‘attachment’, which he invites us to hold in our hand to watch not the word but the fact that we are attached. Again, he reiterates that what conditions the brain is not the fact of attachment but the escape from it through the theoretical movement of thought. This second example would seem to point to a depth in the perception through the word and past its time-bound cultural theory to the actuality behind it. For K it is only the received abstract content of the word that is the factor of distortion and conditioning, whereas the fact itself is not. So freedom from conditioning would be equivalent to this perception of fact, inward and outward, past the theoretical screen of the word. Then the word can point to the fact and become a factor of liberation instead of the root of conditioning by referring to its past symbolic content. Then the word, which is not the thing, can become truthful, for it points to the fact and not to its shadow. But the key to freedom is not the word but direct perception. Not to understand the whole movement of thought and word, K says, is the way of sorrow.
|
“To be free of the word and not give too much importance to it; to see that the word is not the thing and the thing is never the word; not to get caught in the overtones of the word and yet use words with care and understanding; to be sensitive to words and not be weighed down by them; to break through the verbal barrier and to consider the fact; to avoid the poison of words and feel the beauty in them; to put away all identification with words and to examine them, for words are a trap and a snare. They are the symbols and not the real. The screen of words acts as a shelter for the lazy, the thoughtless and the deceiving mind. Slavery to words is the beginning of inaction which may appear to be action and a mind caught in symbols cannot go far. Every word, thought, shapes the mind and without understanding every thought, mind becomes a slave to words and sorrow begins. Conclusions and explanations do not end sorrow.”
|
Krishnamurti’s Notebook, pg. 191
|
This is a lovely series of suggestions by K as to the sensitive and intelligent approach to words so we do not get caught in their overtones while using them with care and understanding, breaking through the verbal barrier to a consideration of fact so they cease to be a trap and a snare, avoiding their poison and feeling their beauty, not identifying with them and becoming thoughtless slaves to their unreal symbols and ending up in a state of inaction and shallowness… There is, of course, much more to this issue of language and thought. Quite a few questions were left floating silently through the lattice of this tentative exploration. But that is precisely the work of intelligence, to read between the lines, to break through the barrier of words to the perception of fact which is their authentic and liberating meaning.
|
|
Be well, amigos, and let’s see whether the word is or is not a factor of conditioning,
|
P.S.: I am several months behind with these newsletters but I still hope to catch up one of these days!
|
|
Photos by J. Gómez Rodríguez: 1. Granite boulder on the shore, Leiro, Rianxo, A Coruña, Spain. 2. The Train Bridge, Isorna, Rianxo, A Coruña, Spain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
