Forrest J Hobson

Rogers

Phil P383 31209

1/26/2016

Aloneness: Paradox

When I first engaged Krishnamurtis concept of aloneness I was somewhat confused by

the term. I have always understood the state of being alone as being isolated from other things or

people. Krishnamurti strictly states that Isolation can never give birth to aloneness; the one has

to cease for the other to be. How can being alone be so far removed from the idea of isolation if

aloneness, in the traditional sense, is a sort of isolation from something? I did not think that

Krishnamurti chose the word aloneness simply to be confusing and paradoxical. In a study of

his essay Aloneness and Isolation, I am attempting to understand his conception of aloneness

within my own conception of what it is to be alone.

In the first and last parts of his short essay I think Krishnamurti is attempting to evoke

some sense of what aloneness is. He does not do this by describing aloneness in strict terms, but

rather, he is attempting to create the sort of scene in which a person would experience aloneness.

As the sun falls and the moon rises, among the quieting sounds of nature there is a spiritual sense

one can glean. Nature in this twilight hour is not robust or noisy, but dimming and peaceful. I

think Krishnamurti relates the state of aloneness with the sensation one would get from a twilight

walk amongst nature. I thought the following line was interesting to this idea: This path was a

very ancient way; many thousands had trodden it, and it was rich in tradition and silence That

the path was a shared experience of thousands lends to the idea of communion. Many had taken

the path before, each in their own experience of aloneness At the same time these individual
thousands are sharing that experience of walking the path: this is not isolation. To walk the path

was traditional. I think walking the path could be described as a communication of an

experience. I think as we read more from Krishnamurti I will grasp better terms with which to

describe the walk on the path.

For Krishnamurti aloneness seems to be about communication, but more in the sense of

communion rather than a traditional understanding of communication. He states that one can

truly communicate only when there is aloneness. To be alone is to commune with that which is

causeless, the immeasurable. Perhaps the causeless and immeasurable is the sacred notion of the

soul? That soul which is left after aspects of self are torn away. The described aloneness of

being uncorrupted, rich, and complete appears to me to be a reference to the removal of self.

Thus, aloneness is a communion with something without the self. That is to say, is

Krishnamurtis concept of soul or complete being external to us? Is this why Krishnamurtis

aloneness is not an isolated state of being? I think that aloneness is to remove concepts and

trappings of self to obtain being within all things. Perhaps aloneness then is a sort of

separation, but rather, it is separate from all the aspects of self.