Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

K The essential Texts

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 43 in total
Fri, 21 Dec 2012 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

I will try in this new thread to paste in a few essential K texts, usually rather difficult to follow, reducing them to the bare essentials, just to see exactly what he was talking about.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Feb 2018 #2
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


ON INNER SPACE (an experientially friendly edited version )

Needleman: In your talks you have given a fresh meaning to the
necessity for man to become his own authority. Yet cannot this
assertion easily be turned into a form of 'humanistic' ( all purpose) psychology without reference to the transcendental dimension of human
life in the midst of a vast intelligent Cosmos? Must we not
only try to see ourselves (as we are) in this particular moment in time, but also as intelligent creatures of the Cosmos?

Krishnamurti: Are we talking about the outward endless space, or of the (inner) dimension of space in us?

Needleman: It would have to be the latter, but not totally without the former.

Krishnamurti: Is there a difference between the outer space,
which is limitless, and the (inner) space (available) in us? Or is there no (free inner) space in ourselves at all and we only know the outer space? We know the (mental) space in ourselves between the centre and a circumference -this is what we generally call (inner) space.

Needleman: Inner space, yes.

Krishnamurti: Now if there is an (all controlling) 'centre', the available inner space must always be limited - we only know this very limited space but we think we would like to have an immense space.
This (Malibu) house exists in (a physical location in) space and
the four walls of this room make its space. And the (mental ) space within me is the space which the 'centre' has created round itself.

Needleman: Yes, a centre of self-interest.

Krishnamurti: (The consciousness of most) human beings does have a
'centre' and this (identitary) centre creates a (safe mental ?) space round itself. But because of the centre, this space is limited.

Needleman: It is a defined space, yes.

Krishnamurti: So we are talking of the (self-centred inner ) space which the centre creates round itself, but also there is a 'space' , or an 'interval, between two thoughts. Now what is your question, Sir? How to expand this ( self-centred inner) space? Or how to enter a different dimension of (Time & ) Space?

Needleman: A different dimension of Reality?

Krishnamurti: First I must ( get familiar ) with the (silent interval or ) 'space' between two thoughts. What takes place in this interval?

Needleman: I must confess I really don't know because my thoughts
overlap all the time. But I know there are silent intervals and there is (a sense of inner) freedom there... for a moment.

Krishnamurti: Let's go into this a bit, shall we? (To recap :) There is (the silent) space between two thoughts. And there is (mental) space (of the known?) which the centre creates round itself, a space of (self-) isolation in which I consider myself important, with my ambitions, with my frustrations, with my personal growth, my meditation, my reaching

Needleman: Yes, that is indeed ( a mental space of self-) isolation.

Krishnamurti: It 'is' isolation.And within this (safe mental) space my relation with you is through the 'images' created of that isolation .
And having created that (self-protective mental ) space there is also a space outside the barbed wire. Now is there an (inner) space
of a totally different dimension? This was your question ?

Needleman: Yes, that embraces my question.

Krishnamurti: Now, how can I find this other (dimension of mind- space) ? Is it possible to become (inwardly) free of this 'centre' (of self-interest) , so that (my consciousness) doesn't need to create space round itself, build a wall round itself, isolation, a prison - and call that 'space'? Can that 'centre' (of self-interest) cease to be? Otherwise the mind cannot go beyond its (self-imposed) limitation.

Needleman: Yes, I see what you mean...

Krishnamurti: So, what is that centre? That centre is the observer, the thinker, the experiencer, it divides the "me" and "non-me", and (proudly?) says, "That is the barbed wire (mental wall ?) I have created round myself.

Needleman: So the centre is stuck in there too ?

Krishnamurti: Yes. Therefore it separates itself from (anything beyond) its barbed wire fence ( which becomes the 'observed', while the centre is the 'observer'). So there is (this self-isolating) 'space' between the observer and the observed - right Sir?

Needleman: Yes, I can see that.

Krishnamurti: And it also tries to 'bridge over' that space. It says, "This must be changed, that must not be, I must be better than that." All that is
the (self-centred) movement (of thought) in the space between the observer and the observed. And hence there is (an open or hidden ) conflict between the 'observer' and the 'observed'.
Now can the 'observer' - who is the centre, who is the thinker, who is the knower - can that 'centre' be still?

Needleman: Why should it wish to be still?

Krishnamurti: If it is not still, (its available inner) space is always limited.

Needleman: But this centre, the observer, doesn't know that it is
limited in this way.

Krishnamurti: But you can (easily) see that when it observes, it observes through that (self-protective mental) space. When I observe those mountains there is a space (of separation?) between me
and the mountains. And when I observe myself there is space
between me and the thing I observe in myself. So there is
always this divisiive space (btw 'me' & 'non-me') .

Needleman: Changing the approach to the subject entirely, it seems to me that this 'space' you speak about is actually a (self-created) illusion.

Krishnamurti: I can only find out (what is beyond) when the mind has immense space. And when that centre is not in operation, then in that vast inner space ( Clue : which is part of any authentic meditation) there is something immeasurably sacred, which you can never find out if there is an (identification with that ) centre.

So my real (meditative) concern is whether this (self-identified ) 'centre' can be completely empty? That centre is the (psychological) content of our consciousness; there is no (self-centred) consciousness if there is no content ( the same way as) there is no house if there are no walls and no roof. The content is (generating its own) 'consciousness' but without the content, where is (the self-) consciousness? And that is the (unlimited inner ?) space.

Needleman: I can follow only a little bit of what you say. I find myself
wanting to say: well, what is the important thing here?

Krishnamurti: I'll put that question after I,have found out whether the mind can be empty of the (its self-centred) content. Then there is something else that will operate, which will function even within the field of the known. But without finding that merely to say...
Let's proceed. Space is between two thoughts, between two periods of time, because thought is (projecting its own) time. Yes?

Needleman: All right, yes.

Krishnamurti: Then there is the (circumscribed inner) space round the
centre, and the space beyond the (self-protecting) wall of the centre. The (center to boundary ?) space between the observer and
the observed is (a self-protective mental interface ) which thought has created as the image of my wife and the image which she has about me.

So my (meditation related) question is: "Can the centre be still, or can
the centre 'fade away' (or...stay put?) ? Because if it doesn't lie very
quiet, then the (time-bound ) content of consciousness is going to create (a virtual mental space) within (my self-centred) consciousness and call it the vast space. So can that centre be absorbed? Which
means, can there be no (self- identified) image because it is this self- image that separates? That (self-)image may talk about love, but the 'love' of the (self-centred) image is not love. Therefore I must find out whether the centre can be completely dissolved, or lie as a vague (personality) fragment in the distance. If there is no possibility of that, then I must accept (my well known inner ) prison and I can
decorate my prison for ever.

Needleman: But now this possibility that you are speaking
about, without searching for it consciously...

Krishnamurti: It is there!

Needleman: I am beginning to see that there is no distinction between humanism and sacred teachings. There is just truth, or non-truth.

Krishnamurti: That's all. False and true.

Needleman: So much for that.... (Laughter)

Krishnamurti: We are asking: "Can the (meditating) consciousness empty itself of its content?" First see the (hidden) beauty of it : it must empty itself without any (personal) effort.
The moment there is a (mental) effort, there is the observer who is making the effort to change the content, which is part of consciousness. I
don't know if you see that?

Needleman: I follow. This 'emptying' has to be effortless, instantaneous.

Krishnamurti: This means the emptying of consciousness of all 'personal) will "to be" or "not to be". Can the
mind, with all its content, empty itself and yet remain (an integrated & intelligent?) mind – not just float about?

(In a nutshell:) The (residual) content of my (self-centred)
consciousness is my unhappiness, my misery, my struggles, my
sorrows, the images which I have collected through life, my gods,
the frustrations, the pleasures, the fears, the agonies, the hatreds -
can all that 'past' be completely emptied? Not
only at the superficial levels but right through the so-called
So the mind must (seriously meditate &) find out how to empty
itself of all the content of itself, and yet live in this world, not
become a moron, but have a brain that functions efficiently. Now
how is this to be done? This is (the role of any authenic) meditation : to see whether the mind can empty itself and yet have a brain
that functions as a marvellous machine. Also, to sees that when there is (selfless) love there is no image; there must be an (interactive) relationship between the emptying of consciousness and the thing called Love; between the 'unknown' and the 'known', which is the content of our (self-centred) consciousness.

Needleman: I am following you. There must be this (interactive) relationship.

Krishnamurti: The two must be in harmony. The emptying and
love must be in harmony. And it may be only (selfless) love that is necessary and nothing else.

Needleman: This 'emptying' is another word for (the holistic action of) love, is that what you are saying?

Krishnamurti: I am only asking what is (this selfless) love. Is love within the field of (the self-centred) consciousness?

Needleman: No, it couldn't be.

Krishnamurti: Love within the content of consciousness is (associated with) pleasure, ambition and all that. Then what is Love? I really don't know. There is some (missing ) factor in this which I must find out. Whether the emptying of consciousness with its content is love, which is the unknown?
What is the relationship between the unknown and the known? The relationship between the 'unknown', which may be called
love, and the content of consciousness, which I 'know', (it may be
unconscious, but I can open it up and find out) - what is the
relationship between the known and the unknown? To freely move
between the known and the unknown is harmony, is intelligence,
isn't it?

Needleman: Absolutely.

Krishnamurti: So the mind must find out, how to empty its content. That is, have no (self-identifying) image, therefore no 'observer'.
Can there be no no image formation when you hurt me or give me pleasure ?

Needleman: Is it possible?

Krishnamurti: Of course it is. Isn't it possible when you insult
me to be completely watchful, attentive, so that it doesn't leave a

Needleman: I see what you mean.

Krishnamurti: When you flatter me - no mark. Then there is no
image. So the mind has done with it: which is, no
formation of image at all. If you don't form a (self-) image now, the past
images have no place (are becoming psychologically redundant) .

Needleman: Then you are free from the (psychological burden of the ) past !

Krishnamurti: See it! See it!

Needleman: Very clear.

Krishnamurti: So the mind can empty itself of images by (paying full attention and ) not forming a (self-) image now. Then there is ( an image free inner) space, not the limited space round the centre. And if one delves into this limitless inner space , goes into it much
further, then there is something Sacred, not invented by thought, which has nothing to do with any (organised) religion.

Needleman: Thank you.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 26 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 May 2018 #3
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline



K: What is the root of ( man's existential?) conflict, this tremendous inward conflict (shared by all ?) humanity?

DB: Could it be due to his contradictory desires ?

K: No. Isn't it that not being able to face the ( ongoing inner?) 'facts' and change these facts, but rather move to something else, more and more and more.

DB: Yes. Well what would you say was the ( main inward?) 'fact' that people couldn't stay with?

K: Is ( the psychological?) time the factor? Time as 'I need ( to gather more?) knowledge in order to do - whatever it is - I need time for that'. The same principle applied inwardly. Is it (carrying over?) inwardly the idea of time.

DB: Why is ( thinking in terms of ?) time so destructive inwardly ? Most people would say that is only natural. We have to say what is it about 'becoming' ( psychologically better in time?) that is wrong.

K: Obviously, when I am trying to become something ( other than what I am ) it brings about a ( major existential?) contradiction.

DB: Yes, but outwardly it seems all right to try to improve a certain situation and try to make it into something better .

K: That seems normal.

DB: The difficulty is why is it a contradiction inwardly and not outwardly, or the other way round?

K: Inwardly it builds up an egotistic centre.

DB: Does it do it when we do it outwardly? It seems it needn't , because matter will allow itself to be shaped - you know, from 'what is' to 'what it should be'.

K: Is it one's brain is so accustomed to ( a mentality of?) conflict that one rejects any other form of living? What's the origin of all this ( psychological) confusion, conflict, struggle - what is the beginning of it? Is it (the dualistic mentality of) 'I' and 'not I'? ('us' vs. 'them'?)

DB: Well, it might well be this separation between 'I' and 'not I'.

K: Yes, that's it. And why has ( the collective consciousness of?) mankind created this 'I', which must inevitably cause conflict? 'I' and 'you', 'me becoming better' and so on.

DB: I think that was a (honest?) mistake made a long time ago, having noticed the physical separation between various things outwardly we then, not knowing better, kept on doing it . Not out of ill will but simply not seeing ( the psychological consequences of?) what they were doing.

K: Is that the origin (of mankind's psychological 'wrong turn ' ) ?

DB: Well it is close. What do you feel?

K: I am inclined to observe that the origin is that ( thought's self-focussing as the?) ego, the 'me', the 'I'.

DB: Yes...

K: If there is no such ego(-centric mentality?) there is no problem, there is no conflict, there is no ( thinking inwardly in terms of ?) time - 'time' in the sense of becoming (safer & wealthier ?) or not becoming (the opposite ? ) , of 'being' or 'not being' .

DB: But what made the 'ego' in the first place ?
K: Is it ( that the Mind's ?) energy being so vast, limitless, the ( physical) brain has narrowed it down ( for survivalistic purposes?) to 'me', to the 'I' ?

DB: I understand that that is what happened but I don't quite see all the steps. 'Mind's energy was very broad, very big, and the brain you say can't handle it, or it decided it couldn't handle it?

K: It couldn't handle it.

DB: But if it can't handle it, it seems that there is no way...

K: Wait, I just want to enquire into it a little bit. Why has the (physical) brain, with all its thinking and so on, created this sense of 'me', 'I'? Outwardly it had to be that way.

DB: Well we needed a certain sense of 'identity' to function.

K: Yes, to function. And is that movement of the outer, where I had to identify (myself with?) the family, the house and so on gradually became the 'me'?

DB: Yes, and I think that this energy that you are talking about also entered and gradually strengthened it- and this wouldn't explain the tremendous strength that the 'ego' has - the focussing of all that greatest ( Mind) energy?

K: Is that it? That the ( physical) brain cannot hold this vast energy?

DB: Well let's say the brain is trying to control this, to bring it to order. You see if the brain feels it can't control something that is going on inside itself , it will try to establish ( its own ) order.

K: Sir, could we say that the human brain is not just born (yesterday) , it is very, very old?

DB: In what sense?

K: In the sense it has evolved.

DB: Evolved, yes, from the animal (brain) : and its whole 'evolution' is somehow contained ( subliminally enfolded?) in the brain. There is ( scientific) evidence of man developing through a series of stages - you can't question that, can you?

K: No, of course not.

DB: I mean physically it is clear that evolution has occurred in some way. And the human brain has got larger & more complex. But you may question whether the mental evolution has any meaning ?

K: You see sir, I want to avoid ( thinking inwardly in terms of?) time – to me that is the cause of man's ( existential) misery?

DB: Well, certainly. Man had to use ( his thinking in terms of) time for ( all physical) purposes, but he misused it by extending it inwardly.

K: Isn't that the cause of man's ( existential) confusion - introducing time as a means of becoming, and becoming more and more perfect, more and more evolved, more and more loving?

DB: Well, yes I understand. But whether there is not some other cause still, I don't know.

K: I want to go into that a little bit (personally?) . To me the idea of ( becoming inwardly better?) 'tomorrow' doesn't exist. If the 'psychological' ( concept of?) time doesn't exist, then there is no ( self-sustained inward ) conflict, and there is no ( hopeful?) 'I' which is the origin of conflict.
( Thinking almost exclusively in terms of time?) man has extended his capacities outwardly, and psychologically we have also moved 'outwardly'.

DB: Yes, we have focused our whole life on the outward. Is that what you are saying?

K: And inwardly ( our life) it is the same movement as outwardly. Now if there is no inward movement ( of time) as 'becoming' more and more, then what takes place? You understand what I am trying to convey?

DB: Well, if ( the inner) movement of 'time' ceases – then that ( intelligent Mind ) energy is (released?) ...

K: If that ( illusory?) 'movement' ceases then what takes place? Could we put it this way: we have never touched any other (inner) movement (dimension of consciousness?) than the 'outer' movement.

DB: Yes, generally speaking, we put most of our (intelligent ) energy into ( optimising?) the outward movements (life activities?) .

K: Outward, and 'psychologically' (our life) is also outward.

DB: Well, it is ( a subjectively distorted?) reflection of the outward movement.

K: Now if that (time-binding inner ) movement ends, as it must, then is there a really 'inwardly creative movement' - not in terms of time?

DB: You want to say: is there another kind of (inward activity or?) movement?

K: Yes.

DB: Which is still 'moving' but not in terms of time ? Could you (explain it?) further ?

K: You see one's brain has been trained, accustomed, for centuries to 'go North', let's say (metaphorically?) for instance. And it suddenly realizes 'going North' (along the time-line of self-interest?) is ( collaterally generating an ) everlasting conflict. And as it realizes ( what is wrong with this ?) it moves East. In that 'movement' ( away from a mentality which is seen as false?) the brain itself is changing. Right?

DB: Well, something changes, yes.

K: The ( perceptive ?) quality of the brain changes.

DB: All right, it will wake up to a different movement.

K: Yes, different. If I am not 'going North' , as I have been going all my life, and there is a stoppage from going North, then ( the dualistic mentality of ?) conflict ceases. Right? Because it is not moving in any direction ( motivated by self-interest?) .

DB: All right. So that is the key point - the direction of movement. When our ( mind's) movement is fixed in a direction, inwardly it will come to conflict. So if we say it has no more fixed direction then what is it doing? Is it moving in all directions?

K: Could one say that when one really comes to that state, that is the ( original) source of all ( life ) energy?

DB: Yes, as you go deeper, more inwardly.

K: This is the real 'inwardness' - when ( in a holistically integrated meditation ?) there is no outer and inner movement.

DB: Yes, so that it would seem to stop ( the time-bound) movement.

K: Would that be the Source of all Energy?

DB: Well, perhaps we could say that.

K: May I talk about myself a little bit? First of all is there a meditation which is not premeditated? Which is not the ( subliminal activity of the ) ego trying to become something, negatively or positively.

DB: So, before we go ahead could we suggest somewhat what ( the authentic?) meditation should be ?

K: I am using (the term) 'meditation' in the sense in which there is not a particle of ( ego-centric) endeavour, no sense of trying to become, consciously reach a level and so on.

DB: The mind ( remaing?) simply with itself, silent ?

K: That is what I want to get at. I don't meditate in the normal sense of the word. What happens with me is that I wake up meditating.

DB: ( Just finding yourself ?) in that state … ?

K: And one night I woke up - and the Source of all energy had been reached. And literally any sense of division at all - only this sense of a tremendous source of energy.

DB: So the brain was in contact with this source of energy?

K: Yes. And as I have been talking for sixty years, I'd like ( helping ?) other people to reach this 'pure energy' from the very beginning of time, because then, all our ( psychologically related?) problems are resolved, political, religious, every human problem is resolved – because it leads to a complete sense of ( inner) Peace, Love and all that'? How would you help me to come to That? The brain has evolved ( during a long span of ) time and ( presently) it can only think & live in time. Now for it to deny time is a tremendous activity of having no problems. Any problem that arises, any question is immediately solved. It has no duration, of a problem.

DB: Well is this ( State of Grace?) sustained or is it for that period?

K: It is sustained, obviously, not sporadic, intermittent and all that. Now are you helping me realise that we have been going in the wrong direction, and if that 'non-movement' takes place (in meditation?) everything will be correct ?

DB: Well, it is hard to know beforehand that 'everything is going to be correct' (forever after?) . But (experientially touching that ?) 'movement' would certainly make a big difference.


K: I was watching the other day (a biopic on) Darwin & his whole theory of evolution. It seems to me that psychologically ( the evolutionary concept is?) totally untrue.

DB: I think it would be ( psychologically ?) untrue to say the ( energy field of the human?) mind evolved in time.
Are you implying that the 'Mind' is not originating in the brain ? And the brain is perhaps an instrument for it, of the Mind?

K: And the 'Mind' is not time. Sounds odd, doesn't it?

DB: It would sound odd to ( a materialistically minded ?) person, but in the past people used to accept quite easily this idea ( of a purely 'spiritual' consciousness ?) .

K: The mind not being of time, and the brain being of time - is that the origin of (man's ages old existential?) conflict?

DB: That may be an important point (to investigate ?)

K: You understand sir what that means? The ( ancient ) Hindus said that the Atman, the Highest Principle is ( always present ) in ( the consciousness of?) man, which is the 'Mind'. And the brain is of time. So is that the origin of conflict?

DB: Well, it is not ( immediately ) clear to say that 'the brain is of time', but rather that it has developed in such a way that ( the mentality of) time is ( enfolded?) in it.

K: Yes, that is what I meant.

DB: As the human brain has evolved ( in time, an intrinsical mentality of) time has become part of its very structure.

K: Yes.

DB: And that was necessary (for mankind's survival?) . But now (that man have the leisure-time to consider the deeper issues regarding ?) mind's operating without time and the brain therefore is not able to (keep pace with it?) ?

K: Can the brain itself see that it is caught in time and as long as it is moving (exclusively?) in the ( outward) direction, conflict is eternal, endless?

DB: But... can the brain see this ?

K: Has the brain the ( inwardly perceptive?) capacity to see that what it is doing now, caught in time, in that process there is no end to conflict ?

DB: Wouldn't you say the brain is not totally caught in time and that it can awaken to seeing ( holistically ?).

K: That means, is there a ( dormant?) part of the brain which is not of time.

DB: Not caught in time. Some ( perceptively independent?) function.

K: Can one say that the human brain is dominated by time but not (completely ?) subservient to it?

DB: That's right. In the moments ( of transpersonal awareness?) it comes out of time. And it is dominated by time only when 'you' give it time, but anything fast (enough) is not dominated.

K: Yes, that's right. Can the human brain which has been used to ( an inexorable mentality of?) time, can it see that in that process there is no end to conflict, can it see this? See in the sense can it 'realize' ( the inward truth of?) it? What is the factor that will make the brain see the way it has gone is not (holistically -wise ?) 'correct' - let's use the word for the moment. And what will make it suddenly realize that it is totally mischievous?

DB: What do you mean by 'realize'?

K: Realize in the sense, of seeing that the ( existential?) path which it has been going on ( for millenia?) will always be the path of conflict.

DB: I think that the brain is resisting such a ( radical) realization.

K: Of course, of course. Because it is used to that (self-centred mentality?) for centuries. How will you make the brain realize this fact?

DB: I think one should deny ( inwardly?) the very notion of time in the sense of 'looking forward' to the future, and ( denying ) all the ( psychological burden of the?) past.

K: That's just it sir, that's just it ! ( The psychological) time is the enemy. Meet it and go beyond it.

DB: ( But for starters?) to deny that that is an independent existence. You see, we have the impression that Time exists independently of us. We are in the 'Stream of Time' and therefore it would seem absurd for us to deny it because that is what we 'are'.

K: Yes, quite, quite. And it also means really 'moving away' from everything that man has put together as a means of timelessness.

DB: Well we can say that none of the 'methods' that man uses outwardly are going to help, because in every 'method' the notion of time is ( implicitly assumed ?) before you start.

K: Yes, quite... So, how will you convey ( educationally this fact?) to a man who is ( unknowingly?) caught in ( this inward mentality of?) time ?

DB: I think that unless ( the other person?) has gone into it ( & done his inward homework?) , you are not likely to convey it at all to somebody you just pick up off the street.

K: So, as that ( total insight?) cannot be conveyed through words, would you ( consider ) resolving any (psychologically related?) problem immediately as it arises – not allow ( its postponement in?) time. Suppose I have a (personal?) psychological problem: can the mind realize (the importance of?) resolving it immediately? To face it and end it (ASAP?) .

DB: Well, with a psychological problem, that is the only way (to get rid of it?) - otherwise we would be caught in the very source that has created the problem.

K: Of course. Would that ( pragmatic?) activity ( point the right approach for ? ) ending of the 'psychological time' we are talking about ?

DB: Yes....providing that we could bring this immediate action to bear on what you call the ( central psychological ) problem, which is the 'self' (-centred consciousness?) .

K: Sir, if one ( self?) is greedy, or envious, to end it immediately - greed, attachment, and so on, there are a dozen ( of collateral ?) things : will that not give an ( experiential) clue to the ending of Time?

DB: Yes, because any ( inward ) action which is not 'immediate' has already brought in time.

K: Yes, yes...

DB: The ending of time is immediate – right?

K: Immediate, of course. Would that point out the 'wrong' turn that mankind has taken (psychologically-wise )?

DB: By bringing in 'time & thought' to mediate psychologically ?

K: Yes. Would this (direct approach?) 'open the door' to ( the realisation that) time has no place inwardly? Which means sir, that thought has no place except outwardly.

DB: Are we saying that thought is a process which is ( intrinsically?) involved in time ?

K: Wouldn't you say that thought 'is' the process of time? Because thought is the response ( of man's material ) experience & knowledge, ( thoughtfully processed & stored in brain's ?) memory - which is the whole of time.

DB: Thought as we have generally known it is (indeed a process ) in time, although there is a ( holistically friendly?) thinking that would be a response to intelligence.

K: Thought as we know it now is of time.

DB: Yes. Well possibly people may have known it a little differently from time to time. But I would say 'generally speaking'.

K: Generally speaking, as of now, thought is time.

DB: Yes, it is based on the notion of time, time is first.

K: To me, thought itself 'is' time.

DB: Could we say there is the (self-centred ) thinking which has been dominated by time - you know - which we have lived in. But there may be another kind of thinking which is not dominated by time, you know, because you were saying you could still use thought to do (a lot of useful?) things.

K: Of course sir, that's so.

DB: So, we have to be ( more) careful not to say that thought is necessarily dominated by time.

K: To go from here to there, that needs thinking (in terms of?) time & all the rest of it. I am not talking of that kind of ( objective) time.

DB: So let's make it clear that you are talking of ( the psychological usage of?) thought whose content is the order of the ( self-centred ) mind.

K: Yes, yes...

DB: And this kind of thinking is clearly ( a material process involving) time.

K: Yes. Would you say knowledge 'is' time?

DB: Yes, in so far as has been known and may project into the future and so on.

K: Of course, the future, past. Knowledge is ( the result mankind's long evolution in ?) time. Through time it has acquired the knowledge of science, mathematics, or philosophy. I read philosophy, I read this or that. So the whole movement of ( daily living in the field of?) knowledge is involved in time. See what that means ?

DB: Couldn't we say that man has taken a 'wrong turn' and got caught in this kind of ( matter oriented ? ) knowledge, which is dominated by time ?

K: Yes. So he lives in time.

DB: He lives ( inwardly entangled?) in time because he has attempted to produce knowledge of the nature of the mind. Are you saying that there is no knowledge of the 'mind' ?

K: The moment you use the word 'knowledge', it implies time.

DB: And you are saying that the 'Mind' is not of time ?

K: When you end ( the psychological thread of ?) time, in the sense we are talking about, there is no ( residual?) knowledge ( as personal ?) experience.

DB: Well let's get it clear. Are you saying there is no point in (gathering ) psychological experience ?

K: Yes, let's put it that way : the 'psychological' experience is in time.

DB: So, you cannot say, 'As I become skilled in my job, I will become skilled in my mind' ?

K: Right.

DB: In a certain way you do become more skilled in thinking but not become skilled fundamentally.

K: Yes. So, where this is leading to? Suppose the brain realizes that ( all its) knowledge is ( the result of ) time, it, and sees the importance of ( thinking in terms of?) time in the ( technological) direction, and no value of ( using ) time at all inwardly - it is not a contradiction.

DB: I would rather put it that the value (of thinking in terms ) of time is limited to a certain area and beyond that it has no value.

K: Yes. So what is the mind or the brain (doing) without ( its psychological?) knowledge?

DB: When it is left without 'psychological' knowledge to organize itself ?

K: Yes.

DB: (Most people are?) generally thinking that the brain must organize itself by knowing 'all about itself (psychologically).

K: Is then the brain left in a state of inner disorder? Certainly not.

DB: Well, many people faced with this ( new existential option ?) would feel that there would be disorder... What you are saying implies that controlling yourself 'psychologically' has no meaning.

K: So the 'psychological' knowledge of the 'me' is time.

DB: Yes, I understand that the the (psychological) knowledge of 'me' is (generating the sense of self-continuity in?) time.

K: Yes. So then what is ( one's inward ?) existence without this? There is no (more) time, there is no knowledge in the psychological sense, no sense of 'me', then what is ( left in ) there? To come to that point most (thought -addicted ?) people would say, 'What a horror this is ! '

DB: Yes, because it seems there would be nothing left .

K: Nothing (no-thing?)

DB: It is either frightening or... it is all right.

K: But if one has come to that (major existential check-point?) would you say ( this state of inward no-thingness?) is ( including) everything?

DB: Yes, potentially it has everything in it . Any ( spatio-temporal ) 'thing' is limited, while in this ( inward state of ) 'no-thingness ' there are no limits.

K: So, if it is no-thing and so it is everything, this 'everything' is ( a non-manifested life ?) energy.

DB: ( The scientific view is also very similar : ?) The 'ground' of everything is energy.

K: Of course. Everything is energy. But... what is the ( creative ) source of this thing? Or is there no source at all of energy?

DB: Energy just is. Energy is 'what is'. There is no need ( to postulate ) a source. That is one ( scientifically correct?) approach.

K: The ( ancient ) Hindus have this idea too : ''Brahman is everything''. So, we must be very careful here ( as it can easily?) become an idea, a principle and then ( it may become another 'New Age' concept ?) and all that. But the fact of it is, if there is nothing therefore there is everything and all that is cosmic energy. But... what started this energy?

DB: Is that a meaningful ( experiential?) question?

K: What began it ? You see the Christians would say, 'God is the source of all energy.'

DB: Many things like this have been said over the ages. It is a very familiar notion, yes.

K: Then is one just living in emptiness?

DB: Well, this ( experiential?) point is not very clear...

K: Does it then mean there is only the ( physical) organism living, which is a part of ( the Universal Mind ) energy? There is no 'K' at all, except the name and form, otherwise nothing.

DB: Yes, the physical form has no independent existence.

K: That is part of energy.

DB: Yes.

K: Do you realize what we have said sir? Is this the end of our (spiritual) journey? Has mankind journeyed through millennia to come to this: that I am nothing and therefore I am everything and all is energy?

DB: Well, this ending, could also be a new beginning.

K: That is what I wanted you to begin with. That in the 'ending of time ' there is a new beginning. What is that? Does this new Beginning also imply time ?

DB: Not necessarily. I think that we said there could be an ( inwardly creative) movement which had no time.

K: That is why I want to make it clear.

DB: Yes, a (creative) movement has not the order of time. I think we would have to say that now.

K: So we will use the word 'beginning' and deprive it of ( the conotation of) time.

DB: Yes, because ending and beginning are no special time. In fact they can be any time or at no time.

K: No time.

DB: That's right, no time.

K: Then what is going on? Is that Creation?

DB: We'll have to discuss what is meant here by 'Creation'.

K: We will do it tomorrow.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 21 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 May 2018 #4
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


K: As we said yesterday, when one comes to the point where ( thought's self-projected continuity in ?) time ends, is there a beginning of something totally new which is not enmeshed in time? When the ('psychological process of ) time' (currently known as ?) the 'I' or the 'ego', completely comes to an end, what is there that begins ? Could we say (metaphorically?) that, out of the ashes of time, there is a new ( creative ?) growth? And...what is that ?

DB: Well we were saying yesterday that essentially it is the possibility of Creation.

K: Yes, we said Creation. Something new is taking place (inwardly) . I believe the Buddha is supposed to have (called it?) 'Nirvana' ?

DB: The Christian mystics have had something similar...

K: Similar yes. But you see the ( certified ?) Christian mystics are rooted in the whole belief in Jesus, in the Church. They have never gone beyond it.

DB: As far as we know, anyway.

K: Now we have said that the ( psychological) attachment to ( a particular system of) belief, is out, finished. That is all part of the (self-becoming skills of the?) 'I'. So, when there is that absolute cleansing of the mind of its ( 'psychological' ) accumulations of time, which is the essence of the 'me', what takes place?

DB: We have to then be very careful at this point, as we are liable to fall into the ( wishful thinking ?) 'hope' of ending conflict.

K: The moment I introduce the word 'hope' there is a ( subliminal background of ) desire, and therefore it is ( still part of the self-becoming process of ?) time. So, is my mind still seeking, or groping after something intangible that it can capture and hold?

DB: Essentially it seems that you are 'cleaning up' even the movement of desire in its subtle forms.

K: So that too has to be ( wisely?) put away. Then there is only an (universally open?) 'mind'. Right?

DB: Yes, we left this question somewhat unsettled...

K: But we also said all the Universe 'is' Mind.

DB: An 'universal' Mind ?

K: Universal mind.

DB: You see, we'll have to make it more clear because you are saying that nature is the creation of universal mind, but nevertheless nature has its own reality...

K: That is all understood.

DB: But then it ( sounds?) almost as if Nature is the ( manifested ?) thought of this Universal Mind.

K: It is part of it. So, if the 'particular' ( ego-centric?) mind has come to an end, then there is only the Mind, the Universal Mind. What is the next step? We said yesterday, there is a new beginning...

DB: So, what is this 'something new'?

K: Is there something which the mind cannot capture?

DB: Which 'mind', the particular or the universal?

K: The particular has ended.

DB: You are saying the Universal Mind cannot capture it either?

K: That is what I am finding out.

DB: Are you saying there is a Reality beyond the Universal Mind?

K: We said there is the ending (of the self-centred mind?) , then the Cosmic, the universal mind, and behind is there something more?

DB: You mean a (Creative ?) 'Energy' beyond the universal mind?

K: I would say 'yes' because the universal mind is part of that Energy.

DB: That is understandable (logically) . Are you saying that this Energy is not only 'alive', but also intelligent?

K: Wait a minute... If that Energy is intelligent, why has it allowed man to move away in the wrong direction?

DB: I think it was inevitable in the nature of thought. You see if thought is going to develop, that possibility must exist.

K: Is this the 'original freedom' for man? To choose (between right & wrong) ?

DB: Thought has the ( free will?) capacity to make this mistake.

K: But if that Intelligence was operating, why did it allow this mistake?

DB: Are you suggesting that there is an universal order, a law ?

K: All right sir. The Universe functions in Order.

DB: Yes, and it maybe a part of this order of the universe that this particular mechanism can go wrong.

K: Yes. In the universal order there is disorder, where man is concerned.

DB: It is not a disorder at the level of the universe.

K: No, at a much lower level. But why has man lived from the beginning in this disorder?

DB: Because he is still ignorant, he still hasn't seen the point (of the universally integrated order?)

K: But if he is part of the whole and in one tiny corner man has lived in disorder. And this enormous Intelligence has not (intervened?) ...

DB: Yes, well you could say that the possibility of creation is also the possibility of disorder. I mean this (Creative universal) Intelligence would not have turned him into a machine that would be incapable of disorder.

K: So is there something beyond the cosmic order, ( beyond the Universal?) Mind?

DB: You are bringing in the whole ( Creative Intelligence of the?) Universe as well as ( the consciousness of ) mankind. What is the source of this (holistic?) perception?

K: To put it very simply: ( the mentality of ) division has come to an end. Right? The division created by ( the psychological residues of ) time, created by thought, created by this ( culturally standardising?) 'education' and so on, because it has ended, the 'Other' is obvious.

DB: You mean without the division then the Other is there to be perceived ?

K: Not to be perceived, it is (present?) there .

DB: But then... how do you come to be aware that it is there?

K: I don't think 'you' become aware of it.

DB: Then what leads you to say it?

K: Would you say 'it' is. ( Rather than) I perceive it, or, it is perceived.

DB: You could almost say that' It' is saying it.

K: Yes. I am glad you put it like that! are we now?

DB: Well we said that the (Creative Mind of?) Universe is 'alive', as it were, it is ( All-One ) Mind and we are part of it.

K: We can only say we are part of it when there is no 'I'. I would like to push it a little further, which is: is there 'something' beyond all this?

DB: Beyond the energy, you mean?

K: Yes. We said that this ( state of inward) no-thingness is ( containing in it ) everything and so it is an undiluted pure uncorrupted energy - right. Is there something beyond that?

DB: Could we say this 'something beyond' is, as it were, the Ground of the whole. You are saying that this all emerges from an inward Ground?

K: Tentatively: there is something ( Sacred?) in us that is operating, there is something in us much greater beyond that. can we talk about it?

DB: Firstly, what leads you to say this?

K: Simply the fact that there is. We have been fairly logical all along, reasonable and fairly sane. Can we keep that same kind of watchfulness in which there is no illusion for 'that which is beyond emptiness' be communicated. You follow what I mean?

DB: Yes. Well we could come back to your question before: why hasn't it come down?

K: Why hasn't it come down? Has man been ever free from the 'I'?

DB: No, well not generally speaking, no.

K: No. And 'it' demands that the 'I' ends. Can 'that' thing ever be put into words?

DB: Well, once something can be properly perceived then after a while the words come to communicate it.

K: Yes, but can that be perceived (by the physical senses?) and therefore communicable?

DB: This thing beyond, would you say also it is alive?

K: Living, yes. Oh yes.

DB: And 'intelligent' ?

K: I don't want to use these words - living, intelligence, love, compassion, it is all too limited.
Sir, you and I have come up to a certain point and we are saying there is something still more behind all that. But is it something that the mind can capture?

DB: Yes. Are you saying it is not?
K: I don't think it is possible for the mind to look at it even. Sir, as a scientist, you have examined the atom and when you have examined all that, don't you feel there is something much more beyond all that?

DB: You can always feel there is more beyond that but it doesn't tell you what it is.

K: You know there is something much more, but... can your mind 'enter' ( into it experientially?) ? Sir, what is beyond emptiness? Is it silence?
Or is silence part of emptiness?

DB: Yes, I should say that.

K: I should say that too. If it is not silence, could we say it is something absolute?

DB: Well, 'absolute' means something totally independent, that doesn't depend on anything.

K: Yes, sir. You are getting somewhere near it. Would you say everything has a cause but 'That' has no cause at all?

DB: You see this notion is already an old one. This notion has been developed by Aristotle, that this (something) 'absolute' is the cause of itself.

K: Probably it can never be put into words.

DB: I think we have a long history of danger with the 'absolute'. People have put it in words and it has become very oppressive.

K: You see being ignorant of what other people have said - Aristotle and the Buddha and so on - it has an advantage in the sense that the mind is not 'coloured' by other people's ideas, it is not caught in other people's statements.

DB: So, there is something beyond emptiness and silence.

K: Sir, emptiness and silence and ( The Universe's Intelligent) Energy is immense, it is really immeasurable. But there is something 'greater' ...

DB: Well, there is always room for something beyond.

K: There is nothing beyond (That?)

DB: Yes, well this point is not clear...

K: I feel That is the beginning and the ending of everything. Sir, even in ordinary parlance, the ending and the beginning are the same.

DB: : You mean in the sense that you can use the 'beginning' of everything as the 'ending' of everything ?

K: Yes. Wouldn't say that?

DB: Yes, if we take the Ground from which it comes it must be the ( same) Ground to which it falls.

K: That's right. That is the Ground upon which everything exists, space...

DB:... energy ?

K:... energy, emptiness, silence, all that is ' emerging & returning ' on that 'Ground'...?

DB: This Ground has no cause ?

K: No cause, of course. That is the beginning and the ending (of 'All That Is'?)

DB: It is becoming ( a little?) more clear.

K: That's right. Would you say further that there is no beginning and no ending?

DB: Yes. It comes from the Ground, goes to the Ground, but it does not begin or end, right.

K: Yes, there is no beginning and no ending. The implications are enormous. Is death the complete ending of everything?

DB: We began with 'emptiness' is the ending of things, isn't it?

K: Yes, yes. Is that the death of everything the mind has cultivated ? That 'emptiness ' is not the product of the particular mind.

DB: Yes, it is (a quality of?) the universal mind.

K: So, that ( state of inner ) emptiness can only exist when there is 'death' ( ending?) of the particular (mind)

DB: Yes, the 'particular' goes....but then you are saying that in this Ground (of Being) that death goes further?

K: Oh yes, oh yes...

DB: So you are saying the 'ending' or the 'death' of the particular (mind) is ( resulting in a state of inward ) emptiness, which is the universal (Mind) . Now are you going to say that the Universal (Mind) also 'dies'?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am trying to say.

DB: ( Returning ?) into the Ground.

K: Does it convey anything?

DB: So, if the particular and the universal Mind 'die' then that is death, yes?

K: Yes sir. After all, everything in the Universe is ( being born & is eventually ) exploding, dying.

DB: ( So, to recap:) First the 'particular' mind 'dies' into the emptiness and then comes the universal Mind …

K: And that 'dies' too.

DB: ( Returning?) into the ground, right?

K: Yes, sir.

DB: So you could say that this Ground ( of Creation?) is neither born not dies.

K: That's right. Everything is (being born & ) dying, except That. So That has no beginning and no ending.

DB: Yes... but what would it mean to have the ending of the universal Mind ?

K: Why should it have a meaning if it is happening? But...what has That (Ground of All Being) to do with ( the present condition of?) mankind- which is going through a terrible time and all the rest of it, what has that got to do with man?

DB: Well let's call it that man feels he must have some contact with the ultimate Ground in his life otherwise his existence has ( deeper) meaning.

K: But it hasn't. That Ground hasn't any relationship with a man who is doing everything contrary to the Ground.

DB: Yes, that is why life has no ( sacred?) meaning for ( the ordinary) man.

K: So I am asking, as an ordinary man: All this ( holistic?) dialogue sounds excellent, but what has that got to do with me? How will you help me to get over my ( self-centred?) 'ugliness'?

DB: Well, ( one can start ) from showing how the suffering of mankind originates from the 'wrong turning' and that leads inevitably...

K: But ( one may ask?) ''put me on the right path''. And to that you say, please don't ( make efforts to ?) become ( inwardly) anything ( other than what you are ?) .

DB: Right. What is the problem then?

K: He won't even ( stop to?) 'listen' to you.

DB: So, it is necessary for the one who 'sees' this, to find out what is the barrier to listening.

K: Obviously you can see what is the 'barrier'.

DB: What is the barrier?

K: 'I' ( & my self-centred mentality?)

DB: Yes but I meant more deeply …

K: More deeply, all your ( ego-centric ?) thoughts, your deep attachments and all that ( psychological stuff?) is in your way. If you can't leave all this you will have no relationship with That. But he doesn't want to leave all that.

DB: Yes, what he wants is the result of the way he is thinking.

K: What he wants is some comfortable, easy ( & enjoyable ) way of living without any ( psychological) troubles, but....he can't have ( even) that.

DB: Well, only by 'dropping' all this.

K: There must be some ( interactive?) relationship of the Ground with ordinary man otherwise what is the meaning of living?

DB: Well even going back, the ancient religions have said similar things that God is the ( ultimate ) Ground and they say 'seek God', you know.

K: Ah no, this ( Ground of Being) isn't 'God'.

DB: (The traditional image of?) 'God' was perhaps an attempt to put this notion a bit too 'personally' ?

K: Yes. To give them hope, give them faith, make life a little more comfortable to live.

DB: Well are you asking at this point: how is this (new paradigm?) to be conveyed to the ordinary man? Is that your question?

K: Yes more or less. And also it is important that he should 'listen' to this.
I feel, sir, that if one pursues this ( all the way?) we will (could eventually?) have a marvellously ordered world.

DB: Yes. And what will we do in this world?

K: Live (free of the psychological burden of time?) And then if you had no (inner) conflicts, (&) no 'I', there is 'something else' operating.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 21 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 07 May 2018 #5
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about?

B: Is this Ground (of Creation?) as different to ( the fate of?) mankind, as the physical universe appears to be? In the past people were more religious and felt that the Ground of our existence is in something beyond matter - in God, or whatever they wished to call it. And that gave a sense of deep meaning to their whole of our existence, which meanwhile has gone away. That is one of the difficulties of modern life, the sense that it doesn't mean anything.

K: So how does one find out if there is something more than the mere physical (spects of human life?) ? How would one set about it?

B: The first point which perhaps we could clear up is : would this Ground possibly ( care about us?) ? Because if this Ground is indifferent to human beings then it would be the same as scientists' ground in matter. And you see the material universe appears to be totally indifferent to mankind. It its immense vastness it pays no attention, it may produce earthquakes and catastrophes, it does not care whether man survives or does not survive - if you want to put it that way. Now I think that ( many people in the past?) felt that God was a ( Creative) Ground who was not indifferent to mankind. And that is what gave them possibly...

K:... tremendous energy, quite.

B: So, the quastion would be: would this Ground be indifferent to mankind?

K: How would you find out what is the relationship of this Ground to man and man's relationship to It?

B: Yes, that is the question. Does it have any ( existential) significance to man?

K: Suppose one says 'It has', how would one discover, or find out, or touch it, if the Ground exists at all - in scientific terms as well as the 'feeling' of it, the non verbal communication of it?

B: Something that we can actually touch ?

K: Not touch, but ( rather) 'sense' ? Now, this ( inward sensing?) has certain ( very basic?) demands: absolute ( mental) silence, absolute ( inner) 'emptiness', which means no sense of 'egotism' in any form. Are we willing to say, 'Look, complete eradication of the self' (-centredness?) ?

B: In some sense one is 'willing', but this willingness is not subject to your conscious effort or determination.

K: Willingness in the sense of (wanting to) go through that ( inward ?) door' . What are the facets or the qualities or the nature of the 'self'? Attachment , fear, ( selfishness?) - the whole business of it. I ( like to?) think that if ten people 'do it' any scientist will accept it.

B: I see. So, we have to have the thing done together publicly so that it becomes a real 'fact'.

K: A real fact in the sense that people accept ( the feasibility of?) it. Not based on illusion, (wishful thinking ?) and all the rest of that.

B: Yes, well a 'fact' is ( something) that is actually being done.

K: Now, who will do this sir? X' says ' There is ( such an inward?) Ground, and if you do these things It will be there.'

B: Yes, except that some of the things that you say may not entirely in the beginning make sense to the person you talk with. You see ?

K: Yes, quite, because he isn't even willing to ( quiet down inwardly & ) listen.

B: Yes, but also his whole ( cultural) background is against it. You see this (cultural) background gives you the notion of what makes sense and what doesn't. For example, one of ( thought's objectionable?) steps is not to bring in time...

K: Ah, that's much more difficult.

B: Yes but that is fairly crucial.

K: I wouldn't begin with ( the ending of psychological) time, I would begin at the ( ideal?) 'schoolboy level' . Look, 'do these things'.

B: Well let's go over them.

K: Observe that you have a ( compact set of self-protective 'images' and/or ?) 'beliefs', to which you cling ( subliminally?) as it gives you a (comfort zone ?) of ( personal ) security and so on and so on. And that ( mental screen of) 'beliefs' is an illusion, it has no ( objective) reality.

B: But many scientists actually have 'beliefs'. One will believe that this theory is right, and the other believes in that one.

K: (Anyways?) I would start at a 'schoolboy level' ( 'ground zero' level of verbal understanding ???) by saying, ''Look, don't accept ( other people's?) theories, conclusions, don't cling to your prejudices and so on and so on.' That is the starting point.

B: Perhaps we had better say ''Don't 'hold on' to your theories'' , because if you say ''you have no theories'', most people would immediately doubt that.

K: I have no (psychological) theories. Why should I have theories ?

Q: You see, as a scientist I would also say I don't have ( personal beliefs or?) theories. But I don't see that the ( conceptual model on ?) which I construct my scientific theories is also 'theoretical'. I would call it 'fact'.

K: So we have to (take a brief detour & ) discuss what are 'facts'? I would say that the 'fact', is that which is actually happening. Would you agree to that?

B: Yes. But I think that the scientists would say that 'what is happening' is understood through ( working hypotheses & ) theories. You see in science you do not understand what is happening except with the aid of instruments and theories.

K: (Are you talking of?) what is happening 'out there', or of what is happening 'in here' ?

B: All right, but let's go slowly. First, of what is happening out there. The instruments and theories are needed to (understand) the 'fact' about what is out there...

K: ( Inwardly speaking ?) if the ( ongoing) 'fact' is conflict, why should I have a theory about it?

B: I wasn't discussing that. I was discussing the facts about matter, you see, which the scientist is concerned with. He cannot establish that fact without a certain theory (or working hypothesis?) .

K: Perhaps. I wouldn't know (about) that....

B: You see, because the theory organizes the ( perception of the ) fact for him. Without that it would really fall into...

K: I understand that you may have theories about that.

B: Yes. About gravitation, atoms - all those things depend on theories in order to produce the right facts.

K: So you start with a theory ?

B: A mixture of theory and fact. It is always a combination of theory and fact.
Now you may say that ( in the psychological) area there isn't any such combination...

K: That's it. Psychologically I have no theory about myself, about the universe, about my relationship with another. I have no theory. Why should I have? The only ( holistically observable?) fact is that mankind suffers, is confused, in conflict. That is a fact. Why should I have a theory about it?

B: You must go slowly if you are intending to bring in the scientists. The scientists might say yes, psychology is the science with which we try to look inwardly, to investigate the mind. And they say biased people have had theories such as Freud, and Jung and other people - I don't know all of them. But ( for their general benefit?) we have to make it clear why it has no point to make these theories.

K: Because ( sticking to a personal) theory prevents the observation of what is actually taking place.

B: Yes, but ( in the ) outside world it seemed the theory was helping that observation. Why the difference here?

K: Yes. What is the ( dictionary?) meaning of the word, 'theory' ?

B: Theory means a way of looking. And the theory helps you to look at the outside matter.

K: A way of observing. (Why can't) you observe ( directly) what is going on (inwardly?) ?

B: When we look at matter outwardly, to a certain extent we fix the observing.

K: ( Implicitly assuming that?) the 'observer' is different.

B: Not only different but their relationship is fixed, relatively at least, for some time.

K: Yes, that's right. We can move (on?) now.
B: This appears to be necessary ( in order ) to study ( the facts related to ) matter. Matter does not change so fast and it can be separated to some extent, and we can then make it a fairly constant way of looking at changes but not immediately, it can be held constant for a while. And... we call that a 'theory'.

K: As you said, the actual meaning of the word 'theory' , is a way of observing.

B: In Greek it has the same root as 'theatre'...

K: Yes, that's right. It is a way of looking. Now ( inwardly) where do we start? With the 'ordinary way of looking' depending on ( the cultural background of ) each person - the housewife, the husband, the bussiness man ... ?

B: Well the same problem arose in the development of science. We began with what was called 'common sense', the common way of looking. Then scientists discovered that this was inadequate.

K: That is what I am coming to. The common way of looking is full of prejudice.

B: Yes, it is arbitrary, it depends on your (psychological) background.

K: Yes, all that. So ( inwardly-wise?) can one be free of this ( falsely knowledgeable?) background, of my prejudices?

B: Yes.

K: I think one can (do it) .

B: You could say that when it comes to looking inwardly, the danger is that the theory ( you are using or constructing) might be a prejudice.

K: That is what I am saying. That ( it could?) become a prejudice.

B: That would become a prejudice ( especially if we have not yet observed anything directly ) to found it on.

K: So the common ( holistically observable?) fact is that man suffers. Right? That is a ( very?) common factor.

B: I wonder whether scientists would accept that as the most fundamental factor of human consciousness .

K: All right. Conflict?

B: Well they have also argued about it.

K: Take anything : attachment, pleasure, fear...

B: Some people might object saying we should find something more 'positive'.

K: Like what?

B: For example some ( scientifically minded?) people might have said that 'rationality' is a common factor.

K: No, no, no. I won't call 'rationality' a common factor. If they were ('holistically?) rational' they wouldn't be fighting each other.

B: Let's say in the past somebody like Aristotle might have said rationality is the common factor of man. Now your ( conter-) argument is that most men( & women?) are not (100%) 'rational'.

K: No, they are not.

B: Though they might be (very rational occasionally), they are not (at 100%) .

K: That's it.

B: So you are saying that it is not a (100% true ) fact ?

K: That's right.

Q: I think that ( many holistically friendly scientists ?) would say that the common factor for mankind is that they are all striving for ( their personal ?) happiness.

K: No. I won't accept that many human beings are striving for happiness.

Q: That is what I am also saying. But that is the kind of 'common theory' which people believe to be a 'fact'.

K: They are all seeking some kind of ( personal?) gratification ? Would you agree to this 'fact' ?

B: Yes that is ( a very realistic?) one. But the reason I brought up 'rationality' was that the very existence of science is based on the notion that rationality is common to all mankind.

K: I know, but that is why I didn't want you to bring that in : each person is seeking (to fulfil?) his own ( self-centred centric) 'individuality'.

B: But you see, the very possibility of doing science depends on people feeling that the finding of truth is beyond (one's) personal satisfaction because even if your theory is wrong you must accept that it is wrong though it is not gratifying. That is, it can become very disappointing for people but ( finally ) they accept it, and say, 'Well, that is wrong'.

K: What Dr Bohm brought up was that all scientists take for granted human beings are rational.

B: They may agree that they are not very rational in private life, but they say that at least they are capable of being rational when they do scientific work. Otherwise it would be impossible to begin.

K: So outwardly in dealing with matter they are all rational ?

B: At least they try to be and they are to some extent.

K: They try to be. ( But they could ) become irrational in their relationship with other human beings.

B: Yes. They cannot maintain it.

K: So that is a common (psychological) factor - that my ( inner) life has been totally contradictory and so on, which is, 'irrational'. Now can I as a ( holistically friendly?) human being change that?

B: Yes. Let's see if we could proceed from the scientific approach : Why is everybody ( inwardly) 'irrational'?

K: Because we have been conditioned ( to think ?) this way. Our education, our religion, our everything. I think the wrong turn was taken when ( the self-centred ?) thinking became all important.

B: Yes, but what made it 'all important'? Is it because thought became the equivalent of truth ? You see, people took thought to give what is always true – as knowledge is always generalizing - so this gave thought this supreme importance.

K: You are asking, aren't you - why has man given thought such importance?

B: I think he has slipped into it because he did not see what he was doing. You see, in the beginning he did not see the danger.

K: I think that ( man's self-centred thinking?) is fairly easy (to explain holistically ?) . The things that I know are more important than the things I don't know – (from which the subliminal identification with?) the things thought has created, the 'images', all the rest of it.

B: Yes. It slipped into irrationality to say 'All that I know is all that is important.' But why should man have made that mistake?

K: Would you say that that ( man's honest?) mistake is made because he clings to the ( things which were?) 'known' and objects to anything 'unknown'?

Q: But the step before that, isn't that thought has built up the idea that 'I' exist?

K: Ah, that comes a little later...
Anyway, ( back to man's a relationship with the Ground of Being ?) the religious (holistically minded ? ) man, Mr 'X', says you can find it by becoming terribly rational in your life. He says, 'I don't accept I am ( 100%) rational' - the religious man starts. 'I am (...%) irrational, I contradict myself' and so on and so on. So I will have to clear up that first- either step by step ( tackling one irrational aspect at a time?) Or I can do the whole thing at one blow. Right? I accept I am irrational.

B: Well yes. There is a difficulty: if you accept you are irrational, you stop because are you going to begin. Right?

K: If I accept that I am (inwardly?) irrational - completely, I am (ASAP becoming?) rational!

B: Well you will have to make that more clear. You could say that man has been deluding himself into believing that he is already rational and if you don't accept this ( self-) delusion then rationality will be (potentially?) there.

K: The fact is I am (inwardly fragmented & ) 'irrational'. And to find the Ground I must become terribly rational in my ( inner) life. That's all I start with. And irrationality has been brought about by thought creating the idea of 'me' being separate from everybody else. So can I find ( experientially?) the (root) cause of my irrationality and wipe it out? If I can't do that ( for homework?) I cannot reach the Ground which is the most ( holistically?) rational.
So (in a nutshell) Mr 'X' says 'First become rational in your (psychological) life'. Begin (in) here rather than ( out) there. This ( holistic endeavour?) must be done without effort, without desire, without will, without any sense of persuasion, otherwise you are back in the old game.

B: So now you have to make it clear how this really can be done – to look at the source of the whole irrationality.

K: I am showing it to you. I say first recognize, see, observe, be aware that 'you' ( the ego-centric thinker?) are ( holistically speaking ?) totally irrational. First watch it (non-dualistically?) .

B: Shouldn't there be sufficient rationality ( in order ) to understand what you are talking about.

K: Yes, of course.

B: So, I would rather put it that you are ( temporarily) dominated by your irrationality, even though there is enough rationality to discuss the question.

K: A few of us begin to talk because we are willing to listen to each other, we are willing to say 'I'll set aside any conclusion I have', and so on, we are willing to listen to each other.

B: That is part of rationality.

K: Because we are serious enough to find out if the Ground exists. Right? That gives us the 'rationality' to listen to each other.

B: Well listening is essential for rationality.

K: Of course. Are we saying the same thing? Because as the scientist through the investigation of matter hopes to reach the Ground, we, 'X', 'Y', 'Z', say let us become ( inwardly) rational in our life. Which means you and I and 'X', 'Y', 'Z' are willing to listen to each other. That's all. The very 'listening' is the beginning of ( holistic?) rationality. And as a few of us can apparently throw off some part of irrationality and become somewhat rational, 'X', 'Y', 'Z', and those rational people say, 'Now, let's start.' Right? Let us start to find out why man lives this way, both the scientists and me, because he is a man, he is not just a scientist. Now what is the dominant factor in his life, the common, dominant factor in all human beings' lives, apart from 'X', 'Y', 'Z' who are rational, including them, what is the dominant current in his life? Obviously ( the self-centred process of) thought.

B: Well, then we'll have to say what is ( wrong with this kind of?) thought.

K: I think that is fairly simple.

B: Well, what is it?

K: Thought brings about irrationality.

B: Yes, but what do you mean by 'thinking' ?

K: Thinking is the 'movement' ( the pro-active activity ? ) of 'memory' - thememory of our past experiences & knowledge stored up in the brain.

Q: You see Krishnaji at this moment we are also thinking partly but nevertheless it seems that this kind of thinking is not just ( the mechanistic response of?) memory.

K: Oh yes, it is memory, sorry.

B: Is rational thinking only ( the response of) memory?

K: Now wait a minute, careful! If we are completely rational there is total ( holistic clarity of ?) insight. That insight uses thought and then it is rational.

B: Then thought is not only memory?

K: No, no.

B: Since it is being used by ( the holistic intelligence of?) insight.

K: Insight uses thought.

B: Yes, but whatever this ( insightful ?) thinking does is not just due to memory now. ( In a nutshell ) I see it this way : ordinarily thought runs runs like a ( time?) machine on its own, it is not rational.

K: Quite right.

B: But when thought is ( becoming) the instrument of insight then, it would be a difference between...

K: Agreed, agreed. Then thought is not memory.

B: Memory is used, but it is not based on memory.

K: That's right. Then what? 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who are fairly rational, to have (the inner clarity of) insight? Which is total rationality.

B: I should call it the rationality of ( holistic?) perception.

K: Yes, rationality of perception.

B: Then thought becomes the instrument of that, so it has the same order.

K: Now how am I to have that insight? That is the next question, isn't it? What am I to do, or not do, to have this instant insight, immediate (flash of?) insight, which is not of time, which has no cause - right - which is not based on reward or punishment, it is free of all that. Now, how is it possible to have that Insight? Yes it is possible to have that insight if your mind is free from 'time'.

B: Now, let us say we don't know where we are.

K: I know where I am. We will go into it.

Q: Is time the same movement as this ( memory recycled?) thought which we described first?

K: Yes, (inwardly speaking ) time 'is' thought.

B: Yes, well, let's go slowly again on that : (the process of) thinking takes ( a chronologically measurable) time but in addition it projects a kind of imaginary time...

K:... which is the future

B: So, this (psychological) time which is 'imagined', is ( the mental display of) of a real process of thinking. It is taking time physically, to think, but we also have the 'time' we can imagine ( subjectively as ) the whole past and future.

K: Yes, which are facts.

B: But we feel it to be the ground (or the time-line of our existence?) since we feel that 'I' exist in time. Without time there could be no ( temporal?) me.
I must exist in time. Eternally being something or becoming something else.

K: Becoming and being are in the field of time. Now can the mind, which has evolved through time...

Q: What do you mean by 'mind' then?

K: Mind - the brain, my senses, my feeling, all that is the mind.

B: The particular mind, you mean?

K: Particular mind, of course, I am not talking of the mind which is (universal) - I am talking of 'X', 'Y', 'Z',s' mind. The particular mind that has evolved through time.

B: Well even its particularity depends on time.

K: Now we are asking: can that mind be free of time to have an insight which is totally rational ? Now 'X' says how am I to be free of time? I am talking about the 'time' as (my psychological ) becoming. Can my brain investigating to find out if the ground exists, can my brain, can I, can my whole mind be free of time? That is, can my brain not function as it has always in time as thought? Which means can thought come to an end?

B: Well, could you make that ( experiential point?) more clear. We could see the first part of the question ; can my brain not be dominated by the function of thought. And then if you say thought comes to an end...

K: No, can 'time' as ( the continuity thread of self-centred?) thought come to a stop?

B: The psychological ( continuity of thought in ) time comes to a stop.
But we will still have the rational ( continuity of) thought ?

K: Of course. That is understood. We have said that. We are leaving that.

B: We are discussing (thought's projected continuity?) of one's conscious experience (in terms of) becoming and being.

K: Oh, yes, the ( psychologically active ?) memory of one's ( personal) experiences, hurts, attachments, the whole of it. Now can that (continuance?) come to an end? Of course it can. Now this is the point: it can come to an end when the very perception asks, what is hurt or damaged psychologically, the perception of it is the ending of it. Not carrying it over, which is time. The very ending of it is the ending of ( the psychological continuity in) time. I think that is clear. Or... not clear?

B: I think there are some ( missing) steps in that. You say that ( the memory of one's past?) hurt 'is' time - but the immediate experience of it is that the hurt exists on its own.

K: I know, of course, of course. We can go into that : In the process of (self-) becoming, which is time, I have created a (disposale identitary) 'image' about myself and this image is actually 'me'. But ( for obscure psychological reasons?) we have separated the 'me' from ( that ) image which is irrational.

B: Right...

K: So in realizing that the image 'is' me, I have become somewhat rational.

B: Well that ( holistic explanation?) will not be clear because if a person is hurt he actually feels the image 'is' me.

K: All right. But the moment you try to operate on it (upgrade?) you separate yourself.

B: So, that's the point. The first feeling is the image is me, and the second feeling is 'I' draw back from ( my hurt) image in order to operate on it.

K: Which is irrationality.

B: Because that brings in time because I say it will take time to do that.

K: Quite right. So by seeing that I become rational and the ( insightful) action is to be free of it immediately.

B: Yes, well let's go into that. The first thing is that there has been a hurt. That is the 'image' ( which has been) but at first I don't separate it. I feel totally identified with it.

K: I am that.

B: I am that. But then I draw back and say that there must be a ( higher part of) me who can do something.

K: Yes, that can operate on it.

B: Right. Now that takes time.

K: That 'is' time.

B: That is time. Now if I don't do that, you're saying that the hurt cannot exist ?

K: That's right.

B: But it is not very obvious in our daily experience itself that this is so.

K: Let's go slowly into it. ( Suppose that?) I am ( feeling personally insulted or ) 'hurt'. That is a 'fact'. Then there is coming a (subliminal mental) separation ( from this painful 'fact' ) saying 'I will do something about it'.

B: The 'me' who will do something is ( assuming to be) different. And he thinks about what he should do ( in order to avoid similar incidents?) .

K: The 'me' is different because it is always pursuing ( his personal agenda of being & ?) becoming (forever better) , says, 'I must wipe (away) that hurt. or I will be vengeful ' - and all the rest of it. So this movement of ( self-) separation is ( creating its own psychological ? ) time.

B: Yes, we can see that by now, but there is something here that is not obvious (in terms of common experience) : the person is thinking the hurt exists independently of me and I must do something about it. But you are saying that there is no such separation.

K: My ( inward) rationality discovers there is no such separation.

B: There is no ( actual) separation but the ( mental) illusion that there is a separation helps to maintain the hurt.

K: That's right. Because the illusion is 'I am ( working at ) becoming (psychologically better ) '.

B: Yes. I am (now feeling) hurt but ( hopefully?) I will become 'non hurt'. Now that very ( thread of?) thought maintains the hurt.

Q: But isn't there a feeling of ( self-) separation present at the moment I say, 'I am hurt'?

K: That is ( an aspect of our psychological?) irrationality.

Q: That is irrational already?

K: Already.

B: Well it ( might be?) , but the first thing that happens ( when you get insulted or hurt ?) is a kind of ( psychological) shock, a pain or whatever which you 'identify' (or associate?) with that shock and then you try to explain it (to yourself) that immediately implies the separation to do something.

K: Of course. If I am not ( feeling ?) hurt I don't know anything about separation or not separation. But I am ( becoming inwardly?) 'irrational' as long as I maintain ( the memory of) that hurt and (try to) do something about ( compensating?) it, which is to become (ASAP free of its pain ? ) . Then (the psychological) irrationality comes in.

B: Now if you don't maintain it, what happens? Suppose you say, 'OK, I won't go on with this becoming (hurt-free?) .'

K: Ah, that is quite a different matter. Which means I am no longer observing it using ( the mentality of) time as a ( guideline for its inward ) observation.

B: You could say that is not 'your' ( personal) way of looking anymore .

K: Yes. So, ( the inward thinking in terms of becoming better in ?) time is the common factor of man. And we are pointing out ( that inwardly speaking) 'time' is an illusion.

B: The 'psychological' time ?

K: Of course, that is understood.

B: And you are saying that when we no longer approach it through ( the known mentality of?) time then the ( psychological memory of that ?) hurt does not continue?

K: Does not continue, it ends. We were talking about (having a total inward ) insight. This insight is not the product of ( our thinking in terms of) time. So this insight, being free of time, acts upon memory, acts upon thought which is (ASAP getting inwardly ? ) rational. That is, insight makes thought rational. ( Or...the inner clarity of?) insight being free of time, it has no (need to use ?) thought - it acts. Before ( the inward) action was based on thought, now when there is insight there is only ( holistically integrated ?) 'action' . Because insight is rational therefore action is rational. Action becomes irrational when it is acting from (the self-centred ?) thought.
So ( in a nutshell?) insight doesn't use thought.

B: Well, you have to make it more clear because in a certain (practical) area it has to use thought. You see if for example you want to construct something you would use the thought which is available as to how to do it.

K: But that is not ( a total?) insight.

B: Yes, but even so you may have some 'insight' in that area.

K: Partial. As we said the other day when we were discussing that the ( average self-centred minded ?) scientists, painters, architects, doctors, (and/or?) artists, they ( may) have 'partial' insight (in their own areas of competency ?) . ( But here?) we are talking of ( holistically minded?) 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who are seeking the Ground (of Creation ?) , who are becoming (inwardly?) rational and that (total?) insight is action. And because that insight is ( universally?) rational, its action is rational.
Forgive me I am not making myself into an 'example', I am talking in all humility. When the young man ( K) in 1929 dissolved the (TS) Order (of the Star of the East) there was no ( premeditated?) thought. He had an insight (into its falsehood & ?) dissolved it (at once?) . Why do we need thought (for solving psychological issues) ?

B: But then you ( and/or others ?) used some ( practical) thinking in dissolving the Order. Like : when to do it & how to do it.

K: That is merely forother people's convenience, but the (insightful) decision 'acts'.

B: The primary ( stage of the young K's ?) action did not require thought, only ( dealing with the practical consequences ?) which follows.

K: It is like moving a cushion from here to there.

B: Yes, I understand that the primary source of action does not involve thought. But it sort of 'filters through' into...

K: It is like a 'wave'.

Q: Does not all ( young K's ) thinking undergo a transformation in this process? Before it was...

K: Yes, of course, of course. Because insight is without time therefore the brain itself has undergone a change.

B: Yes, now could we talk about what you mean by this ( change?) ?

K: Does it mean, sir, that every human response must be viewed, or must enter into (the inner clarity of?) insight? Suppose that I am 'jealous'. Is there a (total?) insight which will cover the whole field of jealousy, so ( ASAP?) end all that is involved in jealousy ? You follow? The ( holistically-wise?) 'irrational' people would say : (go into it carefully ?) step by step, get rid of jealousy, get rid of attachment, get rid of anger, get rid of this, that and the other. Which is a constant process of ( negative 'self ) becoming'. But the ( inward flash of?) insight, which is totally rational, 'wipes' all that away. Right?

B: Right...

K: Is that a fact? Fact in the sense that Mr 'X', 'Y', 'Z', will never again be jealous, never.

B: We'll have to discuss that ( more rationally?) because it is not clear how you could 'guarantee' that.

K: Oh yes, I will guarantee it!

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 21 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 May 2018 #6
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


J Krishnamurti: I would like to ask a (trans-personal ?) question: If one is really concerned with ( the present psychological condition of ?) humanity, with all the ( sad?) things that are going on, what would be the right action that would move him out of the present direction ? Isn't this ( major existential?) question valid ?

B: Well unless we can see ( what is the nature of ?) this action it won't have much significance. ( Could we start by examining ) what is holding people in their present direction.

K: Is it this tremendously (developped) sense of ego-centric attitude and action, which won't yield to anything? It appears to change, it appears to yield, it appears sometimes to say yes, but ( at ) the centre it remains the same. Perhaps this may not be in the line of our dialogues for the last two or three days, but I thought we might start with that.

B: Well have you some notion of what is 'holding' people? Or of something that would really change them?

K: This has been the question of 'serious' human beings: what is it that is blocking (man's spiritual evolution?) ? Shall we approach it from the outer to the inner and discover from the outer activities, the inner? And then discover that the outer is the inner, the same movement, and then go beyond it to see what is ( blocking man inwardly?) ? Am making myself clear?

B: When you say ( starting from the ) 'outward', what do you mean? Do you mean the present social conditions?

K: The social conditioning, the religious conditioning, ( a culturally standardising?) education, poverty, riches, climate, food, ( what is going on in ) the 'outer' (world) and which may condition the mind in a certain ( materialistic) direction ; but as one examines it a little more the psychological conditioning is also from the outer, somewhat.

B: Well it is true that the way a person thinks is going to be affected by his whole set of relationships. But that doesn't explain why it is so rigid, why does it hold? If it were merely the outward conditioning one would expect it to be more easily changed. For example you could put some other outward condition.

K: They have tried all that.

B: They have tried it, the whole belief of Communism was that with a new society there would be a new man.

K: New society, new man, yes. But there have been none!

B: Well I think that there is something fundamentally in the inward nature of our consciousness which resists change. As you said, the human mind is not ( entirely?) rational.

K: Yes, we said ( that inwardly?) man is ( holistically speaking?) 'irrational'

B: This is perhaps part of the block. If you were completely rational then we would of necessity come to this ( Creative) Ground ( Being?) . Would that be fair?

K: Will I, as a ( holistically minded?) human being, move away from this destructive, self-centred activity? If he will move away through reward then that is just another - with it goes punishment. So discard that. Then what will a human being renounce to it completely?

B: I think it becomes clear that our whole (self-centred ) activity has no (spiritual ) meaning, but the actual perception of this fact is rejected by the (thought addicted?) mind, you see the ( sub-conscious ) mind is resisting it.

K: The mind is resisting to moving away from this ( steady state of inner) conflict.

B: Yes. It is moving away from the fact that this ( ongoing mentality of competition & ) conflict has no ( true ) meaning.

K: They don't see that.

B: Not only that but the mind is set up purposely to avoid seeing ( what is wrong with ) it.

K: You mean to say, sir, that the mind having lived so long in conflict refuses to move away from it?

B: It refuses to give it up, right. Although it is not clear why the mind does not wish to see the full meaninglessness of ( its ongoing state of ) conflict. The ( un-conscious?) mind is continually 'covering it up'.

K: ( Most) philosophers and religious people have emphasized the sense of inner striving - control, make effort. Is that one of the causes why human beings refuse to let go of their way of life?

B: Well they ( were sincerely?) hoping that by fighting or struggling they will achieve a better result. Not to give up what we have ( already acquired?) but to improve it by struggle.

K: You can see man has lived for two million years, what has he achieved (inwardly speaking?) ? More wars, more destruction.

B: What I am trying to say is that there is a tendency to 'resist' seeing this, but to continually go back to the hope that this (inner) struggle will finally produce something better.

K: I am not quite sure if we have cleared this point: that the intellectuals of the world have emphasized this, this factor of struggle.

B: Well I don't know if all of them have did this . Many of them have I suppose

K: Most of them.

B: Karl Marx ?

K: Yes Marx and even Bronowsky who says through acquiring more and more knowledge, more and more struggle. Is it that they have had such extraordinary influence on our minds?

B: Well I think people would do that even without any encouragement from intellectuals. You see this struggle ( to survive?) has been emphasized everywhere.

K: Everywhere. Why?

B: Well in the beginning people thought it would be necessary, they had to struggle against ( an often unfriendly?) nature just in order to live.

K: So ( this survivalistic ) struggling against nature has been transferred to the other? Is it that our minds are (both genetically & culturally?) conditioned, or shaped to function in this pattern?

B: Well that is certainly true but it doesn't explain why it is so extraordinarily hard to change this ( archaic mentality)

K: Because I am used to it. I am in a prison, but I got used to living in it.

B: Yes, but I think that there is a tremendous resistance to moving away from that. I think that ( inwardly) there is something more to this problem. You see, you may expose the irrationality of it but people are not fully aware of ( the psychological dangers of living within) this whole pattern of ( self-centred?) thought. Even after having had it exposed at a certain level it still continues at levels that people are not aware of.

K: Yes, but what would make them aware?

B: Well that is what we have to find (educationally?) . It might be mere habit, or it might be the result of many past conclusions, now operating (subliminally) without people knowing it. There are so many different things that keep people in this pattern, so that even if you might convince somebody that this ( ego-centric) pattern makes no sense, when it comes to the actual affairs of life he has a thousand different ways of proceeding which imply that pattern.

K: Quite. Then what?

B: Well, I think that a person would have to be extremely interested in this to break all that down.

K: Then what will bring a human being to be extremely interested? You see they have offered ( Nirvana or?) Heaven as a reward if you do this. Various religions have done this, but that becomes too childish.

B: Well the (expectation of a reward ) is part of the same pattern. You see people would follow this self-enclosed pattern except when some great thing comes up - in a real emergency, they ( may spontaneously) drop the self-enclosed pattern. Ordinarily the rule is that I follow the (safe time-line of my ) self-enclosed ( mental) pattern except when something really big comes up.

K: A crisis.

B: Or when a big reward is (foreseen?) Something 'special' is needed to get out of it, and then you fall back in when that 'special' thing is passed.

K: Now why?

B: Well that is a ( wide spread collective) pattern of thinking. You see, if everybody were able to work together and suddenly you were able to produce harmony, then everybody would say fine, I would give up my self (interest) , but in the absence of that... I had better hold on to what I have.

K: Hold on to what is 'known'.

Q: But then, you can explain him all this

K: You can explain. As we said there are a dozen explanations, very rational. At the end of it I fall back to this ( safe mental space of the 'known'?)

Q: Well you only fall back to that if you have not really understood it.

K: But...have you 'understood' it when you say that? Why haven't you said 'finished'? You can give me a thousand explanations and I say '' Yes, very but...have 'you' done it ?''

Q: I don't even understand the question. Have I done, what ?

K: Have you 'move away' from this ( egocentric centred mental?) pattern, or 'break through' it ?

Q: No, I give you more than the intellectual explanation. If I observe something to be correct, then the explanation of the observation is more then just an (academic?) 'explanation'.

K: Yes, but I can't observe this clearly.

Q: Well, what is ( your?) problem.

K: So help me to see ( the inward truth of?) it clearly.

Q: For that there must be an interest.

K: I haven't got ( such ) an interest. I am ( getting?) interested ( of an alternative solution?) when there is a tremendous crisis such as a ( major personal crisis or a?) war, I can forget about my self (-interest?) , but the moment the crisis goes away I am back to my ( ego-centric?) pattern. That is happening all the time. So, what will make me relinquish this ( ages old mental) pattern, or 'break through' it?

Q: Isn't it that one must see its falseness ?

K: Show me how to break the pattern. You understand my question?

Q: Well (only when ) you are ( really) interested.

K: All right. So what will make me as a human being inwardly so alert, so aware, so intense that I will 'break through' this thing?

Q: Sir you state the question in ( rethorical?) terms of an 'action', 'breaking through', 'relinquishing'. Isn't it rather, a matter of 'seeing' (what is actually wrong with?) ?

K: Yes help me to 'see', because ( the pattern of living safely within the known) is so deeply engrained in me & is (subliminally?) holding back. Right? I want proof, I want to be convinced. Right?

Q: I may be 'convinced' ( of your rational arguments?) but I don't 'see' (their inward truth?) .

B: Well, I may feel that this is my human nature and that I must fulfil my needs no matter how 'irrational' they are.

K: That is what I am saying.

B: So my rationality eventually cannot prevail because first I must take care of my own needs and only then I can try to be 'rational'.

K: What are my needs then?

B: Some of the needs are real and some are imaginary, but...

K: Yes, that's it. The illusory ( psychological) needs sway the other needs.

B: Then, you have to see that this is an illusion. But if it seems real then I can say, what can I do, because if I am really ( living) here I need all this, and it is foolish to talk of being ( psychologically?) rational if 'I' am going to vanish, break down or something. ( In other words?) you ( K) are telling me that there is another state of being where 'I' am not there. Right? But when I am there this doesn't make any ( rational?) sense!

K: Yes, quite. (How would you educationally ?) help me to get there ?

Q: Well are you willing to really explore into this question?

K: I am willing on one condition : to be sure to find something at the end of it. See how the human mind works ? I will climb the highest mountain if I can get something out of it.

Q: Can the mind see that this ( subliminal expression of self-interest?) is the problem?

B: It sees the problem 'abstractly'.

K: That is it. Now why do I see it 'abstractly'?

B: Well, first of all because it is a lot ( safer &) easier. It is the ( intellectual) function of thought to make 'abstractions' outwardly, then we carry them inwardly.

K: Yes. But isn't there 'something else' that we are missing in this altogether?
Can't we leave that area completely and look at the problem differently ?

Q: The 'problem' being... ?

K: Why do I always live ( safely installed?) in this centre of 'me' ?
If I will discard all ( other people's rational) explanations means I stand completely alone. Does that lead anywhere?

B: Possibly, yes. It seems to me that basically you are saying, leave all this (second-hand) knowledge of mankind behind. Right?

K: That is what I am saying. Leave all that ( fake?) knowledge, discard all that.
Q: But ( even then) you are still left with the same mind.

K: Ah! It is not the same ( quality of?) mind. When I discard all this my mind has changed.

Q: You can't just 'discard' the basic set-up (of the human mind) . I mean this is a (living) organism.

K: Now wait a minute. My ( psycho-somatic) organism has been shaped by the knowledge of ( millenia of self-centred?) experience. Right?

Q: To some extent...

K: Yes. And I have been walking on that path for millennia. But now I say, perhaps I may have to look at this problem totally differently. Which is : not to walk along that path at all. ( Which comes down to?) discarding all ( the dualistic inner ?) knowledge that I have acquired.

B: In the psychological area ?

K: Psychologically, of course.

B: At the core, at the source, knowledge is irrelevant.

K: Yes sir.

B: But ( moving outwardly) it becomes relevant.

K: Of course. That is understood.

Q: But I have one question. The human mind at the very beginning of its evolution didn't have any such knowledge.

K: I don't accept that. The moment it comes into being it is already formed in that. It is already caught in knowledge.

B: Well I think it is implicit in the structure of thought. First of all to have knowledge about the outward, and then to come inward without understanding that it was going to be caught in it. If it is developed enough to think about the outward world , then it would ( naturally?) extend that knowledge outward to the inward into the area of psychological becoming.

K: And at the end of (millenia of accumulating psychological knowledge ?) I say perhaps this is a wrong way of looking at it. So now I have come to a point when I discard all that ( kind of) knowledge. Because it hasn't lead me anywhere - in the sense that I am not free of my ego-centricism.
So when I ( finally?) put those aside, because I see the same pattern being repeated - different colours, different phrases, different pictures, different images - I discard all that totally. ( Metaphorically speaking ?) instead of 'going North', as I have been going for millennia, I have stopped and am 'going East', which means my mind has (qualitatively?) changed .

Q: Has the ( pscho-) structure of the 'me' gone?

K: Obviously.

B: When you said it, that the whole thing cannot work, well I think that is an insight.

K: ( Only if?) I see that it cannot work. Finished with this constant self-(centred) becoming through acquiring more experience, knowledge, patterns, finished. Now, ( supposing that one) has got this ( total) insight and broken away the ( ego-centric mental) pattern. Can he help another human being to come to that ? What will make me absorb so completely what you have said, so that it is in my blood, in my brain, in my way, everything, so that I see this (the inward truth of this) thing ?
What will you 'do' in exercising the passion of this immense insight ? And that passion must, like a river with a great volume of water flowing over the banks, in the same way that passion must move.
Now, I am a human being, ordinary, fairly intelligent,well read & 'experienced' - won't I listen to him?

Q: I think you do listen.

K: Do you listen so completely ( to the inward truth of it ?) that there is no ( mental) resistance ?

K: Oh yes, you can see it, very clearly you can see it.

K: Then you say: 'How am I to see?' - it is the old pattern. Just see! 'X' refuses to enter that pattern.

Q: The pattern of explanation?

K: Knowledge, all that. He says come over, don't go back.

B: You see, ( it is easy for you to say?) ''leave all the knowledge behind'', but ( one's psychological) knowledge takes many subtle forms which you may not ( be aware of or?) 'see'. Right?

K: Of course. You ( Mr X) are full of this ( inner clarity of ? ) 'insight' and you have discarded all knowledge because of that. And I (Mr A?) keep on paddling over the pool of knowledge. And you ( Mr X) say, leave it. The moment you enter into 'explanations' we are back into the ( knowing?) game. You see ( rational?) explanations have been the 'boat' on which to cross to the other shore. But the ( X) man on the other shore says : there is no ( such) boat. ( Just do it:) Cross! Now he is asking me something impossible. Right?

B: If it doesn't happen right away then it is impossible.

K: He is asking me something 'impossible' for me to do. I ( the holistically minded Mr 'A') am meeting (the enlightened Mr ? ) 'X' who is immovable - he absolutely refuses to enter into the game of words. So, what am I, who have played (intellectual ) games with words, what am I to do when I have met something immovable ? Is that the problem, that human beings have never met something irrevocable, something absolutely immovable ? So, either I say, well I can't do anything about it & walk away, or it is something that I ( feel deeply that it) must be investigated. Which is it?

Q: I want to investigate.

K: I am movable, as a human being, but 'X' is immovable. The contact with it does something, it must. It is not something 'occult' , but it is something ( holistically?) simple, isn't it?

Q: Sir, it functions like a ( spiritual) magnet, which is why everyone is ( gathered) in this room. But it doesn't 'break' something.

K: No, because you haven't let go the ( self-centred mental) pattern. It is not 'X's' fault. Mr Moody, ( when you ) meet 'X', what happens?

Q: As you said, there's an effort to understand ( what he's talking about?)

K: Ah, there you are, lost (in thought's becoming in time?) . You are back into the old pattern .

B: Well can't you say that if 'X' communicates the absolute necessity of not going on with the old pattern because you see it absolutely cannot work.
And that ( inner realisation ) is immovable - is that what you mean?

K: Yes sir. I am movable: 'X' is immovable.

B: Well, in fact, what is (at work ) behind 'X' is immovable. Wouldn't you say that ?

K: There is a ( potential?) danger in this too because many people have said when you go to the guru he 'gives' and if you are inwarly silent you will ' receive'.

B: Could we say that when one sees that this whole process of time and knowledge won't work, then it stops – which leaves one more sensitive (inwardly?) ?

K: Yes sir. The mind has become 'sharp'. I think psychological knowledge has made us ( inwardly unperceptive & ) dull.

B: Yes, it has kept the brain ( busy by?) moving in an unnecessary way. You could say in some sense that knowledge needn't make you dull, I suppose, but if it starts from the clarity of where we don't have this knowledge at the core...

K: Yes sir. You remember we said too in our discussion, the Ground ( of one's inner being?) is not in knowledge.

B: Well, I think that the main point, which we could communicate here is to see that ( inwardly wise ?) knowledge in all its forms, subtle and obvious, cannot solve the psychological problem, it can only make it worse. But then there is another ( intelligent psychical ?) 'energy' which is involved.

K: I think we had better stop, don't you?

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 21 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 May 2018 #7
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


K: Could we approach this question (of contacting the Ground of Creation?) from the ( experiential?) point of view: Is it a philosophic concept? Or something that is 'absolute' in the sense that there is nothing beyond it?

B: How can you tell that there is nothing beyond it?

K: I want to see whether we can have an insight into 'that' ( by starting) from a concept. Because after all, the whole ( culture of the ) Western world, and perhaps also the Eastern world, is based on concepts. So, do we approach it from that point of view, or as an (authentic) 'philosophic' investigation - 'philosophic' in the sense love of wisdom, love of truth, love of investigation, the process of the mind.

B: Well, ( academically wise ? ) philosophy is taught through concepts ; but whether all the philosophers really wanted to base everything on concepts is another question.

K: I didn't say 'all', sir.

B: Most of them ?

K: Most of them!

B: And certainly it is very hard to teach it except through (highly intellectual?) concepts.

K: So, do we ( attempt to?) investigate the Ground ( of Creation?) from a mind that is disciplined in knowledge?

B: Well, fundamentally we can say that the Ground is 'unknown'. Therefore we can't begin with knowledge. Many years ago we had (such a philosophical?) discussion in London and you suggested to start with the unknown ( free from the thought's anchorages in the 'known'?)

K: Yes, yes. Say for instance ( that Mr) 'X' says there is such a Ground. And when we ask ''what is the Ground ?'', prove it, show it, is it with a mind that is seeking (to accumulate deeper & wider knowledge ?) , or ( with a mind) that has this passion for truth, the love of truth?

B: I think that in the (average ?) mind there is the demand for certainty which says 'show it to me ' , I want to be sure. So therefore there is no (actual possibility of experiential ) enquiry, no?

K: How can my mind which has evolved through knowledge, which has been highly disciplined in knowledge, even touch That which is not knowledge, that is not put together by thought ?

B: Yes, as soon as you say, 'prove it', you want to turn it into ( standardised) knowledge.

K: That's it.

B: An absolutely certain knowledge is what you want, so that there can be no doubt. And yet, on the other side (of the spectrum?) there is also the danger of self-deception and delusion.

K: Of course. We have been through all that (very slippery terrain?) very carefully and we said the Ground cannot be 'touched' (experientially?) as long as there is any form of illusion, which is the projection of desire, pleasure, fear and all that.

B: I merely meant to say that the person who says 'prove it' ( scientifically?) , is also trying to protect ( the purity of?) it against those illusions. But it is a vain hope.

K: So how do I, as (a holistically minded Mr ) 'X', perceive 'That' ( Nameless?) thing? . Is it a (metaphysical) idea to be investigated? Or is it something that cannot be investigated?

B: Right...

K: Because my (highly knowledgeably?) mind is trained to function (prioritarily) in the ( fail-safe ?) area (of the known ?) . And you come along and tell me that this Ground is not an idea, it is not something that can be imagined or perceived by thought.

B: Or 'understood' by ( the mechanical process of?) thought ?

K: Yes. Then what am I to do?

B: You are even adding more ( experiential difficulties ? ) by saying that it cannot be experienced, it cannot be perceived, or understood through thought.

K: Yes.... So I have only this mind that has been conditioned by knowledge. How am I, as a (holistically minded Mr ) 'X', to move away from all that (widely spread mentality ) and 'feel' this thing, touch it, or comprehend it?
You ( Mr K?) tell me that the words will not convey that. You tell me ''you must have a mind that is free from all knowledge, except ( the practical) technological (aspects) ''. You are asking me an 'impossible' thing, aren't you? And even if I say, ''I will make an (intelligent?) effort'', then that also is born out of the self-centred desire. So, (Then, what am I to do?) is a very serious question that (some holistically minded ?) people may ask.

B: At least implicitly. They may not say it.

K: Yes. So you ( who metaphorically speaking are?) on the other bank of the (River of Time?) - as it were - tell me that there is no ( available?) 'boat' to cross and that you can't swim across. In fact you can't do anything. (In other words ) you are you are asking the particular mind to eschew all knowledge. Has this been said before ?

B: The Christians tell you to give your faith to God, or to give ( yourself) over to Jesus and let him...

K: Yes, they have said 'only' through Jesus.

B: Well he is ( supposed to be ) the mediator between us and God.

K: Yes. But for instance, ( in the Hindu spiritual tradition) Vedanta means the end of ( the Vedas' knowledge ) - The ending of knowledge.

B: It could ( also) mean that I suppose. I don't know Sanskrit that well.
Veda by itself means ( sacred?) knowledge.

K: And (Vedanta) means the end of that. When you talk to an Eastern mind - I am talking of the minds who have studied ( & meditated on this subject?) they acknowledge that in one's (spiritual) life that a time must come when knowledge must end. Vedanta is the whole way of looking. They would immediately understand that the mind must be free of ( all its psychological ?) knowledge. But it ( has become?) only a conceptual, a theoretical understanding. But as a ( highly knowledgeable?) Westerner, it means absolutely nothing to me.

B: Well, in the beginning there was also Western tradition which is similar but not as common. Like in the Middle Ages there was a book written called 'The Cloud of Unknowing', which is on that line, but that is not the main line of Western thought.

K: So how shall I approach ( knowledge-free ?) the coming upon this Ground (of All That Is?) which ( potentially could ?) give an immense significance to (one's inner?) life.

B: Yes, well people have used that (transcendental?) notion of 'God' to give significance to life.

K: That ( could be?) merely an idea.

B: Yes but the idea contains something similar to the Eastern concept that God is beyond knowing. Most people accept it that way.

K: Yes. But you tell me this ( Ground of All Creation?) is not created by thought. So you cannot under any circumstances come upon it through any form of manipulation of thought.

B: Yes, I understand what you are saying. But I am trying to say that there is this ( potential) danger, of self-delusion, in the sense that western (religiously minded ?) people would say, 'Yes, that is quite true, it is through a 'direct experience of Jesus' ( or through?) the Grace of God'. Something beyond thought, you see.

K: As a fairly thoughtful man, I reject all that.

B: Yes, why do you reject it?

K: First of all, because it has become common (parlance) in the sense that everybody says that. And also there may be in it a great ( potential) sense of illusion created by desire, hope, fear.

B: Yes. Some people do seem to find this meaningful, it may be an illusion but...

K: But if they had never heard of ( who was ) Jesus, they wouldn't (recognise this experience as related to?) Jesus.

B: That seems to be the weak point that the particular form of Jesus must be due to their having heard that idea before …

K: Of course, when you are daily pounded with, ''Jesus is your Saviour'' - I mean, naturally.

B: I mean it would be interesting if someone who had never heard of Jesus would have this experience. That would be some sort of proof that there was more to it.

Q: But wouldn't you agree that there are some more serious people in most religions who would say that God, or the 'absolute', or the Ground is something that cannot be experienced through thinking, and even go so far as to say it cannot be experienced at all ?

K: Oh yes, 'X' says it cannot be experienced.

Q: I think the essence of some religions would say that too.

K: All right, I don't know. Here is a person who says there is such a thing. And if I listen to him, and not only does he convey it by his ( very charismatic?) presence, he conveys it also through the (spoken) word. ( And he tells me, be careful, the word is not the (real) thing !) . But he uses the words to convey something which I vaguely capture, that there is this something so immense that my ( understanding through ) thought cannot capture it.
And I say, how is my brain to free itself from all that?

Q: Could it free itself by understanding its own limitation?

K: Understanding what?

Q: That thought itself could understand that whatever it is doing it is bound by some natural ( mechanistic?) limitation.

K: So you are telling me, thought is limited. Show it to me. I can see the beauty of the earth, I see the beauty of a building, of a person, of nature, I see all that; but when you say '(my) thought is ( intrinsically) limited' I don't feel ( the inward truth of) it. It is just a lot of words.

Q: Are saying that thought sees it only intellectually ?

K: Intellectually I understand it. But I have no feeling for it. You understand? There is no perfume ( of Truth?) in it.
How will you aid me to have this ( holistic ?) feeling that thought is such a small affair, so that ( the actual truth of?) it is in my blood - you understand? When once it is in my blood I have got it - you don't have to 'explain' it (verbally) .

Q: But isn't there the possibility to look directly at what (my particular) mind can do ?

K: That is all I have : thinking, feeling, hating, loving - you know all that. The activity of the mind. I know that very well, you don't have to tell me.

Q: I would say you don't 'know' it (in real time?) , you only (assume?) that you know it.

K: How do I as a (holistically minded?) human being have this extraordinary feeling ( of seeing the whole truth?) about it?

Q: What does this 'feeling' spring from?

K: I want to have this passion that will 'explode me out' of this little enclosure, the ( pro-active psychological ?) wall which 'is' myself. And I have lived with this thing for millions of years. And I have lived trying to get out of it by studying, by (meditating?) , but I am still ( subliminally?) anchored there. You talk ( very poetically ?) about the Ground because you see something that is breathtaking, so alive, so extraordinary and I am (still) anchored in here. You, who have 'seen' the Ground must do something that will explode, break up this thing completely.

Q: I must do something, or you must do something?

K: Help me! Not by prayer and all that nonsense. You understand what I am trying to say? I have fasted, I have meditated, I have given up, I have taken a vow of this and that, I have done all those things. Because I have had a million years of ( earth bound?) life. And at the end of the million years I am still where I was, at the beginning - which is a great ( awakening ?) discovery for me. You understand? I thought I had moved from the beginning, at the beginning by going through all this, but I suddenly discover I am back at the same point where I started; I have more experience, I have seen the world, I have painted, I have played music, I have danced. But have come back to the original starting point.

Q: Which is 'me' ( my self-centred consciousness ?) ?

K: Yes, 'me'. Now, what is the human mind's relationship to the Ground? If it could establish a relationship with That, my mind has become (an integrated part of?) That.

Q: But that requires a (major ) insight.

K: I am just asking - is there an (interacting) relationship between That and the human mind? In asking that question I am also aware of the ( psychological) dangers of such a question.

B: Yes, that you may create a delusion of the same kind that we have already gone through.

Q: Are you suggesting that this (interacting) relationship cannot be made by you, but it must come from That ?

K: So, if the human mind has no relationship to It, and that there is only a one way passage, from That to me...

B: Well that's like the Grace of God then...

K: I am rejecting the (traditional) explanation - the Grace of God.

B: So, you are not ( asserting ) that the relationship (with the Ground) is one way, nor are you saying it is not one way.

K: May be, I don't know.

B: You are not asserting anything.

K: I am not asserting anything. All that I 'want' is this ( self-identified) 'centre' to be blasted. You understand? For the 'centre' not to exist. Because I see that ( living inwardly tethered to this) centre is the cause of all the mischief, all the neurotic conclusions, all the illusions, all the endeavour, all the effort, all the misery, everything is from that core. After a million years, I haven't been able to get rid of it, it hasn't gone. So is there a relationship at all? What is the relationship between Goodness and badness ? There is no relationship.

B: It depends upon what you mean by 'relationship'....

K: Contact, touch, communication, being in the same room.

B: Coming from the same root ?

K: Yes, same root. Between 'that ( inward spirit of Goodness?) which is whole' , and 'the ( self-isolated consciousness) which is not whole' is there an (interacting?) relationship between these two? Obviously not.

B: Yes, well if you are saying that in some sense the 'centre' is an illusion - an illusion cannot be related to that which is true because the content of the illusion has no relation to what is true.

K: You see that is a great (inward?) discovery : this petty little thing wants to have a relationship with that ( creative?) Immensity. It cannot.

Q: But I don't see that this centre is not 'actual'. And when you say (metaphorically that?) ''this centre (of self-interest?) must explode'' that is becoming part of my (psychological?) difficulty.

K: Wait. You can call it an illusion, a fixation ( a self-focussing?) - or whatever you like. It is there. And this ( ego-centric?) mind wants to have that relationship with That . And That says, 'Sorry, you can't have relationship with me.' That's all! I have a million years of ( survival oriented ?) experience and it has given me a certain ( mental ?) capacity. And I realize at the end of it all there is no relationship between me and Truth. Right? And that's ( spiritually wise ?) a tremendous shock to me because all my millions of years of experience says go after that, seek it, search for it, pray for it, sacrifice. I have done all that. And suddenly (Mr) 'X' says, 'you' cannot have relationship with That . So what has happened to the ( self-centred?) mind that has lived this way, done everything that man has done in search for that, and That says, one morning, 'You have no ( interacting?) relationship with me'. Isn't it a (psychological) shock to discover that your brain, and your mind, your knowledge is valueless? All your self-examinations, all the things (& stuff?) that one has gathered through centuries, absolutely worthless ( spiritually-wise?) . Is this ( lack of relationship with the Ground of one's Being?) seen as an idea? Or as an actuality - in the sense that I suddenly realize the futility of all that I have done ( spiritually-wise) .
So ( for meditation homework?) I must be very careful to see that it is not (conveniently translated into?) a concept, but receive the full blow of it!
( To recap:) It has given me a tremendous shock to discover the ( inward) truth that all the churches, all the prayers, all the books have absolutely no ( deeper spiritual?) meaning - except ( in helping to) build a better ( & more humane?) society and so on .

B: If we could manage to bring this point to order then it would have a great meaning to build a 'good' society.

K: From there I can start creating a ( truly humane?) society.

Q: You see, Krishnaji, what I don't understand is that there are many people who in their life have never pursued what you call the Ground.

K: The are not interested.

Q: Well, I an not so sure. How would you approach such a person?

K: I am not interested in approaching any ( individual?) person. All the good works I have done, the Ground says are valueless. But if I can drop all that, my mind is (becoming one with?) the Ground. From there I can create a new ( kind of education & a new?) society.

( Silent pause ...)

K: So sir, to come back to earth: why has man done this?

B: Done what?

K: Accumulated ( tons of psychological?) knowledge. Apart from the ( objective ) necessity of ( practical) knowledge in certain areas (of human existence?) , why has this burden of knowledge continued for so long?

B: Because in one sense man has been trying to produce a 'solid ground' ( for his temporal existence?) through knowledge. ( Living within the field of) knowledge, he has tried to create a 'ground'.

K: Which means that the 'saints', the 'philosophers', have educated me (to function proficiently in the field of) knowledge and through knowledge to find the Ground ?

Q: You see , during all these periods where mankind was caught in the craziest superstitions, mankind's (rational?) knowledge was able to do away with some extent.

K: ( But also, my inward addiction to ?) knowledge has only crippled me from seeing Truth. Sorry, but I'll stick to that. It hasn't cleared me of my illusions. Knowledge ( inwardly wise?) may be illusory itself.

Q: That may be but it has cleared up some illusions.

K: I want to clear up all the ( psychological) illusions that I hold - not some. I have got rid of my illusion about (the virtues of) nationalism; I have got rid of my illusion about about Christ, about this, about that. At the end of it I realize my ( self-centred) mind ( itself) is (an) illusion. You see to me, who has lived for a thousands years (safely installed within the field of knowledge?) , to find it is absolutely worthless, it is something enormous...

B: Now, when you say (metaphorically that?) you have lived for a thousand years or a million years, does that means in a sense that all the ( past) experience of mankind is...

K:... is me.

B:... is (subliminally enfolded in?) me. Do you actually feel that?

K: I do.

B: And how do you 'feel' it?

K: It is not sympathy, or empathy, or a thing that I have desired ( to achieve?) ; 'I am all ( the consciousness of?) humanity' is an absolute, irrevocable fact to me.

B: Yes, well perhaps if we could 'share that feeling'. You see that seems to be one of the ( experiential) steps that is missing, because you have repeated this ( holistic statement?) quite often as an important part of the whole thing.

K: Which means sir, that when you ( selflessly?) love somebody there is no (self-conscious?) 'me' , it is (selfless?) Love. In the same way, when I say ''I am humanity'', it is part of me.

B: Well let's say it is a ( totally responsible?) feeling that I have gone through all this ( Long March Forward of Human Consciousness?) during all those millions of years.

K: ( Countless generations of ?) human beings have been through all that.

B: So, if others have gone through it then ( holistically speaking) I also have gone through it ?

K: Of course. But one is not ( always?) aware of it.

B: No, we separate.

K: But if we admit that our brains are not 'my particular brain' but the human brain that has evolved through millennia. ..

B: Well let me say why this ( holistic perception?) doesn't communicate so easily: everybody feels that the content of his brain is in some way 'individual', that he hasn't gone through all that. Let's say that somebody else, thousands of years ago went through science or philosophy. Now how does that affect me? That is what is not clear.

K: Because I am caught in this self-centred narrow little cell, which refuses to look (see?) beyond (its own self-interest?) . But you come along and tell me, as a ( holistically minded?) scientist, as a 'religious' man, that my brain 'is' (actually) the brain of mankind.

B: Yes and all my knowledge is the knowledge of mankind. So that in some way we have all that knowledge... even if not in detail, of course.

K: So I come to that ( realisation) only when I have given up the ordinary (psychologically sticky ?) things like nationalism (& so on...)

B: Yes we have given up the divisions and then we can see that our experience is that of all mankind.

K: ( Outwardly speaking?) is so obvious sir. You go to the most primitive villager in India and he will tell you all about his problems, his problems, his wife, children, poverty. It is exactly the same thing (all over the world ) only here he is wearing different trousers, kimono, or whatever it is. For 'X' it is an indisputable ( psychological) fact, it is 'so' (true?) . And he says, all right, at the end of all this, a million years, I suddenly discover that all that I have done ( psychologically-wise?) is useless. They are ashes. You see sir that doesn't ( have to?) depress one. That is the beauty of it. I think it is like the Phoenix (Bird )

B: Rising from its own ashes ?

K: Born out of ( its own?) ashes.

B: Well in a way it is ( a genuine sense of) inward freedom to be free of all that.

K: Something totally new is born (inwardly?) .

B: And you before is that the mind is ( one with?) the ground, it is the unknown.

K: The mind? Yes. But not this (self-centred) mind. If I have been through all that and come to the ending of all that, it is a New Mind.

B: That's clear. The mind is its content, and the content is knowledge and without that (time binding) knowledge it is a new mind.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 21 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 May 2018 #8
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


Dr Bohm: In our discussing yesterday it was agreed that there must be a change but I wonder if we could discuss how does a "total insight" change the ( psychological patterns of the ) brain?

K: The brain that has been set ( to function) in the (self-centred) pattern for millennia. And you ( Mr X) tell me tell me, 'insight' changes the ( functioning of the?) brain cells.

B: You seem to imply that this ( mutational) insight is ( coming) somehow from beyond the brain ?

K: All that you have said to me is that ( a total) insight brings about a mutation in the brain. This 'insight' may be the real ( holistic) activity of the brain. But we must be very clear that it is not the result of progressive knowledge, it is not come by through any exercise of will (power) .

B: Yes. I think people can generally see that insight comes in a flash, it does not come through will. Those who have considered it at all can see that. Also that probably chemistry won't bring it about, ( by psychedelic ? ) drugs, you know.

K: I think most ( holistically minded?) people see that. So, how am I to have this insight ?

B: In some ( obscure?) ways this (whole issue of a 'psychological' mutation?) may disturb people since it is not very clear what is going to make this change in the brain, is it ( triggered by?) something more than the (physical) brain, or is it something deeper in the brain? It is not quite clear logically.

Q: Are you implying that insight is a (natural?) function of the brain which acts without reference to its ( temporal) content?

K: its past (psychological) content.

B: That is a very good question, as far as I see it. Is there a function in the brain which is independent of the content, which is not conditioned by the content, but it might still be a physical function?

K: Sir, apart from the (temporal ?) consciousness with its content, is there in the human brain an activity which is not touched by this consciousness?

B: By its past content, yes.

K: All right. A part of the human brain which is not touched by (its memory) content.

B: All right then. That suggests that it may be possible for the brain to change. Either the brain is entirely controlled by its ( past memory) content, or in some way it is not so ( completely?) conditioned, it has some (extra degrees of freedom?) .

K: You see the ( potential ?) danger of admitting to myself, and so of trying to tell somebody else, that there is a part of the brain...

B: An activity ?

K:... all right, an activity of the brain which is not touched by its (temporal) content.

B: It is a 'possible' activity that has not yet been awakened ?

K: It has not been awakened. That's right.

Q: So, what is the 'danger'?

K: The ( psychological) danger is in assuming that there is ( a spark of?) God in me, that there is something beyond the ( brain's time-bound) content and therefore 'that' (newly awakened capacity ?) will operate in spite of this.

B: Those ( mind) tricks we have discussed before - the assumption of a God within and the ( subsequent) imagination of this 'God within', therefore the apparent proof - there is a danger ( of self-delusion) obviously.

K: The danger is that (enlightened people in the past ) previous to 'X' said that this ('other) thing' exists ; so, if the un-conscious mind is capturing this (possibility of self-delusion) and so it sees the danger instantly.

Q: It sees its own trap ?

K: Yes, it sees the trap which it has created. So it avoids ( falling again in?) that trap. To avoid a trap (of self-delusion?) is ( a sign of mental?) sanity. ( So, if this fine point was seen, one can ask ?) Is there an activity which is totally independent of the content? And is that activity part of the ( material ?) brain?

B: If it is a natural activity of the brain, then it could ( get awakened) somehow and that activity could change the brain, it could change.

K: But would you say it is still material?

B: Yes. There could be different levels of matter, you see.

K: That is what I am trying to get at.

B: But you see, if you think that way, there could be a deeper level of (more refined ) matter which is not conditioned by the content.

K: So it would still be matter, refined or super or whatever, it would still be ( part of the?) the content.

B: You see you have to go slowly because do you say that ( all the brain's) content is matter ?

K: Yes.

B: Inherently, but still, this point has to be cleared up because it is not obvious.

K: Let's discuss it. Thought is matter.

B: Well ( more exactly?) thought is part of the material process of the ( material) brain . Thought's (mental?) waves are not actually matter, they are just a process in matter. Is that clear what I mean? Is thought matter, or is it a process in matter?

Q: May one ask, is electricity considered 'matter'?

B: In so far as there are electron particles it is matter but it is also a (wave) movement of that, which is a process.

Q: So it is two things ?

B: Well the electrical action is like the waves but the ( material support of ) electricity consists of particles.

K: Sir, what is the question you have just asked me?

B: Is thought ( in itself ) a material substance, or is it a process in some other material substance, like the brain?

K: It is a material process in the brain.

B: Yes, scientists would generally agree with that. But if you say 'thought is was matter' they would become very puzzled.

K: Thought is a material process in the brain. That would be right. Now, can this material process ever be independent?

B: Independent of what?

K: Our question was : can that material process in the brain bring about a change in itself ? But... if that material in itself can change it would still be a material process.

B: Well thought is always going to be apparently a material process.

K: And therefore it is not ( the source of any authentic ?) insight.
B: You are saying that 'insight' is not a material process?

K: Go slowly : Thought is a material process in the brain and any other movements springing from that material process is still material. Now, is there another ( holistically perceptive?) activity which is not a material process?

B: Well, people have asked the same question for ages. Is there spirit beyond matter, right?

K: Is there some other ( psychical?) activity which is not related to the material process ?

B: Well if ( the) insight is dependent on the material process ( which is going on in the brain?) it would be just another material process.

K: So, it cannot depend on it. Insight is not dependent on the material process, which is thought.

B: But the other way round, he material process may may be changed by insight ?

K: Ah, wait, wait. That is not dependent on this (material process of thought)

B: Now you see, generally speaking ( the science) people would not see how something non-material could affect something material, you see.

K: Yes, quite.

B: It might be easily agreed that something non-material is not affected by matter but then how does the operation work the other way?

K: ( Within) the brain, thought is a material ( mental?) process, with its content. Now is 'insight' part of that?

B: Well it takes place independently of that, it can't be part of it. But it can still act ( bringing its holistic clarity?) within the material process, that's the crucial thing.

K: Yes, it is independent of the material process but yet it can act upon the material process.

B: Well let's discuss that a little. We generally find (in science) that if B acts on A then A can act on B. Even in human relations if I can act on you, you can act on me – right?

K: Yes. But if I don't respond to your action, I am (psychologically speaking ?) independent of it.

Q: Could one envisage may be that ( a holistic?) 'insight' is a much larger movement than the material process of the brain, and therefore that much larger movement can act on the smaller movement but the smaller movement cannot act on the larger movement.

K: Yes, we are saying the same thing.

B: If you drop a rock in the ocean, you know the ocean absorbs it with no significant...

K: Quite, but be careful. Don't enter into that ( materialistic similarity?) too quickly. This is a very important thing to discover (inwardly) . Love is independent of hate. ( In the human consciousness ?) where there is ( personal resentment or?) hate the 'other' cannot exist. Right?

B: Yes, they can't stand side by side acting on each other.

K: No, they can't. So when you scientists say A must have a relation to B, B must have a relation to A, we are contradicting that. ( In the psychological realm?) Love is...

B: Well not all scientists have said that - Aristotle talked about the 'unmoved mover' (or in plain words?) he says that God is never acted upon by matter but he acts. So that is a very old idea. Since that time ( the mainstream) science has thrown out ( the metaphysics of) Aristotle and said that is impossible.

K: If I see clearly ( inwardly ) that Love is independent of hate, ( it follows logically that ) where hate is (present) the 'other' cannot be. I want to be quite clear on this ( important psychological?) point. 'Violence' and ' being without violence' are two entirely different factors. One cannot act upon the other.

B: Well, you could say that the existence of the one is the non-existence of the other, and there is no way to act together.

K: Absolutely. I'll stick to that. So ( in a consciousness?) where there is this material ( thought) process in action, the 'Other' cannot exist.

B: What is meant by the 'Other' ? Insight ?

K: Yes.

Q: Well, then this (total psychological incompatibility?) denies what you were saying before that there is an action from insight on the material process.

K: Now steady, ( in a consciousness?) where there is violence the 'other' is not. Right? Non-violence...

B: ( Inner ) Peace ? Or ( holistic?) order, harmony, right?

K: Where there is violence, peace cannot exist. But where there is ( Inner) peace, is there violence? No, of course not.

Q: Sir you have also said many times that Intelligence can act upon thought, or that an insight can affect thought, but it doesn't work the other way round.

K: ( The holistically friendly ?) Intelligence can wipe away ( the inner darkness of?) ignorance, but (fortunately enough?) ignorance cannot touch intelligence. ( But the other way round?) can ( the Intelligence of) love wipe away ( the psychological residues of?) hate?

B: Well it doesn't seem to be possible because ( the energy of?) 'hate' seems to be an independent force.

K: Of course it is.

Q: Aren't you then saying that there is good and there is evil, and evil is a completely separate independent force on its own?

B: Well, it is independent of good.

Q: Take light and darkness, light appears and the darkness is gone.

B: Well when one is the other can't be, you see. That is all that we are saying so far.

Q: Do you mean in a single human brain?

B: In any particular brain, yes, or in a group ; whenever there is ( a thread of?) hate going on in a group (consciousness?) there is no (place for harmony &) love.

K: Sir, it just came to my mind. ( Selfless?) love has no ( material?) cause. Right? Hate has a cause. ( Similarly?) Insight has no cause, while the material ( self-centred) process of thought, has a cause. Now, that which has no cause, can it act ever upon that which has a cause?

B: Well it might. We see that the insight might act to change the (self-centred mentality ? ) that has a cause. However, it won't happen the other way round.

K: Yes, that's right. And apparently the action of ( a total inner ?) insight has an extraordinary effect on the material process.

B: Yes, it may 'wipe out' some causes ( of personal & collective resentment ?) for example.

K: As (the inner clarity of?) insight is causeless, which is not born out of (any material) cause, that insight has a definite effect on that which has cause.

B: Yes, well it doesn't follow (logically) but it is (nevertheless?) possible.

K : Yes, as long as we are clear on the word 'possible'. Love being without cause, and hate has a cause, the two cannot co-exist. But, to explore a little more is ( selfless?) Love ( the inward source of?) insight?

B: Well as far as we can see it, love is not identically the same as insight, is it?

K: Why?

B: Insight may be ( the intelligent action of) Love but you see, insight also occurs in a flash for example.

K: It is a flash of course. And that 'flash' alters the whole pattern (of thought's self-centredness?)

B: That's right.

K: But that flash (of insight ) is still using thought's patterns - in the sense, argue, reason, logic and all that.

B: Well once the 'flash of insight' has operated then the ( brain's self-centred) pattern is different and therefore it would become more rational.

K: What I am trying to say is: you can have a flash (of insight?) but you can still be 'logical'

B: The flash may make (a more holistically friendly?) logic possible because you may have been confused before the flash.

K: Ah, yes... Aristotle may have come to all this ('unmoved mover' concept ?) by logic.

B: Well he may have had some insight, we don't know.

K: We don't know but I am questioning it.

B: Well we really don't know how his mind operated because there are only a few books that survived.

K: Would you say he had insight by reading a few of his books?

B: I haven't really read Aristotle directly, very few people have because it is hard. Very few people have actually read what he directly said. Most people read what other ( smarter?) people said about Aristotle. There are a few phrases of Aristotle which are common – like the unmoved mover. And he has seen some other things which suggest that he was quite intelligent, at least.

K: What I am trying to say is that (an authentic?) Insight is not partial ever. I am talking of 'total' insight, not partial insight.

Q: Could you explain this a little bit more? What do you mean by 'not a partial insight'?

K: An artist or a scientist can have a partial insight (pertaining to their own areas of competency?) but 'X' is talking about having a 'total insight'.

Q: So by 'partial insight' you mean an insight that illuminates only a limited area, or subject, is that what you mean?

K: Yes.

Q: Then a 'total insight' would encompass what?

K: The total human activity. Right sir?

B: Well that is one point. But when we were discussing before, this total insight would illuminate the whole activity of the brain, and in that illumination it seems that the material activity of the brain will change, the brain itself begins to act differently.

K: That's right sir.

B: And you said that the source of this ( sudden?) illumination, is not in the material process, it has no ( direct material?) cause ?

K: It has no cause.

B: But it is a real ( holistically intelligent?) energy.

K: It is pure ( Mind?) energy. That's right, sir.

B: Pure energy. It is like a flashlight that has a cause but ( the light that it ) flashes on the ground is not connected with the cause of whatever is ( happening ) on the ground.

K: Yes, sir, that's quite right. Which means is there ( a directly perceptive?) action without cause?

B: Or without time, cause implies time.

K: Of course. And this 'flash' (of perceptive clarity?) has altered completely the ( time-binding?) pattern which the material process (of thought?) has set for itself .

B: Yes. We could say that the material process generally operates in a kind 'darkness' ( of ignorance) and therefore it has set itself going in a wrong path.

K: Darkness, yes. That is ( much is?) clear. The material process ( of self-centred thinking) acts in the 'darkness oof ignorance' . And this 'flash' (of total insight ?) 'enlightens' the whole field. Which means ignorance, darkness has been dispelled. I will hold to that.

B: Well, darkness and light cannot co-exist for obvious reasons, but nevertheless the very existence (Inner Presence?) of Light is to change the process of darkness.

K: Quite right. I hold to that.

B: Right. But now let's make another point clear. Here is the (sudden?) flash ( of insight) but it seems almost like its 'light' will go on ?

K: The light is there, the flash is ( not separate from?) the light.

B: We have to consider (the holistic rationality of it?) You see, at a certain moment, the flash is immediate but then as you work from there there is still light ?

K: Why do you differentiate that (sudden?) flash from light?

B: Simply because if you use the word 'flash', like a flash of lightening gives light for that moment but then the next moment you are again in darkness until the next flash of lightening.

K: It is not like that - when we put that question 'stays on and goes off', you are thinking in terms of ( a linear continuity in?) time.

B: Yes, well we have to clear this up because it is the question everybody will (eventually?) put.

K: ( In a nutshell:) The material process (of thought) is working in darkness, in time, in (the mental field of one's past ?) knowledge, ignorance, all that. When that insight takes place there is the dispelling of that (inner?) 'darkness'. So then thought, which is the material process, is no longer working in darkness, therefore that light has has ended ( the inward darkness of?) ignorance.

B: So we say this darkness is really something which is inbuilt into the content of thought.

K: The (self-centred psychological?) content 'is' (working in?) darkness.

B: That's right. Then that light has dispelled that ignorance.

K: That's right sir. Dispelled the ( time-binding?) content.

B: But still we can't say it has dispelled all the content (of our thinking?) .

K: It has dispelled the 'centre of darkness'.

B: Yes, the creator of darkness.

K: The 'self' . Right? It has dispelled the centre of darkness which is the 'self' (-centred consciousness?) .

B: Well we could say that the self (-interest?) is the central part of the content and this 'centre of darkness' is dispelled.

K: Dispelled. Yes. The centre of darkness, which has maintained the darkness, has been dispelled. I hold to that.

B: We can say now that means a physical (major qualitative?) change in the brain cells - by altering certain ( pre-) disposition of all the brain cells.

K: Of course sir, obviously. You see sir, this has an enormous ( psychological) significance - in our relationship with our society, in everything.
Now the ( bonus?) question which Mrs Lilliefelt put, is: How does this (holistic) flash (of insight?) come about? Let's begin the other way round. How does ( selfless?) 'love' come about? How does ( inner) 'peace' come about? Which is, ( the sense of inner) peace being causeless, how does this causeless thing come about when my whole life is causation? Just see first ( the inward truth that?) there is no 'how'. If you show me 'how' you are ( ASAP ? back into the ( time-bound mentality of?) darkness. Right ?

B: Right.

K: That's a tremendous thing to understand ( for extra homework?) . But I am asking a ( more holistically friendly?) question sir, which is: why is it that we have no ( inward?) insights at all, why is it that they don't start from our childhood, these (timeless) insights? You follow what I am talking about?

B: Well the ( egocentric ) way in which our life is lived...

K: Is it ( only due to) our education? Is it ( only due to the socio-economic pressures of modern ) society? I don't believe it is ( only ?) that.

B: What do you say then?

K: It is some other ( deeper) factor. If for 'X' it is quite natural , why don't we all have (free access to?) it ?

Q: Wouldn't you say that there are ( some unconscious ?) blocks which prevent the insight from acting ?

K: Of course. But I want to move away from ( psycho-analysing?) these blockages. If to 'X' it seems so natural, why isn't it natural to everybody? You follow what I am talking about?

B: That is the question.

K: That is the question I am asking. If you say ( inherited ) blockages, the ( survivalistic?) environment, genetic inheritance - I say those are all ( time-binding?) causes. Now why isn't it natural to everybody? Right sir? Why is not love natural to everybody? Am I putting the question?

B: Well, some ( holistically minded?) people might feel it is natural to everybody, but being treated in a certain way they gradually get caught in hate. Most people would say that it is natural for the young child meeting love to respond with with love, but mistreated he will respond with ( resentment or?) hate.

K: Yes, this morning I heard that. Then I asked myself why 'X' – who has been put under all these circumstances which could have produced blockages, wasn't touched by it ? Why is it not this possible for everybody?

B: Perhaps we should make it more clear why it would be 'natural' not to respond to hate with hate. As you know the young child is not able to think about all this. Some people would say it would be the animal instinct- the animal will respond with love if you treat him with love, but if you treat the animal with hate he is going to fight back and will become very vicious.

K: Yes...

B: Now some people would say that the human being in the beginning is like that animal and later he can understand. Now you are saying why don't all young children fail to respond to hate with hate?

K: That means, is it the fault of the parents?

B: Weren't you implying is that it is not entirely that, that there is something deeper.

K: Yes sir. Let's have an insight into it ! Would it be right to say that the beginning of man is not 'animal'?

B: Well that point is not clear, you see. The present theory of evolution followed the ( lineage of the?) apes developing, where they become more and more like human beings. Now when you say that the beginning of man is not animal, then it is not clear.

K: I am asking. And therefore if the beginning of man is the animal therefore we have that instinct highly cultivated and that instinct is natural.

B: Yes, that instinct is cause and effect.

K: Yes, cause and effect and it becomes natural. And someone comes along and says, 'Is it?'

B: Let's try to get this clear then, because...

K: I mean all the scientific and historical ( theories) say man began from the ape.

B: Yes, began from other animals.

K: And that as all animals respond to love by love and to hate by hate, we as human beings, respond instantly to hate by hate.

B: And vice versa, to love by love. And you could say that it would not have been very helpful for the (species') survival to respond to hate with love, but there would have been a ( natural) selection of people who responded to hate with hate.

K: So at the beginning ( of the human species?) ) there were ( some spiritually evolved ?) people who never responded to hate because they had ( selfless ?) Love, and these people had implanted this ( holistically friendly mentality ?) in the human mind also. Right? That where Love is the other (the animal inheritance?) is not. And that has also been part of our ( Consciousness?) inheritance. Right? And why haven't we as human beings cultivated this 'other' ( alternative lineage ) ?
( Simply because ) the 'other' is not cultivatable.

B: It is not 'causal' – and any ( temporal) cultivation depends on a cause.

K: On cause. So, if this is so, why have we lost that (uncultivable gift of innocence?) ?

Q: But when you ask ''why we have lost it ?'', that implies that we have had it sometime.

B: Some people might have had it.

K: Yes. Some, I said that, when 'X', 'Y', 'Z', began implanted in man's (Consciousness?) this ( quality of selfless?) love, which is causeless, which will not respond to hate. All right. That has been 'implanted'. But... we have cultivated very thought(fully?) to respond to hate by hate, violence by violence, and so on. Why haven't we moved along the other line?

B: One doesn't see any way of proceeding.

K: I am not trying to proceed. To 'X' the 'Other' seems so natural. So if that is so natural to 'X', why isn't it natural to 'Y' and so on? If he is ( considered as a psychological?) 'freak', that is a stupid ( & very convenient?) way of pushing him off. If it is 'natural' to 'X', it must also be natural to others ? You know this ancient (metaphysical) idea which is probably in existence in the Jewish religion and in the Indian religions and so on, that the 'Manifestation of the Highest' takes place (as a spiritual reminder?) , occasionally. That seems too easy an explanation (although...?) .

(So, back to square one?) have we moved in the wrong direction?

B: What do you mean by that?

K: We have taken the 'wrong (existential) turn'.

B: You mean ( the collective consciousness of?) mankind? Yes, as we have discussed before, there has been a 'wrong turning'.

K: To respond to hate by hate, violence by violence and so on.

B: And giving supreme value to ( our previously accumulated?) knowledge.

Q: Wouldn't another factor also be the ( unsuccessful?) attempt to cultivate the ideal of ( selfless?) love? It is ( supposed to be) the (true) purpose of religion.

K: Wipe it out - Is (love ) cultivatable by thought? Thought is a material process. Don't go ( back) into all that. ( Universal?) Love has no ( material) cause, it is not cultivatable, full stop. So, if it is natural to 'X' why isn't it natural to A, B & C? I think this is a ( holistically?) valid question. 'X', 'Y', 'Z', are born ( inwardly speaking?) without a cause and A, B, C are caught in cause. They walk ( happily?) along that way and why ( wouldn't also ) 'X' 'Y' 'Z'? Is it the privilege of the ( wealthy & gifted?) few?

B: Then...why is there this difference?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am asking. One ( life attitude?) is natural, the other is unnatural. Now, who is asking this question? The A, B & C people, who respond to hate by hate, are they asking the question? Or the 'X', 'Y' & 'Z people are asking the question ?

B: It appears that only 'X',' Y' & 'Z' are asking this ( perrenial existential?) question.

K: Yes...

B: But you were just saying that they are not ( fundamentally?) different.

K: Of course we are not ( fundamentally?) different. Which means what?
B: That there is only one Mind ?

K: That's it, one Mind...

B: But then, how comes that another part of this 'one Mind' says, no?

K: Of course there are all kinds of explanations - Karma, reincarnation, blah, blah, blah. But if we remove all those explanations, what am I left with, the fact that 'X', 'Y', 'Z' are ( very?) different from 'A', 'B', 'C '.

Q: They only appear to be different.

K: Oh no, they are ( psychologically-wise ?) absolutely different, not just 'appear'. That is, 'X', 'Y', 'Z' have given me that gift and I have not carried that gift. You follow what I mean? I have carried the other ( survival oriented?) gifts but not this one - why?

Q: Did you say sir that ( the 'holistic' option?) it is implanted in all of us?

K: Of course.

Q: So, in 'X', 'Y' & 'Z' ( consciousness?) it is natural, but in the others it is latent and has never come out, is that it?

K: I am asking that. If my father was responding to hate by hate, why has the son not responded along the same direction?

B: I think it is a question of ( the gift of?) insight.

K: Which means what? He (the young K ) had insight right from the beginning. You follow what I am saying. Right from ( early) childhood, which means what?

B: What?

K: I don't want to enter into this ( slippery?) field yet.

B: Perhaps you want to leave it for later ?

K: There is some ( transcendental?) factor that is missing sir. I want to capture it. Because if that was just a (lucky) exception then it is silly.

B: All right then we agree that that (holistically friendly?) 'thing' is dormant in all human beings - is that what you want to say?

K: I am not quite sure that is what I want to say.

B: But I meant that the factor is there in (the Mind matrix of?) all mankind.

K: That is a 'dangerous' ( slippery?) statement too.

B : All right. We tried looking at this and we can say that this ( holistic existential ) possibility is there in all mankind and in so far as some people have 'seen' it.

K: Which means ''God is in you''?

B: No, just that the possibility of insight is there.

K: Yes, partly. I am questioning all this ( for homework?) sir. The father responds to hate by hate, the son doesn't....

B: Yes, well that 'happens' from time to time.

K: No, consistently from the beginning – why?

B: Well it must depend on insight which shows the futility of ( living one's life with personal resentments or ?) hate.

K: Why did that (young K) chap have it?

B: Yes, why isn't ( this transpersonal quality of?) 'insight' present for everybody from the beginning?

K: Yes, that is all I am asking (rhetorically?)

B: So strong that even maltreatment cannot affect it ?

K: Nothing can affect it, that is my point. Maltreatment, beating, being put into all kinds of ( embarassing?) situations, it hasn't affected it. Why? You follow sir? We are coming to something.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 21 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 May 2018 #9
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: Shall we start from where we left off?

Dr Bohm: All right. I think we were discussing that the other day and the animal instincts, it seems, may apparently be overpowering in their intensity and speed, and especially with young children. It may seem that it is only natural for them to respond with the animal instinct.

K: So that means that we are still, after a million years (of a hardly earned evolution?) we are still instinctively behaving like our ancestors?

B: Well in some ways, as the animal instincts have now become entangled with thought and it is getting in some ways worse all these instincts of hatred now become directed by thought and sustained by thought so that they are more (sophisticated?) and more dangerous.

K: And during all these many, many centuries we haven't found a ( holistically friendly?) way (of life?) that will move us away from that track.

B: Well that is one of the difficulties, surely. When people begin to get angry with each other, their anger builds up (snowballs?) and they don't seem able to do anything about it. They may try to control it but then that doesn't work.

K: 'X', as we were saying, behaves 'naturally' by not responding to (or with) the animal instincts. What place has such insight in ( the present state of ) human society?

B: Well, in the society 'as it is', it cannot be accommodated because society is organized under the assumption that pleasure and pain and fear are going to rule, except when you control it. Say, 'friendliness' is a kind of ( cultivated?) animal instinct too, people that become friendly for instinctive reasons. So I think that some people would say that we should be (more?) rational. There was a period during the 18th century, the 'age of reason', when they said man could choose to be rational & bring about harmony everywhere. But ( eventually?) it got worse, it led to the French revolution and to the terror and so on. And after that people didn't have so much faith in reason as a way of getting anywhere, coming out of it.

K: So where does that lead us? We were talking really about insight, that it actually changes the (inward?) nature of the brain itself.

B: Yes, we discussed that yesterday: by dispelling the (psychological?) 'darkness' in the brain, it allows the brain to function in a new ( holistically friendly?) way.

K: Yes. Thought has been operating in ( an inner environment of egocentric?) darkness, creating (or recycling?) its own darkness and functioning in that. And insight is like, as we said, a 'flash' (of inner clarity?) which breaks down the darkness. And then in clearing that 'darkness', does ( the human brain?) act & function, rationally?

B: Yes we went into that: it will then function rationally in a sense of (direct ) perception ( of what is going on?) rather than by ( following the artificial?) rules of reason. A freely flowing 'reason' . You see some people identify reason with certain rules of logic which would be mechanical. But ( a transpersonal) reason is a form of perception of ( the universal?) order.
K: So we are saying that 'insight' is (synonimous with direct?) perception?

B: Or the 'flash of ( spiritual ?) light' which makes perception possible ?

K: Right, that's right.

B: It is even more fundamental than perception.

K: So 'insight' is a pure perception (of the truth regarding the ongoing facts ?) and from that perception there is ( a holistic?) action, which is then sustained by rationality. Is that it?

B: I would say a 'rationality' ( brought by the ) perception of order.

K: So would you say: insight, perception and order?

B: Yes.

K: And this ( holistic?) 'order' is not mechanical.

B: Yes, there are no ( preset ) rules.

K: So (in a nutshell?) that means insight, perception, action, order. Then you came to the ( academical?) question: is ( the inward clarity brought by ?) 'insight' continuous, or is it ( coming as a sudden?) 'flash' ?

B: We went into that and said it was a wrong question.

K: Yes.

B: So, we'll have to look at it differently.

K: So, it is not a 'time binding' (inner clarity?). That means that ( the timeless action of ) 'insight' is the elimination of the 'darkness' which was ( present at ?) the very centre of the 'self', and ( ... making a long story short?) ( the 'enlightening clarity' of?) insight dispels ( the very realistic illusion of?) that very centre.

B: Yes, ( living) within 'darkness' no ( truthful) perception is possible.

K: Quite.

B: It's (like an inward?) blindness in a way....

K: Right, then ( listening to ) you saying this, and I see what you are saying has some kind of ( holistic?) reason, logic, and order.

B: Yes, it 'makes sense' as far as we can see. Right?

K: It makes sense. Then how am I to have it (functioning?) in my daily life? Is that possible? Is it possible for my mind to have this insight so that pattern of life is broken? I may have once in a while a partial insight, but the partial insight is not the whole insight so there is still (left an inner residue of ? ) 'partial darkness'.

B: If it doesn't dispel ( darkness from) the centre of the self, it is not adequate. It may dispel some darkness in a certain area but the source of the darkness, the creator, the sustainer of it is still there.

K: Yes, still there. So we have stated the general plan. Right? And I have to make ( some intelligent ? ) moves, or ( meditation-wise?) make no moves at all. ( Unfortunately, there are a few psychological drawbacks?) (a) I haven't ( gathered the necessary integrated?) energy. (b) I haven't ( got) the capacity to see it quickly. Because this ( flash of total insight?) is immediate and I haven't got that sense of 'urgent immediacy'. And ( c ) everything ( in the outer world is not really helping ?) me: my family, my wife, society, everything. And as you Mr 'X' don't help me, I am just left (on my own?) .
Is there a different approach to this problem? Is there a totally different way of approaching the whole (inward) turmoil of my life? You follow sir?

B: Yes...

K: ( To recap:) we were saying that as long as this 'centre' (of self-interest?) is creating darkness, and thought is operating in that darkness, there must be disorder, there must be everything as society now is. And to move away from that you must have ( the inward clarity of ) 'insight' which comes about when there is a sudden (spiritual?) light which abolishes not only darkness but the 'creator' of darkness.

B: Yes...

K: Now I am asking myself is there a different approach to this ( perrenial existential?) question altogether?

B: You can't produce this flash at will, but are you suggesting that there is another way?

K: We have been through that, it can't be produced through will, through sacrifice, through every form of human effort. That is out, ( hopefully?) we have finished with all that, two or three weeks ago.
So we came to a point, to 'X' this insight seemed so natural and why is it not natural to other (holistically minded people ) ?

B: Well, if you begin with the ( average?) child, it seems natural to the child to respond ( when seriously challenged ) with his 'animal instincts' which sweep him away. Darkness arises because it is so overwhelming.

K: Yes, but why did it not with (young Mr?) 'X'?

B: First of all it seems natural to most people that the animal instincts would take over, and they would say the other fellow is unnatural (an outlier?) .

K: That's it. Most human beings have been acting ( naturally?) according to this ( self-centred ) pattern, responding to hatred by hatred and so on. And there are those few (X, Y Z ) who say that is not (a holistically friendly behaviour?) . Why has this division taken place?

B: If we (take for granted that ) pleasure and pain, fear and hate, are 'natural' (responses?) , then most people would say we must battle to control them, because it will destroy us. You see they say the best we can hope for is to ( keep them under ) control with reason or with another way.

K: But that doesn't really work.

B: Now someone else ( such as Mr X) says the 'other' ( holistically friendly?) way is natural.

K: If that is natural for them, are they the privileged few , who ( got it?) by some strange chance event?

B: Yes, many people would say that...

K: No, that goes against one's grain. I wouldn't accept that.

B: Well, if that is not the case, you'll have to say why is there this difference.

K: This question has been asked ( to K) many times, over and over again in different parts of the world. Now why is there this ( big qualitative ) division?

Q: Is the division really total? ven that man who (occasionally) responds to hatred with hatred, can sees that it is ( ethically?) wrong .

K: It should be different but he is still battling ( againd it?) with ideas, with thought.

Q: That's right, but it means that it is not entirely natural. If it were entirely natural he would say, 'OK, that's just the way we live'. He wouldn't even try to get out of it. You see what I am saying?

K: Yes, I understand that. But he is trying to get out of it by the exercise of (the same self-centred?) thought which brought his inner darkness.

Q: But he doesn't understand that.

K: And we have explained to him (by using thought compatible rational arguments?)

Q: I just wanted to say that the division ( between the 'XYZ' s & 'ABC's) does not seem to be so entire. You see.

K: Oh yes sir, ( holistically-wise?) the division is entire, complete.

Q: Well why are these people not saying 'Well look here, let's live the ( good old?) way & enjoy it to the last moment'? Some do want to get out of it.

K: Now wait a minute sir. Do they want to get out of it?

Q: At least they say so.

K: Do they actually realize the ( existential) state they are in and deliberately want to get out of it?

Q: They are ambivalent about it. They want to go on getting the fruits of it but they have a sense it is wrong, that it leads to suffering for them.

B: Or else they find they can't help it. You see, when the time comes to get angry, or pleasure, they can't get away.

Q: They want to get out of it but there are ( some obscure inner ?) forces which are stronger than even their (good) will.

K: So what shall we do? Or this 'division' is false.

B: That's the point. We had better call it a ( qualitative) difference between these two. This difference is not fundamental. The other idea is to say it is an absolute difference, which is , that there is nothing in common.

K: I don't think there is anything in common (psychologically- speaking?) .

B: But if you say that the division is false, it means that fundamentally they are the same, but a ( big qualitative?) difference has developed between them. Perhaps one (majoritary part) has taken a 'wrong turning' ?

K: Let's put it that ( psychologically correct?) way, yes.

B: But the difference is not intrinsic, it is not structural, built in, like the difference between a tree and a rock.

K: Right. Then, are they starting from the same source and one has taken one direction and the other has taken another direction ? But... if the Source is the same, why haven't all of them moved in the right direction?
B: Yes, we haven't managed to answer that question ...
K: Yes, we are trying to answer that.
B: I was just saying that even if we are continually taking the wrong turn, we can understand ( the psychological nature of?) this wrong turn, then it becomes possible to change.

K: Yes sir. That is, we start from the same source. 'A' takes one turn...

B: There are two possible ways of taking your statement. One is to say the source is in (the historical) time, far back in the past, we started together and we took different paths. The other is to say the Source ( of human Consciousness?) is timeless and we are continually ( indulging in ?) taking the wrong turn, again and again. Right?

K: Yes. If we cut out (the logic of?) time, therefore (the collective consciousness of?) mankind is constantly (taking ?) the 'wrong' turn.

Q: Which means there is the constant possibility to (make the ) right turn.

K: Therefore, we are taking the wrong turn all the time ?

B: Constantly.

K: Let's put it that way. Constantly taking the wrong turn, why? But the man who is living in (the condition of psychological) darkness can move away at any time to the other. That is the point: at any time.

B: Yes...then nothing holds him, except ( the mental habit of?) taking the wrong turn constantly. You could say that the darkness (of ignorance?) is such that he doesn't even see himself taking the wrong turning.

K: Is this right sir? Suppose that you (Mr X) have that insight, and the very centre of darkness has been dispelled completely. And after listening to whatever you have said – which seems so reasonable, rational & sane, I question the division - you follow? The division is created by the centre which creates darkness. Right?

B: Yes. It is the same as the other divisions, it is created by (the self-centred?) thought.

K: Thought has created this ( inner mentality of?) division. The other ( 'X'?) man says there is no division. You who have the (noble gift of?) insight, etc., you say there is no such division. I have ( just) created it in my thoughts...

B: I am constantly creating it.

K: So, my (optional homework?) problem is to perceive the ( dualistic activity of?) thought that is creating darkness and to see that the self is the source of this darkness. Why can't I see that? Why can't I see it even logically?

B: Well it's clear logically.
K: Yes but somehow that (intellectual perception?) doesn't seem to operate. So what shall I do? For the first time I realise that (my) 'self' is creating this ( inward mentality of) darkness which is constantly breeding division. I see that very clearly.

B: Yes and the division produces the darkness anyway.

K: Back and forth. And from all that everything begins. Now ( if?) I see that very clearly, what shall I do? I don't admit the ( inward mentality of ) division ( between the 'observer' & ' that which is being observed' ) . So (Mr X) asks me : can you put away this ( inward ) sense of division?

Q: Can my mind put away ( its self-centred ) division as long as it is divided?

K: No, it can't, so what am I to do (but …) listen: he says something so extraordinarily true, which has immense significance and beauty and my whole being says 'Capture (the inward truth of) it'.
( To recap:) I realise that I am the creator of division, because living in darkness, out of that darkness (of ignorance) I create it. But ( if?) I have listened to 'X' who says 'there is no division'. And I recognize that is an extraordinary statement. So in saying that to me, who has lived in division, constant division, ( seeing the inward truth of his ?) saying has an immediate effect on me who lived constantly in ( the darkness of my self-created ?) division.

B: When you say 'there is no division', that makes ( a lot of) sense. But on the other hand it seems that the inner division (observer vs observed) continues to exists.

K: When I see something that is immovable, it must have some ( psychological) effect on me. (If inwardly sensitive?) I respond to it with a tremendous shock.

B: You see, if you were talking about something which was (exposed) in front of us and you said, 'No, it is not that way', then we would look again at it and say, 'No, it's not that way', and that would, of course, change our whole way of seeing it. Same with your (holistic ) statement 'there is no division' - we try to look and see if that is so. Right?

K: (If?) I am (inwardly) sensitive, watch ( what's going on?) very carefully and realize I am constantly living in ( the dualistic mentality of ) division, when you make that statement ( my seeing the inward truth of?) it has broken the pattern (of thought's self-centredness?) because he has said something which is so fundamentally true: there is no ( actual division between?) God and ( the mind of?) man. ( But... a self-divisive mentality ?) & the 'Other' cannot co-exist - a ( transpersonal?) statement which seems so absolutely true. That (inward truth?) enters into me therefore this act has dispelled darkness. The action of ( the inward truth of ) his statement dispels the darkness. I am not making an effort to get rid of ( my inward) darkness but you are ( bringing?) the light. Therefore, in ( a psychological condition of relative ?) 'darkness' can I listen to you? Of course I can !

B: Now, why do you say you can 'listen' in the darkness? This needs some (rational explanation ?) …

K: Oh yes, I can 'listen' in darkness. If I can't I am doomed.

B: But that is not ( a rational?) argument.

K: Of course that is no argument but that is so.

B: Well, constantly living in darkness is not worthwhile, but now you said that it is possible to 'listen' in this (inward condition of ) darkness.

K: Yes sir. Listening is not ( necessarily affected by the dualistic sense of ?) division.

Q: Right. If that were the case I could not listen to anything.

K: No, sir, you are missing the point. He says there is no division. He is the ( bearer of the?) flag to me. And he makes a ( holistic) statement: there is absolutely no division. And for me who am living in constant division (the inward truth of?) that statement has brought the constant ( time-thought?) movement to an end. Yes sir !
Otherwise if this ( psychological miracle?) doesn't take place I have nothing. I am perpetually living in darkness. But ( there's ) a voice in the wilderness and listening to that voice has an extraordinary effect in (upon that inward?) wilderness.

B: Listening ( with all one's senses?) reaches the source of the movement, whereas observation does not ?

K: Yes sir. In that wilderness a voice says ''there is water''. You follow? It is not ( a vain?) hope, so there is immediate ( awakening to?) action in me. Which is, sir, that one must realize that this constant movement in darkness is my life. Can I realize with all my ( outward life) experience, with all my ( encyclopedic?) knowledge of a million years, suddenly realize that (inwardly ) I am living in total darkness? Nobody will ( readily?) admit that. Because that means I have reached the end of all my hope (of inward self-improvement). You have cut the ( psychological?) future altogether and I am left with this enormous darkness and I am there. The realization of that is the ending of ( the psychological) becoming. I have reached that point (of 'no return'?) and 'X' tells me, naturally sir.
You see all the religions have (assumed) that this division exists.

B: Yes, but they have also said that it can be overcome (by the earnest spiritual seeker?)

K: It doesn't matter who said it but the fact is : somebody in this wilderness is saying that in ( the inward clarity of?) insight there is no division. It is not your insight or my insight, it is 'insight'. Which means sir, that in that Ground ( of Creation?) there is no division ( between) darkness & light.

B: Are you saying light and darkness are not divided?

K: Right.

B: Which means to say that there is neither.

K: Neither, that's it ! There is something else - a very different ( holistic ?) movement which is non-dualistic.

B: Non-dualistic means what? No division?

K: No division.

B: But then, what does it actually mean, a ( holistic) movement without division?

K: A ( Ground) movement that it is not time and doesn't breed division. So I want to go back to the Ground (of Creation) . So what takes place? Would you say sir, that the Ground is an endless movement?

B: What does that mean?

K: What is 'movement' sir, apart from going from here to there, apart from the psychological movement from being to becoming. We say those are all ( based on temporal) divisions. Is there an (inward) movement which in itself has no division?

B: Well, you are saying that when there is no ( inner mentality of ) division then that movement is there. Right?

K: Yes. And 'X' says that is the Ground. Would you say that it has no end, no beginning?

B: It flows without ( temporal) division ?

K: Yes. Do I understand the depth of that statement? A ( holistic) movement ( of Creation?) in which there is no division, no element of time in it at all. So that (all-inclusive?) Movement, is it surrounding ( the total consciousness of?) mankind ?

B: 'Enveloping' ?

K: Enveloping ( the whole consciousness of?) mankind . Is that 'movement' without time...

B: The ( Mind of the?) Universe ?

K: The universe, the cosmos, the whole. Isn't there a statement in the Jewish world, 'Only God can say, I am'? You see sir, can the human mind be(come an integral part?) of that Movement? Because that is timeless, therefore deathless.

B: Yes, in so far as the mind takes part in that, it is the same.

K: You understand what I am saying?

B: Yes. But what dies when the individual dies?

K: Its (death?) has no meaning even because then once I have understood there is no division...

B: So, it is not important ?

K: Oh, the ending of the ( physical) body, that's totally trivial. But capturing the ( spiritual) significance of your statement saying there is no division, has broken the spell of my darkness, and I see that there is a Movement and that's all. You have abolished totally the fear of death.

B: Yes, I understand that when the mind is partaking in that Movement then the mind 'is' that movement.

K: That's all. The mind 'is' (becoming part of) that Movement.

B: Would you say that the universe of matter is also ( part of)that movement?

K: Yes sir, I would say 'everything'.
( To re-recap:) In my ( condition of relative inward ? ) darkness I have listened to you. That's most important. And your clarity has broken my (collective karmic ?) spell (of selfisness?). ( And by the same stroke?) you have abolished the division between life and death. I don't know if you see this?

B: Yes... ?

K: One can never say then 'I am seeking immortality'. Or, 'I am becoming immortal ' - you have wiped away the whole sense of ( the egocentric) moving in darkness. I wonder if you get this?

Q: What then would be the significance of ( the modern existence of) man with all his struggle, with all his...

K: None. It is like struggling within a ( self-) locked room. That is the whole point.

B: Aren't we going to say that something more can be done besides dispelling darkness?

K: The mind of the one who has this (total) Insight, therefore dispelled darkness and therefore has understanding of that Ground, which is movement without time and so on, then that mind itself 'is' ( becoming an integral part of ) that movement.

B: Yes, going back to what we were discussing a few days ago: we said we have the emptiness, the universal mind and then the Ground is beyond all that, yes.

K: Would you say beyond all that is this Movement?

B: Yes. The ( Creation's Universal ) Movement from which - the mind emerges from the movement as a Ground and falls back to the Ground, that is what we are saying.

K: Yes, that's right. Mind emerges from this Movement.

B: And it dies back into the Movement.

K: That's right. It has it being in the Movement.

B: Yes and (the universe of ) matter also.

K: Quite. So, sir, what I want to get at is: I am a human being faced with this ending and beginning, and you abolish that.

B: Yes it is not fundamental.

K: It is not fundamental. You have removed one of the greatest fears of life which is (the fear of?) death. You see what it does to a human being when there is no death? Which means the mind doesn't age, the ordinary ( individual) mind I am talking about.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 21 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 May 2018 #10
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


K: The ( holistically inclined ?) human being who went ( meditating inwardly ?) through this sense of inner emptiness, silence, energy, and abandoned ( the psychological attachments to ?) almost everything, comes to the point ( of touching ) the ( inward) Ground (of Creation?) - how does this (major spiritual insight?) affect his daily life? What is his relationship to society, what is his action with regard to war and to a ( very materialistic?) world that is really living and struggling in ( spiritual?) darkness, what is his action?
As as we discussed the other day, it is ( an action in terms ) of 'non-movement'. What does that mean?

B: Well, you have said before that the Ground ( of Creation) is a movement without division. So, it seems ( logically ?) inconsistent to say that the action of this ( holistically minded?) person is (one of?) 'non-movement'...

K: Would you say that an ordinary, average man, educated, sophisticated, with all his unpleasant activities, is constantly in movement. Right?

B: Well a certain kind of movement.

K: I mean a ( mental ) movement in terms of ( self-centred) becoming. And for the man who come to that point, a what is his action? We said 'non-action', 'non-movement'. What does that mean?

B: Well it means not taking part in (thought's process of psychological time?)

K: Yes, that is obvious. If he doesn't take part in this process, but what part does he play ? Would you say a complete 'non-action'?

B: Well, it is not very clear why you should call it 'non-action' ; we might think of an action of another kind, which is not part of the process of becoming.

K: He still has to live here.

B: Well, in one sense, whatever you do is action, but his action is not involved in the illusory process (of the collective thought-time?) but it would be directed towards ( understanding?) what underlies this illusory process. It would be directed to (reconsidering the validity of the ? ) 'wrong turning' which is continually coming out of the ground. Right?

K: Yes, yes. You see various religions have described the man who is illuminated, who has ( spiritually) 'achieved' something or other. Especially in Hindu religious books, it is stated very clearly, how he looks, how he walks, the whole (presence?) of his being. I think that a great deal of it is (poetical) imagination, but ( after) discussing this point with some ( local pundits?) and it is not like that- somebody who described it, knew exactly what it was.

B: Well, then how should he know what is his action ? It is not clear.

K: So how does a man of that kind live in this world? It is a very interesting (academical?) question, if you go into it rather deeply. I think (that inwardly-wise) this is right : a state of 'non-movement'.

B: You see it is not clear what exactly you mean by 'non-movement'.

K: It is (feeling?) like a single tree in a field. There is no other tree but that tree, whatever the name of that tree is, it 'is' (it has a timeless presence?) there. ( In a nutshell?) you have gone ( into the time-thought process?) from the beginning to the end. And now, at the end, you are ( inwardly integrated ?) with(in) a totally different kind of movement, which is timeless. You are ( immersed in ) in That, you 'are' that. And I ( Mr B ) come to you and say, 'What is the state of your mind, that has walked on that path and ended (the psychological time?) & totally 'moved out' of darkness, what is the state of that mind?'

B: By 'non-movement' are you implying it is constant?

K: What do you mean by 'constant'?

B: Well it can have many meanings, but ( ethymologically it means) 'to stand firm', to 'stand together as a whole' , you see.

K: Is that it?

B: That is ( what suggested your) poetical picture of the tree ( standing alone ) in middle of the (empty) field.

K: Yes, that is a nice romantic and poetic image, but it may becomes rather deceptive. What is the ( inward ) quality of that mind that has started from the beginning and pursued the becoming, went through all that, the centre of darkness has been wiped away - (the inward quality of ) that mind must be entirely different. Now what does such a mind do, or not do, in the ( real?) world which is ( inwardly living?) in darkness?

B: Well, for one thing, it does not enter into the movement of that world.

K: Agreed.

B: And in that sense we say that it is 'constant', a constancy which is not merely static, but ( a holistic ?) movement which is ( time-) free.

K: What has happened to that mind? It has no ( existential?) anxiety, no fear and all the rest of it. This mind being (inwardly ) ' nothing', (not- a- thing !) , and therefore empty of ( psychologically crystalised?) knowledge, would it be always acting in the 'light of insight' ( be a 'light onto itself' ?) ?

B: Yes, well, it would be constantly 'pervaded' of the quality of insight.

K: Yes. It is acting constantly in that light, in that flash of insight. I think that is right. So what does that mean in terms of one's daily life?

B: He will ( probably?) have to find an ( intelligent?) way to stay alive.

K: Stay alive. But what will he do? He has no ( scolastic qualifications for a ) skilled profession and no coins with which he can buy.

B: Well wouldn't it be possible for this ( holistically inclined?) mind to earn enough to get what is needed to stay alive?

K: How?

B: Well if you had to take care of yourself anyway, you would need some skill to find the food which you need.

K: 'Skill' implies ( accumulating tons of practical & theoretical ?) knowledge, from that knowledge experience and gradually develop a ( marketable?) skill which gives you an opportunity to earn a livelihood, meagre or a great deal. But this ( 'X' ?) man says, there may be a different way of living and earning. We are used to that pattern - right sir? And he may say, 'Look, that may be totally wrong'.

B: It depends what you mean by 'skill' – it could also mean being very clever at getting money.

K: So this ('X') man is not money-minded, he is not storing up for the future, he hasn't any insurance, but he has to live, and when we use the word 'skill', as driving a car...

B: But then ( some?) people become very skilful at getting other people to give them money, you see!

K: That may be it! As I am doing!

Q: I wish you were more skilled at that!

K: Sufficient unto the day... But we were talking of the action a man who has been through all this and has come back to the (real) world and says, 'Here I am'. What is ( the holistic truth regarding ?) his relationship to society and what is he to do? Right sir? Has he any relationship to society?

B: Well not in a fundamental sense, although there is a superficial relationship he has to have.

K: All right. A superficial contact with the ( real?) world.... But I want to find out sir, what is he to do (in the creative sense?) ? I think that if we could find out, sir, the quality of a mind that has gone through (all this) from the beginning to the end that man's mind is entirely different, and he is in the world. You have reached ( that inward Ground of Being?) and come back, and I am an ordinary man, ( struggling for a decent?) living in this world, what is your relationship to me? Obviously ( an authentic human ?) relationship can only exist when darkness ends.

B: Yes...

K: But (for) now I look at you with eyes which are accustomed to darkness and to division. And yet you ( the 'X' person?) have to have a certain relationship with me. Is that relationship ( based on?) compassion - not translated by ( the collective consciousness of the ?) 'me' as compassion ? I cannot judge what your compassion is. Right?

B: That follows ( logically ), yes.

K: I don't know what your ( selfless?) Love is, what your (intelligent?) Compassion is because my only 'love and compassion' has been this. And so (Mr ?) 'Y' says, 'You seem so different, your way of looking at life is different. Who are you'? And what will (Mr) 'Y' do with you, (Mr ) 'X'?

B: Yes ... ?

K: I think what would happen generally is either worship him, (try to) 'kill' ( his reputation?) , or just neglect him. Right?

B: Yes.
K : But 'X's' demand is to say, 'Look, walk out of this ( inner condition of?) darkness , there is no answer in this darkness so walk out, dispel it, get rid of it, etc., etc. And 'Y' then says 'Help me, show me the way'...

B: But if ( the Intelligence of) Compassion works in 'X', then 'X' will ( hopefully ?) find a way to penetrate ( Y's inner ) darkness.

K: So, is ( Mr) 'X's job is to work on darkness?

B: Well to discover how to penetrate darkness.

K: So, in that way he is earning a living. I am talking seriously.

B: Well it is ( theoretically?) possible.

K: Probably 'X' is the Teacher. 'X' is unrelated to this field of darkness and 'X' is saying to the people ( discontented with living) in (psychological?) darkness, 'Come out'. What's wrong with that?

B: It's perfectly all right... as long as it works.

K: It seems to work (for Mr 'X') !

B: Of course if there were a lot of people like 'X', then I think there would be something revolutionary.

K: That's just it. If there were lots of people like that they would not be divided (from the total consciousness of mankind?) That is the whole point, right?

B: I think that even if ten or fifteen people were 'undivided', they would exert a force that had never been seen in our history.

K: Tremendous. That's right.

B: Because I don't think it has ever happened, that ten people were 'undivided'.

K: ( So, to wrap it up?) That is 'X's' job in life. A group of those ten 'X's' will bring a totally different kind of revolution (in the human consciousness?) . Right? Will society stand for that?

B: They will ( hopefully?) have this extreme intelligence and so they will find a ( holistically friendly?) way to do it (without) provoking society and society will not react before it is too late.

K: Quite right, quite right. You are saying something that is actually happening. So would you say then that the function of many 'X's' is to awaken ( the total consciousness of) human beings to that Intelligence which will dispel the darkness? And that is (their right) means of livelihood. Right?

B: Yes...

K: ( On paper?) that seems very simple. But I don't think it is all that simple.

B: Well it is a very difficult function, it is not at all so 'simple'...

K: The function may be complicated but that can easily be solved : 'X' says to 'Y', 'listen', and 'Y' takes time and perhaps sometime, he will wake up and move away. But I want to find out something much deeper : apart from this ( simple?) function, what is 'X' to do in life ? Is that all?

B: Well that can only be an outcome of something deeper.

K: The deeper is ( touching?) that Ground (of Creation) . But is that all that (Mr X) has to do in this world? Just to teach people to move out of darkness?

B: Well that seems to be the prime task at the moment, in the sense that if this doesn't happen the whole society will sooner or later collapse anyway. But I think that he needs to be in some sense creative, more deeply ?

K: What is that?

B: Well that is not yet clear.

K: Sir, suppose ( Mr) 'X' is you and you have ( touched ) this extraordinary movement which is not of time and you have this abounding energy and you have produced ( generated ? ) all that to 'teach' me (point the way?) to move out of darkness.

B: Yes, well that can only be a part of it. There might be some ( deeper) creative action, beyond this.

K: Yes, beyond that you (may) have ( access to?) something much more immense than that. You understand my question?

B: So then, what?

K: How is that 'immensity' operating on ( the consciousness of ) 'Y' apart from ( dispelling Y's psychological ?) darkness ?

B: Are you saying that there is some more direct action?

K: Either there is more direct action, or 'X' is doing something totally different to affect the (total) consciousness of man.

B: What could this be?

K: That immensity which you 'are' (becoming part of?) must affect, must do something.

B: Are you saying 'must' in the sense of an absolute necessity?

K: It 'must'.

B: It 'must', but still, how will it affect mankind? This would suggest some sort of 'extrasensory effect' that It spreads.

K: That is what I am trying to convey (non-verbally?) That Immensity must – must...

B:... necessarily act?

K: I wonder if you see what I am trying to get at sir. That immensity necessarily has other ( collateral ?) activities.

B: Yes, other activities at other levels ( of human consciousness?)

K: Yes, at various degrees of consciousness ? What do you say sir?

B: Well since ( any ?) Consciousness emerges from the Ground, this ( 'other'?) activity is affecting ( the consciousness of) all mankind (directly) from the Ground.

K: Yes.

B: But of course, many people will find this very difficult to understand...

K: I am not interested in many people. I want you ( Mr 'Y'?) to understand that this Immensity, is not limited to a petty little affair. It couldn't.

B: Yes, well the Ground includes physically the whole universe.

K: The whole universe, yes, and to reduce all that to...

B:... to these little (scholastic?) activities... ?

K: It sounds so silly.

B: Well, this raises a ( major existential?) question of what is the significance of mankind in the Universe, or in the Ground?

K: Yes, that's it.

B: Because these little things are very little, even the best that we have been doing has very little significance on that scale. Right?

K: Yes. I think this is just opening ( a New?) Chapter - I think that 'X' , by his very existence...

B:... is making something possible?

K: Yes. ( Like Mr?) Einstein has made something possible, which man hadn't discovered before.

B: We can see that fairly easily because that worked through the usual channels of society.

K: Yes, so, what is this ( 'X') man bringing apart from the little things? What is he bringing? Would you say, sir, that 'X' has ( free access to?) that immense intelligence, that ( holistic?) energy, and That (Otherness?) must operate at a much greater level than one can possibly conceive, which must affect the (collective?) consciousness of those who are ( unknowingly?) living in (spiritual?) 'darkness'.

B: Well possibly, but the ( science-related) question is : will this effect show in any way, you know, 'manifestly'?

K: Apparently ( as of now?) it is not doing it.

B: Yes, this can be a matter of great concern.

K: But it 'must' affect ( the total consciousness of mankind?) sir.

B: It has to ?

K: It has to.

B: Well why do you say 'it has to'?

K: Because ( the spiritual?) 'light' must affect 'darkness'.

B: Well perhaps ( Mr) 'Y' might say he is not sure, living in darkness he is not sure that there is such an effect. He might say maybe there is, but I want to see it manifest. But not seeing anything and still being in darkness, he says what shall I do?

K: How would it be shown? How would 'Y', who wants (a tangible) proof of it...

B: Well not ( exactly a physical ) 'proof' but just to be shown ( how it can happen ?) . Many people have made similar statements and some of them have obviously been wrong...
K: No. ( Mr) 'X' says : we are being very logical

B: Yes but at this (holistic ) stage, our logic will not carry us any further.
All one could say is that having seen that the thing was reasonable so far, 'Y' may have some (inward degree of?) confidence that it may go further.

K: Yes that is what I am trying to say.

B: Of course there is no (material) proof.

K: No...

B: But we can still explore it (inwardly?) .

K: That is what I am trying to do.

B: Yes.

Q: What about the 'other' activities of 'X'? You said that 'X' has a function of (holistic) teaching, but we said 'X' has other activities.

K: Must have. Necessarily must.

Q: Which are what?

K: I don't know, we are trying to find that out.

B: Well you are saying that somehow he 'makes possible' a (more direct ) activity of the Ground in the whole consciousness of mankind which would not have been possible without him.

K: Yes.

B: That is what I understand....

K: Yes, we are trying to find out what is this 'greater' (impact) that must necessarily be operating?

Q: Is it something that appears in the daily life of 'X'?

K: Yes. Daily life of 'X' is apparently doing the 'petty' little stuff - teaching, writing, book-keeping, or whatever it is. Is that all?

B: Are you saying that in the daily life 'X' does not look so different from anybody else?

K: Apparently not.

B: But there is something else going on ( through his mind & heart ?) which does not show, right?

K: That's it. When 'X' talks it may sound 'different', he may say things differently but...

B:... that is not fundamental because there are so many people who say (the same kind of?) things.

K: I know.... But the man who has 'walked' (meditatively ?) through all that right from the beginning to the end, he 'is' entirely different and when he says something, that is also ( qualitatively?) different. But such a man who has (free access to?) the whole of That Energy to call upon, and to reduce all that Energy to this petty little place seems so ridiculous.

B: Yes, well let me ask a ( more personal?) question. Why does the Ground require this ( 'X' ) man to operate on mankind? Why can't It operate directly in (the total consciousness of?) mankind to clear things up?

K: Ah, just a minute, just a minute. Are you asking why does the ground demand action? It is part of Existence, like the stars.

B: Why does it require a particular man, you see?

K: Why does the ground need this man? It doesn't need him.

B: Yes but if he is here then the Ground will use him ?

K: That is all.

B: Well couldn't the Ground could do something ( more directly?) to clear up this (psychological mess?)

K: That is why I am asking in different words. The Ground doesn't need ( this 'X') ) man but the man has touched the ground. So the ground is 'employing' him. He is part of that movement. Do you follow what I mean sir? Why should (Mr X) do anything except this?

B: Well perhaps he does nothing.

K: That very 'doing nothing' may be (allowing the Ground's) doing.

B: Well in doing nothing it makes possible the action of the ground. In doing ( inwardly) nothing which has any specified aim...

K: That's right. With no specified content which can be translated into human terms.

B: Well yes, but still he is supremely active in... doing nothing ?

K: Yes. All this sounds...

Q: Is there an action which is beyond time for that man?

K: He 'is' (inwardly the manifestation of?) that.

Q: Then we cannot ask for a result of that man.

K: No. He says I am not concerned with 'Y'. I am only concerned to talk, or do something in a petty little way, but that is a very small thing and I am not bothered about that. But there is a vast field which must affect the whole of mankind.

B: Well there is an analogy in chemistry : a catalyst makes possible a certain action without itself taking part ( in the overall reaction?) Merely by being what it is .

K: Yes, even this (psycho-catalytic action?) is a small affair.

Q: But even so, 'Y' would say it isn't happening because the ( collective consciousness of the?) world is still in a mess. So is there a truth in the world for the activity of that man?

K: 'X' says he is sorry, I am not interested in proving anything. It isn't a mathematical problem or a technical problem to be shown and proved. He says 'this is so'. I have walked ( metaphorically speaking?) from the beginning of man to the very end of man and there is a 'movement' which is timeless. The Ground (of all Creation?) which is (sustaining ?) the (physical) universe, the cosmos, everything. And this Ground doesn't need the ( 'X') man but this man has ( somehow managed to?) come upon It. And as he is still living in the (physical) world. Right? And that man says 'I write and do something or other', just out of compassion he does that. But ( beyond Mr X?) there is much greater Movement (of the Universal Creation?) which necessarily must play a part in the ( future of the ) world.

Q: Does the 'greater movement' play a part through 'X'?

K: Obviously, obviously. And if there were ten 'X's' of course its (impact) would be (still greater ?)
( To recap:) 'X' says there is 'something else' operating which cannot possibly be put into words. There is nothing which a man like 'Y' will understand. He will immediately translate it into some kind of illusory thing. But 'X' says there is. Right? Sir, it must be. Otherwise it is all so childish.

B: I think the general view which ( the science) people are developing now is that the universe has no meaning. It moves in its own way, all sorts of things happen, but none of them have any meaning.

K: It has no meaning for the man who is (time-bound ) here, but the man who is ( inwardly 'out -there') - relatively speaking - says the Cosmos is full of ( holistic) meaning - the word meaning has no meaning there.
All right sir. 'X' says, in the ( educational) occupation (with man's ego-centric ) pettiness, perhaps there will be ten people who will join the game, and that might affect the ( present order of ) society – something totally different, based on intelligence, compassion and all the rest of it.

B: Well if there were 'ten' (such people?) they might find a way to spread much more, you see. And ( if ultimately?) if the whole ( consciousness ) of mankind were to see this, are you saying then that that would be something different?

K: Oh, yes sir. It would be paradise on earth.

B: It would be like an organism of a new kind.

K: I think we had better stop there sir. You see I am not satisfied with this.

B: Well what is it?

K: I am not 'satisfied', in leaving this ( Intelligent?) Immensity to be reduced to some few words. You follow? Mr 'Y' is concerned with 'show me, prove it to me, what benefit it has - he is looking at 'X' with the eyes that are so accustomed to this pettiness. But 'X' says I won't even look at that. There is something so immense that 'X' says please do look at this, and 'Y' is always translating it into 'show it to me', 'prove it to me', 'will I have a better life' - you follow? He is concerned always with this (causal mentality?) .
'X' brings light. That's all he can do. Isn't that enough?

B: To bring the 'light' which would allow other people to be open to the immensity ?

K: Is it that we can only see a small part but that very small part extends to infinity. That means 'endless'.

B: We see a small part of what?

K: That (inward?) 'immensity' we see it only as a very small thing. But that immensity is the ( Mind of the?) whole Universe. I can't help but think that it must have some immense affect on 'Y', on society.

B: Yes. Well certainly the (actual) perception of this must have an effect but it seems that this is not ( visible ?) in the consciousness of society at the moment.

K: I know....

B: But you are saying still the effect is there?

K: Yes sir.

B: Well, do you think it is ( really?) possible that a thing like this could divert the course of mankind away from the dangerous course he is taking?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am thinking too. But to divert the course of man's destruction somebody must 'listen'. Right? Somebody - ten people must listen to that Immensity calling.

B: So the Immensity may divert the course of man, yes. The individual (mind) cannot do it.

K: Yes, the individual ( mind) cannot do it, obviously. But the (inwardly integrated?) individual, ( Mr) 'X' who has trodden this path says, 'Listen', and they don't ( seem willing to?) listen.

B: Well then is it possible to discover how to make people 'listen'?

K: No, then we are back.

B: What do you mean?

K: Don't act, 'you' ( the temporal self?) have nothing to do.

B: What does it mean 'not to do a thing'?

K: Sir, I realize that whatever I try to 'do' (inwardly) I am still living in that self-centred?) 'circle of darkness' ( aka : the 'known'?) . And ( Mr) 'X' says, 'Don't act, you have nothing to do – (but rather, for meditation homework?) just (try to sit silently & ?) wait and see what happens.

( Parting words) We must pursue this sir. It is all ( looking so) hopeless from the point of view of 'Y'...

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 21 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 #11
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: I would like to talk over with you about what is happening presently to the human brain ? ( Inwardly-wise?) our brain is constantly in a state of ( self-centred) occupation ( within the field of the 'known'?) : ( lots of worries & other ?) daily problems, attachments and so on, so it is constantly in a state of occupation. That may be the central factor (of its internal degeneration?) . And if it is not ( caught?) in 'occupation' can it maintain the energy that is required to break down the ( time-binding?) patterns?

B: Yes. Now the first point is that if it is not occupied ( with anything?) somebody might think that it would just 'take it easy' (turn on, tune in & drop out ?) ...

K: No, I don't mean that. But what I want to go into is : if the human brain is caught in any ( time-binding) pattern, in any routine, it must ( sooner or later?) shrink (inwardly). And will that 'unoccupied' state ( if used holistically ?) give to the brain the required energy to break ( the inner limitations of thought-time?) ?

B: Could you go into what exactly would make it shrink ?

K: That is fairly simple. It is repetition.

B: Well, of course, repetition is mechanical and doesn't really use the full capacity of the brain.

K: One has noticed that the people who have spent years and years in (practising?) meditation are the most ( inwardly?) dull people on earth. And also those lawyers and professors, there is ample evidence of all that...

B: Well, that might be, as ( even the most) rational thinking pursued in a narrow area ( of what is already known) might become part of the ( time-binding) pattern too.

K: Of course, of course...

B: But you're saying that there is some other way ?

K: Are we saying that the human brain becomes extraordinarily ( alive inwardly) and does not caught in a ( repetitive ) pattern if it lives (inwardly ) in a state of uncertainty - without becoming neurotic?

B: Without demanding ( a psychological) certainty ?

K: Yes, without demanding certainty.

B: Yes, without demanding the 'certainty of knowledge' .

K: So are we saying that knowledge also withers the brain?

B: Well when it is repetitious and becomes mechanical, yes.

K: But knowledge itself?

B: Well, I think that knowledge has a tendency to become ( repetitive & ) mechanical. That is, to get (crystallised or ) 'fixed', but we could be always learning ( new facts) , you see.

K: But learning from a centre, learning as an accumulation process.

B: You see, (in the common process of learning ?) you learn something as fixed (basic concepts or guidelines?) and then you learn more starting from there. Now, if we were to be learning without holding anything permanently fixed...

K: That is, learning and not adding. Can you do that ( in the 'psychological' field ?) ?

B: Well, I think that to a certain extent we have to drop our ( psychological attachment to ?) knowledge. Knowledge may be valid up to a point and then it ceases to be valid, it gets in the way. You could say that our modern civilization is collapsing from too much knowledge.

K: Of course.

B: We don't drop some ( redundant knowledge ) that gets in the way, you see. It is continually moving there.

K: Yes, but I want to question, if I may, the whole idea of having knowledge.

B: It is not clear what kind of knowledge it is that you are questioning.

K: I am questioning the ( self-centred human ) experience that leaves a (psychological) mark.

B: Yes, but you see, when you use the word 'knowledge' by itself it tends to include the whole.

K: We have said ( previously?) that knowledge at a certain level is essential, there you can add and take away and keep on changing, moving, there; but I am questioning whether ( the subliminal accumulation of ) 'psychological' knowledge is not in itself a central factor for the 'shrinking' of the brain.

B: What do you mean by psychological knowledge?

K: Accumulating knowledge about myself and about my relationships. and living (inwardly in the illusory safety of?) that ( field of my past ) knowledge.

B: So if you keep on accumulating knowledge about yourself or about relationships..
K:.. yes, Yes that is it. Would you say such knowledge makes the brain somewhat inactive, makes the brain shrink?

B: Brings it into a rut ?

K: Yes.

B: But one should see why, what is it about this ( psychological) knowledge that makes so much trouble?

K: In our everyday relationships, if I have a (knowledgeable?) image about him, that knowledge is obviously going to impede - it becomes a pattern.

B: Well, indeed the knowledge about myself and about him and how we are related, it makes a pattern.

K: Yes, and therefore that becomes a routine and so the brain loses ( the direct contact with the real world ?) .

B: Yes, and it occurred to me you see that ( living in this mental ) routine is even more dangerous than routine in say the area of daily work.

K: That's right.
B: And if routine in ordinary work can shrink the brain then in that area it might do some worse thing because it has a bigger effect.

K: So, can the brain, in all 'psychological(ly related'?) matters, be entirely free from this kind of knowledge? And isn't this psychological knowledge a (major) factor of the shrinkage of the brain?

B: Well, yes, it could be an important factor. If the routinely knowledge of your profession can be a factor, then this ( psychologically active?) knowledge is stronger.

K: Of course, of course. Much stronger.

B: So then you would have to say that some more subtle degeneration of the brain takes place, not merely ( the physically visible) 'shrinkage'.

K: That's right. That's what I want to get at.

B: You see, when a baby is born the brain cells have very few 'cross connections', then they gradually increase in number, then as a person approaches senility they begin to go back. So the quality of those cross connections could be wrong. The part of the brain that deals with rational thought if it is not ( properly exercised &) used does shrink, but there may be other functions that are totally unknown, that is, very little is known actually about the brain.

K: What we are trying to explain is that we are only using one part, or use only very partially the brain, and that partial activity is the ( daily routine or) 'occupation', either rational or irrational, or logical and so still using the part. And as long as the brain is 'occupied' (or just keeping itself busy?) it must be in that limited area. Wouldn't you say that?

B: Well, then what will happen when it is not ( remaing ) occupied?

K: We will go into that in a minute. ( But not before pointing out ?) that senility is the result of a mechanical (inwardly settled ?) way of living, and so the brain has no sense of freedom, no inner space...

B: Well, that is the suggestion. It is not necessarily accepted by all the (science) people who work on the brain. They have shown that the brain cells start to die around the age of thirty or forty at a steady rate but these are merely rough measurements made statistically. Now you want to propose ( the holistic idea ) that this ( slow) death of the brain cells, or the degeneration, will come from the wrong way of using the brain?

K: That's right. That is what I am trying to get at.

B: Yes, and there is a little bit of evidence in favour of this from the scientists.

K: Thank God!

B: But I think that even those brain scientists don't know very much about it.

K: Sir, you see ( most of) these (highly certified?) brain specialists are going out, examining things outside, but not taking themselves as 'guinea pigs' and going through that.
( So, if the psychological) occupation (of the brain) does ( sooner or later ) bring about a shrinkage, how is this process to stop? And when it does stop will there be a renewal? I think this (is possible)
I want now to open a new chapter (in the Universal 'Book of Holistic Education'?) : we are coming to the (main experiential) point, which is: direct perception and immediate action. So is there a ( trans-personal quality of ?) perception which is not time-binding? And so, an action which is immediate ? That is, sir, the human brain has evolved through ( a long interval of?) time, and it has set the pattern of action by (thinking in terms of?) time . As long as the brain is active that way it is still living in a pattern of time and so ( eentually ) becoming senile. Now, if we could break that pattern of ( thinking inwardly in terms of) time, then something else ( can possibly ) take place. Am I making myself clear?

B: Well, you are saying that the pattern is the 'pattern of time' and you have to 'break out' of it. Perhaps this ( fine experiential point ?) should be clarified. What other movement is possible?

K: First let's ( see the truth of the fact?) that our whole way of thinking & living is 'bound by time'.

B: Yes, well certainly any attempt to analyze yourself, to think about yourself, involves a ( certain sequential ?) process. The whole notion of an ( inwardly perceptive) instrument involves time because any instrument is a process which you plan (ahead) .

K: In time, that's just it. Now if you see this (analytical approach as being false?) , then what is the next step?

N: Are you implying that the very seeing that it is destructive is an ('intelligence) releasing' factor?

K: Yes. You see I am asking whether the brain itself, the (brain's) cells, the whole thing, can move out of ( the traditional mentality thinking in terms of of) time?

B: ( Then ) perhaps the rate of shrinkage would be greatly slowed down...

K:.. not only slow down, sir.

B:.. well, regenerate, if you wish.

K: But the brain being (inwardly) in a state of non-occupation (and providing ) the body were in excellent health, maintained right through, which is no heightened emotions, no strain on the body, no sense of deterioration in the body, the heart functioning healthily, I am sure it can last a lot more than it does now.

B: Yes, I think that is true. The brain has a tremendous affect on organizing the ( functions of the psycho-somatic) body. The pituitary gland controls the entire system of the body glands and also all the organs of the body are controlled in that way and so on. When the ( holistic quality of the ) mind deteriorates the body starts to deteriorate.

K: Of course, of course. So can that brain ( of man) which has evolved through millions of years, which has had all kinds of ( pleasant & sorrowful) experiences, can that brain be free of all its (psychologicallly addictive residues ) of time? I think it can.

B: Could we could discuss ( more in detail what it means to be 'free of time' ? You certainly don't mean that the clock stops or anything, but what does it really mean to be 'psychologically' (inwardly) free of time?

K: That there is no ( thought's self- projection of ?) tomorrow.

B: But I mean you know there is ( an objective ) tomorrow.

K: But 'psychologically'... ?

B: Can you describe this (experiential point) a little better ? What do you mean when you say, 'no tomorrow' ?

K: Let's take the other side first : what does it mean to live in time? Thinking, & living in the ( mental continuity of the?) past, and acting from the knowledge of the past, the images, the illusions, the prejudices, they are all an outcome of the past, all that is ( projected by thought's subliminal continuity in?) time. And ( when manifested outwardly) that is producing in the world chaos.

B: So you're saying that I am psychologically extending (projecting an image of?) how it is going to feel in the next hour, when I have fulfilment of desire, or whatever.

K: I am just saying the way we are living now is (confined within) in the field of ( matter & ) time. And there we have brought all kinds of ( collateral psychological ) problems (such as) suffering & all that. Right?

B: Yes, but could we make it more clear why you are saying that if you live in the field of time suffering is inevitable ?

K: ( Sooner or later?) Inevitable.

B: Why?

K: It is simple. Which is, ( thinking of one's psychological continuity in ) time has built the 'self-image' , which is sustained ( culturally conditioned?) by society, by the parents, by education, that is built after millions of years, that is the result of time. And from that (mental 'home-base' ?) I act.

B: Towards an ( projection of a more rewarding ?) future state of being. Right?

K: Yes. Which is, the 'centre' is always ( engaged in a mental process of self-) becoming.

B: Trying to become better ?

K: Better, nobler, or any other way round. So this constant endeavour to become something ( better inwardly than what you are now ?) is an (active mental) factor of the psychological time.

B: And...are you saying that ( it inevitably?) produces suffering?

K: Obviously. Because it is a divisive (factor) . It divides (separates?) 'me' - you are different from me, and if I depend on somebody (to feel inwardly complete) and that somebody is lost, or gone, I feel lonely, miserable, unhappy, grief, suffering. So we are saying that due to this factor of ( self-) division which is the very nature of the self, one must inevitably ( sooner or later?) suffer.

B: But if there were no ( self-division & no?) psychological time then maybe this entire structure would collapse and something entirely different would happen?

K: That's it ! And therefore the brain itself has 'broken out' .

B: Well, that is would be the next step : if the brain has 'broken out' of that (self-divisive?) rut, then maybe it could regenerate then. It doesn't quite follow logically, but still it could.

K: I think it does follow logically.

B: Well, it follows logically that it would stop degenerating.

K: Yes.

B: And you are adding further that it would start to regenerate.

K: Yes. You look sceptical!

N: Yes, because the whole human predicament is bound to time. Society, individuals, the whole structure.

K: I know, I know...

N: It is so forceful that anything feeble doesn't work here.

K: What do you mean by 'feeble'?

N: The ( inertial) force of this ( materialistic mentality of time) is so great that if you have to 'break through', you must have a greater energy.

K: Yes.

N: And no individual seems to be able to generate this energy to be able to break through (or 'break free'?)

K: Ah, (holistically- wise) you have got 'the wrong end of the stick' . When you use the word 'individual' you have moved away from the fact that our brain is universal. There is no such ( self-centred ?) 'individuality'.

N: That human brain is conditioned ( to think in) this way.

K: Yes, it is conditioned this way through time. It is not ( just ) that time has created the conditioning, ( the very thinking in terms of) time itself is the factor of conditioning. So can that ( psychological) 'time' element not exist? I say it can. As we said (previously?) the ending of suffering comes about when the 'self ( -centred' mental entity?) , which is built up through ( mankind's long evolution in) time, is no longer there.
A man (of his time?) who is actually going through (his existential?) agony, is bound to reject it, but when he comes out of the shock of this, and if he is willing to 'listen' to what somebody ( Mr 'X' ?) points out to him, and if he is seeing for himself the ( inward truth?) of it, he is (ASAP?) out of that field, the brain is out of that time-binding quality.

N: Then, doesn't he 'slip back' into ( the ages old mentality of) time ?

K: No, if you see something ( which is vitally?) dangerous you can't go back to it. Like ( seeing the danger of ) a cobra or whatever danger it is, you cannot.

N: Your analogy is a bit (inadequate?) because the danger ( of psychological time) is ( not so obvious as ) that. You inadvertently slip into it.

K: When you see a dangerous animal (or see yourself in a 'dangerous' situation?) , there is immediate action. But we are ( generally ) unaware of the ( psychological?) dangers. If we would become as aware of the inner 'dangers' as we are aware of a physical dangers there is a (holistically integrated?) action which is not time-binding.

B: Yes, as long as you could perceive the actual danger, you will respond immediately. But to use your analogy of the dangerous animal, it might take another form that you don't see as dangerous.

K: Yes...

B: Therefore there would be a danger of slipping back if you didn't see (it for what it is) . This 'ilusion of time' might come every time in some other form.

K: Of course...The Holy Ghost taking different shapes.

B: But I think that is the point.

K: Sir, that is the real root of it, ( thought's self-projected continuity in?) 'time'.

B: So, the (psychological) time and the (inward ) separation as 'individuality' are basically the same structure.

K: Of course.

B: Although it is not ( so) obvious in the beginning...

K: I wonder if you see ( the inwardness of?) that.

B: It might be worth discussing it : why is (' the psychological) time' the same illusion, the same structure as ( the self-centred?) 'individuality'? . You see 'individuality' is the sense of being a person who is located here somewhere.

K: Located and divided.

B: Divided from the others and he also has an 'identity' which goes over time. He wouldn't regard himself as an individual unless he had an identity, if he said, today I am one person, tomorrow I am another. So he has to be, it seems we mean by 'individual' somebody who is (remaining identical to himself) in time.

K: I think that is such a fallacy, this idea of ( a self-centred?) 'individuality'.

B: Yes, although many people may find that very hard to be convinced that it is a fallacy.

K: Of course, many people find everything very hard (to digest?).

B: There is the common feeling that as an individual (soul?) I have existed at least from my birth if not before, and will go on to death and perhaps later. The whole idea of being an 'individual' is to be in time. Right?

K: So if that (wide spread?) illusion could be broken, that time has created one's individuality, which is erroneous.

B: Yes, through time the notion of individuality has arisen. I think that there is a great momentum in any brain, which keeps rolling, moving along.

K: We have said that ( a totally insigtful ) perception is out of time, seeing immediately the whole nature of time. If there is an insight into the nature of time the very brain cells , which are part of time, can bring about a change in themselves. That is what this (K) person is saying. You may say 'Prove it !'. I say this is not a matter of proof, it is a matter of ( directly perceptive) action. Do it, find it, test it (as optional homework in the leisurely context of 'time-free' & 'stress-free' meditation ?)

N: You were also saying the other day that when the ( ego-centric) consciousness is 'emptied' of its ( psychological) content that leads to a (qualitative?) transformation of the brain cells.…

K: This 'content' is ( the memory of ?) 'time'.

N: Now, when man's consciousness is empty of ( its time-binding 'psychological' ?) content, there...

K:... there is no ( self-centred ?) consciousness, as we know it (presently) .

N: Now, who has this insight?

K: The insight into this whole movement (of thought- time?) , is not my insight. And that ( transpersonal insight?) brings about transformation in the brain. Because it is not time-binding, that insight.

B: If the 'psychological content' is a certain structure physically (engrammed ) in the brain, we may say that in order for this 'psychological' content to exist (for so long) the brain over many years has made many connections of the cells, which constitute this content.

K: Quite, quite...

B: And then there is a (inwardly illuminating ?) 'flash of insight' which sees that all this ( psychological content ?) is not necessary and therefore all this ( psycho-mental construction?) begins to 'dissipate'. And when that has dissipated there is no content and then, whatever the brain is doing is something different.

K: Which is, sir, then there is a total (inward?) emptiness -into which we went the other day.

B: Well, an emptiness of all this ( self-centred ?) inward content.

K: That's right. That ( content free state of?) emptiness has tremendous energy. It is ( pure mind ?) energy.

B: So could you say that the ( time-bound) brain having had all these connections tangled up has 'locked up' a lot of ( its potentially intelligent?) energy?

K: That's right. Wastage of energy.

B: Then when they begin to dissipate that ( intelligent ?) energy is there .

K: Yes.

B: Would you say that is as much physical energy as of another kind?

K: Of course, of course.

K: Now, if I hear all this (only?) with the 'hearing of the ear', I will ( ASAP?) make it into an idea, but if I hear it ( within my inner) being, what happens then? ( a question left open for...homework meditation ?)

If that (inward impact?) doesn't take place it becomes merely a (intellectually stimulating ? ) idea and we can spin along for the rest of one's life playing with ( such) ideas.

B: Maybe a few would ( 'hear' it ) but obviously the majority would not (even care to listen ?)

K: No. So what? You see how do we affect, how do we touch the human brain?

B: Well, to most scientists, all this will sound rather abstract, you see. They will say 'it could be so', but as we have no actual proof of it, it is just another nice theory.( at best?) they would say, if you have some more evidence we will come back later, and become very interested. So you see, you can't give any (positive) proof - in whatever is happening in the outer world nobody can see it, with their eyes.

K: But if our brain is the human brain which has evolved through a million years, if one 'biological freak', can move out of it, how does it make the (average human) mind him to see the ( inward truth of ) this ?

B: Well ( for starters?) you have to communicate the ( intrinsical) necessity of what you are saying, that it is inevitable. Say, you explain it to him and he sees it happening before his eyes he says, 'That's so'. Right?

K: But sir, that requires somebody to 'listen' (with an integrated mind & heart?) . Somebody who says I want to capture it, I want to understand this, I want to find out ( the true feeling of it?) . Apparently that (quality of passionate listening?) is one of the most difficult things in life.

B: Well it is the very function of this (materialistic) brain that it is occupied with itself and it doesn't listen.

N: In fact one of the things is that this ( self-centred) occupation seems to start very early. How do you through ( a holistically open?) education make this..

K: If you are asking how to set about it ( educationally?) I will tell you. The moment that you ( the holistically minded educator?) see for yourself the importance of not being ( inwardly) occupied, (when & if?) you yourself see that as a tremendous truth, you will find ways and methods to help them. That is creative, you can't just copy (-paste?) and imitate.

B: Well then the question is: how is it possible to communicate (this fine point?) to a (self-centred?) brain which doesn't ( even bother to ) listen?

K: I understand, that is what I am asking (rhetorically?) .

B: Yes, well is there a way?

K: Not if I refuse to 'listen'... But I think ( a selfless?) meditation is a great factor in all this. I feel we have been 'meditating' (although) ordinary people wouldn't accept this as meditation. So ( the first & last step in?) meditation is this, sir, the 'emptying' of ( the time-binding content of) consciousness. You follow?

B: Yes, but let's be clear. Now are you saying that meditation is conducive to insight ?

K: Meditation 'is' ( indissociable from) insight.

B: But you see, insight is usually thought of as a flash, while meditation is a more constant activity …

K: Now we must be careful. What do we mean by meditation? Meditation, sir, is this (non-dualistic inward) penetration, this sense of moving without any ( psychological burden of the ) past.

B: The only point to clear up is that when you use the word 'meditation', you mean something more than 'insight', you see. It seems to mean something a bit more ?

K: Much more! Because ( the flash of) insight has freed the brain from (its psychological burden of?) the past, from (its entanglement in?) time. That is an enormous ( revolutionary) statement since the ( current practice of ) meditation - as we know it now - is ( regarded as a process of self-centred ) becoming, and any sense of self-becoming is still ( part of thought's projected ) time, therefore ( in the insight based meditation?) there is no sense of becoming.

B: But that seems to mean that you have to ( the inward clarity of) insight if you are going to meditate. Right?

K: Yes, sir, that's right.

B: You cannot meditate without insight.

K: Of course.

B: You can't regard it as a (convenient ) procedure by which you will come to insight.

K: No. That immediately implies (the self-centred thinking projecting itself in?) time. But having an insight into greed, into fear, into all that, frees the mind from all that ( psychological debris ? Then meditation has quite a different quality. It has nothing to do with all the guru's ( commercialised?) meditations.
So, would we say, sir, that to have ( the inward clarity of?) insight there must be ( an inner space of?) silence?

B: My mind has silence, yes.

K: So the silence of insight has cleansed - cleansed, purged, all that (psychological debris) .

B: The structure of the (ego-centric) occupation ?

K: Yes. Then meditation, what is it? I don't see how we can ( describe or?) measure that by words.... the sense of limitless state (of Consciousness?)

B: But you were saying that nevertheless it is necessary to find a ( holistically friendly?) language, even though it is unsayable.

K: We will ( hopefully ?) find the language. Shall we continue next Sunday?

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 21 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 #12
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: We left off the other day ( our experiential inquiry into the insight-based Meditation at the point ) when the mind is totally empty of all the 'things' that thought has put there, then begins the 'real' Meditation.

But before going further in this (highly sensitive?) matter - I would like to ( take a brief detour ? ) and find out if the human brain, can ever be free, not only from all illusion, any form of self-deception but whether it can have its own ( holistically-friendly?) order - the order not artificially introduced by thought as an effort, an endeavour to put things in their proper place. And also whether the (temporal?) brain, however much damaged it is, and most brains are damaged by shocks and/or by all kinds of stimulations, whether that brain can heal itself completely.

So first let's begin by asking : is there an (inward ) order which is not man-made, which is not the result of calculated order out of disturbance, an order that is probably very satisfying and so it is still part of the old conditioning, is there an order which is not thought-made?

Bohm: Are you referring to the ( order of the universal?) Mind? I mean you can say the order of nature exists on its own.

K: The order of nature is order, but is there a Cosmic order?

B: Which includes the order of the universe and the order of the mind?

K: Yes. A (holistic?) order which man can never possibly conceive - because any concept is still within the pattern of thought.

B: Then... how are we going to discuss it?

K: I think we can (by approaching it negatively?) . You see the human brain, the ( self-conscious?) mind is so contradictory, so bruised, it can't find order.

B: Yes, but what kind of order does it want?

K: It wants a (long lasting sense of ?) order in which it will feel safe. It won't be bruised, it won't be shocked, it won't feel the pain of physical or psychological pain.

B: The whole point of order is not to have ( any internal) contradiction. That is the whole purpose of mathematics.

K: But the brain is in ( accustomed to live in conflict & ) of contradiction...

B: Yes, something has gone wrong –perhaps as we said, it took a 'wrong turn'.

K: It took a wrong turn, we think, yes. But I want to go into something else , which is: can the mind, the brain, be totally free of all 'organized' (pre-programmed?) order?

B: What is wrong with this (man-made?) order.

K: It becomes a (mechanical ) pattern.

B: So, you mean by organized order a 'fixed' order ?

K: Yes, a fixed pattern ( of behaviour?) imposed ( from outside?) or self-imposed. Because we are trying to investigate whether the brain can ever be free from all the impositions, pressures, wounds, bruises, all the trivialities of existence, pushing it in different directions, whether it can be completely free of all that. If it cannot, ( the insight based?) meditation has no meaning.

B: Yes, and probably our daily life has no (deeper) meaning if you cannot free it of all that. It goes on ( repeating the same patterns?) indefinitely.

K: Yes, if it goes on as it has done indefinitely for millennia, life has no (deeper?) meaning. But I think there is a ( profound spiritual?) meaning, ( providing that) the (time-bound) brain is totally free of all this.

B: So, that is what you ( generically ?) call 'disorder'. But what is the source of what we call disorder? We could say it is like a ( mental form of ) 'cancer' that is going on inside the brain. It is moving in a way which is not compatible with the (natural) health of the brain. And it ( seems to?) grow as time goes on, it increases from one generation to another.

K: Every generation (updating & upgrading ?) the same ( self-centred mental ) pattern being repeated.

B: It tends to accumulate (its own psychological debris?) from one generation to another through tradition. Now we say - it is almost the same question to ask how are we going to stop these '(mental) cancer' cells from taking over.

K: That is what I want to get at. How is this pattern, which has been set, and which has for generation after generation accumulated, how is that to end, be broken through? That is the real question that is at the back of my mind.

B: Could we ask a (collateral) question: why does the brain provide the soil for this stuff to go on, to grow?

K: It may be merely tradition, habit.

B: Well, why does it stay in that, you see?

K: It may be that it is so afraid of something new taking place because in the old tradition it takes refuge. It feels safe.

B: Well, then we have to question why does the brain like to deceive itself? It seems that this whole pattern of ( mental) disorder involves the fact that the brain deceives itself about this disorder. It doesn't seem to be able to see (the vital danger of?) it clearly.

N: If a certain pattern of order has served in the past, why can't the human brain just put aside now, when it is no longer useful or adequate.

K: Apparently it can't. Psychologically we are talking of, it can't, it doesn't. Take an ordinary human being like any of us, it goes on repeating fears, sorrow, misery, all that is part of its daily existence. Is it so heavily conditioned that it cannot see its way out of it? Or it may be merely ( that indulging in) this constant repetition, the human brain has become (inwardly unperceptive & ) dull.

N: Is there a 'momentum' of repetition ?

K: Yes. This (time-binding) momentum of repetition makes the mind sluggish, mechanical. And in ( the psycho-somatic comfort of?) that mechanical sluggishness it takes refuge and says, 'It's all right, I can go on forever '. That's what most human beings do.

B: Well, to think that way is a manifestation of ( a 'steady state' form of inner ) disorder.

K: Of course. Let's come back ( to the real world ?) I am the ordinary man. I see that I am ( mentally) caught ( in the clutches of time ?) in my whole way of living; my (self-centred) thinking, attitudes and beliefs, are the result of enormous length of time. ( Thinking in terms of?) time is (providing the psychological backbone of ? ) my whole existence. In the (mental images & memories of the?) past, which cannot be changed, I take refuge. Right?

B: Well I think that this 'ordinary' man doesn't really understand that 'time' is something that happens to him.

K: But after talking over with you ( with Mr X?) I can see that my whole existence is based on time. Which is, ( the process of psychological) 'time' is ( mentally projected by the ) memory of the past and in that the brain takes refuge.

B: But you see, it is quite common to think that the future can be changed, the Communists have said, give up the ( mentality of the?) past & we are going to change (you ASAP ?)

K: But I can't give up the past. We only ( like to) think we can give up the past.

B: Yes, that is the second point - that even those (activistically minded revolutionaries?) who try to give up the past, those who don't want to take refuge in the past, still can't give it up (their self-centred mentality?) ...

K: That is just my point.

B: So it seems whichever way you would try to do it... you are stuck (in thought's temporal mentality?) .

K: So the next step is: why does the brain accept this ( time-binding ?) way of living, and why doesn't it break it down? Is it ( just) laziness? Or is it that in breaking down ( thought's self-centred continuity?) it sees no (alternative?) hope?

B: Yes, well that is still the same question - going from ( the 'certainty' of the?) past to ( an uncertain psychological?) future.

K: I think this is applicable to most ( thoughtful & thoughtless ?) people, isn't it? So what is there to be done?

B: We haven't yet understood why ( the human brain) is doing this. It is not clear. Many (thoughtful) people can see that this ( egocentric) behaviour is disorderly, irrational and so on, and some of them have said, 'OK, let's give up the past but we find we can't' - why can't we?

K: If I give up (my self-centred mentality anchored in the ?) past, (quite obviously...?) 'I' have no ( sense of temporal ?) existence.

B: Well you'll have to clarify that …

K: It is simple: if I give up all my ( high expectations & ) remembrances, I have nothing (left in terms of my psychological continuity?) , I am (feeling inwardly as?) nothing. Is that the ( subliminally scary?) reason why we cannot possibly give up the ( mentality of the?) past? Because my existence, my way of thinking, my life, everything is from the past. And if you say, wipe that out, what have I left?

B: Well, obviously we'll have to keep certain things from the past like useful (practical) knowledge and technology.

K: Yes, we went through all that (necessary knowledge) .

B: Suppose that ( a holistically minded person would?) say : we can keep that ( utilitary) part of the past and ( endeavour to?) wipe out all the aspects of the past which are ( psychologically) contradictory...

K: All the 'psychological', contradictory (stuff?) and so on. What is left? Just ( the routine of) going to the office? ( Inwardly -wise?) there is nothing (not-a-thing?) left. Is that the ( main subliminal?) reason why we cannot give up (the self-centred mentality of the past?)?

B: So, are you saying simply that when people say they are 'giving up the past', they just simply are not doing it ?

K: They are not doing it.

B: They are merely turning it into another (roundabout) question which avoids the issue.

K: Because my whole ( psychological) being has its roots in the past.

B: Now, what if you told somebody 'OK, give all that up and in the future you will have a mind which is open and creative'. You see, people want to be assured of at least something.

K: That is just it. ( Psychologically speaking?) there is nothing. You, the common human being, wants something to which he can cling to, can hold on to.

B: Or reach for ? They may not feel that they are 'clinging to the past' but rather that they are reaching for something (different & meaningful?) .

K: If the 'I' (the self-centred thinking entity ?) is 'reaching for something' it still is (anchored in the subliminal memory of the?) the past.
( In a nutshell:) As long as 'I' have my ( psychological) roots in the past there cannot be ( any holistic inward) order.

B: Because the past (experience of mankind ) is pervaded with disorder?

K: Yes, disorder. So, is my mind, my brain, willing to see ( the inward truth?) that if I give up the past there is absolutely no-'thing' (no psychological content left?) ?

B: And you are saying that there is nothing to reach for ?

K: No-thing. So if I have no carrots, nothing ( to look forward ) as a reward or punishment, how is this ( psychologically active ?) 'past' to be dissolved? Because otherwise 'I' (the self-centred mental entity ?) am still living in the field of time. I willing to face ( my ) absolute ( inward?) emptiness?

B: Well, what will you tell somebody who is not willing (to volunteer for this total psychological challenge?) ?

K: If somebody says, 'I am sorry but I can't do all this nonsense' - you say, 'Well, carry on '. But ( if?) I am willing to 'let go' completely my ( psychological attachment to the?) past - (if?) my brain is willing to face this extraordinary state ( which is totally new to it) of existing ( inwardly ) in a state of 'no-thing'ness. This is apparently frightening...

B: Because ( for a mind with ) roots in the past (in the field of the 'known') , this notion of (living in a state of inner ) 'no-thingness' is...( not looking very atractive?)

K: ( But the inwardly mature human ?) brain says, 'I am willing to do that'. I am willing to face this absolute no-thingness, or (inward) emptiness because it has seen for itself all the various 'places' ( psychological 'mansions'?) where it has taken refuge are illusions, so it has finished with all that.

B: Now, is very possible that a decently healthy human brain could do this fairly readily, providing that it was not already been damaged ( by the various incidents & accidents of the 'real' life) .

K: Look: can one discover what has caused damage to the brain? Amongst these factors are the strong ( thought-) sustained emotions, like hatred, anger, or any other violent response - they are not only creating a physical shock but they ( emotionally?) 'wound' the brain. Right?

B: Well, also getting excessively excited by other means.

K: Of course, drugs and all that stuff. Excessive excitement, excessive anger, violence, hatred, all that. The natural response doesn't damage the brain. Right? Now suppose that my brain has been damaged through anger.

B: Probably the neurons get connected up in the wrong way and the connections are too fixed. I think there is evidence that these things will actually change one's ( psychological) structure.

K: The structure, yes. Now, can one have a (holistic?) insight into the whole nature of disturbance, anger, violence. If yes, that insight changes the ( functioning of those ?) cells of the brain which have been wounded.

B: Well possibly it would start them healing, yes.

K: Yes. All right. Start them healing. That healing must be 'immediate' (or...ASAP?) .

B: Well, it may take some physical time, in the sense that if some wrong connections have been made it is going to take time to redistribute the (neurological) material. But the beginning of ( the healing process?) , it seems to me, is immediate.

K: Put it that way, all right. (If?) I have 'listened' to you, (if ?) I have carefully read, ( & if...?) I have thought about all this and I have seen (the inward truth?) that anger, violence, hatred, all those excessive - or any form of excitement - and so on, do bruise the brain. And the insight into this whole business does bring about a mutation in the cells. It is so. And ( further down the line?) the nerves and all their ( neuronic) adjustments will be as rapid as possible (ARAP?) .

B: Something similar happens with cancer cells. Sometimes the cancer suddenly stops growing and it goes the other way, for some reason that is unknown but a change must have taken place in those cells.

K: Would it be, sir, that when the brain cells change, a fundamental change there, the cancer process stops?

B: Yes, fundamentally it stops and it starts to dismantle.

K: Dismantle, yes that is it.

N: So a beginning (of healing) is made and it is made 'now'.

K: That is the ( timeless action of a holistic ?) Insight.

( Intermission)

N: There is another thing which I wanted to ask you about the 'past': for most people the ( recycled & updated memory of the?) 'past' means pleasure.

K: Not only past pleasures, the remembrance of all the things.

N: One starts disliking pleasure only when it becomes stale, or it leads to difficulties when one wants to keep the pleasure afresh and not have the staleness or the problems it brings. I mean this is the 'normal' human being. How does one deal ( holistically?) with this immense problem of pleasure in which most people are caught because in it is (enfolded the whole momentum of) the past.

K: There is no ( self-conscious sense of ?) pleasure at the moment it is happening. It comes in later when it is remembered. So the 'remembrance' is the ( actual momentum of the ) past. But if - as an ( inwardly mature) human being- I am willing to face ( this inward state of ?) 'no-thingness', this ( may ?) wipe out all that.

N: How does one wipe out this tremendous instinct for pleasure? It almost seems to be an instinct.

K: No, what is the ( psychological) nature of 'pleasure'? It is a constant (personal?) remembrance of things past which have happened.

B: And also the expectation that it will happen again...

K: Of course, but always from the (memory field of the?) past.

B: You have usually made this distinction of pleasure and enjoyment.

K: Yes, I did.

N: Of course you have made a distinction, but still the ( average) human being, even though he understands intellectually what you are saying, he is sort of 'held back' in this field (of the 'known' ?)

K: Because he is not willing to face (his inward?) emptiness.
I don't know if you see that ( the common drive for) pleasure is not (related to the intelligence of Love & ) Compassion . But perhaps if there is this ( holistic inward ) mutation, Compassion is stronger than pleasure. So pleasure has no place in the ( intelligent action of) compassion. Compassion has got tremendous strength, an incalculable strength, pleasure is nowhere in it.

N: But what happens to a man in whom pleasure is dominant?

K: We said that. As long as he is unwilling to face this extraordinary (inward) emptiness he will keep on with ( following) the old pattern.

B: You see we have to say that the ( average) man (of the world) had a damaged brain too. There is a certain brain damage which causes this emphasis on sustained pleasure as well as the fear and the anger and the hate.

K: But the ( psychologically?) damaged brain is healed when there is insight.

B: Yes. Many people would agree that hate, anger and so on, are products of the damaged brain, but they would find it hard to say that ( this ages old drive for?) pleasure is the product of a damaged brain.

K: Oh yes, of course it is.

B: Shouldn't we say that true enjoyment is not the product of the damaged brain, although it is ( unfortunately?) confused with pleasure ?

K: ( Anyway...?) do I, as an (inwardly mature?) human being, have an insight into the past, how very destructive it is to the brain, and the brain itself sees it and has an insight into it and moves out of that?

N: You are saying the beginning of order comes from ( the inner clarity brought by?) insight?

K: Obviously. Let's (move on?) from there.

N: Is it possible to ( virtuously?) gather a certain amount of ( inner) order so that it gives rise to a certain amount of insight?

K: Ah! You cannot through false (means) find truth.

N: I am saying it on purpose because for many people the ( basic intelligent) energy that is required for insight seems to be lacking.

K: You are tremendously keen to earn a livelihood, to earn money, to 'do something' if you are really interested in ( getting) something (in the material world ?) . ( Therefore ) if you are vitally interested ( inwardly ) in this transformation, you have the energy.

May we go on, sir? (Supposing that Mr 'Y' ) as a ( holistically minded ?) human being, had this insight that 'wiped away' the ( thought-time momentum of the?) past, and the brain is willing to live in ( the universally open state of inneer?) 'no-thingness'. From there I want to go on; may we?
There isn't a 'thing' which thought has put there. There is no ( ego-centric) movement of thought, except ( in the area of of practical) knowledge, which has its own ( rightful?) place. We are talking of an (inward) state of mind where there is no movement of thought, there is absolutely no-thing.

B: You mean also no feeling ?

K: Wait a minute. What do you mean by 'feeling' there?

B: Well, usually people might say, well, OK, there is no thought, but they may have various feelings.

K: Of course, I have (sensory) feelings. The moment you put a pin in to me..

B: These are ( generally called?) 'sensations'. But there are also inner feelings.

K: Inner feelings of what?

B: It is hard to describe ( the more profound ones) - those that can be easily described are obviously the 'wrong' kind such as anger (resentment & ) and fear.

K: Is compassion a ( personal?) feeling?

B: Probably not...though many people may 'feel compassionate'. Even the very word suggests it is a ( holistically friendly?) form of feeling : 'compassion' has the root word 'passion' in it which is a feeling. So, you see it is a difficult question. What we usually call 'feelings' are those ( emotionally charged) things that could be recognized as feelings, or having a describable character.

K: Sir, let's go into that a little bit. What do we mean by feeling? Sensations?

B: Well, people don't usually mean that. You see sensation is connected with the body.

K: So you are (refering to) 'feelings' which are not of the body ?

B: Yes, or which are said to belong to the (human) 'soul' ( as they would have said in the old days) , you see ?

K: The soul, of course. That is an easy 'escape' ( psychological excuse ?), but it means nothing.

B: No... (?)

K: So, what are these 'inner feelings'? Pleasure?

B: Well, as you can label it that way it is clear that it is not valid there.

K: So what is valid? The non-verbal (inner) state ?

B: It may be a 'non-verbal' state which includes something that would have something analogous to a 'feeling' but which isn't fixed, you see? That you couldn't name... I am just considering ( the possibility that) this could exist.

K: I don't follow...

B: I was just trying to clarify ( where we are going now?) . Somebody could say, 'OK, I understand, I am not thinking, I am not talking, I am not figuring out what to do'. Now, if we have to go further (into this inward 'no-thingness'?) What does it really mean?

K: All right. There is no ( inner movement of?) time and thought. ( Hint : thought is not projecting its own continuity in?) time. Right?

B: And no sense of the existence of a (self-conscious?) 'entity' inside ?

K: Absolutely, of course. The 'existence' of the entity is the bundle of (active?) memories of the past.

B: But the ( inward sense of its) existence is not only thought thinking about it but also the feeling that it is there, inside, you get this sort of (a transpersonal ?) feeling.

K: The feeling, yes, but otherwise there is nothing. If there is a feeling of one's being continuing...

B: Yes, even though it doesn't seem verbalizable...

K: I wonder if you are (not?) caught in an illusion that there is such a ( transcendental?) state.

B: Well, it may be.... It would be an (inward ) state without will, without..

K: Of course. All those are gone...

B: Now, how do we know that this state is genuine?

K: In other words you want ( a K certified?) proof of it ?

B: Not a 'proof' but rather a (shared?) communication of that state.

K: Now wait a minute. Suppose you have (free access to?) this peculiar (Love & Intelligence of?) Compassion, how can you communicate ( share it with?) me who am (comfortably?) living in pleasure and all that? You can't.

N: But if I am prepared to 'listen' to you ?

K: Prepared to 'listen' - how deeply?

N: To the extent my ( inward capacity of) listening takes me to.

K: Which means what? You will go as long as it is safe, secure.

N: Not necessarily.

K: The ( 'X' ) man says there is no ( sense of one's temporal ?) being. And one's whole life has been ( following the temporal thread of ) this ( self-centred) 'becoming', or 'being' and so on. And (Mr X )says in that state there is no ( sense of one's temporal ) being at all. In other words, there is no 'me'. Now when you say, 'Show it to me !', it can be (only) shown ( indirectly) through certain qualities it has, certain actions. What are the actions of a mind that is totally empty of (thinking in terms of its self-centred ) being? What are its actions? Actions in the physical world?

N: Partly...

K: Mostly that.

N: Not 'mostly', partly.

K: All right, this ( 'X') man has got this sense of ( universally open inward) emptiness and there is no ( sense of an ego-centric ) being, so he is not acting from self-centred interest. And you can judge ( the truthfulness of?) his actions in the world of daily living - whether he is a hypocrite, whether he says one thing and contradicts it the next moment, or whether he is actually living this ( transpersonal intelligence of?) compassion ( Hint : not 'I' feel being in in a compassionate mood?)

B: Well if you are not doing the same, you can't tell, you see ?

K: That's just it. That's what I am saying.

N: I can't judge you there.

K: You can't. So how can you convey to me in that peculiar quality of an (inwardly free ?) mind? You can describe, you can ( metaphorically) go 'round it', but you can't give to another the essence of it. I can discuss it and if he has this ( intuitive?) sense of 'being (inwardly) empty' , I can go very close but he can never 'enter it' or 'come upon' that ( holistic dimension of) mind unless he has (a transpersonal insight into?) it.

N: Is there any way of 'communicating' It ( not through words) for someone who is open?

K: We said Compassion. It is not (at all the same as?) 'I' feel compassionate . That is altogether ( holistically?) wrong. You see after all in daily life such a mind acts without the 'me, without the ego, and therefore (even if) it might make a ( personal?) mistake, it corrects it immediately, it is not carrying that mistake.

N: It is not stuck.

K: Not stuck (in thought's continuity in time?) . We must be very careful here not to find an excuse for wrong.

So sirs, ( if?) we have come to that point, what is then the true meaning of Meditation? For the man of ( ego-centric ?) 'becoming & being', it has no meaning whatsoever. But when not, then what is mediation? It must be totally un-conscious (non 'self-conscious'?). Right sir? Totally uninvited.

B: Without ( a pre-meditated?) conscious intention, is what you mean ?

K: Yes, without 'conscious intention'. Would you say, sir that the Cosmic Order of the Universe is in ( a state of?) Meditation?

B: Well if it is 'alive' then you would have to look at it that way.

K: No, no, it ( existing?) is in a state of meditation.

B: Then we should try to go over what is this (Cosmic) Meditation, what is it doing? What (everyday aspects of this Cosmic ) Order can we discern, which would indicate the universal meditation?

K: The sunrise and sunset is order, all the stars, the planets, the whole thing is in ( moving in ) perfect order.

B: We'll have to connect this (physical order of the Universe ) with Meditation....According to the dictionary the meaning of 'meditation' is to reflect, to ponder something over in your mind and to pay close attention.

K: And also to measure.

B: It means 'measure' in the sense of weighing ( the significance of something) or to 'ponder over' . Now is that what you mean by Meditation ?

K: No.

B: Then why do you use this word ? For instance 'contemplation' - to create an inwardly open space really is its basic meaning.

K: Is that 'open space' between God and me?

B: That is the way the word arose ...

N: From 'temple' ?

B: Which means an 'open space'.

N: The Sanskrit word 'dhyana' doesn't have the same connotation as 'meditation'. Because meditation has the overtones of measurement and probably in an oblique way that measurement is order.

K: Don't let's use the word meditation.

B: Let's first find out what you really mean by it ?

K: A state of ( inward ) infinity, a measureless state in which there is no division of any kind. ..

B: At other times you said that Meditation is ( the inward action of ) the mind which is emptying itself of ( its psychological?) content.

K: Yes. What are you trying to get at?

B: Well what I am trying to get at that it is not merely 'infinite' but it seems that something more is involved in this emptying of content - we said that this content is the past which has become disorder. Then you could say that in some sense it is constantly cleaning up the past. Would you agree to that?

K: It is constantly cleaning up the ( psychological debris of the?) past?
( After the mind?) has emptied itself...

B: All right, then you say when the (active psycho-memory of the ) 'past' is cleaned up, then you say that is meditation ?

K: The emptying the 'past' which is anger, jealousy, beliefs, dogmas, attachments, all that must be done (in the first place?) . If any part of that exists it will inevitably lead to illusion. ( In a nutshell:) he mind must be totally free of all ( its self-created?) illusions - brought by desire, by (its vain?) hopes, by wanting security and all that.

B: And when that is done this opens the door to something broader, deeper?

K: Yes. Otherwise ( man's) life has no (universal) meaning, just repeating this ( survivalistic) patterns...

N: What exactly did you mean when you said the Universe is in meditation?

K: I feel it that way, yes. Meditation is a state of 'non-movement movement'.

B: Could we say that the Order of the Universe is not actually governed by its past ?

K: Yes, sir, yes sir.

B: It is ( an intelligent Order which is ) free and creative.

K: It is creative, moving. Would you, as a scientist, accept such a thing?

B: Well, as a matter of fact I would! You see the universe creates certain forms which are relatively constant, so that if people who look at it superficially they only see that, it seems to be then an order which is determined from the past.

K: Sir, let's put the question the other way: is it really possible (in the Meditation context?) for ( thought's continuity in?) time to end - time being the ( constant recycling of the memory of the ) past, and to have no 'tomorrow' at all? Of course there is a (chronological) 'tomorrow', but the ( inward?) feeling, the actual reality of ( inwardly) having no tomorrow ? I think that is the 'healthiest' (holistically speaking ?) way of living. Which doesn't mean that I become irresponsible - that is all too childish.

B: But the physical time is still a part of the natural order of the Universe ...

K: Of course, that is (assumed to be ) understood.

B: So, your ( experiential ) question is whether we have a sense of experiencing (inwardly an unbroken cotinuity of our ) past, present and future, or whether we are free of that ( time-binding) sense.

K: Sir, I am asking you as a (highly knowledgeable ) scientists, is the (Cosmic Order of the?) Universe, based on time?

B: I would say, no, but you see, the general way it has been formulated..

K: That is all I want (to hear ?) you say 'no'. And can the human brain which has evolved in time..

B: Well, has it really 'evolved' in time, or it has become 'entangled in time' ?

K: Entangled, all right.

B: Entangled in time in some way, because if you say the ( Intelligent Order of the?) Universe is not based on time and the brain is part of the universe...

K: I agree.

B: ...its (inward Order) can't be based merely on time. Thought has entangled the brain in time.

K: All right. Can brain's 'entanglement' ( in time) be unravelled, freed, so that the ( Intelligent Order of the?) Universe 'is' (shared by?) the (human) mind? You follow? If the ( Order of the?) Universe is not ( dependent of?) time , can the human (consciousness or ?) mind which has been entangled in time, unravel itself and so be ( part of the Intelligent order of ?) the Universe? You follow what I am trying to say?

B: Yes. That is ( integrating the Cosmic) Order. Now would you say that is ( the deeper meaning of?) Meditation?

K: That is what I would call Meditation - a state of ( contemplative ) Meditation in which there is no element of the past.

B: So, as the mind is disentangling itself from time, it is also really disentangling the brain from ( the limitations of?) time ?

K: Yes, sir. Would you accept that?

B: Yes... as an (inwardly valid) proposal. This 'is' the ( purpose of) real meditation. And somebody ( like Mr 'X') says one can live this way and life has an extraordinary meaning in it, full of compassion and so on, and every (less-than-excellent?) action in the physical world, can be corrected immediately and so on. Would you, as a ( holistically minded?) scientist, accept such a state ?

B: I feel it is perfectly possible, it is quite compatible with anything that I know about ( the Laws of) Nature.

K: Oh, then that's all right...

B: Part of ( man's ) entanglement (in matter & time ) is that Science itself has put 'time' into a fundamental position which only helps to entangle it still further.

K: Of course putting it into words is not the ( actual) thing. That is understood. But can ( the true spirit of?) it be communicated to another?

B: Yes, well I think that the first point about communication of this is to 'bring it about'...

K: Of course. Now can some of us get to ( the bottom of?) this so that we can communicate it actually? ( after the summer break ? )

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 21 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Nov 2018 #13
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: Dr Bohm reminded me yesterday (that before the summer break?) we talked about order, whether the universe is based on (the order of?) time at all and whether man can ever comprehend and live in that supreme order. And I wanted to investigate profoundly, how to comprehend or live from that Ground (of Being) that is timeless. And I think we had better begin from there.

Dr Bohm: Begin from the Ground.

K: Sir, I don't know if you will agree as a scientist of eminence, whether there is such a Ground, whether man can ever comprehend it, live in ( the true spirit of?) it, and whether we can as human beings come to that ?

B: Well, I don't know if ( modern) science - as it is now constituted can say much about that.

K: Science doesn't ( like to) talk about it. But you as a (highly respected?) scientist, would you give your mind to the investigation of that?

B: Yes. And I think that implicitly science has always been concerned with trying to come to this Ground, by studying matter to the greatest possible depth. But of course (consciousness-wise ?) this is not enough.

K: Didn't we ask, sir, if I remember rightly - ( three months?) it's so long ago - as a human being, living in this world, which is in such turmoil, whether there can be ( inwardly created ) that absolute order first, as the universe is in absolute order, and comprehend an order which is universal.

B: Yes...
K: I can have order in myself, ( brought about ) by careful observation & self-investigation, and understand the nature of ( the ongoing) disorder, and the very understanding, the very insight of it dispels that disorder. And that's one level of order.

B: Yes, well, that's the level ( of order) that most of us have been concerned with till now, you see. We say, we see this disorder going on in the world, and in ourselves, and we say it is necessary to be aware, observe all that, to be aware of that and as you say, to 'dispel' it.

K: Yes, but ( at the end of the day?) that's only a very small affair.

B: ( May be so ?) but people generally don't feel it as a small affair. We've discussed it at great length, but at first ( the holistically minded ?) people feel that clearing up the disorder in themselves and the world would be a very big thing. And perhaps all that's necessary.

K: I mean, ( any?) fairly intelligent and knowledgeable and fairly cultured human beings, cultured in the sense 'civilized', can, with a great deal of enquiry and investigation, come to the point when in himself he can bring order.

B: Yes, and some people would say : if only we could bring that order into the whole of society...

K: If all of us ( now present ? ) in this room, if we are all tremendously in that inward sense orderly, we'll perhaps create a new society. But ( inwardly speaking?) that again is a very small affair...

B: I can understand that, but one should go into it more carefully because people commonly don't see it as a 'small affair' , although a few may be seeing that there's something beyond that.

K: Much more beyond that, that's what I mean...

B: Perhaps it might be worthwhile considering why it is not enough to go into this ( holistically friendly?) order of man and society. In what sense is that not enough? You feel it's very small but...

K: I mean, because we live in chaos, to bring order, we think that's a tremendous affair.

B: Yes, that's agreed, it looks very big. From the present state of this, it looks very big.

K: Yes, very enormous, but in itself it isn't.

B: Could you make it a little more clear why it isn't ?

K: Because I can put my (inner?) room in order, so that it gives me a certain ( sense of ) space, certain freedom. Which ( in a nutshell) is : not to have conflict, not to have comparison, not to have any ( self-divisive sense of 'me' and 'you', 'we ' & 'they', which brings about such conflict. That's simple ( to see in the outer world?) If I'm ( inwardly identifying myself as?) a 'Hindu' and you as a 'Muslim', we are (psychologically ?) at war with each other.

B: Yes, but in every other community, people do 'fall apart' in the same way.

K: Yes, the whole society breaks up that way. So if one profoundly realizes ( sees the whole truth about ?) it, that's finished.

B: Yes. Then suppose we say we have achieved that (basic level of inner order?) , then what?

K: That's what I want to get at. I don't know if you are ( really?) interested in this.

B: Yes, but some people might say that it's something so far away that it doesn't interest us - wait till we achieve it before we worry about the 'other'.

K: All right, but this was a dialogue between you and me, not with...

B: Yes, but I meant, just for the sake of trying to make sure that everybody here 'sees' it, before we go on to see what the question ( of Universal Order ) is.

K: All right, sir. If I'm (inwardly living?) in disorder, (physically and/or psychologically) and the society in which I live is also utterly confused, there is a great deal of ( social) injustice - a miserable affair that my generation, ( plus ) past generations, have contributed to. And I can ( start with myself and ) do something ( right?) about it. I'll put my ( inner) house in order - myself is the 'house' - the (inner ) house must be in order before I can move further. If I apply my ( whole?) 'mind and heart' to the resolution of that, it's clearly (possible) . But ( unfortunately?) we find it tremendously difficult, we are so bound to the ( comfortable memory of the ) past - to our habits and to our attitudes – that we don't seem to have the (necessary intelligent) energy, the courage, the vitality, to move out of it.

B: Yes, this is why it doesn't seem to be 'so simple'. Therefore , what exactly will produce this ( highly intelligent ) energy and courage that will change all this ?

K: I think what will change all this, is to have ( a global) insight into all this.

B: Yes, I think that really is the key point, that without ( the inward clarity of) insight, nothing can change.

K: Nothing can change...

B: So even if we try ( really hard?) to bring ( inner ) order in our daily life, without this much broader ( clearly perceptive ? ) 'insight' into the very root of it...

K: That's right. Now, will that insight really alter my whole ( inward) structure and nature of my being ?

B: This is the ( wider) question, because if we look at bringing ( physical) order in my daily life, it will not involve your whole being.

K: No, of course not.

B: And therefore the insight will be inadequate.

K: Yes. So what is (this total?) insight ?

B: Well, just to 'sum it up', would make it more intelligible.

K: Could we start with being ( inwardly attached or ?) 'tied' to a belief, to a person, to an idea, to some habit, some ( personal) experience – which inevitably must create ( psychological) disorder as it implies the ( subliminal attempt to ?) 'escape' from (facing?) one's own loneliness, fear, and all that. Now to have a 'total insight' into this ( subliminal cover-up of one's psychological ?) attachment, that very insight 'clears away' all attachment.

B: Yes... As the ( inward clarity of such an ) insight penetrates into that, it would dispel ( the dark side of?) it, and therefore this problem would vanish.

K: Vanish, that's right.

B: But it still would take a very strong, intense insight. ( In your own words?) a 'total' insight...

K: That's right, but are we willing to go through all that? Or ( the deeper causation of?) my attachment, or my ( psychological) tie to something is so strong, that I'm 'unwilling' to let go ? Unfortunately, it's only 'the very few' who would actually want to do ( or 'go through'?) this kind of thing.
Now, can this ( total) insight dissolve the whole (psychological causation of ) being tied, attached, dependent, lonely - all that 'at one blow' ?
I think it does when there is a profound insight into this ( whole) thing. This insight is a movement which totally different from the mental (activity) of memory, knowledge, experience.

B: Well, it seems that it is an insight into the source of all disorder of psychological nature, not just into attachment or greed.

K: It is ( encompassing?) all that.

B: Yes, so (in the inward light of ) that insight, the mind can clear up and then it would be possible to approach ( wider issues such as ) the Cosmic Order.

K: That's much more interesting than this rather immature (scholastic talk?) - any serious man must ( sooner or later?) put his (inner) house in order. And that must be a complete order, not only in a particular direction, but order in the wholeness ( into the total consciousness?) of man. If that can be done (ASAP) , because society, as it is going on , is quickly disintegrating and it destroys ( the creative individuality of?) human beings. It's a ( time-bound ) 'machine' that is destructive in itself and if a (careless?) human being is caught in it, it destroys him. And realizing (the inward danger of ) that, any ordinary human intelligence says, 'I must do something about it', not just sit back and talk about it.

B: You see, most people feel that 'doing something' about it consists of solving ( in the first place, their) particular problems like attachment or removing ( the causes of) disagreement between people, or something.

K: The resolution of a 'particular' problem, is not ( necessarily) the resolution of the whole.

B: That's the key point that if you find the source that generates this (whole psychological mess?) and getting at it roots is the only way.

K: Yes, that's right.

B: Because if we try to deal with a particular problem, it's still always coming from the same old source.

K: The source is the 'me' ... This little source, the little stream, must dry up.

B: Yes, the little stream confuses itself with the great one, I think.

K: Yes, we're not talking about the great stream (of human consciousness?) , the immense movement of life, we're talking about the little ( self-centred thread?) that is creating disorder. And as long as there is that ( I-me-mine?) centre which is the very essence of disorder, unless that is dissolved there is no ( authentic sense of inward) order.
So ( if???) at that level it is clear, can we go on from there?

B: Yes, I think so.

K: Now, is there another ( inward dimension of?) order totally different from the man-made disorder or ( fake?) 'order' ?

B: Yes... ?

K: I have put my ( inner) house in order. And if perhaps, many of us ( would?) do it, we'll have a better society – and that is relevant, that is necessary, But that ( 'brave new world' ?) order has its own limitations...

B: Yes, and eventually people will get bored with that....

K: Yes. Now, the ( holistically minded) human being who has really deeply understood the (inward nature of the ) disorder made by human beings says, 'Is there an order that's beyond all this?'

B: Yes, and how do we get into that question? Even in the world of science men are seeking the order of the whole universe, looking to the depth of its structure, not just to get useful results but because the question fascinates them.

K: Yes, it interests them, let's put it that way. Perhaps many ( holistically minded?) people have been seeking ( through out the ages?) the 'absolute' and the word 'absolute' means to be free of all limitation, of all dependence, of all imperfection.

B: Yes, but man's search for absolute has been the source of tremendous illusion, since the limited 'self' (-centred consciousness?) seeks to capture the 'absolute'.

K: Of course, that's impossible.

B: But supposing we recognize that the absolute is a very dangerous ( a very slippery?) concept, when the mind tries to grasp it, and yet it seems to necessary in the sense of ( man's inward) freedom, because anything that is dependent in any way is not free.

K: So how do we approach this question of a (transcendental?) order which is beyond all (man-made) order and disorder?

B: Well, I think that the scientist is is not able to say anything on this question because any order discovered by science is relative.

K: Because their own egotism ?

B: Not only that but also because the information we have is limited.

K: Limited, quite.

B: And we can only say it goes so far...

K: So as a ( holistically inclined ?) human being, there is order in my life. That order is naturally brought about through insight and so perhaps it will effect society. Let's move on from that. The enquiry then is, is there an Order which is not man-made ?

B: As of now we have the order of Nature, the Cosmos which we don't really know in its depth but we could consider that ( it points ) to be that sort of Order.

K: Yes. Unless man interferes with it, nature has its own order.

B: Yes, it has its own order and even when we're told this order in nature is part of an universal order.

K: Man has sought a different dimension (of universal Consciousness ?) because he has understood ( the limitations of this temporal) dimension. He has lived in it, he has suffered in it, he has gone through all kinds of mess and misery, he ( finally?) says, 'I've come to the end of all that.' You may say there are very few people who do that, but this ( ultimate existential ?) question must be put.

B: Yes, but what is the significance of this question to the vast number of people who have not gone through that? Is it of any special interest to one who hasn't gone through it?

K: I think it is, because even (if only) intellectually, he may see the (intrinsical) limitations of it.

B: Yes, it's important for him to see ( a possible way out?) even before he has finished up with ( putting order in his inner house) - not to say wait until I clear it up and then...

K: Of course not - that would be too stupid. So how does the mind approach this problem? Does it come about through 'meditation' ?

B: Well, I think that ( the 'ponder over' aspect ) meditation would only have significance for seeing that there is ( an ongoing inner) disorder.

K: I would say that such (inward) measurement can exist only where there is disorder.

B: Yes, just by looking ( objectively) at the way things are out of proportion in the ( self-centred) mind, you can see there is disorder.

K: Yes. So we are using the word 'meditation' not as measure or even to ponder or think over, but a meditation that is the outcome of bringing about order in ( one's inner) house, and moving from there.

B: So then, what is ( happening in this) 'meditation'.

K: First ( of all) the ( meditatively-friendly) mind must be free of ( its time-binding mentality of ) 'measurement'. Otherwise it can't enter into the 'other' ( dimension of Consciousness) .

B: Well, that's an important ( experiential) point, since the first instinctual reaction at seeing ( the ongoing inner ) disorder, is to try to correct it. And ( in the insight based meditation?) this might be a fundamental mistake...

K: We said that all ( mental ?) effort to bring order into disorder is ( sustaining the ongoing) disorder.

B: Yes, and in that way this ( new meditational approach?) is very different from what almost everybody has been saying over the whole of history.

K: I know, I know. We are, perhaps 'exceptional'...

B: There may be a few who implied it but it's never been said explicitly to my knowledge.

K: All right, let's explicitly say it.

B: So we say that it is the 'attempt to control' has no meaning (in the meditational context ) .

K: No ( experientia) meaning, yes.

B: And now if there's no control, what do we do?

K: No, no, no. If I have an insight into the whole nature of ( thought?) control that liberates the mind from that burden.

B: Could you explain the nature of this insight ?

K: We said that 'insight' is not a movement ( originating ) from (the field of one's past) knowledge, from remembrance and all the rest of it, but ( comes with?) the cessation of all that and by looking (non-dualistically?) at the problem with a pure observation, without any (hidden?) motive - to observe this ( interfering) movement of ( thought's) measurement.

B: Yes, I think we can see that this (psychological) 'measurement' is the same as 'becoming' , an attempt of the mind to measure itself, to control itself, to set for itself a goal - is at the very source of disorder.

K: That is the very source of disorder.

B: So, in a way, this was the 'wrong turning', that man extended measurement from the external sphere into the (inward) sphere of the mind.

K: Yes.

B: But the first reaction would be ''if we don't control this thing it will go wild''. That's what someone ( more thoughtful?) might fear.

K: Yes, but you see, if I have an insight into ( the intrinsical limitations of this psychological) measurement, that very insight not only banishes all (subjective) movement of measurement, but there is a different ( holistic quality of inward?) order.

B: Yes, so the mind does not 'go wild 'because it has begun ( a new movement ) in order. In fact, the attempt to 'measure' it that makes it 'go wild'.

K: Yes, that's it. The measurement is ( generating inner ) confusion.

Now let's proceed : can this mind in 'Meditation' find an (inward) state where there is 'something' which is not man-made ?

B: Well, the 'man-made' things, what are they?

K: Everything : worship, prayers, anxieties, sorrow, attachment, detachment, loneliness and suffering and confusion and ache and anxiety & all that. Those are all man-made. And so many people have put this question, obviously, must have. And therefore they say (the 'other' dimension is?) God.

B: Yes...

K: Which is ( becoming ) another (mental) concept, and that very concept creates disorder.

B: Well, that's clear that man has invented (the ultimate concept of) 'God' and given him the power of the absolute.

K: Yes, quite.

B: Which is ( a 'greater than life' image of of) himself and which dominates him.

K: Now, one has finished with all that. Now then our ( next experiential) question is, is there something beyond all this, which is never touched by human thought, ( by the self-centred) mind?

B: Now, that makes a difficult point, since ( the powers of the human) mind might go beyond thought.

K: That's what I meant - yes.

B: Then do you mean by the 'mind' only thought, feeling, desire, will, or something much more?

K: For the time being, as long as the human mind is caught in that, it is limited.

B: Yes, but the human mind has ( a far higher) potential.

K: Tremendous potential.

B: Which it does not realize now, being caught in ( its personal entanglements in self-centred) thought, feeling, desire, will (power) & and that sort of thing.

K: That's right.

B: Then we'll say that ( holistic dimension of human consciousness?) which is beyond this is not touched by this ( self-) limited mind ?

K: Yes. ( silent pause)

B: Now what will we mean by the Mind which is beyond this limit?

K: First of all, sir, is there such a mind? Not theoretically or romantically, all the rest of that nonsense, but to actually say, 'I've been through this'?
(Mr) 'X' says, ' I have seen the limitation of all this, I have been through it, and I have come to the end of it.' And this mind, having come to the end of ( its self-centredness?) , is no longer the limited mind. And (beyond it?) is there an (Universal?) Mind which is totally limitless?

B: Now, that raises the question of how the brain is able to be in contact with that Mind ?

K: I'm coming to that. First of all, I want to be clear on this point, it's rather (academically?) interesting, if we go into it. The ( trans-personal human ) mind includes the emotions, the brain, the reactions, physical responses and all that, and this mind has lived in turmoil, in chaos, in loneliness and has understood, has had a profound insight into all that. And having such a deep insight cleared the whole field. This ( inwardly -free?) mind is no longer that mind.

B: Yes, it's no longer the self-limited mind.

K: ( The 'psychologically ) damaged' mind. Let's use that word 'damaged'.

B: This ( psychologically) 'damaged' mind has also damaged the brain.

K: Yes, all right...

B: So we have ( the self-centred process resulting from) the damaged mind...

K: Damaged mind means damaged emotions, damaged brain, damaged...

B: The cells themselves are not in the right order.

K: Quite. But when there is this ( sudden inner clarity of) insight and therefore order, the damage is undone.

B: Yes. We discussed that....

K: I don't know it you would even agree to that...

B: Yes, by reasoning you can see that it is quite possible, because you can say the damage was done by disorderly thoughts and feelings, which over-excite the cells and disrupt them and now with the insight, that stops and a new process...

K: Yes, it's like a person going ( blindly?) for fifty years in a certain direction and realizes suddenly that that's not the direction, the whole brain changes.

B: It changes at the core and then the wrong structure is dismantled and healed, ( except that all this healing process ) may take ( some physical) time.

K: That's right.

B: But the insight which...

K:... is the factor that (triggers the inward ) changes.

B: Yes, that ( flash of?) insight does not take time. So it means that the whole process has changed at the origin.

K: So, that limited mind with all its ( self-centred) consciousness and its content & all the rest of it, it's over. Now is that mind which has been limited, and having had insight into this limitation, and therefore moved away from that limitation, is something that is really tremendously revolutionary? You follow? And therefore it is no longer the ( same ) human mind with its ( egocentric) consciousness, which is limited. That is ended.

B: Yes, so that is the 'general' human consciousness which has been all round.

K: Of course not, I'm not talking of the (self-centred) individual mind, that's too silly.

B: Yes. I think we discussed before that the 'individual' mind is the outcome of the general Consciousness of mankind ? A particular outcome, rather than an independent thing. You see, that's one of the difficulties.

K: That's one of the confusions.

B: The confusion is we take the (self-identified) 'individual' mind to be the concrete actuality. So, it's necessary to consider this 'general' human mind to be the actuality from which the 'individualised' ( particular) mind is formed.

K: Yes. That's all very clear.

B: But now you are saying we move away even from that 'general' (human) mind, but what does it mean?

K: If one has totally moved away from it, then what is the Mind?

B: Yes, and what is the person, what is the human being then ?

K: And then what is the relationship between this Mind, which is not man-made, and the man-made mind? I don't know if I'm making myself clear...

B: Well, didn't we agree to call it 'Universal Mind', or would you prefer not to?

K: I don't like the term 'universal mind', (since ) lots of other people used it. Let's use a much 'simpler' word. A ''mind that is not made by man''.

B: Neither individually nor in general.

K:( A consciousness which is ?) 'not made by man'. Sir, can one observe (inwardly & ) deeply : does such a ( transcendental dimension of ?) mind exist?

B: Yes, let's see what that means to 'observe' That. I think there are some difficulties of language here, because for instance 'Who' observes ? is one of the ( wide-spread ) questions that comes up.

K: We've been through all that (before) . There is no ( dualistic) division in observation. Not, 'I' observe, but there is only observation.

B: Does the particular brain takes part in this observation?

K: No, sir, it doesn't take place in a particular brain. It is not K's brain.

B: I don't mean that, what I mean by the word particular brain, you see, we could say that given the particulars of where a certain human being is in space and time or whatever his form is, not giving him a name, is distinguished from another one which might be here or there.

K: Look, sir, let's get clear on this point. We live in a man-made world, ( with a ) man-made ( interfacing) mind, and all that, we are the result of man-made mind - our brains and so on. Now, can the ( holistically friendly) mind uncondition itself so completely that it's no longer 'man-made'?

B: Yes, that's the ( apparently impossible ?) question...

K: That is the question - can the 'man-made' mind as it is now, can it get to that ( transpersonal) extent, to completely liberate itself from 'itself' ?

B: That's a somewhat 'paradoxical' statement...

K: Of course. ( Sounds) paradoxical but it's actual, it is so.
One can ( easily ?) observe that the ( general) consciousness of humanity 'is' ( undissociated from) its ( psychological ) content- of loneliness, sorrow, anxiety, fear, and all the rest of it. Having had an insight into ( the 'reality' of this content) , it has cleansed itself from that.

B: Well, that implies that it was always potentially more than that but that insight enabled it to be free of its (psychological burden ?) . Is that what you mean?

K: That insight... I won't say it is 'potential'.

B: Well, there is a little difficulty of language ; if you say the brain or the mind had an insight into its own conditioning and then almost you're saying it became something else.

K: Yes, I am saying it- this insight transforms the man-made mind.

B: So then it's no longer the 'man-made' mind ?

K: It's no longer. That ( holistic?) insight means the wiping away of all the content of consciousness. Right? Not bit by bit, but the totality of it.
And that ( inward flash of?) insight is not the result of man's endeavour.

B: Yes, but this seems to raise the ( metaphysical) question ''Where does it come from ?''

K: . Where does it come from? ( It occurs?) in the Mind itself.

B: Which 'mind'?

K: Mind, I'm saying the whole of it.

B: We're saying there is ( an Universal?) Mind, right?

K: It's rather interesting, let's go slowly. The ( 'as is' human mind or ) 'consciousness' is man-made, general and particular. And as one sees the limitations of it, the ( intelligent energy of the?) mind comes to a point when it says, 'Can all this be wiped away at one breath, one blow, one movement ?' And that is the movement of insight. It is still in the ( energy field of the human) mind. But not born of that ( part of human ) consciousness ( generally dominated by self-interest?) . I don't know if I'm making myself clear...

B: So, you are saying that the ( transpersonal human ) mind has the potential of moving beyond ( brain's time-bound ) consciousness ?

K: Yes.

B: But we haven't actually ( got to access ) other part ?

K: Of course. It must be a part of the ( original consciousness of the human?) brain, a part of the Mind.

B: So, the human mind & brain can do that, but it hasn't , generally speaking, done it ?

K: Yes. Now, having ( seen & ) done all this, is there a (more universal dimension of the ) mind which the man-made mind cannot conceive or create - is there such a mind?

B: I think you are saying that once the human mind has freed itself from the general and particular structure of consciousness of mankind (dominated by self-interest) from its limits, and now this (transpersonal) 'mind' is now much greater. Now you say that this mind is raising a new question ?

K: This mind is raising the question.

B: Which is what?

K: First of all , is one's mind free from the (time-binding limitations of the ) 'man-made' mind?

B: Yes... ?

K: That's the first question.

B: may be a (self-created?) illusion.

K: Illusion - that's why one has to be very clear. No, (for Mr X?) it is not an illusion, because he sees measurement is an illusion, he knows the nature of illusion, born of where there is desire there must be etc., illusions. He's not only understood it, he's over it.

B: He's free of desire.

K: Free of desire. That is the nature (of the time-binding consciousness ) . I don't want to put it so brutally. Free of desire.

B: But it is still full of ( intelligent?) energy.

K: Yes. So this mind, which is no longer general and particular, and therefore not limited, ( the limitation has been broken down through insight) and therefore the mind is no longer the same conditioned mind. Now, then what is that mind?

B: This is raising a question about whether there is something (a Mind which is) much greater ?

K: Yes. Is there a Mind which is not man-made? And if there is, what is its relationship to the 'man-made' mind?

B: Yes...

K: This is ( becoming) very difficult. It is half past twelve, do we go on?

B: If you feel like it...

K: I can go up to a quarter to one.

B: Quarter to one, yes that's good, yes...

K: You see every form of verbal statement is not That. Right? So we're asking (non-verbally?) is there a Mind which is not man-made ? I think this ( transcendental question?) can only be asked when the ( self-interest created ?) limitations are ended, otherwise it's just a foolish question. I mean, that becomes theoretical....

B: Part of the man-made structure ?

K: Of course, of course. So one must be absolutely free of all this. Then only can one put that question ; is there a Mind that is not man-made, and if there is such a Mind, what is its relationship to the 'man-made' mind ? Now, is there such a Mind, first. Of course there is. Without being dogmatic or personal, there is. But it is not ( to be interpreted as?) 'God' ...

B: Because 'God' is part of the man-made structure ?

K: Which has created chaos in the world. So, there is such an (Universal ) . Then, if there is such a Mind, what is the relationship of That Mind to the 'man-made' mind?

B: To the general human mind?

K: To the particular and general. Has it any relationship?

B: Yes, this question's a difficult one because you could say that the man-made mind is pervaded with illusion, most of its ( psychological) content is not real.

K: No. So this is Real.

B: Actual ?

K: We'll use the word 'real' in the sense 'actual' - has This any relationship to that? Obviously not.

B: Well, I would say it has a superficial one in the sense that the man-made mind has some real content at a certain level, a technical level, so in that sense in that ( transpersonal) area there could be a relationship but as you were saying that is a very small area. But fundamentally...

K: No, the man-made mind has no ( 2-way interacting?) relationship to That.
But That has a relationship to this.

B: Yes, but not to the (ongoing?) illusions in the man-made mind.

K: Let's be clear. The man-made mind has got illusions, desires and all the rest of it. And there is that other ( dimension of Universal?) Mind which is beyond all limitations. This illusory mind, the man-made mind, is always (subliminally?) seeking ( endeavouring to reach ? ) That.

B: Yes, that's its main trouble.

K: Yes, that's its main trouble and therefore it's creating more and more mischief, confusion. This 'man-made' mind has no relationship to That.

B: Yes, because any ( 'self–centred' ?) attempt to get to That, is ( a potential ?) source of illusion ?

K: Of course, obviously. Now, has That any (working ?) relationship to this ('man-made' consciousness?)

B: Well, what I was suggesting is that it would have to have, but if we take account of the illusions which are in the mind such as (those caused by?) desire and fear and so on, it has no relationship to That. However That ( Compassionate Intelligence?) can have an (educational?) relationship to the 'man-made' mind in (helping it to) understanding its ( self-centred) structure.

K: Are you saying, sir, that this Mind has an (interacting ?) relationship to the human mind the moment it's moving away from the limitations?

B: Yes, if in understanding those limitations it moves away .

K: Yes, moves away. Then 'That' has a relationship.

B: Then it has a genuine relationship to what this limited mind actually 'is', not to the ( self-created?) illusions as to what it thinks it is.

K: Let's be clear.

B: Well, it has to be related to as it were, to the source, to the true nature of the 'man-made' mind, which is behind the illusion.

K: Yes, which is its ( original?) nature ?

B: Yes.

K: Therefore how can That (Mind) have a relationship to this (mind?) , even basically?

B: The only relationship is in 'understanding its (true nature?) , so that some ( intelligent '2-way' ?) communication would be possible.

K: I'm questioning it, just to 'push it' a little deeper … What is the actual relationship of ( Selfless?) Love to ( the sensate 'love' generating ) jealousy? It has none .

B: Not to 'jealousy' itself, no, which is an illusion, but to the human being who is jealous, there may be.

K: Love and hatred have no relationship to each other.

B: No, not really...

K: None, not 'not really'.

B: But ( couldn't the 'man-made' mind endeavour to ) understand the origin of its hatred ?

K: Ah, it might - yes, yes...

B: In that sense I would think, there is a relationship.

K: I see, you're saying, ( the intelligence of?) love can understand the origin of hatred and how hatred arises and all the rest of it. Does love understand that?

B: Well, I think in some sense that it can understand the origin ( of resentment & hatred) in the 'man-made' mind, and moves away...

K: Are we saying, sir, that ( the holistic intelligence of?) love, has a relationship to 'non-love' (to the 'loveless' human mind ?) ?

B: Only in the sense of dissolving it.

K: We must be awfully careful here. Is it that in the ( 'natural) ending' of hatred, the 'Other' is ( making itself felt?) ?

B: Well, then we'll have to ask how it gets started, you see ?

K: That's very simple (to explain verbally?) .

B: But what if we have ( a 'mind & heart' stuck in the divisive mentality of ?) hatred ?

K: Suppose I have ( a reaction of?) hatred. I can see the ( immediate ) origin of it. Because you have insulted me.

B: Well that's a 'superficial' origin ? Why does one behave so irrationally is the deeper origin. You see, if you merely insult me, ( any rational person could ) say ''why should you respond to the insult ?''.

K: Because all my ( ages old) conditioning is (getting involved in) that.

B: Yes, that's what I mean by understanding the ( actual) 'origin' of hatred...

K: I understand that, but does ( the natural intelligence of?) love help me to understand the origin of hatred?

B: ( It can help one to ) understand its deeper origin and moving away.

K: Moving away...

B: Yes.

K: Then the 'Other' is. But the ( Compassionate Intelligence of the?) Other cannot help the 'movement away' ( cannot do it for you ?)

B: No, let's put it this way : one human being has this ( intelligence of selfless ) love and the other has not - can't the first one communicate something which will start (trigger) the ( hatred) movement in the second one?

K: That means, A can influence B ?

B: Not influence but one could raise the question for example, ( otherwise?) why should anybody be talking about any of this.

K: That's a different ( meta-physical) matter - is ( the collective momentum of frustration, resentment and/or ) 'hate' dispelled by (the Compassionate Intelligence of?) Love ? Or in the (non-dualistic ) understanding of hatred and the ending of it, the Other is.

B: That's right, but now, if we say that A has reached That (Compassionate Intelligence?) and he sees B... What is he going to do, you see, that's the (deeper existential) question.

K: Just a minute, sir. ( Suppose that ) my wife 'loves' and I 'hate'. She can talk to me, she can point it out to me the unreasonable (aspects of hatred) and so on, but her love is not going to transform ('vaporise'?) the ( inward) source of my hatred.

B: That's clear, yes, except that love is the ( inspirational) energy which will be behind the talk. The (intelligence of?) 'love' itself doesn't 'go in there' (& clean it up for you?) .

K: Of course - that's 'romantic' and all that business. So ( the ball is on the consciousness field?) of the man who hates, and having an insight and ending the causation of it, the 'movement' of it, has ( gained free access to?) the Other.

B: Yes, we're saying that if A ( Mr 'X'?) is the man who has seen all this and he now has the energy to put it to B - it's up to B what happens...

K: Of course. I think we had better pursue this (rather delicate issue next time)

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 21 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Dec 2018 #14
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: We were saying the other day that a ( holistically minded ?) human being, who has worked his way through all the problems of life, both physical and psychological, and has really grasped the full significance of freedom from psychological memories and conflicts and travails, one comes to (the inward check- ?) point where the mind finds itself free (of its self-centred tethering ?) but hasn't gathered that supremely ( intelligent & compassionate ?) energy to 'go beyond' ( transcend?) itself. Can we go on from there?

Bohm: If you like, yes.

K: Can the human 'mind & brain', the whole psychological structure, ever be free from all ( sense of inner) conflict & from all shadow of any ( psychological ) disturbance?

B: Self-( created?) disturbance ?

K: Self-disturbance, and all that. Can it ever be free? Or the idea of ( complete spiritual ) freedom is an illusion ?

B: Yes, well, that's one possibility. Some ( materialistically minded ? ) people would say we could have only a 'partial freedom'.

K: Yes, partial freedom. Or ( assert that the ) human condition is so determined by the past, by its own conditioning, it can never free itself from it, like some of those 'intellectual philosophers' have stated this.

B: Well, some people may feel that this is the case.

K: But the deeply non-sectarian 'religious' ( holistically minded?) people have said it can be done.

B: Well, many of them said it is done through reincarnation.

K: Yes.

B: But in addition, that group say it will take a very long time.

K: Yes, they say it will take a very long time. You must go through various lives, going through all kinds of (personal joys & ) miseries and ultimately you come to That. But ( here?) we are not thinking in terms of time. We're asking, whether a ( holistically minded ?) human being, knowing that he is ( seriously ) conditioned can ever free itself ? And if he does, what is ( there to be found?) beyond? That's what we were coming to.
As we said the other day, our ( time-bound) minds are 'man-made'. And is there a mind which is not 'man-made'? It is possible that it can free itself from its own 'man-made' mechanical mind.

B: I think there's a ( logical ?) tangle there, ( if we just assume that?) the human mind is totally 'man-made', totally conditioned, then how can it 'get out' of it ( or 'break free '?) ? On the other hand, if we would say that it has at least the (potential or the ) 'possibility' of something beyond...

K: Then it ( would) becomes a reward, a temptation, a 'thing to be'...

B: There seems to be some (logical) inconsistency when you are saying that the mind is totally conditioned and's going to get out. I'm not saying it 'is' inconsistent but ( to any objective outlooker?) it may appear to be inconsistent.

K: I understand that, but if one admits ( or takes for granted ?) that there is a part ( of his consciousness?) which is not conditioned, then we enter into quite another...

B: ... kind of inconsistency ?

K: Yes, into another ( experiential) inconsistency. However, in our previous discussions, we've said , that ( even if ) the ( present condition of the human?) mind is one of being deeply conditioned, it can free itself through ( having a total) Insight (into the nature of this conditioning) - that is the real ( experiential) clue to this. Would you agree to that?

B: Yes...

K: We went into what is this (total) 'insight', what is the nature of it ; and can that insight uncondition the mind completely, wipe away all the illusions, all the ( selfish?) desires and so on, can that insight completely 'wipe it out'? Or is it just partial?

B: Well, I think the first point we should look at - since the human mind is not static - when one says it's 'totally conditioned' it suggests a ( rigid psychological condition ) which would never change.

K: Yes...

B: Now, if we say the mind is always in movement, then, even if it seems impossible to say what it is at this very moment, we could say it has not been totally conditioned.

K: It is in movement, but the movement is ( confined ) within a boundary ( within the field of the 'known' ?)

B: It's within a border, yes.

K: And this ( 'self'-centred) field ( of the 'known '?) can expand or contract, but the boundary is very, very limited.

B: Yes. But then, how can this whole ( self-centred) structure 'die away' ? You see, if we ( make any ) move within that structure, we stay within the same boundary.

K: Now, it is always moving within that limitation. Can it 'die away' from that?

B: That's the key point : this ('dying away' is ) another kind of movement, in another dimension (of consciousness?)

K: We say it is possible through 'insight', which is a totally different kind of 'movement'.

B: Yes, and then we say that this ( inwardly enlightening ?) movement does not originate in the individual, nor in the general mind.

K: Quite right, yes. That's what we discussed the other day. It is not an insight of a particular, or of the general ( time-bound mind) . Are we then stating something quite 'outrageous' ?

B: Yes, I think that ( this concept ?) violates most of the ordinary logic that people have been using, that either the particular or the general mind should be able to deal with everything.

K: Yes.

B: Now if you're saying there's 'something' beyond both, this is already a question which has not been ( scientifically?) stated. And I think it has a great importance.

K: How do we then 'state' it, or how do we 'come to it' ? Can we have a 'conversation' about it using your expertise, your scientific brain , with this ( K) man who is not all that ?
( For starters?) Can we have a conversation to find out if the 'general mind ' and the 'particular mind' are not divided at all ? Then if we don't (make) that (artificial division?) , what is there?

B: Well, we did discuss I think in California about the Ground (of All Being ?) . We were saying that the 'particular & general' mind 'dies' ( returning into the ) Universal mind or into to the (inward) emptiness, then ultimately ( even) this Universal Mind 'dies' (& returns?) into that Ground .

K: That's right, we discussed that...

B: I think that's the kind of 'lead' in ...

K: Would an ordinary fairly intelligent person, agree or see (the inward truth of?) all this?

B: I'm not sure...If it were just 'thrown at him', he would reject it as nonsense - it would probably require a very careful presentation and (hopefully?) some people might see ( the inward truth of?) it. But if you just say it to anybody they would say, ''Whoever heard of that ?''....

K: So where are we now? We are neither in the 'particular' nor in the 'general' (dimension of human consciousness?)

B: Yes, ( not caught in) the constant movement of thought between the 'particular' and the 'general' (areas of human existence) . As I said, ordinarily thought is (getting) caught on one side or the other.

K: That's the whole point, isn't it? That the general and the particular are in the same area, in the same field (of the 'known') . And thought is the ( mental) movement between the two.

B: Yes...

K: Or thought has created both ?

B: Yes, it has created both and it 'moves between' within that area (of its past knowledge)

K: Yes, in that area (of the 'known') . And it has been doing this for millennia...

B: Yes, and most people feel that's all it could do.

K: All it can do. Now, we say, we are saying, that when this (perpetual?) movement ( of thought within the field of the known?) comes to an end, ( its ?) 'time' comes to an end...

B: We should go more slowly here, because it's quite a jump going from 'thought' to 'time'....

K: Right. Let's see.... thought is ( a mental movement within the 'known' ?) ...

B: Yes, and doing that it has created ( its own continuity in ?) time, which is part of the 'general' and the 'particular' mind - there is a particular time and also a general time.

K: Yes, thought ( itself) 'is' time...

B: Yes. Thought has a ( past memory) content (resulting from our species evolution in) time, and besides that, thought is ( generating its own continuity ?) in time, moving from the past into the (self-projected ) future. Right?

K: ( in a nutshell?) Thought is the outcome of time.

B: Does this mean that time exists beyond thought? If you say thought is based on time, then time is more fundamental than thought - is that what you want to say?

K: Yes.

B: So we have to go into that. You could say that time is something which was there before thought, or at least ( has started clicking?) at the origin of thought.

K: Time is ( implicit) whenever there is the accumulation of knowledge. I act and learn . That action is ( not necessarily?) based not on my previous knowledge, but I do something, and in the doing I learn (gather practical knowledge)

B: Yes, and that learning is registered (as life experience) in the memory.

K: In the memory and so on. So is not thought essentially the movement of time?

B: Well, we'll first have to see in what sense is this (accumulative process of) learning ( is generating its own ) movement of time. You can say, when we learn something it is registered , and then ( the learned experience) operates ( as practical knowledge in ? ) the next experience ?

K: Yes. The ( recorded memory of the?) past is always moving to ( guide & control ? ) the present.

B: Yes...

K: All the time !

B: Yes, and con-fusing with the 'present'. And the two together are again registered as the next ( updated ) experience.

K: So are we saying that 'time' is not different from (the memory based process of ) 'thought', or ( in 'experiential' shorthand : ?) ''time 'is' thought''.

B: Yes, well, this movement of learning and the response of memory into experience and then re-registering, we say that is ( a mental proces which is taking place in ) time, and that is also ( a basic process of) thought.

K: Yes ; Is there a Time apart from thought?

B: Well, that's another question. Wouldn't you say that in the material order of the Universe, Time has a significance apart from thought?

K: Physically, yes...

B: Right. So here we're talking ( only about the 'psychological' significance) of time ?

K: As long as there is an accumulation (of self-centred ) knowledge, as the 'me' and so on, there is (a mental projection of ?) psychological time.

B: Yes, then we ( can generalise and?) say that wherever there is accumulation there is time.

K: Yes, that's the ( universal?) point. Wherever there is ( any material?) accumulation there is time.

B: Then, supposing there is no accumulation ( of 'psychogical' memory), then what?

K: Then - that's the whole ( experiential) point - there is no ( sense of ?) time. As long as I am accumulating, gathering, becoming, there is the process of time ; but if there is no (such) gathering, no becoming, no accumulation, does the 'psychological' time exist?

B: Well, probably you could say even the physical time must depend on some kind of physical accumulation.

K: Of course, but that's quite a different matter.

B: That ( reality of) chronological we are not denying - we're denying the ( inward ) significance of the psychological accumulation.

K: That's right. So ( the self-centred ) thinking is the outcome of psychological accumulation, and that accumulation gives it a sense of continuity, which is ( the 'psychological' ) time.

B: Well, it seems (a self-sustained?) movement : whatever has been accumulated is responding to the ( challenges of the ) present, with the projection of the future, and then that is again registered. Now the accumulation of all that's registered is in the (linear) 'order of time', I mean, ( last time) , this time, the next time and all that...( mentally recycled continuity of 'yesterday-today-tomorrow'?)

K: That's right. So (in a holistic nutshell ?) we're saying : 'thought is time'.

B: Yes, or 'time is thought' ?

K: One way or the other.

B: So, the movement of that ( memory) accumulation is psychological time, but that's also ( the basic process of?) thought. Right ? The two words mean the same thing

K: So psychological accumulation is (generated the self-centred activity of ? ) thought and (its continuity in?) time.

B: Yes, we're saying that we happen to have two words when really we only need one.

K: One ( compounded?) word ('thought-time') That's right.

B: But because we have two words we look for two different things.

K: Yes. There is only one ( basic self-sustained ?) movement, which is 'time & thought', or 'time + thought', or 'time-thought'. Now can the human mind which has moved for millennia in that area, all the time, free itself from that?

B: Yes, now why is the mind bound up? Let's see exactly what's holding the mind ( tethered within the field of the known?)

K: ( Survival oriented?) Accumulation.

B: Yes, but why does the mind continue to accumulate?

K: Because in ( the survivalistic momentum of ?) accumulation there is security - apparent security.

B: I think this needs a little discussion - in a certain area that is even true, that the accumulation of physical food may provide a certain kind of ( temporal) security (see the 'Brexit survival kit'?)

K: Of course.

B: And then since no distinction was made between the outer and the inner, there was the feeling that one could accumulate inwardly either experiences or some knowledge of what to do.

K: Are we saying the outward necessity of physical accumulation for security is necessary, but that same ( survivalistic?) urge moves into the psychological field ?

B: Yes.

K: There you accumulate hoping to be ( forever?) secure.

B: Yes, inwardly hoping to accumulate present memories, or relationships, or other things you could count on, principles you could count on.

K: So ( the obvious goal of any?) psychological accumulation is safety, protection, security.

B: The illusion of it, anyway.

K: All right, the illusion of security and in this (safe inward field of real facts & ) illusion it has lived (or just... survived, for many millenia?) .

B: Yes, so it does seem that man's first ( honest?) mistake was that he never understood the ( subtle?) distinction between what he has to do outside and what he has to do inside, right?

K: Yes, we said that. It is the same ( survival oriented ?) movement, outer and inner.

B: But now man carried the movement, that procedure which was right outwardly he carried inwardly, without knowing, perhaps entirely ignorant, not knowing that that would make ( a major existential?) trouble.

K: So where are we now? (The holistically minded?) human being, have come to the point when he says, 'Can I really be free from this (false security of ) this psychological (illusory inner process of?) thought and time?' Is that possible?

B: Well, if we see where it had this origin, then it should be possible to dismantle it, but if ( we take for granted that) it is built into us, nothing could be done.

K: Of course it is not 'built into us'...

B: Yes, although most people act as though they believe it was...

K: Of course, that's absurd...

B: So, if it's not (genetically?) built into us (we said it was built up in the first place through time) , then the possibility exists for us to change.
I think that's one of the difficulties of people who ( think in terms of temporal) evolution : they 'hope' to get out of this static boundary, but they don't realize that (thinking inwardly in terms of?) evolution is the very means by which this (mind) trap was made.

K: Yes. So I have (finally?) come to the point where I'm fully aware of the nature of this, and my next question is: can this mind move away from this (fake safety of that?) field altogether, and enter, into a totally different dimension? And, as we said (repeatedly?) , the ( 'stepping out' of ?) it can only happen when there is ( the inner clarity of) insight.

B: Yes, and it seems that ( a total) insight arises when one questions this whole thing very deeply.

K: The whole thing – yes.... Now having had ( the enlightening ) insight into this and seen its limitation and therefore go beyond it, what is there ( to be found?) beyond?

B: I think it's very difficult to even bring this into words, and some ( thoughtful?) people might feel we should leave this entirely non-verbal.

K: Can we say ( use the universal disclaimer ?) ''the word is not the thing'' ?
Whatever the description is not the real, is not the truth. Now, realising that, then what is there beyond all this ? Can my mind be so desire-less, so it won't create an illusion, something beyond?

B: Yes, well, then that's a question of desire, you see desire must be in this time process.

K: Of course, desire is ( the active factor of psychological ?) time.

B: Yes, there are very subtle forms of desire, as well as the obvious forms...

K: Sir, after all, 'being & becoming' is based on ( thought sustained) desire.

B: Yes. They are one and the same, really.

K: Yes, one and the same. Now, when one has an (enlightening?) insight into that whole movement of ( thought-sustained ) desire, and its capacity to create illusion... it's finished.

B: Well, since this is a very crucial point, we should try to say a little more about desire, how it's intrinsic in this accumulating process. One thing you could say is that as you accumulate there comes a sense of something ( more) missing.

K: Of course.

B: I mean, you feel you should have more, something to complete it, right. Whatever ( fortune?) you have accumulated is not 'complete'.

K: So, could we go into the question of ( psychological) 'becoming' first, and then see how desire comes into it. Why is it that all human beings right through the world have this urge to become? Outwardly I understand that, simple enough.

B: Well, we have to become stronger and stronger.

K: Physically develop your muscle and...

B: Yes, your language (skills) , your logic...

K: And so, ( be able to get) a better job, more comfort and so on. But inwardly, why is there this need in the human mind of trying to become 'enlightened' - let's use that word for the moment - trying inwardly to become better ?

B: Well, there must be a sense of dissatisfaction with what's in there already, that's one thing. A ( 'becoming'?) person feels he would like his life to be complete. You see suppose for example he has accumulated lots of memories of pleasure, but as these memories are no longer adequate, he feels something more is needed.

K: Is that it?

B: Well, eventually he feels that he must have the whole, the ultimate (spiritual experience) .

K: I'm not at all sure whether the ( desire for) 'more' is not the real thorn.

B: The word 'more' is just implicit in the whole meaning of the word 'accumulate' : if you're accumulating you have to be accumulating more, there's no other way to do it.

K: So why is there this seed (of greed?) in the human mind ?

B: Well, he didn't see that this (wanting) 'more' is wrong, inwardly. Right? If he started outwardly to use the term 'more', then he carried it inward, and for some reason he didn't see how destructive it was.

K: Why? Why have fairly intelligent philosophers and religious people who have spent a great part of their life in 'achieving', why haven't they seen this very simple fact that where there is accumulation there must be ( the greed for?) more.

B: Well, they've probably seen that but they don't see any harm in it.

K: I'm not sure they see it...

B: During the nineteenth (as well as in the 20-th & 21-the ?) century it was the century of progress - improving all the time. So they felt inwardly too that man should also improve himself inwardly (to keep pace with the technological advances of his time?)

K: But why haven't they ever questioned this?

B: Well, what would make them 'question' this whole idea of progress ?

K: Obviously this constant (existential weariness involved in the ?) struggle for the more.

B: But they thought that was necessary for progress.

K: But is that progress?

B: Well, can we make it clear, suppose you had to answer one of the nineteenth century 'optimists', that man is progressing all the time, to be better inwardly as well as outwardly.

K: Yes, let us admit outwardly...Is it that the outward urge to be better moved into the psychological realm?

B: Yes. Now, can we make it clear why it does harm in the 'psychological' realm.

K: What is the harm in accumulating (lots of things) 'psychologically'? Oh yes, it brings about a ( subliminal attitude of) division between 'you' and 'me', and so on.

B: Could we make that more clear, because it is a crucial point.

K: ( Suppose that ) I have accumulated psychologically as a Hindu, and another has accumulated as a Muslim.

B: There are thousands of such divisions.

K: Thousands of divisions. Therefore (the psychological?) accumulation in its very nature divides people. In ( this subjective) accumulation man has sought ( to achieve a long term) psychological security, but ( identifying inwardly with?) that security is the (acting) factor of human division.

B: Yes, any attempt to accumulate will divide. Karl Marx has said that it was this accumulation of capital by some people which divided them from other people, that started tremendous ( social) conflicts.

K: So, that's why human beings have accumulated, not realizing its consequences. But realizing ( the psychological damages created by this very old habit ?) , is it possible not to accumulate?

B: Yes...

K: I mean, that's something tremendous.

B: Yes, because it seems the human mind automatically accumulates.

K: I know. Why? For the very clear and simple reason, in accumulation, inwardly as well as outwardly, if feels more secure.

B: Yes. Well perhaps you could say that having got on into this ( psychological) trap it becomes very hard for the mind to get out, because the mind is ( hetting personally involved ) in this process of accumulation and it becomes very hard to see anything else .

K: Yes, suppose my mind is filled with this process of 'occupation', which is ( gathering, processing & updating its?) psychological knowledge - can it end?

B: Yes, but only if the ( natural intelligence of this ) mind will get to the root of it.

K: Of course it can, which is ( to see the truth regarding ) this (wide-spread) illusion that in accumulation there is security.

B: Well, by now, one can see this as a ( road–map of holistic meditation ?) for this whole process (of ending psychological time?) . But then, the ( practical aspect of the?) question is that even if you have a 'map' you must now be able to look at the ( actual) country.

K: Yes. When you are ( stuck in) looking at the map you don't see the country.

B: The map may be useful but it's not quite enough. Right?

K: Quite.

B: So, we were saying, that ( the momentum of thought-sustained ?) desire is what keeps people going ?

K: Not only desire but this deep-rooted instinct (of the brain ?) to accumulate (anything, indiscriminately)

B: Like the squirrel ?

K: Like the squirrel, yes. For the future, for safety. That (survivalistic instinct ) and 'desire' go together. Right?

B: Well, it builds up into a more intense desire.

K: So, (in a holistic nutshell:) 'desire plus accumulation' is the factor of division, conflict and all the rest of it. Now, I'm asking : can that ( momentum?) end. If it ends through an action of will (-power ?) , or because of ( trying to avoid ) punishment or ( obtain an inwardly gratifying?) reward, it's still the same thing. So the (holistically thoughtful?) mind sees this ('thought-time' trap?) and puts all that aside. Right? But does the mind become free of ( karmic?) accumulation?

B: Yes... ?

K: Yes sir, I think it can, ( at least, here & now?) with us. That is, have no 'psychological' knowledge at all, as knowledge is ( the result of ) accumulation, and so on and so on...

B: Well, I think that we'll have to consider that 'knowledge' goes very much further than is ordinarily meant. I think that in accumulating ( psychological knowledge) ) you ( subliminally?) build up an 'image', a mental picture, and everything ( you knew before) goes into that ( as the 'observer'?) and one expects it to continue. Right?

K: Of course.

B: In short, if you have accumulated ( lots of) knowledge of yourself, it builds up a ( virtual ) picture of yourself.

K: Can one have knowledge of oneself?

B: Well, if you 'know' what sort of person you are, that builds up into a (self-identified mental) picture, ( along ) with the expectation (to improve it?)

K: But after all, if 'you' (think to) have knowledge of yourself, you have built an image already.

B: That's right, yes, but the (general) tendency (of thought ) is to say that there's a 'transfer' of what you do in the outside reality , saying, as you observe this microphone you build up knowledge, that enters into your (creating a very realistic ) image of it, then you say : I can do the same thing with myself. I 'know' the sort of person I am or should be or and there's a lot of ( collateral) accumulation ( of self-observation) that builds up in (subliminal mental) forms that we don't ordinarily call 'knowledge', for example, 'preferences', likes and dislikes...

K: But once you realize that this accumulation of 'psychological' knowledge is ( ultimately leading to ?) illusion and causes (endless?) pain and misery, when you see ( the implicit danger of ?) it, it's finished.

B: I was trying to say that one could say, OK, I know certain facts about this knowledge and it's foolish to have that kind of knowledge about myself, but then there may be other kinds of (deeper, identitary?) knowledge which I don't recognise as knowledge, I say that's...

K: Like ( personal?) preferences, likes and dislikes, prejudice...

B: Habits....

K: All that is ( subliminally compounded) in the ( self-) image that one has created.

B: Yes. And ( the collective consciousness of) mankind has developed in such a way that this ( self-identified ) 'image' seems extraordinarily real.

K: Yes...

B: And therefore its ( 'personal') qualities don't seem to be just ( psychological) knowledge.

K: All right, sir. And ( the self-centred process of thought) is also born out of the 'image' of what has been previously accumulated (through man's personal & collective experience?) .

B: Yes.

K: Right? All that is one's inward ( psychological) state. That is deeply imbedded in me.

B: Yes, both physically and mentally.

K: All round. I recognize that physically it is necessary, somewhat.

B: Yes, but it is overdone even physically.

K: But how do I set about realizing the 'psychological' (redundancy of?) it? How does ( the general & the particular human mind) who has accumulated ( indiscriminately ) for millennia, ( to the extent ) that it has become (an un-conscious mental) habit, and when I do recognize the (collateral psychological damage of this) habit, how does that movement ( of indiscriminate recording?) come to an end (in the brain' cells themselves) ? That is the real ( experiential) question.

B: Yes...

K: Does ( the compassionate ) intelligence play a part in all this?

B: Well, there has to be ( an inward awakening of such ?) intelligence to see this.

K: Is it the so-called 'ordinary intelligence', or some other (holistically friendly ) intelligence, something entirely different?

B: Well, what people generally mean by 'intelligence' is the capacity to...

K: discern, to distinguish, to solve technical problems, economic problems and so on. I would call that partial ( mental?) intelligence...

B: Yes, we can call it 'skill in thought'.

K: All right, skill in thought. But another (inwardly perceptive?) quality is necessary. Is that quality 'intelligence'? And is this ( holistically friendly?) intelligence associated with the process 'thought (& time') ?

B: What do you mean by 'associated' ?

K: Is it related, is it part of thought, is it the outcome of very clear precise, exact, logical, conclusions of thought ?

B: That would still be part of thought's skill. But we are suggesting that this intelligence is of a different quality.

K: Yes. Is that ( holistic?) Intelligence related to (Compassion & ) Love?

B: I'd say they 'go together'.

K: Yes, I'm just moving slowly into that. You see, ( as Mr 'Y' ) I realize ( the rationality of?) all that we have discussed this morning, But...(experientially-wise ?) I've come to a 'blank ' ( invisible inward ?) Wall, and... I can't go beyond. And in 'fishing around', I come upon this word 'Intelligence' (aka: Insight?) . I can see that the (mechanistic) 'intelligence' of thought is not ( a holistically friendly ?) Intelligence. So I'm asking : is this Intelligence part of (the Universal ) Love? - you cannot associate it with 'hate' & all that. So this Love is something entirely different. And has this (universal) Love (its own ) Intelligence? Which then operates (as a total insight?) which then breaks down that (blank ?) Wall (btw the 'observer' & the 'observed'?) .

B: Yes.
K: All right, sir - let's begin ( from 'ground zero'?) . I don't know what this Love is. I know all the physical (aspect) but I realize that ( inwardly-wise?) pleasure, desire, accumulation, remembrance, pictures, is not Love. And I've come ( in the cursus of Meditation?) to the point where this wall is so enormous that I can't even jump over it. So I'm now 'fishing around' to see if there is a different ( holistically friendly) movement (of Intelligence) which is not a man-made movement. And ( the Origin of ) that (intelligent) movement may be love. (Sorry to use this word which as been so spoilt and misused!)

B: So, you are saying that Love is an (intelligent?) movement, not just a feeling?

K: Yes. So is this ( Intelligence of Universal ?) Love, the factor that will break down or dissolve or break up this wall? It's not general or particular, it is something beyond. Right?

B: Yes, that's (the difficult experiential) point since it has never been part of man's (cultural) background ; as he tends to make love a (very) personal thing …

K: I think when one 'loves' ( selflessly?) with that Intelligence, it covers the whole, it is 'Light', it's not one's 'particular' light. So then, if this ( intelligence of selfless love?) is the factor (the active element ?) that'll break down ( dissolve?) the Wall which is in front of me, then... I don't know that Love. So, as a ( holistically minded?) human being, what shall I do? What is the state of my mind when I realize any ( personal effort undertaken from) this side of the wall is still strengthening the wall?
So you ( Mr 'X' ?) come along and say, 'Look, that wall can be ( ASAP?) dissolved, or ( just) broken down, if you have that quality of love with ( its holistically friendly?) Intelligence.'
And I (Mr 'Y' ) say, 'Excellent, but I don't know what it is.' (Moreover?) whatever I (try to) do is still (keeping me?) within this side of the wall. Right?
So realizing ( the truth) that 'I' cannot possibly do anything, what has happened to the quality of my mind, which has always moved ( in & out) to accumulate, to become, all that ( time binding activity ) has stopped. The moment I realize this (in a meditation-friendly environment?) ?) , there's ''no movement''. Is that possible? I don't know if I am conveying ( the doingness of?) it...

B: Yes, I understand, all that (jazz?) is part of the same process- to project from the past.
K: So is there in my mind a (silent?) revolution ? - in the sense that ( the 'thought-time') movement has completely stopped. And if it has, is Love still something beyond the Wall?

B: Well, it wouldn't mean anything – since the 'wall' itself is the product of the ( time-thought) process which 'is' illusion.

K: Exactly, I'm realizing the Wall is (generated by ) the (thought-time) movement. So when this ( time-binding mental) 'movement' ends (in the Silence of Meditation?) that quality of Intelligence, Love is ( present ?) there. That's the whole point.

B: Yes, could one say the ( mental) movement ends when the (thought-time) movement sees (for itself) that it has no point (it is inwardly redundant?) .

K: It is like, the ( survivalistic?) skill of 'seeing a danger'.

B: Well, it could be.

K: Yes. Any ( direct perception of an actual ?) danger demands a certain amount of ( instantly awakened?) awareness.

B: Yes...

K: But ( inwardly – wise?) I have never realized as a ( holistically minded?) human being, that the ( psychologically) accumulating process is a tremendous ( spiritual?) danger.

B: Yes, because this ( accumulation) seems to be the very essence of ( one's inward) security.

K: Of course. And you (Mr 'X'?) come along and point it out to me, and (iff?) I'm listening to you very carefully I can actually perceive (with the mind's eye?) the ( psychologically deadly?) danger of that. And (this totally insightful ) perception is part of ( the Intelligence of Selfless ?) Love, isn't it?

B: Yes...

K: I'm ( finally?) getting at it ! ( To recap :) ( The trans-personal inward ?) perception of this ( invisible psychological ?) Wall which has been brought into being by this movement of ( brain's indiscriminate ) accumulation, the very perception of ( the inward truth of it ?) it 'is' (the liberating action of?) Intelligence and Love. Right ?

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 21 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 #15
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: The other other day we came to the point where - after going through ( a lot of?) self- investigation, and ( some partial?) insights, one comes to a 'blank wall', and that blank wall can only wither away or be broken down, when there is ( the inward presence of ?) Love and its ( Compassionate) Intelligence. Aren't we asking something enormously difficult?

B: Well, it 'is' difficult...

K: I ( Mr 'Y' ) am on this side of the wall, and you (Mr 'X' ) are asking me to have that (inward energy of ?) Love and Intelligence which will destroy the 'wall'. I can (intuitively?) realize what you are saying is accurate, true, logical, and I see the importance of it, but the ( illusion of living safely behind that self-protective inner?) wall is so strong and dominant that I can't get beyond it. And we said the other day that the wall can be broken down through insight - ( we went into it this (concept of having a total) insight becomes another idea. I immediately make a (mental) abstraction of it, which means I move away from ( dealing directly with?) the 'fact' (of my own self-centredness?) and the abstraction becomes all important. Which means ( back into the safety zone of one's past ?) knowledge.

B: Well the general difficulty is this: that ( the psychological ) 'knowledge' is not just sitting there as a static form of information, but it is extremely active, meeting and shaping every moment according to one's past knowledge, so even when we raise this issue ( of the redundancy of this kind of ) knowledge, it is all the time waiting and then acting.

K: All the time waiting (to interfere?) , yes.

B: Now, our whole cultural tradition is (assuming that) knowledge is not active but passive, while in fact it is really active, although people don't generally think of it that way. They think it is just sitting there (to be used whenever it is needed ) .

K: It is waiting...

B: It is waiting to act, you see. And anything 'you' try to do about it, (the thought- controlling) knowledge is already acting. By the time you realize that this is the problem it has already acted.

K: Yes. Do I realize it as a problem, or an idea which I must carry out? You see the difference?

B: Yes, the first point is that ( approaching the challenges of life in terms of?) knowledge, automatically turns everything into a ( conceptual) idea which you must carry out. That is the whole way it is built. Right?

K: That is the whole way I have lived. Now, how am I to break (free from this living in the known?) even for a second? I am very concerned about this because wherever I go this is what is happening. And it has become an (major educational ) problem that has to be resolved. Would you say the capacity to listen ( non-verbally) is far more important than any of these ( rational) explanations, any logic - just to 'listen'?

B: It comes to the same problem.

K: No, it doesn't. There is a possibility that when one 'listens completely' to ( the inward truth of) what you are saying the 'wall' is broken down. You understand? As an ordinary (holistically minded ?) man I (Mr 'Y') realize what you (Mr 'X') are saying 'is so' (100% true inwardly?) . And I am getting deeply involved in ( seeing in my inner life the truth of ) what you are saying ; all the fuel is there but... somehow the flame (of Insight?) isn't lit.
So what is this 'ordinary' man (of good will?) to do?

B: If it is a matter of the 'capacity to listen', we should say the 'ordinary' (mind) is so full of ( personal & collective) 'opinions' that he can't listen.

K: You can't 'listen' ( though the inner firewall of ) opinions, you might just as well be... deaf.

B: You see , I think ( that living comfortably in the field of ) knowledge has all sorts of ( self-protective mental ) defences. So, if you are trying to make it possible for people - say for this ( proverbial) 'ordinary' man - to have a totally (insightful inward) perception, ( you should realise that his instinctive attachment to ) knowledge has a tremendous number of defences, it is against perceiving this. It has evolved in such a way that it resists, is built so as to resist seeing this, so it has ( this 'active firewall' of personal ? ) opinions which act immediately.

K: I understand that, sir. But there must be a ( more direct?) communication between you ( Mr 'X') and me (the ordinary man), a communication that is so strong that very act of my 'listening' to you and yous communicating it with me operates. You follow?

B: Yes, but then you have to break through this (active firewall of ?) opinions, through the whole ( self-centred mental) structure.

K: Of course, of course. That is why I ( Mr 'Y' ) have come here. I have left all the churches and all that stuff, I have thrown them years away, I have finished with all that. I have just come here and I realize all that has been said here is true and I am burning to find out (the whole truth?) . When you (Mr 'X') communicate with me your communication is so strong, so real, because are not speaking from ( your past?) knowledge, you are really an (inwardly) free human being who is trying to communicate with me.

B: Right...

K: And can I listen with that ( quality of holistic) intensity which, you (the communicator) are giving me?

B: Well, then we would have to ask, is the 'ordinary' man full of that (proverbial passion for Truth?) ?

K: No, ( generally speaking?) he is not. But I said I ( the mature Mr 'Y') has moved away from all that, I have come here. I have left all that. And I want to listen to somebody who is telling the (whole?) truth and in the very ( listening to Mr 'X''s) telling of it something is taking place in me (within my total consciousness?) . Because I am so ardently listening, it 'happens'.
Suppose that you are a great scientist, and I am one of your students, you want to tell me something enormously important for which you have given your life to discover , and as a student I have given up so much just to come here. Is it the fault of you ( Dr 'X'?) who are communicating with me (young Mr 'Y' ? ) that I don't receive it instantly? Or is it my fault that I am incapable of really listening to you ( without the self-protective mental firewall?) ?

B: Well, whichever may be the case ; but suppose the difficulty is that I am incapable of 'listening' then what can be done?

K: No, nothing can be done (By Mr 'X') . You see that is the (main educational) difficulty. If I am incapable of listening because I am full of prejudices, judgements, & other self-defences, then, of course, I won't listen to you.

B: Well let's say there is somebody who comes along who has got through some of these ( self-protective mental ) defences and so on, but perhaps he has others of which he is not aware of. You see, it is not quite so simple as that.

K: I think it ( exiting the illusory safety of the 'known'?) is dreadfully simple somehow. I think it is that if I could listen with all my being, with all my attention, it takes place. It is as simple as that, I think (or ... 'believe'?) .
You see, sir, if you are telling me something ( 100 % true ) and I am ( taking the leisurely 'thinking' time to) absorb it, so there is a (time delay ) interval between my telling and your absorbing. Now, in that interval is the (potential) 'danger'. But if I absorb ( the whole truth of it?) absolutely, listen to it with all my being, it is (ASAP ?) finished .
Is ( the less than 100 % absobtion caused ?) because in this there is no shadow of pleasure? You follow what I am saying? You are not offering me any ( psychological) gratification (to look forward?) . You are saying, 'it is so', take it (or leave it?) . But if my mind is so involved in pleasure it must be pleasurable (sugar coated?) to listen. I won't listen ( with all my being?) to anything that is not completely satisfactory (now or in the future?) . I realize too the ( psychological) danger of that.

B: What kind of danger?

K: Of ( vainly expecting a totally rewarding ) satisfaction and pleasure and all that. I say, 'All right, I see what I am doing' - so I put that aside too. No (more interference of personal expectations of) reward, and/or punishment in my listening - only pure observation.
So we come back to that point: is that pure observation, which is actually 'listening' ( with mind's eye?) , is that pure observation Love? I think it is. Again you (Mr 'X' ) have stated it and then my ( Mr Y's?) mind says - 'Give me ( the secret of?) it . Tell me what to do'. But, you see, when I ask you, 'Tell me what to do', I am back in the field of knowledge. It is so instantaneous.
So if I ( Mr 'Y' ) refuse to ask you 'what to do ?', where am I? You ( Mr 'X') have told me perception without any motive, direction, pure perception is ( the intelligent action of ? ) Love. And in that perception (of) Love is intelligence. These three ( Intelligence, Love & Compassion?) are not separate things, they are 'all one' thing. And, because you (Mr 'X') pointed out very carefully step by step, and I have ( finally?) come to that point, I have a feeling for ( the truthfulness of?) it and say, 'By Jove, that is so'. But... it goes ( slips?) away so quickly. Then begins, 'How am I get to it back?' Again back into the field of knowledge, which 'blocks' ( the spiritual progress of the holistically minded truth seeker ?) .

B: Well what you are saying is that every time there is a ( direct ) communication ( btw Mr 'X' & Mr 'Y') , knowledge gets to work in many different forms.

K: So you see, it is enormously difficult (or subtle?) to be free of ( the psychological interference of one's past ) knowledge.

B: Why doesn't knowledge wait until it is needed?

K: Ah, that requires, sir to be (inwardly?) free of ( the psychological attachments to ) knowledge, and when the occasion arises you are acting from ( the state of inner ?) freedom, not from ( the past ?) knowledge.

B: So, knowledge can come ( handy) as (practical) information for your action but it is not the source.

K: That is, to put it rather succinctly, it is from the freedom (from the known?) one communicates (holistically?) , not from knowledge. I wonder if I am making this clear?

B: Yes...

K: That is, from ( the state of inward ? ) 'emptiness' that there is (the direct?) communication. One may use language, which is the outcome of knowledge, but it is from that state of complete freedom.

B: Yes...

K: Yes. Now, sir, suppose that one (as Mr 'X') has come to that point where there is complete freedom from knowledge and from that freedom a (holistic?) communication, using words, takes place. Can I (as Mr 'Y') communicate with you without any barrier? Or to put it the other way : can I be in such an (inwardly humble?) state of mind to receive ( the inward truth of?) that communication?

B: Well, it seems that (Mr 'Y's highly knowledgeable mind?) does not ordinarily see that knowledge is not free. I am saying that generally people don't see that.

K: Even if I am full of opinions and judgements and evaluations, in order to look at ( what is actually going on in myself?) I must be somewhat free from it to look. It is so clear...

B: Yes, but I mean probably one tends to say that there are certain kinds of knowledge which are harmful like prejudice and then you say there are other kinds (of psychological knowledge) which are not harmful. But if the whole thing is one structure, it is impossible to have prejudice in one part without having it in the other.

K: How will you ( Mr'X' ) communicate with me ( Mr 'Y') who have come to a certain ( critical existential) point when I am really burning to receive ( the inwardness of ?) what you are saying, so completely that it ( the ages old mometum of 'thought-time' ?) is finished? Am I, having come here, am I in that state really? Or am I fooling myself?

B: Well that is the question: ( living safely within the field of?) knowledge one may be constantly deceiving oneself ( & others?) .

K: Of course...

B: It is not even that I am deceiving myself ( purposefully?) but knowledge has a built-in tendency to deceive itself.

K: So, sir, is my mind always deceiving itself?

B: The tendency (of self-delusion) is there when knowledge is operating 'psychologically'.

K: So what shall I do?

B: I think we are coming to the same point: to listen.

K: Why don't we 'listen' (completely to anything?) , sir? Why don't we immediately understand this thing, instantly, immediately, why? One can give the (obvious?) reasons why - old age, (one's cultural) conditioning, laziness, ten different things.

B: Well all that is superficial. Would it be possible to give the deeper reason for it?

K: We come back to the same thing. You see I think, sir, is it that the (psychological) knowledge which is (identifying itself as ?) the 'me' (as the 'thinker') is so tremendously strong as an ( identitary?) 'idea', not as a fact?

B: Yes, I understand it is a (self-identified?) 'idea', but ( inwardly wise ?) this idea (of one's separated individuality) has tremendous significance and meaning. For example, suppose you have the idea of God, this takes on a tremendous power.

K: Or like the (self-identified idea that ? ) I am British, or French, it gives me great energy.

B: And so it creates a state of (self-consciousness?) which seems to be the very being of oneself. So, the person doesn't experience it as mere knowledge but feels it is something very powerful which doesn't seem to be knowledge.
So, I was wondering if there is anything that could be communicated (by Mr 'X') about that overwhelming power that seems to come with ( this subliminal identification with one's psychological) knowledge ?

K: And with identification.

B: With identification. That seems to be something that would be worth looking into (for... optional homework?) .

K: What is the dictionary root meaning of 'identification'?

B: ( Being?) 'always the same'. You see, ( one's self-consciousness?) tries to be always the same - in essence, even if not in details.

K: Yes, yes...

B: I think this is the thing that went wrong with ( our psychological ?) knowledge : that ( inwardly) it becomes ( crystallised) as a knowledge which is 'always the same', (and it is constantly trying ) to find what is permanent and perfect and always the same. It is ( a tendency which is ) inbuilt in the (brain's) cells, you see.

K: From this arises a question: is it possible to 'attend' ( to pay complete attention to anything ?) Is it possible to attend diligently? (diligence in the sense of being accurate)

B: Literally ( diligence') means 'to take pains'...

K: To take pains, to take the whole if it. Sir, there must be some other ( more directly perceptive ?) way besides all this intellectual business . We have exercised a great deal of intellectual capacity and (when applied inwardly?) that intellectual capacity has led to the 'blank wall' which is the 'me', ( my self-identification?) with my ( previously acquired ) knowledge, my prejudice, and all the rest of it - 'me'. And even when one says, 'I must do something about it' – it is still the 'me'.

B: Well the 'me' wants to be ( in total control of whatever is going on ?) but remain 'always the same' ; while at the same time it tries to become something different (Citius, Altius, Fortius - Faster, Higher & Stronger ?)

K: Put on a different ( or more fashionable ? ) coat. is always the same (egocentric consciousness?) . So the mind which is functioning with the 'me' is always the same (self-centred) mind...

B: Probably because this ( identitary feeling of) being 'always the same' gives it a tremendous (temporal stability and?) force. Now is it possible to let go this (feeling of) 'being always the same' ?

K: You see, it all comes back to the fundamental question: what will make this ( self-protecting psychological ) 'wall' totally disappear? I think, sir, that it is only possible when I ( the holistically minded Mr 'Y') can give a total (& transpersonal ?) attention to what you (Mr 'X') are saying. There is no other means to break down that inner wall - not the intellect, not the emotions, not any of these things. When somebody who is beyond the wall, has gone beyond, broken down the wall, says, 'Listen, for God's sake listen'.
And when I 'listen' to you, my mind is ( naturally innocent & ) empty. So it is finished. You follow what I am saying?

B: You see I think generally that one would feel OK, ( the continuity of time-thought?) is finished, but something ( New) will happen in its own time.

K: I have no sense of hoping to have it in the future, or - the mind is empty and therefore listening. It is finished.
If you are a scientist, in order to discover something new, you must have a certain 'emptiness' ( the necessary freedom from what you knew before?) from which there will be a different perception.

B: Yes, but I think there is a ( qualiative) difference in the sense that usually the ( scientific) question is limited and so the mind may be empty only with regard to that question.

K: To that particular question, yes.

B: Allowing for an ( illuminating spark of ) insight into that question.

K: I understand that. But without any specialization, doesn't this ( state of inward?) emptiness hold every other....

B: Well, I think one has to question the ( inward validity of ) knowledge. And, as you were saying before , the 'ending of knowledge' is the ( central philosophy of) Vedanta.

K: That is the real answer.

B: But generally people would feel they must keep knowledge in one area to be able to question ( the validity of) it in another. You see this is something that might worry people : with what knowledge do I question that knowledge?

K: Quite...

B: In a way we do have knowledge because we have seen that this whole structure, we have gone through it logically and rationally and seen that the whole structure of psychological knowledge has no ( true experiential) meaning.

K: Then from that 'emptiness' ( from the inward freedom from the known?) : is there a Ground or a Source (of All Creation?) from which all things begin? Matter, human beings, their capacities, the whole movement starts from there.

B: We could consider that ( possibility) certainly. But let's try to clarify it a little. We have the 'emptiness'...

K: Yes, ( a state of inward ) emptiness in which there is no movement of thought as knowledge, of course...

B: As 'psychological' knowledge ?

K: Of course, and therefore no time.

B: No 'psychological' time ?

K: Yes, no 'psychological' time.

B: Though we still have the ( chronological -time of the?) watch...

K: Yes. We have gone beyond that, don't let's go back to it.

B: The ( generic usage of these ) words is often confusing, they can carry wrong meanings.

K: Psychological time. There is no psychological time, no movement of thought. And is (in) this ( state of inward) emptiness ( that can be found ) the beginning of all movement?

B: You're saying that this 'emptiness' is the Ground ?

K: That is what I am asking. Let's go slowly into this (some other day?) .

B: Well perhaps it should be gone into more carefully, because in California we were saying there is the emptiness and beyond that is the Ground.

K: I know, I know...

B: So, we leave it ( for the next ) time ?

K: When do we meet again?

B: It is two days from now, on Saturday.

K: The day after tomorrow ?

B: Yes.

K: Right, sir.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 21 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Apr 2019 #16
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: We were talking about having a mind empty (of its psychological content ?) and having come to that (major meditation check- ?) point when the 'wall' (btw observer & observed?) has been broken down and ( it is now contemplating ?) the (inner void of ) emptiness and what lies beyond it.

B: Well, let's proceed from there then.

K: Now, is this empty mind a ( clever ?) reaction to the problems of pain and pleasure and suffering - wanting to escape from all these into some state of nothingness ?

B: Yes, well the mind can always do that...

K: It can invent (a problem-free inner state?) so that ( presumed 'emptiness' ) becomes an illusion (and as we said desire is the beginning of illusion). So, is it possible to have a mind that is really completely empty of all the things that thought has put together?

B: Well, only when thought ceases to react. Thought being a material process, and perhaps you could say that perhaps the reaction is due to the ( constantly changing ) nature of matter which is continually reacting and moving, but then, how is this material process affected by insight?

K: Are you asking how does insight affect the cells of the brain which contains the memory?

B: Yes. The memory (stored in the brain's cells) is continually reacting, moving, as does the air and the water, everything around us. Now if nothing happened we should say, why would it ever stop?

K: Quite. After all sir, physically if I don't react I am paralysed. But if this ( memory is ) reacting continually is also a form of paralysis (a mechanical process?) .

B: Yes, well we're talking of the wrong kind of ( mental) reactions - around the psychological structure.

K: Yes, we are talking 'psychologically'...

B: But now assuming that this ( mental) reaction around the psychological structure has begun in mankind, why should it ever stop, because one reaction makes another and another...

K: It is like an endless chain (process) .

B: So, one would expect it to go on for ever unless something ( of a more powerful nature ) will stop it. Right?

K: Only the insight into the ( time-binding) nature of (thought's) reactions ends the psychological reaction.

B: Yes, so, you are saying that the material brain is affected by an 'insight', which is beyond matter.

K: Yes, beyond matter. So is this ( state of inward?) emptiness ( an actuality?) within the brain itself? Or something ( a self-induced state of mind ) which thought has conceived as being empty? One must be very clear on this...

B: Well, no matter what the question is, ( the self-centred process of ) thought may want to do something about it, because thought feels it can always make a ( positive?) contribution. So (a meditation-friendly) thought is trying to say that this 'emptiness' is very good (for your mental health ?) , therefore thought says I will try to help bring about ( this state of inner ) emptiness.

K: Of course. We have been through all that. But I have come to a point: is this emptiness within the mind itself, or beyond it?

B: What do you mean here by the 'mind' ?

K: The 'mind' ( here) being the whole, emotions, thought, consciousness, the brain, the whole of that is the ( temporal?) mind.

B: This word 'mind' has been used ( by many people) in many ways. Now you are using it in a certain way, which is that it represents thought, feeling, desire and will - the whole material process which is going on in the brain and the nerves ?

K: Quite. The whole ( mental?) structure. And one can see that this materialistic reaction can end. Now what is the next ( experiential) step? Does that ( state of inner) emptiness contain 'no-thing' ( not-a-thing) ?

B: 'Not a thing', meaning nothing that has form, structure, stability ?

K: No form, structure, capacity, reaction - all that. Or it contains none of that ? Then what is it? Is it then (one's) total energy?

B: Yes, the ( silent?) movement of energy.

K: Movement of energy. It is not movement of reaction.

B: It is not the movement of (various mental & emotional & sensory ) 'things' reacting to each other. Because the (man-made) world can be regarded as made up of a large number of 'things' which react to each other and that is one kind of movement. But we are saying it is a different kind of movement which has 'no-thing' in it.

K: This emptiness has no centre as the 'me' and all the reactions in it and therefore it is not of time - right? Now we say that in that emptiness there is a movement of timeless energy.

B: Yes, when you say 'timeless' energy , you are saying that time can only come into a material process ?

K: Time can only come into a material process, that's right.

B: Now if we have an energy that is timeless but nevertheless (alive & ?) 'moving' - what is this 'movement'?

K: Sir, what is movement (in the material world?) ? From here to there, or from yesterday to today, and from today to tomorrow.

B: Yes, here there are various kinds of movement.

K: So what is (this timeless?) movement? Is there a movement (of life-energy?) which has no beginning and no end? Because thought has a beginning and an end.

B: We could say that the movement of matter might have a beginning and no ending, the reactive movement - you are not talking of that?

K: No, I am not talking of that.

B: So it is not enough to say it has no beginning and no end – right?

K: Thought has a beginning and thought has an ending. There is a movement of matter as reaction and the ending of that reaction.

B: In the brain ?

K: In the brain. And someone (like Mr 'X') comes along and says there is a totally different kind of ( inner) movement. But I must be free of the movement of (thought in ) time, to understand a movement that is not...

B: Well there are two things: it has no beginning and no end but also it is not determined as a series of successions from the past.

K: No causation.

B: But you see matter can be looked at as a series of causes ( & effects ) but if you are saying that this movement has no beginning and no ending, it is not the result of a series of causes, one following another without end.

K: So, sir, we want to understand intellectually a ( timeless life ) movement that is not a (material) movement ?

B: Then why do you call it a 'movement' if it is not a movement?

K: Because it is not still, it is active.

B: It is ( a creative) energy ?

K: It has a tremendous ( creative) energy, but that energy has (a quality of inner peace & ) stillness.

B: We have to say that the ordinary language does not convey properly that this energy ( of inward emptiness?) is still and also ( alive?) moving.

K: That (inward) movement is a movement of stillness.

B: A ( creative) movement that emerges from stillness ?

K: That's what it is sir. Which means: is the ( meditating?) mind capable of that extraordinary stillness without any ( mental) movement? And when it is so completely still there is a 'movement' (emerging?) out of it.

B: Well, Aristotle also talked about the 'unmoved mover' - that is the way he tried to describe God.

K: Ah, no... I don't want to do that.

B: You don't want to describe God, but a similar notion has been held in the past by various people, although since then it has gone out of fashion.

K: Let's bring it into fashion, shall we ? Is this ( timeless) movement out of stillness, a movement of Creation which is not expressed in form ?

B: Yes, that is an important point, since usually we think that ( the manifested) Creation is expressed as form or as structure...

K: Would you say, sir, this (silent inner ) movement ( of Creation) , not being of time, is eternally new?

B: Creation is eternally new, right?

K: Creation is eternally new. I think that this ( original newness?) is what the artists are trying to find out by indulging in all kinds of various absurdities, but to come ( inwardly) to that point where the mind is absolutely silent, out of that silence there is this movement which is always new, eternally new. But when that movement is expressed...

B: Yes, the first expression is in thought – right?

K: That is just it.

B: And that may be useful but then it gets fixed. Then it may become a barrier.

K: I was told, once by an Indian scholar, that (in the past) before they began to sculpture a head of a god, or whatever it was, they had to go into deep meditation. At the right moment they took up the hammer and the chisel.

B: To have it come out of that (creative) emptiness. But the Australian aborigines draw figures in the sand so they don't have permanency. You see, the marble is already too static, it stays there for thousands of years. So although the original sculptor may have understood (the living essence of creation) , the people who followed are seeing it as a fixed ( & marketable?) form.

K: Sir, what relationship has all that ( creative inward emtiness ) to my daily life? In what way does that act through my action, through my ordinary physical responses to ( the urban) noise, to pain, various forms of disturbances, physical disturbances. What relationship has man's physical existence to that silent movement? Would you say that silent movement with its unending newness, is the total order of the universe?

B: Yes, we could consider that the order of the universe emerges from this silence and emptiness.

K: So what is the relationship of this ( universally integrated?) mind to the universe?

B: The particular mind?

K: No, the general and the particular mind we went through, but beyond that, there is the Mind.

B: Well would you say that Mind is universal?

K: Universal mind. That Universal Mind - I don't like to use the word 'universal'...

B: That which is beyond the particular and general would usually be called universal mind. It has been called the 'absolute'.

K: I don't want to use that word 'absolute' either...
B: 'Absolute' means literally that which is free of all limitations, of all dependence, right?

K: All right, if you agree that 'absolute' means freedom from all dependence, from all limitations. Then ( for now?) we will use that, all right. has unfortunate connotations.

K: Of course, of course. Let's use that word for the moment for our convenience, in our dialogue. There is this 'absolute' stillness and from that stillness there is a ( creative) movement which is everlastingly new. And what is the relationship of that mind to the universe?

B: To the universe of matter?

K: To the whole universe. Matter, trees, nature, man, the heavens.

B: Yes, well that is an interesting question (for homework meditation?)

K: That the universe is ( existing & moving?) in order, whether it is destructive or constructive, it is still order.

B: Well it is necessary order. You see the univeral order has the character of being absolutely necessary. In a sense it cannot be otherwise. The ( man-made) order that we usually know is not absolutely necessary, it could be changed, it could depend on something else, any ordinary order is contingent, it depends on something. But the (intelligent?) order of the whole universe, is absolutely necessary - it cannot be otherwise.

K: Quite. Now in the universe there is order and this mind which is still, is completely in order.

B: The deep mind, the absolute.

K: The absolute mind. So is this mind, ( one with ) the ( creative order of the ) universe?

B: Well, in what sense it 'is' the universe? We have to understand what it means to say that.

K: It means sir, is there a division, or a barrier, between this absolute mind and the universe? Or are both the same?

B: Both are the same, right.

K: That is what I want to get at. And I want to be quite sure we are not treading on something which really needs very, very, subtle, great care, you know what I mean?

B: Well if you go back to the physical body, what we usually call the 'mind' is not different from what we usually call the body.

K: Quite, quite.

B: Now you are making this much greater in considering the whole order of tthe universe. And we say what we call the 'mind in the universe', is it different from what we call the universe itself?

K: That's right. You see that's why I feel in our daily life there must be order, not the order of thought.

B: Well thought is a limited order, it is relative.

K: That's it. So an order that is...

B:... free of limitations ?

K: Free of limitations, yes. In my daily life this means no conflict whatsoever, no contradiction, and all the rest of that. So if in my daily life there is this complete (inward?) order what is its relationship to the never ending order of the Universe ? Can this silent movement of ( Universal) order, affect my daily life when I have deep inward psychological order?

B: Yes. The question is whether (the inward order of a ) human being in his daily life can be similar.

K: Similar. That's it. If not I don't see what is the point of the 'other' (of the Intelligent Mind of the Universe ?)

B: Well it has no point to the ( time-bound?) human being.

K: That's it.

B: But I think some people would say ''Who cares about the Universe, all we care about is our own society, what we are doing ?'' But then that falls down because it is full of contradiction.

K: Obviously, it is only ( man's ego-centric) thought that says that. So that total order of the universe, does ( ultimately?) affect my daily life.

B: Well, I think, that scientists might ask 'how' will this 'absolute' (universally open?) mind affect man's daily life.

K: What is my daily life? A series of reactions and disorder. Right?

B: Well... it is mostly that.

K: Mostly. And thought is always struggling to bring order within that, but when it does that, it is still disorder.

B: Because thought is always limited by its own contradictions ?

K: Of course. Thought is always creating disorder because it is itself limited.

B: As soon as it tries to go beyond the limit, that is getting disorderly.

K: Right. So ( assuming that?) I have an insight into it, I have created a certain kind of ( relative) order in my life. But that order is still limited...

B: Now some people would accept that and say ''I would be happy if I could bring even this limited order, seeing that we have so much disorder now, if we could live in a material life with real order.'

K: I say, let's do it! Of course that must be done. But in the very doing of it one has to realize it is limited.

B: Yes, even the highest order you can produce is limited.

K: Limited. And the ( holistically friendly?) mind realizes its limitation and says, let's go beyond it.

B: Well, let's try to make it more clear : what is wrong with this limitation?

K: In it there is only a limited freedom (within the field of the known ?) .

B: Yes. So eventually we come to ( reach) the boundary of our (inner) freedom - something not known to us makes us react ( +/- violently?) and through this reaction we would fall back into contradiction.

K: Yes, but when I see sir, that I am always moving within a certain area...
the (intelligent ) mind inevitably rebels against that.

B: That is an important point : the human mind wants freedom. Right?

K: Obviously.

B: Yes, it says that is the highest ( existential ) value....

K: Suppose I realize that I am a ( Conscience?) prisoner living within this limitation (of the 'known' ?)

B: Some (or... lots of?) people get used to it and say, 'I accept it'.

K: I won't accept it. My mind says there must be freedom from prison. I am a prisoner and the prison is very nice, very cultured and all the rest of it, but it is still limited and it says there must be freedom beyond all that.

B: Yes, but which mind says this? Is it the particular mind of the human being?

K: Ah! Who says there must be freedom? Oh, that is very simple. The very sense of ( one's existential) suffering demands that we go beyond.

B: The particular mind, even though it accepts ( the inward comfort of its ?) limitation,( ultimately) finds it ( boring & ) painful ?

K: Of course.

B: And therefore this particular mind feels somehow that it is not right.
There seems to be a deep necessity of freedom (within the human consciousness?) .

K: Freedom is necessary, and any hindrance to freedom is retrogression.
So, ( inwardly wise?) that means there must be freedom from reaction, freedom from the limitation of thought, freedom from all the movement of time. there must be a complete freedom from all that, before I can really understand the ( existential importance of an inwardly) empty mind and (join?) the Order of the Universe, which is then the order of the mind.
We are asking a tremendous lot! Am I willing to go that far?

B: Well you know the 'non-freedom' has its own attractions...

K: Of course. I have found safety, security, pleasure in 'non-freedom'.
( But eventually I come to?) realize in that ( existence dominated by?) pleasure & pain, there is no ( sense of) freedom and the (holistically inclined) mind says there must be freedom from all this.
(However?) to come to that ( Freedom check-) point and to let go (the old time-bound attitude?) without conflict, demands its own discipline, its own insight. That's why I said ; those of us who have given a certain amount of time, thought(fulness) and ( earnest?) investigation into all this, can one go as far as that? Or there are the responses of the body, responses of daily demand, the responsibilities of daily action are preventing this sense of complete freedom?
(If this is not the case?) I say : is that ( Creative Order of the?) Universe and the (spiritually earnest human) mind that has emptied itself of all this, are they one?

B: Are they ?

K: They are not separate, they are (all-) one.

B: It sounds as if you are saying that the material universe is like the (physical) body of the 'absolute' ( Universal) Mind.

K: All right... But we must be very careful not to fall into the ( usual mental) trap ( of assuming) that the Universal mind is always there (deep within myself ?) . They ( the traditionalists?) have said that: God is always (in) there all you have to do is to cleanse yourself and arrive at That. Which is also a very dangerous (slippery ?) statement because then you say, the Eternal is ( always present within?) me.

B: Well, thought is projecting it....there is even a logical difficulty in saying it is always there, because that implies time and that it is present there every minute , while as we discussed, That has nothing to do with time.

K: Nothing to do with time.

B: So we can't place it ( locate it in space & time) as being here, there, now, or then.

K: Sir, we have come to (this transcendental ) point, that there is this universal mind, and the human mind can be of that when there is freedom (from the limitations of the 'known') .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Apr 2019 #17
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: In spite of his knowledge, in spite of centuries of evolution, man has never been free of ( his burden psychological) human) problems. We have cultivated a mind that can solve almost any technological problem, but apparently (his inward) problems have never been solved. Human beings are drowned by their ( existential) problems: the problems of communication, the problems of knowledge, problems of relationship - the whole human existence has become a vast complex problem. And apparently throughout history it has been like this.

Bohm: Yes, and as they are now, they (seem?) insoluble...

K: As they are ( dealt with?) now man's (relational ) problems have become so complex, and so incredibly insoluble. No politician, or scientist, or philosopher is going to solve them, nor will wars and so on. So why the minds of human beings throughout the world, have not been able to resolve human daily problems of life? What are the things that prevent the solution of these problems, completely? Is it that we have never turned our minds to it? Because we spend all our days and probably half the night in thinking about (practical & ) technological problems that we have no time for the other (inward issues?) ?

B: I think many people don't give a lot of attention to these problems because they assume that ( if their material problems are solved) the others should take care of itself.

K: I am asking in this dialogue, whether it is possible to have no (inward personal ?) problems, apart from technological problems, that can be ( easily ?) solved. But our human problems seem insoluble - why? Is it due to our ( seriously flawed ?) education? Is it our deep rooted tradition that we accept things as they are?

B: Yes, well that is certainly ( a significant) part of it. Moreover, the 'human' problems seem to accumulate as our civilization gets older, people keep on accepting the very things which make problems.

K: Of course. But we are talking about (man's existential) problems, ( like the ) lack of freedom, the sense of living in constant uncertainty, fear and struggling for the rest of your life. (Seen from a holistic distance?) the whole thing seems so extraordinarily wrong,

B: Yes, well I think people have lost sight of that. Generally speaking they accept the situation in which they find themselves and try to make the best of it, like trying to solve some little problems to alleviate their situation. They wouldn't even look at this whole (inner) situation very seriously.

K: I'd want to find out if I can live without a single (psycholgical?) problem for the rest of my life. Is that possible?

B: Well I wonder if we should even call these things 'problems'. A problem would be something that would be reasonably solvable. I don't think, psychologically, the problem can be looked at that way. To propose a result you have to achieve and then find a way to do it.

K: I am trying to come to it from a different angle: whether there is an ending to (of the psychological process which is causing human ?) problems. You see personally I refuse to have ( personal?) 'problems'.

B: Could it be because you were not seriously challenged with anything ?

K: I was challenged the other day about something very, very serious. It has not ( created a psychological) problem.

B: It is a matter of clarification then. Part of the difficulty is clarification of the language.

K: Clarification. Not only on (the level of?) language, in ( the field of daily ) relationship and action. A certain problem arose the other day which involved lots of people and so on, and a certain ( decision & ) action had to be taken. Personally to me it was not a problem.

B: Well, we have to make it clear what you mean by 'problem' , because I don't know without an example.

K: I mean by 'problem' something that has to be resolved, something you worry about, something you are endlessly concerned and questioning, answering, doubt, uncertain, and maybe take some kind of action at the end which you will regret.

B: Let's begin with the technical problem where the idea first arose. Say, you have a practical challenge, something which needs to be done, and you say that is a problem.

K: Yes, that is generally called a 'problem'.

B: Now the word 'problem' is based on the idea of putting forth something, a possible solution and then trying to achieve it.

K: Or, I have a problem but I don't know how to deal with it and I go round asking other people, & getting more and more confused...

B: That would already be a change from the simple idea of a technical problem where you usually have some notion of what to do.

K: Technical problems are fairly simple.

B: They often bring challenges requiring you to go very deeply and change your ideas.

K: That is what I am trying to get at...

B: So, if it were a technical problem, either you would say, 'Well I can see generally what I have to do to solve this' - if you say there is lack of food, generally what you have got to do is produce more and more food, find ways and means of doing it. Now if we have a psychological problem, can't we do the same?

K: Yes, that is the point. How do we deal with this thing?

B: Well what kind of problem shall we discuss? Let's say that the people (here) cannot agree, they fight each other constantly.

K: Yes, let's take that for a very simple thing. In our discussions here with a group of people, it seems to be almost impossible to 'think together', to have the same outlook, the same attitude, not copying (Mr 'X' or?) each other, but an attitude which seems so normal, healthy. And each person puts his opinion forward and he is contradicted by another. And so this goes on all the time both ( out there?) in the world, and here.

B: All right. Now we say our problem is to work together, to think together.

K: Yes, to co-operate together without a 'monetary' issue involved in it.

B: Well, could it be that people will 'work together' (more efficiently?) if they are paid highly ?

K: Yes, of course, you can see that happening...

B: But given a ( communalistic) situation where this is not what we want then we have a 'problem'.

K: Yes, that is right. Now how do we solve such a problem? I offer my opinion, you offer, and he and so on, all of us are offering an opinion and so we don't meet each other at all. So what shall we do? It seems almost impossible to give up one's opinions.

B: Well, I am not sure you can regard it as a problem, saying what shall I do to give up my opinions ?

K: No, of course. But that is a fact, and when this is put forward to the others it becomes a ( serious psychological?) problem to them.

B: That is because people find it hard to give up their personal opinions.

K: That's it. Opinions, or their own experiences, their conclusions, their ideals, you know all that.

B: And ( for them) it may not seem like an 'opinion' at that point, they feel it is true.

K: They call it 'fact'.

K: So, what shall we do, if we see the necessity of working together ?

B: Well, some people might say that we have got not only opinions, but ( their own) self-interest. If two people have different self-interests, then there is no way - as long as they maintain that- that they can work together.

K: Agreed. Suppose in a place like this, we are a group of ( holistically minded?) people, if you point out to me, that we must work together, and show to me the importance of it, and I also see it is important but.. I can't do it.

B: That's the point, that it is not enough even to see it is important and have the ( best) intentions to do it. There is a new factor coming in here that a person sees something is important, he intends to do it and he can't do it.

K: That's it, and that creates a problem to him.

B: everybody.

K: Yes, to everybody.

B: But why is it that we cannot carry out our ( bestest?) intentions? We see the importance, knowing we want to do it and yet we can't do it. It seems puzzling...

K: One can give many ( particular) reasons for that but those causes and reasons and explanations don't solve the issue. So, we come back to the same thing - what will make a human mind change (its ages old self-centred mentality?) ? What factor is necessary in this?

B: Well I feel it is the ability to observe what is preventing him from changing ?

K: So is the new factor 'attention'?

B: Yes, that is what I meant, attention but if you are going to bring this in a group of ( holistically minded?) people, what kind of attention do you mean?

K: We can discuss what is attention. As somebody wrote this morning ''where there is attention there is no problem; where there is inattention everything arises''. Now, what is the nature of (this holistically integrated?) attention in which no problem can ever exist ? Obviously it is not (just a mental) concentration. Obviously it is not the result of struggling to be attentive. But you (Mr 'X') show me the nature of attention which is, when there is ( this holistic) attention there is no 'centre' (of self-interest?) from which 'I' attend.

B: Yes, but that is a very difficult thing...

K: Don't let's make a problem of it.

B: I have been trying that for a long time ( for homework?) and the first ( experiential) difficulty in looking at the ( psychologically active) content of thought is that the person may think he is attending.

K: No, in the state of ( holistic) attention there is no ( interference of thought).

B: But do you stop ( the interference of) thought ? You see while ( the process of self-centred ? ) thinking is going on there is an impression of attention which is not attention. One (honestly) thinks that one is paying attention.

K: No, no. When one supposes one is paying attention, that is not (the non-dualistic ?) attention (we are talking about ?) .

B: But that is what often happens. So how do we communicate what is the true meaning of attention?

K: Could we ( approach it negatively by?) discussing what is inattention? And then, through negation come to the positive. When I am inattentive, what takes place?

B: All sorts of things take place.

K: No, in my ( state of generalised ?) 'inattentiveness' I feel lonely, depressed, anxious and so on.

B: The mind begins to 'break up' (or 'fall apart'?) ...

K: An inner fragmentation takes place. Or in my lack of ( holistic) attention I may identify myself with so many other things.

B: Yes, and it may also be pleasant.

K: Of course. It is always pleasant.

B: But it may be painful too...

K: I find later on that that which was pleasing ( eventually) becomes the pain ( of boredom & frustration ? ). So all that is a movement ( a fragmentary inner activity ) in which there is no attention. Now, a ( holistically integrated?) mind is (ASAP becoming ?) 'attentive', when has understood the nature of inattention and moves away from it.

B: So, what is the nature of inattention?

K: The nature of inattention? Indolence, negligence, the ( self-sustained thread of ?) self-concern (along with its collateral?) self - contradictions, all these (& more ?) is the nature of inattention.

B: Yes. A person who has self-concern may feel that he is 'attending' to the concerns of himself. He feels he has got problems, then paying attention to them.

K: If there is an (ongoing) 'self-(interest' generated ?) contradiction in me, and I pay attention to it in order not to be (so?) self-contradictory, that is not ( a transpersonal) 'attention'.

B: Can you make it more clear, because ordinarily one might think that that is attention.

K: No, that is not, it is merely an ( all-controlling) process of thought, which says, 'I am this, but... I must not be like this'.

B: Then you are saying this ( very honest?) attempt to become (inwardly attentive) is not 'attention'.

K: Yes, that is right.

B: Because it is not based on...

K: ...a process of psychological becoming which breeds its own inattention.

B: Yes, and the person may thing he is 'attending to something' but actually he is not (100 % attentive?) , when he is engaged in this process.

K: Isn't it very difficult sir, to be free of (the subliminal process of psychological) becoming? That is the root of it (of 'transpersonal' attention ?). To end becoming.

B: Yes...
K: Are we getting anywhere, sir? You see most human beings have problems of one kind or another. Apart from technological problems which can be solved (in time?) , apparently human problems are not ( 'time-) soluble'. And I say, why?

B: Well we have just answered it: because they are not really paying ( a compassionate & intelligent ?) attention to them.

K: No, but then ( even forcing oneself to) pay attention becomes a problem.

B: Yes. That is the question, to stop ( the momentum of self-interest subliminally invested in it?) . The difficulty is that the ( self-centred) mind ( is so good at ) playing (this kind of) tricks, that even in trying to deal with this ( holistic) issue (of being completely attentive? ) it does the very same thing again.

K: Of course, of course. So let's come back (to the 'Meditation 101' class ?) The human mind, which is ( generally speaking?) so full of ( self-centred) knowledge, self-importance, self-contradictions, and all the rest of it, that (particular & general) human mind, has come to a point where it finds itself (inwardly ) that it can't move on.

B: There is nowhere for it to move, yes.

K: So what? What would I (as Mr 'X'?) say to a person who has come to that ('end of the line'?) point? I am full of this confusion, anxiety, and a sense of despair, not only in seeing what the ( psychological state of the?) world is, but also in myself. I come to that point and I want to break through it. So it becomes an ('all-in-one' existential ?) problem to me.

B: Well then we are back, there is an attempt to become again.

K: Yes. So, at the root of all this ( vast psychological labyrinth?) is the desire to become?

B: Well it must be close to the root, as it keeps on coming in without notice. The inattention is such that you would say that I am looking at my problem and my problem is always becoming, so I say I want to stop becoming, which again is inattention.

K: Which again becomes a problem. So how can one look, without the (subliminal interference of ) the movement of ( self-) becoming, at this whole complex issue of myself?

B: Well, one has to look at the whole issue , and we did not look at the whole of becoming, when you said, ''how can 'I' pay attention ?''. Part of it seemed to slip out and became the 'observer'. Right?

K: Sir, look, (thought's self-centred?) 'becoming' has become the curse – psychologically speaking - the curse of this. The poor man wants to become rich and the rich man wants to become still richer - all the time of becoming, becoming, both outwardly and inwardly. And though it brings a great deal of ( frustration & ) pain and sometimes pleasure, this sense of becoming, fulfilling, achieving psychologically, has made my life into all that it is. Now I realize that but... I can't stop it.

B: Yes, why can't I stop it?

K: Let's go into that ( analytically ?) a little bit. Partly it is because I am ( still ) involved in ( self-) becoming as there is (an expectation of a major existential ?) reward at the end of it. And the other reason is perhaps this deeply rooted anxiety, that if I don't become, be something I am lost, uncertain & insecure. So the ( temporal) mind has accepted all these illusions (of self-becoming) and says 'I cannot end that'.

B: Then we have to go into the question of saying that there is no meaning to these illusions.

K: How do you convince me that I am caught in an illusion? You can't, unless I see it for myself. I cannot see it because my illusion ( of self-becoming) is so strongly (embedded in the human psyche?) . This illusion has been cultivated by ( the organised?) religion, by family and ( also by myself?) - it is so deeply rooted that I refuse to let that go.

B: Well then it seems impossible...

K: Now given this (impossible ?) situation, what is one to do? Is it explanations, logic, all the various contradictions, and logic and so on, will that help him? Obviously not.

B: Because it all gets absorbed into the ( old) structure.

K: So supposing that I am the man ( Mr 'Y' ?) in that position, how do we help him to see clearly the danger of ( thinking inwardly in terms of self-) becoming? ( Hint:) The psychological becoming implies identification with a nation...

B: ….holding on to your ( personal) opinions.

K: ...Opinions, beliefs, I have had an experience, it gives me tremendous satisfaction, I am going to hold on to it. I have had knowledge - all that. How do you help such a person, to be free of all that? Your ( holistic) explanations & logic, are sounding quite right, but I can't move out of that.
I wonder if there is another way of communication, which isn't based on words, knowledge, explanations and reward and punishment. I think there is, I am sure there is a ( more direct) way of communicating which is not verbal, which is not analytical, logical- I am sure there is another way.

B: Perhaps there is...

K: Now how do you 'communicate' with me non-verbally, so that I grasp it deeply, that breaks away everything else? You follow? Is there such a communication? My mind has always communicated with another with words, with explanations, with logic, with analysis, either compulsive, or with suggestion and so on. My mind has been caught in all that. There must be another element which breaks through all that.

B: Break through the inability to listen ?

K: Yes, the inability to listen, the inability to observe, to hear and so on. There must be a different method. You see, I met many men, who have been to a place with a certain ( Ramana Maharishi ?) saint and in his ( holy?) company they had the feeling that all their ( personal?) problems were resolved. But... when they go back home they were back in the old game.

B: Well, there was no intelligence in it ?

K: You see the ( psycho-addictive?) 'danger' ? That (holy) man, being quiet, non-verbal, in his very presence, they felt (inwardly) quiet (& forgot all about their temporal problems?) . You follow what I am saying? And they feel their problems are resolved.

B: But it is still ( an inner silence induced?) from the outside.

K: Of course, like going in a good ancient church, or a cathedral, you feel extraordinarily quiet. It is the ( spiritual) 'atmosphere', it is the structure, you know, all that, the very atmosphere makes you be quiet.

B: Well it communicates what is meant by quietness, I think, but it gets across the communication which is non-verbal.

K: No, that is ( evaporating?) like incense. So we push all that ( spiritual temptation?) aside, then what have we left? What is there that can be communicated (directly ) , and which will break through the 'wall' which human beings have built for themselves? Is it ( the holistic intelligence of?) Love? Is that the ( communicating?) factor that will break through all this clever analytical approach, is that the element that is lacking (here, there & everywhere?) ?

B: Well, as people resist 'listening', they will resist Love too. But we were saying the other day that this Love also contains Intelligence and ( a sense of compassionate?) caring, as well...

K: Now (if?) you ( Mr 'X' ) have ( free inward access to?) that quality and I ( Mr 'Y') am still caught in my ( existential) anxiety but you are trying to penetrate with that ( selfless loving) Intelligence, this mass of ( personal & collective ) darkness. Will that act? If not we human beings are lost (in the River of Time?) .
I think that is the (missing link ?) factor : Attention - ( Insightful ) Perception, Intelligence and Love. You bring it to me, but I seem incapable of receiving it. 'It sounds nice, I feel it but the moment I go outside this room... I am lost (in time ?) .

B: Well that really is the problem...

K: Yes sir. Now, is ( That Selfless Intelligence of ?) Love something outside of me, which you awaken in me, which you give me as a gift; or it is in my darkness, in my illusion, suffering, is there that quality? Obviously not, there can't be.

B: Then... where is it?

K: That's just it. It must be (in) here -but this Love is not yours or mine, it is not personal, it is not something that belongs to a (Mr 'X') person, and doesn't to the other; Love is the common Ground for all of us.

B: So this may be one of the barriers to the whole thing, that behind the ordinary everyday thought there is deeper thought of mankind...And then perhaps we can see that Love is not personal, love does not belong to anybody any more than any other quality.

K: That is what I want to find out sir: is ( the Compassionate Intelligence of?) Love something that is common to ( the Consciousness of ?) all of us?

B: Well in so far as it exists, it is universal.

K: Universal. And compassion, love, and intelligence (go together) You can't be (loving or) compassionate without intelligence.

B: So we say that intelligence is universal too ?

K: Yes. So if ( the Compassionate Intelligence of?) love is common to all of us, why am I ( pretending to be?) blind to it?

B: Well, I think partly the mind boggles, it just refuses to consider such a fantastic ( paradigm) change in its way of looking at everything .

K: Why does one's mind refuse to 'accept' (see the truth of?) a very obvious factor, why? Is it the ( subliminal?) fear of letting my old values, standards, opinions, all that, to let them go (down the drain?) ?

B: I think it is probably something deeper. It is hard to pin down but it isn't such a 'simple' thing. I mean all that you just said is a partial explanation.
K: That is a superficial explanation. I know that. Is, sir, is it the deep rooted anxiety, or the longing to be totally secure?

B: But that again is based on fragmentation. If we accept that we are (inwardly isolated or?) fragmented we will inevitably want to be totally secure. Right? Because being ( inwardly ) fragmented you are always in danger.

K: Is that the root of it? This urge, this demand, this longing to be totally (& forever?) secure in my relationship with everything, to be ( inwardly) certain?

B: Yes, but as you have said before the real security is found in 'no-thingness'.
K: Of course, in 'nothingness' (being 'as nothing' inwardly ?) there is complete security.

B: It is not the demand for security which is wrong but the ( irrational) demand of the fragment(ary consciousness) to be secure. The fragment cannot possibly be secure. Because the ( holistic) way you have put it sounds as if we should live eternally in insecurity.

K: No, no. We have ( or...had better?) made that very clear.

B: It makes sense to ask for ( inner peace &) security but we are going about it the wrong way.

K: Yes, that's right...
( Educational parable : ) I have a brother who refuses to see all this. And as I like him, as I have lived with him, I have a great affection for him, I want him to move out of it. And I have tried to communicate with him verbally and sometimes non-verbally, by a gesture, by a look, but all this is still from the outside. And perhaps that is the reason why he resists. Being my brother, for whom I have a great affection, if I can help my brother for whom I have a great affection - I won't use the word 'help' - if I can point out that in himself this flame can be awakened, which means he must listen ( with all he mind & heart?) to me. But... my brother refuses to listen.
So how do I 'help' my ( metaphorical ?) brother? We said by becoming aware of the cause (self-interest?) , the effect (frustration & sorrow?) and all the rest of it. After explaining all this he says, 'You have left me where I was before '. But my Intelligence, my ( compassionate?) affection & love says 'I can't let him go'. You follow? I can't say, 'Well, then...go to hell' and move off. My ( holistic?) responsibility is that I can't let another human being go. It is not the responsibility of duty but it is the responsibility of (the universally open?) Intelligence which says all that.

B: Well that is clear that the whole ( educational endeavour?) would have no meaning if you would let him go – he would be going back into fragmentation.

K: Sir, there is an (occult?) tradition in India, and probably in Tibet, there is one (highly spiritual entity?) called the Maitreya Buddha who took a vow that he would not become the ultimate Buddha until he has ( helped?) eliberate other human beings too.

B: Altogether?

K: Yes. You see, the (collective belief in this) tradition hasn't changed anything. can one (Mr 'X') , if he has that intelligence, compassion, & love, who has that purity of that – how can That be transmitted to another? Living with him, talking to him - it all becomes mechanical.

B: Would you say this has never really been solved, this ( holistic educational ) question?

K: It has not been solved but one's ( Loving & Compassionate) Intelligence says : these are the 'facts' and perhaps some will capture it.

B: Well it seems to me that there are really two steps: one is the preparation by reason to show that it all makes sense; and from there possibly some will capture it.

K: We have done that sir. You (Mr 'X') laid the map out very clearly and I have seen very clearly, all the conflicts, the misery, the confusion, the insecurity, the becoming, all that is very, very, very clear. And at the end of the chapter (one?) ( Mr 'Y') has got a glimpse of it and it becomes his craving to capture that (wholesome) glimpse and hold on to it... then that becomes a ( dead?) memory.

However, in your showing me the 'map' (of the time bound human mind) very clearly you have also pointed out to me something much deeper than that, which is ( the timeless Intelligence of?) Love. And by your ( charismatic) person, by following your ( holistic) reasoning & logic, I am groping, seeking after That. But ( Alas?) the weight of my body, my brain, my tradition, all that draws me back. So, a constant battle.
I remember we were talking in Ojai whether man has taken a wrong turning, & entered into a ( dark?) valley where there is no escape. That can't be sir, that is too depressing, too appalling.

B: I think you would have to say some stronger reason why you feel that to be untrue. Do you perceive in the human nature some possibility of a real change?

K: Of course sir. But you see, and that faculty to a radical (inner) change is attributed to some outside agency. But if we don't look to anybody and be completely free from all ( vain expectations?) , when you see that this ( time-bound existence) is so ugly, unreal, so stupid, you are naturally alone. And that sense of 'all-oneness' is common.

B: I think one could say that all the fundamental things are universal and therefore you are saying that when the mind goes deeply (into itself?) it comes into something 'universal'.

K: Universal, that's right. And that is the problem ( left for meditation homework?) : to make the mind go very, very deeply into itself.

B: When we start (going inwardly) with our particular problem it is very shallow, then we go to something more 'general' - the word has same the latin root 'as 'generate' - so a new depth of mind is generated. And going from that, still further inwardly, to the absolute, to the universal Mind ...
But you see, many people would say that is all very abstract and has nothing to do with daily life.

K: ( Holistically -wise?) it is the most practical thing. Not that it is an abstraction.

B: In fact it is the 'particular' (the 'personal' level consciousness) that is the abstraction, because you only get from the universal (consciousness?) to the particular one by 'abstracting'.

K: Of course, of course.

B: But you see, many ( practical ?) people feel they want something that really affects (or inspires) us in daily life, we don't just want to get ourselves lost in talking, instead of getting into the real solid concrete realities of daily life.
Now I mean it is true that it must work in daily life, but ( the time bound) daily life does not contain the solution of its problems.

K: No. The daily life is the 'particular' & the 'general' life.

B: The ( deeper causes of all human ?) problems which arise in daily life cannot be solved at their own level.

K: ( Parting words:) From the 'particular' move (inwardly) to the 'general', from the 'general' move still deeper (inwardly) and there perhaps is the ( original) purity of That ( all-in-one?) thing called ''compassion, love and intelligence''. But this means giving your 'mind & heart' , your whole being must be involved in this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Apr 2019 #18
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

( from David Bohm's introduction to the dialogues 16 & 17 )

These last two dialogues took place three years after the series of fifteen dialogues between Krishnamurti and myself and were inevitably profoundly affected by what had been done in these earlier dialogues. In a certain sense, they deal with closely related questions. Of course, "The Ending of Time" could go into these questions in a more thorough and extensive way, but nevertheless, even these ( last dialogues ) can provide important additional insights into these problems.

The starting ( question ?) for these ( last ) discussions was the question: "What is the future of humanity?" which is by now of vital concern to everyone and it soon became clear that the origin of the ( present ?) situation is (to be found) in the generally confused ( self-centred ?) mentality of mankind, which has not changed basically throughout the whole of recorded history and probably for much longer than this. Evidently, it was essential to inquire deeply into the root of this ( psychological) difficulty if there is ever to be a possibility that ( the global evolution of?) humanity will be diverted from its present (ambiguous & ?) dangerous course.

As Mr Krishnamurti points out, the 'psychological' time, or '( self-centred) becoming' is at the very source of the destructive current that is putting the future of humanity at risk. To question ( the validity of this 'psychological ) time' is to question the ( in-)adequacy of knowledge and thought as a means of dealing with the (profound human) problems. And if knowledge and thought are not adequate, what is it that is actually required? This led to the question of whether the 'mind' is limited by our physical brain ( loaded with ?) all the knowledge that mankind has accumulated over the ages. The ( psychological burden of this) ) knowledge, which now conditions us deeply, has produced an 'irrational' self-destructive 'programme' in which the brain seems to be helplessly caught up.

If ( the natural intelligence of the human) mind is limited by such a ( knowledge burdened) state of the brain, then the 'future of humanity' looks grim indeed. However, Mr Krishnamurti does not regard these limitations as 'inevitable'. Rather, he emphasizes that the ( the transpersonal human ?) mind is essentially free of the distorting bias which inherent in the conditioning of the brain, and that, through ( a time-transcending ) 'insight' arising in the attention without a centre , it can change the cells of the brain and remove its destructive conditioning.
If this is so, then it is crucially important that we give to this ( holistically integrated quality ?) attention the same energy that we generally give to other activities of life that are really of vital interest to us.


J.Krishnamurti: I thought we were going to talk about the future of the whole of mankind. And from what one can observe ( in 1983 ?) the world has become dangerous. Terrorists, wars, and the national divisions and racial divisions and also religiously there is tremendous separation.

DB: Yes, I think there is also the economic crisis and the ecological crisis.

JK: Yes. Man's ( existential) problems seem to multiplying more and more. So, what is ( awaiting us in ) the future of not only the present generation but the coming generations?

DB: Well, it looks ( pretty ) grim...

JK: So, we were (still?) young what would we do knowing all this ? What would be our reactions? What would be our life, our way of earning a livelihood and so on ?

DB: Yes, well, I have often thought of that. " Would I go into science again?" And I am not at all certain now because science does not seem to be relevant to the ( present global) crisis.

JK: On the contrary...

DB: It might help but in fact it isn't.

JK: So, what would you do? I think I would stick to what I am doing.

DB: Well, that would be easy (to say?) for you. But if a young person is just starting out, he has to make a living, right?

JK: Of course...

DB: Now there are very few ( holistically friendly ?) opportunities now ; most of these are in jobs which are very limited.

JK: Limited and unemployment right throughout the world. I wonder where would ( a holistically minded young person would ?) begin?

DB: Well I think (that for starters?) one would have to 'stand back' from ( the psychological pressure generated by?) all these particular problems of my own needs and the needs of other people around me...

JK: But even then... what will I do? This is a (major existential) problem that I think most young (& less young?) people are facing.

DB: Well, is there something which you could suggest?

JK: You see I don't think in terms of ( temporal?) evolution.

DB: I understand that, and it's a point I was expecting we would discuss.

JK: Yes. I don't think there is a 'psychological' evolution at all.

DB: Yes, we have discussed this quite often so I think I understand to some extent what you mean. But I think that people who are new to this, who are ( reading this or?) viewing this tape, are not going to understand.

JK: I want to discuss ( the existential aspect of) this whole question: Why are we concerned about ( what we shall do in) the future, when ( psychologically-wise ?) the whole future is ( implicitly contained in what we are doing ?) now ?

DB: Yes, in some sense the whole future 'is' ( already present in what we are doing & thinking ? ) now but we'll have to make this point more clear (since this holistic paradigm ? ) goes very much against the whole way of thinking of the tradition of mankind and of all of us.

JK: Yes, I know. It goes - I know. Mankind thinks in terms of ( temporal) evolution, continuance and so on.

DB: Maybe we could approach it in another way. What objections do you have to our thinking in terms of evolution.

JK: We are talking 'psychologically'.

DB: Yes, but first let's dispose of it physically.

JK: I mean an acorn will grow into an oak (although its genetic information is already present in it) ...

DB: Yes. Well also the species have evolved for example from the plants to the animals and to man.

JK: Yes, we have taken a million years to be what we are.

DB: You have no doubts that it ( the Darwinian evolution?) really happened?

JK: No, that has happened.

DB: And it may continue to happen. That is a valid process.

JK: Of course. That is a valid natural process.

DB: And therefore in that ( physical area) the past, present and future are important.

JK: Yes obviously. If I don't know a certain language, I need time to learn it.

DB: Well it also takes time to improve the brain. You see if the human brain started out small and then it got bigger and bigger, that took a million years.

JK: Yes, and becomes much more complex and so on. All that needs time. All that is ( the evolutionary?) movement (of our species?) in space and time.

DB: Yes. So you will admit ( the objective reality of a ) physical time and of a neurophysiological time.

JK: Of course. Any sane man would.

DB: Yes, but most ( mentally sane?) people would also admit ( the reality of the ) 'psychological' time, what they call a 'mental' (continuity of) time.

JK: Yes, that is what we are talking about. Whether there is such a thing as psychological 'tomorrow' - a 'psychological' evolution ( of one's consciousness?) in time

DB: Now, at first sight I am afraid this will sound strange - because I can remember ( what I did) yesterday, and there is 'tomorrow' that I can anticipate. And it has happened many times, as the days have succeeded each other. So I do have the experience of ( my own psychological existence in) time, from yesterday to today to tomorrow – right?

JK: Of course. That is simple enough.

DB: That is simple enough. Now what is it you are denying?

JK: I deny that ( tomorrow?) I will become ( inwardly ) 'better'.

DB: I can certainly change (my ways) but there are two ways of looking at that. One way (of looking at it) is that will I intentionally 'become better' because I am trying (really hard ) , while other ( thoughtful) people may feel that ( man's psychological) evolution is a kind of natural, inevitable process, in which we are being swept along like in a current, and we are perhaps (learning life's lessons and) become better, or something is happening ( independently of) us.

JK: Psychologically ?

DB: Psychologically, yes, and which takes ( eons of?) time which may not be the result of my trying to become better. Some people may think one way, some another. Now, are you denying also that there is a kind of natural psychological evolution of ( the collective consciousness of) mankind as there is the natural biological evolution?

JK: I am denying ( the spiritual validity of?) that, yes.

DB: Yes. Now why do you deny it?

JK: Because first of all, the 'me', the 'ego', what is it?

DB: Now some people who are thinking (in terms of mankind's spiritual) evolution are thinking that there will be a (stage of ) evolution in which the ( selfishness of the?) 'me' is transcended. That is that it will rise ( the collective consciousness?) to a higher level.

JK: Yes, but does (this holistically friendly ) 'transition' need time?

DB: So there are two questions: one is will the 'me' ever improve? That is one argument. And another argument, is even if we (would really) want to get beyond the ( intrinsical limitations of the?) me, can that be done in time?

JK: That cannot be done in time.

DB: Yes, but we'll have to make it clear 'why not'.

JK: Yes. What is the 'me'? The 'me' is the whole (self-identified mental) 'movement' which thought has brought about.

DB: Now why do you say that?

JK: The 'me' is my ( self-identified ) consciousness, my name, form and all the various experiences that I have had, remembrances and so on.
( In a nutshell:) The whole structure of the 'me' is put together by thought.

DB: Well, that ( statement) would be something which some people might find it had to accept.

JK: Of course, of course. We are discussing it.

DB: Yes but the first experience, the first feeling I have about the 'me' is that the 'me' is there independently ( of the thought process ) and that the 'me' is the entity who is thinking.

JK: Is the 'me' independent of my thinking?

DB: Well the first ( empirical) feeling is that the 'me' ( my self-consciousness?) is (already present) there independent of my thinking, and it is the 'me' that is thinking, you see ?

JK: Yes, yes...

DB: Like 'I' am ( present ) here and I could (choose to?) think, or I could move my head...

JK: Yes, yes...

DB: Now is this ( self-consciousness?) a (thought-created?) illusion?

JK: No.

DB: Why?

JK: Because when I move my arm there is the intention to grasp something, to take something, to put something, which is (preceded by) the movement of thought, and that makes the arm move and so on. My contention is - and I am ready to accept it as false or true - that thought is the basis of all this (self-centred consciousness?)

DB: Your contention is that the whole ( self-conscious?) sense of the 'me' and what it is doing is coming out of ( a subliminal process of?) thought.
So, what you actually mean by 'thought' is not merely ( the mental or the ) intellectual (activity of the brain) ?

JK: No, no, of course not.

DB: But what ( is it) more ?

JK: Thought is the movement of ( personal & collective) experience & knowledge (stored in the brain cells') memory. It is this whole movement ( the overall survival oriented activity of the brain ?).

DB: You mean ( the temporal ) consciousness as a whole ?

JK: As a whole, that's right.

DB: And you are saying that this whole 'movement' is ( focussing itself as ) the 'me' – right?

JK: The whole content of this ( time-bound ) consciousness (whenever it is challenged) is ( expressing itself as) the 'me'.

DB: Well, one could say that I 'am' my consciousness for if I am not conscious I am not here. However, is this ( self-) consciousness nothing (else apart from) what you have just described, which includes thought, feeling, intention, aspirations, memories, beliefs, dogmas, the rituals that are performed,

JK : The whole (of man's self-centred experience) , like the computer that has been programmed.

DB: That certainly is ( contained in our) consciousness. Everybody would agree, although many ( spiritually inclined ) people would feel that there is more to it than that, or that the human consciousness may go beyond its (time binding content?) .

JK: Let's go into it ( sanely & rationally?) . The ( active ?) content of our consciousness makes up the consciousness.

DB: I think this may require some ( holistically friendly ) understanding....

JK: All right. ( One's self-) consciousness is made up of all that one has (experienced in the past and/or ) remembered (from one's cultural environment) beliefs, dogmas, rituals, the nationalities, fears, pleasures, sorrow.

DB: Yes, now if all that were absent, would there be no 'consciousness' ?

JK: Not 'as we know it'...

DB: But there would still be a kind of consciousness?

JK: A totally different kind !

DB: Well, so we should say that the human consciousness -as we generally know it - is made up...

JK: ( The 'temporal' ) consciousness - as we know it- is all that.
And (its psychologically active content) is the result of multiple activities of thought. Thought has put all this together, which is my (ego-centric ? ) consciousness with all its reactions, responses, memories, remembrances, all that makes up our (self-centred ?) consciousness.

DB: As we now know it ?

JK: As we know it. Now, the question is whether this ( man-made ?) consciousness has a future.

DB: Well, doesn't it have a past?

JK: Of course. Remembrance.

DB: Then...why do you say it has 'no future' then?

JK: If it has a ( temporal ?) future it will be exactly the same kind of thing, moving (on mechanically ?) . The same (hedonistic?) activities, same (tweeted?) thoughts, ( updated or?) modified, but the ( egotistic ) pattern will be repeated over and over again.

DB: Yes. Are you saying that ( the self-centred process of?) thought can only repeat itself ?

JK: Yes.

DB: But the general feeling is that thought can develop new ideas for example.

JK: But thought is ( intrinsically) limited because ( its past ) knowledge is limited.

DB: Well yes, that again might require some discussion. Why do you say that our knowledge is always limited?

JK: Because you as a scientist, you are experimenting, adding, searching, so you are adding, and after you some other person will add more. So knowledge, which is born of ( man's materialistic) experience, is limited.

DB: Well some ( science) people hope to obtain perfect knowledge, or absolute knowledge of the laws of nature.

JK: The 'laws of nature' are not ( necessarily the same as ?) the laws of the human (consciousness ?).

DB: Well do you want to restrict the discussion then to knowledge about the ( consciousness of the?) human beings?

JK: Of course, that's all we can talk about.

DB: There is a question of whether ( a total ) knowledge of ( the laws of?) nature is possible too.

JK: Of course. But we were talking about the future of man.

DB: All right. So we are saying that man cannot obtain unlimited knowledge of the 'psyche'?

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: There is always more that is unknown...

JK: Yes, that's right. There is always more and more unknown. So if once we admit that ( both qualitatively & quantitatively man's ) knowledge is limited then (it follows logically that ) thought is limited.

DB: Yes, because thought depends on ( the available ) knowledge and this ( Home Depot of?) knowledge does not cover everything.

JK: That's right.

DB: Therefore thought will not be able to handle (to deal in real time with ?) everything that happens.

JK: That's right. That is what the politicians and all the other people are doing. They think ( that their superior thinking?) can solve every problem.

DB: Yes. You can see in the case of politicians that their knowledge is very limited, and when you lack the adequate knowledge of what you are dealing with, you create ( lots of collateral?) confusion.

JK: Yes. So then as ( the competency area of?) thought is limited, the ( self-centred ) consciousness which it has been 'put together', is also limited.

DB: Now, can you make this more clear? That means ( that consciousness-wise?) we can only stay in the same circle ( of the 'known'?) .

JK: The same circle...

DB: But you see, people are generally thinking : although my knowledge is limited I am constantly discovering new things and keep up with the actuality.

JK: But that is also limited.

DB: Well, there is always the unknown (stuff?) which I have not discovered.

JK: That is what I am saying. The Unknown, the Limitless (inward dimension of human consciousness?) cannot be captured by ( the mechanistic process of?) thought. Because (of the obvious 'fact' that the self-centred process of ) thought in itself is limited.

DB: Well, there is a very strong feeling, (or cultural) tendency, to feel that thought can do anything.

JK: ( Consciousness-wise?) it can't. See what it has done in the world.

DB: Well I agree that is has done some terrible things but that doesn't prove that it will be always wrong. You see, one could always blame it on the people who have used it wrongly...

JK: I know, that is the good old trick! But ( bottom line?) thought in itself is limited, therefore whatever it does is limited.

DB: It is limited in a very serious way is what you are saying.

JK: Of course in a very, very serious way.

DB: Well could we bring that out, say what that way is I mean?

JK: ( Just by looking at ) what is happening in the world. The totalitarian (or utopian?) ideals, are is the invention of thought.

DB: Yes, the very word 'totalitarian', probably means they wanted to cover the totality but they couldn't and the thing collapsed.

JK: It is collapsing.

DB: But then there are those who say they are not totalitarians...

JK: But all their thinking is still limited...

DB: Yes, it is limited in a way that is (inwardly and/or outwardly divisive ?) and ( ultimately?) destructive. Now why is it so important (to understand thought's intrinsical limitation) ?

JK: That is fairly simple (to explain holistically ?) : because whatever action is born of this thinking ( limited by self-interest ? ) must inevitably breed conflict. Like geographically dividing humanity into nationalities ( and also religiously) has created havoc in the world.

DB: Now, let's connect that ( geo-political division?) with the limitation of thought. Our knowledge is obviously limited, but how does that lead me to divide the world into...

JK: Aren't we ( the self-centred thinkers?) seeking security?

DB: Yes...

JK: So we thought there is ( a higher level of ?) security in division : in the family, in the tribe, in nationalism..

DB: Yes, but for example, one may feel "Within my own tribe I am secure." And I think I know enough to be sure that is so, but other things that I don't know may happen which can make that (tribal appartenency) very insecure. Other tribes come along...

JK: No, no, the very ( ego-centric mentality of) division creates insecurity.

DB: Yes it helps to create it, but I don't see the ( psychological connexion?) .

K: One doesn't see it because one has not thought ( responsibly?) about anything, never looked at the world as a whole.

DB: Yes, the ( thread of self-centred ) thought which aims at ( one's personal) security attempts to know everything that is 'important' (in this regard) . As soon as it knows everything important it says, "This will bring security" - but one thing it doesn't know is that this (mentality of) thought itself is divisive.

JK: Divisive, yes...

DB: ...because I define a (home-base?) area which is secure, divided from another area.

JK: Because ( the self-centred thinking?) in itself it is limited.
( And, as a psychological 'rule of thumb'?) Anything that is limited must inevitably create conflict.

DB: Well you mean any thought that is (ego-centric)

JK: If I say I am an 'individual', it is a limited (outlook) .

DB: Yes...

JK: I am ( openly or just subliminally?) concerned with myself, that ( survivalistic mentality ) is very limited. The 'me' is a divisive entity.

DB: Let's see more clearly why.

JK: Because it is ( prioritarily) concerned with 'itself' ( with its self-interest ) . The 'me' identifying with the greater nation, is still divisive.

DB: Yes, so, I define myself in the interest of (my personal or my group) security and this ( mental attitude?) creates a division between 'me' and 'you'.
Now that comes from my limited thought because I don't understand that we are really closely related and connected.

JK: As human beings. And ( psychologically-wise?) all human beings have more or less the same problems.

DB: But if I haven't understood this (holistic mentality) , in the very act of trying protect 'me & my own' and not the others, I create (a global condition of socio-economic?) instability.

JK: Yes, (a global climate of?) insecurity. Now, if we actually feel that we 'are' the rest of humanity, then the responsibility becomes immense.

DB: Yes, well how can you do anything about that responsibility?

JK: Then I either contribute to the whole mess, or keep out of it. That is, to be at peace (within myself & with the world?), to have ( a holistic) order in oneself.

DB: I think we have just touched upon an important point. We say the whole of humanity, ( the consciousness ) of mankind, is one, and therefore to create division there is... dangerous.

DB: Yes. Now ( generally speaking?) mankind doesn't realize that it is all one.

JK: Why?

DB: Well ( existentially-wise?) this is a crucial point. ( Outwardly ) it is pretty clear why it doesn't - there are so many ongoing divisions : not only between nations and religions but even from one person to another.

JK: Why is there this ( generalised mentality of?) division?

DB: Well the first cause would be that every human being is ( considering oneself as an isolated?) 'individual'. This (highly individualistic attitude) may not have been so strong in the past...

JK: That is what I question. I question altogether whether we (really) are individuals.

DB: Well that is a big (existential ) question...

JK: As we ( have often) said the ( self-centred ) consciousness (of the) 'me' is similar to all the rest of mankind. They all suffer (whether consciously or not?) , they all have ( conscious & unconscious?) fears, they are all ( feeling occasionally ? ) insecure, they have their own particular 'gods' and 'rituals', all put together by ( the collective streaming of ?) thought.

DB: Well, there are two ( objectionable?) questions here. One is, nobody feels that he is similar ( to all the rest) - most people feel they have some unique quality or distinction, or at least they (are working at it?) ...

JK: What do you mean "unique distinction"? Distinction in doing something?

DB: Well there may be many things. For example one nation may feel that it is able to do certain things better than another, one person has some special things he does, a quality, or...

JK: Of course. You are more 'intellectual' than I am. Somebody else is better in this or that.

DB: And he may take pride in his own special abilities, or advantages.

JK: But when you put away all that, basically ( inwardly?) we are the same.

DB: You are saying these things which you have just described which are only superficial (treats of character ) ?

JK : Yes.

DB: Well now the things that are basically common to all human beings are what?

JK: Fear, sorrow, pain, anxiety, loneliness, and all the human 'travail'.

DB: Well many people might feel that the basic things are the highest achievements of man.

JK: What has he achieved (inwardly?) ?

DB: Well we have discussed this often but I think we must bring it out.

JK: Yes Sir, (consciousness-wise?) what have we achieved?

DB: Well, many people may feel proud of the achievement of mankind in science and art and culture and technology.

JK: We have 'achieved' in all those directions, certainly we have. Vast advances in technology, communication, travel, medicines, surgery...

DB: Yes, it is really remarkable in many ways.

JK: There is no question about it.

DB: Yes. Now you are saying...

JK: What have we 'psychologically' ( or spiritually?) achieved?

DB: One point is to say that none of these ( technological advancements ) has affected us psychologically (or inwardly, in a positive way?) .

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: And ( ultimately?) the 'psychological' ( aspects of the ) question are more important than any of the others because if ( the psychological mess?) is not cleared up, the rest is ( becoming potentially?) dangerous.

JK: Quite right. If (inwardly or?) 'psychologically' we are limited (to a self-centred existence within the 'known') , then the technology will then be used by our limited...

DB:...yes, the ( leading factor?) is this limited psyche and not the rational structure of technology. And then our technology becomes a dangerous instrument. So that is one point that the ( self-interest dominated?) 'psyche' is at the core of it all, and if this 'psyche' is not in order then the rest is useless.

JK: If (one's inner) house is not in order...

DB: Now, although a certain (inner) 'lack of order' is common to us all, (although we may all have a potential for something else) , the second ( contention) point is : are we really 'all one' ? Even though we are all similar that doesn't say we are all the same, or that we are 'all one'.

JK: We have said previously that (with)in our consciousness basically we all have the same 'ground' on which we stand.

DB: You are trying to say that the (totality of ) human consciousness is not an entity which is individual...

JK: That's right.

DB: So, if you go ( meditating still ?) deeper into this question, the total consciousness ( of mankind?) is shared by all human beings.

JK: I think that ( the self-identified consciousness) is an ( wide-spread) illusion because we are sticking to something that is not true.

DB: Then, do you want to say that there is one (original matrix of ) consciousness of all mankind?

JK: It is 'all one'.

DB: It is 'all one', or perhaps it could be many which are then inter-communicating and building up the larger unit. So, you think from the very beginning it is 'all one'?

JK: From the very beginning it is all one.

DB: And the sense of our (psycho-logical?) separateness is an illusion – right?

JK: That is what I am saying over and over again. That ( holistic hypothesis?) seems so logical, sane. The other is 'insanity'...

DB: Well, most people don't feel that the notion of a separate (psychical) existence is 'insane' because one extrapolates from the body to the mind, one says it is quite sensible to say my body is separate from yours, and inside my body is my mind. Now are you saying the 'mind' is not inside the body?

JK: That is quite a different question. Let's finish with the first. If each one of us thinks that we are separate (isolated) individuals 'psychically', what we have done in the world is a colossal mess. Each one thinks he has to do what he wants to do, (in order to) fulfil himself. So he is struggling in his (self-created ) 'separateness' to achieve (his) inner peace or his material security, ( and in the meanwhile) a material security and a peace ( for all?) is totally denied.

DB: Well if we are trying to separate what is inseparable the result will be chaos.

JK: That's right.

DB: Now that is clear, but I think that it will not be clear to people immediately that the consciousness of mankind is one inseparable whole.

JK: Yes Sir, an inseparable whole.

DB: Many questions will arise if you once even consider this ( holistic) notion. One question is why do we think we are separate?

JK: Why do I think I am separate? That is my ( cultural) conditioning.

DB: Yes but how did we ever adopt such a foolish conditioning?

JK: From childhood : this toy is mine, not yours.

DB: I say it is 'mine' because I already feel that I am a separate (entity) . Now it isn't clear how the ( global) human 'mind' which is ('all-) one' came to this illusion that it is all broken up into many pieces ?

JK: I think it is again due to the ( survival oriented ?) activity of thought. Thought in its very nature thought is divisive, fragmentary and therefore (the 'thinking entity' thinks : ) 'I' am (an individual) consciousness ?)

DB: Well ( the self-centred ) thinking will create ( a very realistic sense of its own) fragmentation . And after a while you see so much evidence of your separation that you forget how it started and you say that it was always there.

JK: Of course. That's why, Sir, I feel if once we grasp the nature of thought, how thought operates, what is the source of thought, and see that it is always limited (to function within its own perimeter?) , if we really see that then...

DB: Now the 'source of thought' is what? Is it memory?

JK: Memory. Memory is the ( brain's verbally processed?) remembrance of things past, which is ( duly stored as ) knowledge.

DB: Yes but thought also includes, the attempt to go forward, to use logic, to take into account new discoveries and insights, you know.

JK: As we were saying some time ago, ''thought is time''.

DB: All right. Thought is time. But this (holistic statement) requires more discussion too, because the first experience is that ( the chronological continuity of) time is there first, and thought is taking place in time.

JK: So we think in terms of time.

DB: Yes. Just as doing everything ( in the real world) takes time, to think also takes time - right? But you are saying that thought (itself ) is ( a process of) time. That is, 'psychically' speaking ?

JK: 'Psychologically', of course.

DB: Now how do we understand this (insightful statement) ''Thought is time''? It is not something self-obvious.

JK: Would you say 'thought' is ( a mental) movement and ( the 'psychological) time' is ( the forward projection of this ?) movement ?

DB: Now you see, 'time' is a mysterious thing. I could understand that we cannot have time without movement.

JK: Time 'is' movement. Time is not ( a dimension ) separate from movement.

DB: Instead of ''time 'is' movement'' could we say that ''time and movement cannot be separated'' ? Because that seems fairly clear. Now a physical movement which ( has its own) physical time – right?

JK: Physical time, the seasons, sunset and sunrise. All that.

DB: Yes. Now inwardly we have the 'movement' ( the mental activity?) of thought. Now that brings in the question of the ( physical ) nature of thought. You see is thought nothing but a ( mental) movement in the nervous system, in the brain...

JK: What is time (inwardly?) ? Let's take the question of (one's 'psychological' ) becoming: Let's take, for example, that I want to become 'non-violent', That is altogether a ( wishful thinking ?) fallacy.

DB: Well we can easily understand that it is a 'fallacy' but the reason it is a fallacy is that there is no time of that kind, is that it?

JK: ( In certain critical situations the ?) human beings are violent ( reacting violently?) . And they have been talking a great deal of ( achieving the 'noble ideal' of) 'non-violence'. The fact is we are violent, and the (noble ideal of) 'non-violence' is not real. But we want to become that.

DB: Yes but this seems the natural extension of the kind of thought that we have with regard to ( improving the ) material things. If you see a desert, the desert is real and you say the garden is not real, but in your mind is the garden which will come when you put the water there. So we can plan for the future when the desert will become fertile. Now (inwardly ?) we have to be more careful ; when we realise that we are 'violent', we cannot by a similar planning ( hope to) become 'non-violent'. Now why is that?

JK: Why? Because the 'non-violent' ( inner) state cannot exist when there is ( the mentality of) violence.

DB: I think that you are saying that when you are violent that is all there is.

JK: Yes, not the other.

DB: And the the ( mental) movement towards the 'other' ( state of mind) is illusory.

JK: Illusory. So 'psychologically' all ideals are illusory.

DB: Yes, if you are violent and if you ( deviously?) continue to be violent in trying to become non-violent, it has no ( experiential) meaning.

JK: So I question the ( validity of the psychological ) becoming, which is either becoming ( more of) 'what is' or becoming ( something else) away from 'what is'.

DB: Yes. Now when you talk of the movement of thought as (projecting itself in) time, it seems that this (psychological) time which comes from the movement of thought is illusory, is it?

JK: Yes.

DB: We sense it as time but it is not a real kind of time.

JK: That is why we asked: what is ( the psychological) time? I need time to go from here to there. I need time if I want to learn 'engineering' I must study it, it takes time. That same (time-binding mental attitude?) is carried over into the (inner world of the) 'psyche'. I need time to be 'enlightened'.

DB: Yes, and that will always create a conflict (of interests between 'what I am now ' '& 'what I expect to become in the future'.

JK: Yes.

DB: Between one part of you and another. Therefore this ( thought-projected ?) movement in which you say 'I need time' also creates a division in the human psyche, between the ( hopeful ) 'observer' and the ( undesirable treats which are being) 'observed'.

JK: Yes, that's right. We are saying the observer 'is' ( not actually separated from) the observed.

DB: And therefore there is no time, 'psychologically'.

JK: ( In other words?) the thinker 'is' the thought. There is no 'thinker' separate from ( the process of) thought.

DB: All that you are saying seems very reasonable, but I think that it goes so strongly against the tradition that we are used to, that it will be extraordinarily hard for people to really, generally speaking, to...

JK: Most people want an ( inwardly & outwardly) comfortable way of living: "Let me carry on as I am, for God's sake leave me alone."

DB: Yes but that is the result of so much conflict, that people are warned off by it I think.

JK: But in not resolving conflict, the (subliminal 'observer vs observed' ) conflict still exists, whether you like it or not. So is it, that is the whole point, is it possible to live a life without conflict?

DB: Yes, well that is all implicit in what has been said.

JK: That's right.

DB: The source of conflict is thought or knowledge, or the past.

JK: So then one asks: is it possible to transcend thought? Or is it possible to end knowledge? I am putting it 'psychologically' not...

DB: Yes. We say knowledge of objects and material objects and things like that, knowledge of science, will continue, but the ( inner presumption of?) knowledge is what you are asking to end, isn't it?

JK: Yes.

DB: Well on the other hand people have said, even you have said, self-knowledge is very important.

JK: Knowing oneself ( in real time?) is important but not if I take time to understand myself through self-analysis or by ( diligently?) watching my whole relationship with others and so, all that involves time.

DB: Yes, well...

JK: And I say there is another ( direct) way of looking at the whole thing without ( introducing the psychological) time. Which is (becoming effective only ?) when the observer 'is' the observed.

DB: Could we go further into your statement that there is no ( psychological) time?

JK: ( The ' psychological ?) time' is (the result of a mental?) division - right?

DB: Time is a series of divisions of past, present, future.

JK: ( And the process of?) thought is also ( operating in a ) divisive (way) . So time 'is' thought. Or, thought 'is' time...

DB: Well, it doesn't exactly follow ( logically) from what you said …

JK: Let's go into it !

DB: You see, thought makes all kinds of ( mental) divisions, and it does also divides up intervals of time, as 'past', 'present' and 'future'. But it doesn't follow from just this ( generic observation?) that thought 'is' (a) time (-based process?) ....

JK: Look, we said time is ( a mental dimension associated to any material ?) movement.

DB: Yes...

JK: And thought is also a series of ( mental ?) movements.

DB: Yes, all right.

JK: So both are 'movements'.

DB: Thought is a ( mental) movement of the nervous system and...

JK: You see, 'psychologically' ( the central thread of thought ?) is a movement of ( self-) becoming ( constantly measuring its progress in terms of time ?) …

DB: But when we talk of a 'psychological movement', what exactly is this 'movement'? Is it just a change of content?

JK: Sir, look: I am this, and I am attempting to become something ( better ?) psychologically.

DB: So ( it is a virtual?) movement (operating) within the content of your thought ? If you (think) : now I am 'this' and I am attempting to become 'that' , then I am ( inwardly engaged in a virtual mental?) movement – right?

JK: Yes...

DB: At least... I feel I am in movement.

JK: Yes. Say for instance I am ( inwardly) greedy (inwardly driven by the desire to get more of anything?) . Greed is a ( self-identified ) movement ( of desire, constantly pursuing its objectives now or in the future ?) .

DB: Well, what kind of a 'movement' is it?

JK: ( A constantly updated projection of the basic desire?) to get what I want (or more?) .

DB: To get more, yes.

JK: It is a ( mental) movement (projecting its own 'future' within the space of one's consciousness?) .

DB: All right...

JK: And ( eventually?) I find that ( highly motivated mental ?) movement ( is eventually losing momentum and/or becomes ?) painful. And then, I ( decide to reverse engine & ) try to become less greedy.

DB: Yes.

JK: This ( second wind?) attempt to become less greedy is a movement of time, is ( a process of 'negative'?) becoming.

DB: Yes but even the ( original momentum of?) greed was engaged in a process of 'becoming' ( in the desire to get more)

JK: Of course. So the real ( 'no-time' ? ) question, is it possible not to become psychologically ?

DB: Well it seems that that would require that you should not be ( identified with?) anything 'psychologically'. That is, as soon as you define yourself as 'greedy', or say I am this, or I am that, then either I will either want to become something else or to remain ( go along with?) what I am – right?

JK: Now can I ( take a break from this process of becoming & ) remain ( with) what I am? Can I remain with ( the mental momentum of?) greed ? And (also realise that the momentum of ) greed is not different from 'me' (from my time-bound consciousness?) (or in a holistic nutshell:) the greed 'is' ( an integral part of) me.

DB: Yes. But the ordinary (dualistic) way of thinking is that 'I' am here ( anyway) and I could either be 'greedy' or 'not greedy'. These are attributes which I may or may not have.

JK: But these attributes are ( an integral part of?) 'me'.

DB: Yes. Now that again goes very much against our common (dualistic) language and experience.

JK: Of course Sir.

DB: So, saying that ''I am my attributes'' means that thought's attributes creates the sense of 'me' ?

JK: All the qualities, the attributes, the virtues, the judgements, the conclusions and opinions, 'are ' ( defining the ?) 'me'.

DB: Well, it seems to me that this (totally insightful observation?) would have to be perceived immediately as obvious...

JK: That is the whole question. To perceive the totality of this whole ( self-centred mental ?) movement instantly.
Then we come to the point (of direct?) perception: whether it is possible to perceive it without all the ( interfering) movement of memory? To perceive something directly without the word, without the reaction, without the (knowledgeable?) memories entering into this perception.

DB: Yes, well that is a very big question because ( the psychologically active?) memory has constantly entered perception.

JK: Of course. That is the whole (experiential difficulty?)

DB: You see, this would raise the question : what is going to stop memory from entering perception?

JK: Nothing (no mental effort?) can stop it. But if I see that the (interfering ) activity of memory is limited, in the very perception that it is limited you have moved out of it into another ( non-dualistic) dimension.

DB: So, you have to perceive the whole of the limitation of memory ?

JK: Yes, not only one part.

DB: You can see in general that memory is limited but there are many ways in which this (dualistic limitation ) is not obvious. For example many of our (psychological) reactions may be ( subliminal responses of an ancestral) memory but we don't experience them as 'memory', you see. I experience 'myself' as being there presently and not a ( mere psychological) 'memory'. That is the common experience. Say, when I want to become less greedy, I experience greed, but the 'me' is the one who remembers, not the other way around, that memory creates 'me' – right?

JK: Sir, all this really comes down to: can humanity live without conflict? That really basically comes to that. Can we have peace on this earth?

DB: Yes, well...

JK: And the activities of thought never bring it about.

DB: Yes, well it seems clear from what has been said that the activity of thought cannot bring about peace ; psychologically it inherently brings about conflict.

JK: Yes, if we once really see ( the inward truth of?) that, our whole ( relational) activity would be totally different.

DB: Are you saying there is a ( directly perceptive mental ) activity which is beyond thought?

JK: Yes.

DB: And which is not only beyond thought but which does not require the cooperation of thought?

JK: Certainly not.

DB: And it is possible for this to occur when thought is absent?

JK: That is the real point. We have often discussed this, whether there is anything beyond thought. ( I am not talking of something holy, sacred) but whether there is a (holistic) activity which is not touched by thought? We are saying there is. And that activity is the highest form of intelligence.

DB: Yes, now we have brought in 'Intelligence'.

JK: I know, I purposively brought it in! So ( this holistically minded ?) intelligence is not the activity of cunning thought.

DB: Yes, but this intelligence can use thought, as you have often said.

JK: Intelligence can use thought.

DB: Yes, then thought can be either the action of intelligence, or it could be the action of memory ?

JK: That's it. If thought is the (mental) action born of memory (as both the content & the capacity of our memory is limited) therefore thought is limited and it has its own ( self-centred) activity which then brings about conflict.

DB: I think this would connect up with what ( the science) people are saying about computers : when we operate from memory we are not very different from a computer; or the other way around perhaps, the computer is not very different from us....

JK: The Indian (brain) has been programmed for the last five thousand years to be a Hindu, and in this country you have been programmed as British, or as a Catholic or as a Protestant. So we are all ( culturally) programmed up to a certain extent.

DB: Yes, and now you are bringing in the notion of a ( quality of holistic) Intelligence which is free of the programme, it is creative perhaps and...

JK: Yes, that's right. That intelligence has nothing to do with memory and knowledge.

DB: Yes. It may act in the field of memory and knowledge but it is has nothing to do with it ?

JK: Yes it can act through memory, etc. But how do you find out ( experientially?) whether it has any reality, not just imagination and romantic nonsense? To come to that ( Intelligence check-point?) one has to go into the whole question of suffering, whether there is an ending to suffering, and as long as suffering and fear and the pursuit of pleasure exists there cannot be ( the compassionate intelligence of ?) love.

DB: Yes, well there are many questions there. Now the first point is say suffering, but could we also include (frustration ) anger and violence and greed in that.

JK: Of course, otherwise...

DB: We could say that all these are the response of ( man's self-centred) memory and they are nothing to do with intelligence.

JK: They are all part of thought and memory.

DB: And as long as these are going on it seems to me that intelligence cannot operate through thought.

JK: That's right. So there must be freedom from ( the psychological burden of human ) suffering.

DB: Yes, well that is a very key point. Now...

JK: That is really a very serious and deep question. Whether it is possible to end suffering, which is (coming down to) the ending of 'me' ( of the 'one who suffers')

DB: Now again, the general feeling is that 'I' am here and I either enjoy things or I suffer. But perhaps you are saying that suffering arises from ( the self-centred activity of) thought, it is thought...

JK: ...( self-) identified.

DB: Yes. And that...

JK:...( a subliminal form of ) attachment.

DB: So then, what is it that suffers? You see, suffering ( or aggravated frustration) it is really the opposite of the feeling of pleasure, it seems to me, that ( our self-centred thinking within the field of) memory tends generally to produce ( a comforting inner feeling of safety &) pleasure, but when ( due to various life incidents ) this (psychological trick?) doesn't work, it produces ( an overall sense of ) pain and suffering.

JK: Not only that. Suffering is much more complex, isn't it? The meaning of the word is to have grief, to feel utterly lost, lonely...

DB: Well it seems to me that it is not only pain but a total ( existential) pain, a very pervasive...

JK: But suffering is ( triggered by) the loss of someone - my wife, my brother, or whatever it is, and the desperate sense of loneliness.

DB: Or else just simply the fact that the whole world is going into such a state. It makes everything else look meaningless.... However some ( religiously minded ?) people have felt that by going through suffering people become ( inwardly) purified, like going through the crucible – right?

JK: I know. That through suffering you learn...

DB: Or you are purified in some way.

JK: You are purified. This is through suffering the ego (-centric mentality) is vanished, dissolved.

DB: Yes dissolved, refined.

JK: It doesn't (really?) . People have suffered immensely. How many wars, how many tears & ignorance...

DB:...ignorance, disease, pain, everything. But you see what is suffering really? Why does it destroy intelligence, or prevent it? Why does suffering prevent intelligence? What is going on really?

JK: Suffering is ( generally caused by) being concerned with myself (& my own?) - is ( the result of a personal) shock- 'I' suffer, 'I' have pain, ( in a holistic nutshell ?) it is the essence of the 'me'.

DB: Yes the difficulty with suffering is that it is the 'me' that is there that is suffering. Tthe me is really being 'sorry for itself' in some way.

JK: My suffering is different from your suffering. We don't see that ( our deeply existential) suffering is shared by all humanity.

DB: Yes, but suppose we see it is shared by all humanity?

JK: Then I begin to question what suffering is. It is not ( an obsession with ?) my suffering.

DB: Yes, well that is important. In order to understand the nature of suffering I have to get out of this idea that it is 'my' suffering because as long as I believe it is my suffering I have an illusory notion of the whole thing...

JK: ... and I can never end it.

DB: But to come back : Why is my suffering the suffering of many? At first it seems that I feel pain in the tooth, or else I have a loss, or something has happened to me, and the other person seems perfectly happy.

JK: Yes, but he ( may be ) suffering too in his own way (and for different reasons) .

DB: Yes. At the moment he doesn't see it but he has his problems too.

JK: Suffering is common to all humanity.

DB: Are you saying that the suffering of mankind is 'all one', inseparable?

JK: Yes Sir. That is what I have been saying.

DB: As is ( shared in) the consciousness of man? When anybody suffers the whole of mankind is suffering ?

JK: The whole point is that man has suffered from the beginning of time and he hasn't solved it.

DB: It is clear that it hasn't been solved.

JK: We haven't ended ( the inner causation of) suffering.

DB: And the reason we haven't solved it because we are treating it as personal or as in a small group where it cannot - that is an illusion.

JK: Yes.

DB: And any attempt to deal with an illusion cannot solve anything. Now the - we would like to make it very clear...

JK: (The self-centred process of) thought cannot solve anything psychologically.

DB: Well yes because you can say that the thought itself divides. Thought is limited and is not able to see that this suffering is all one - right? And that way divides it up as mine and yours.

JK: That's right.

DB: But one doesn't get the feeling immediately that this suffering belongs to the whole of mankind, you see.

JK: Sir, the world 'is' me, I 'am' the world.

DB: You have often said that. But by the 'world', you mean the physical world, or the world of society, or...?

JK: The world of society, the world - the psychological world primarily.

DB: So we say the ( consciousness of the ) world, of all human beings, is one , but when I say 'I am that world', what does it mean?

JK: The world is not different from me.

DB: The world and I are one - right? ( Consciousness -wise?) we are inseparable.

JK: Yes. But that requires ( doing one's homework in terms of ) real meditation, you must feel this, not just verbal statement, it is an actuality.

DB: Yes, now many religions have also said that.

JK: That is just a verbal statement - they don't ( really) do it in their hearts.

DB: Perhaps some have done it but in general it is not being done - right? I mean there may have been a few...

JK: I don't know if anybody has done it (or not?) – but we (the average) human beings haven't done it. Our religions actually have prevented it.

DB: Because of division, every religion has its own beliefs and its own organization?

JK: Of course. Its own 'gods' and its own 'saviours'.

DB: Yes.

JK: So is that intelligence actual? You understand my question? Because the ending of suffering means Love.

DB: Yes but before we go on, let's clear up a point : in some sense it seems that you are still defining an 'individual' - is that right?

JK: I am using the word "I" ( holistically) as a ( convenient) means of communication.

DB: Yes but what does it mean?

JK: Sir, that is the whole ( difficulty ) in our human relationship. You feel that you are not separate and that you really have this sense of love and compassion, and I haven't got it. I haven't even gone into this question. What is your relationship to me?

DB: Yes, well... ?

JK: That's what I am saying: you have a (intelligent & compassionate ?) relationship with me but I haven't any ( such?) relationship with you.

DB: Well one could say that the person who hasn't seen ( the all-oneness of human consciousness) is almost living a world of dreams psychologically. But the (lucky?) fellow who is awake can perhaps ( do something to) awaken the other fellow ?

JK: You are awake, I am not. Then your relationship with me is very clear. But I have no ( authentic?) relationship with you (because) I insist on division and you don't.

DB: Yes, in some way, the consciousness of mankind has divided itself, it is all one but it has divided itself by thought – right?

JK: That's is what we have been through.

DB: Yes and that's why we are in the present situation.

JK: That is why - all the problems that humanity has now, psychologically as well in other ways, is the result of thought. And we are pursuing the same pattern of thought, and thought will never solve any of these problems. So there is another kind of instrument, which is ( the compassionate?) intelligence.

DB: Yes, well that opens up an entirely different subject.

JK: Yes, I know.

DB: And you also mentioned love as well ?

JK: Yes. Without love and compassion there is no ( universally open?) intelligence. And you cannot be compassionate if you are attached to some religion, some post, you are tied to a post like an animal tied to a post, and it can think it is compassionate.

DB: Yes well as soon as your self is threatened then it all vanishes, you see.

JK: Of course. But you see, the 'self' hides behind...

DB:...other things. Like 'ideals' ?

JK: Yes, yes. It has immense capacity to hide itself.
So (back to our original question ) what is the future of mankind? From what one observes it is leading to destruction.

DB: That is the way it seems to be going, yes.

JK: Very gloomy, grim, dangerous and if one has children what is their future? To enter into all this? And go through all the misery of it all. So (a holistically friendly?) education becomes extraordinarily important.

DB: I think there are two (impending) things: one is people are immersed in their own problems, and there is a tendency toward despair implicit in what is happening now in that most people ( of good will?) haven't much confidence in what they are doing.

JK: So, what is the future of man, mankind, the future of humanity - I wonder if anybody is ( seriously) concerned with it? Or each person, or each group is only concerned with its own survival?

DB: Well, this has been the whole history of mankind : the first concern almost always has been with 'survival' - either the individual or the group.

JK: Therefore perpetual wars, perpetual insecurity.

DB: Yes, but this, as you said, is the result of ( the self-centred operation of ) thought which makes the mistake on the basis of being incomplete to identify with itself, or with the 'group' and so on.

JK: You happen to listen to all this. You see the (inward) truth of all this. Those in ( high positions of 'money & ) 'power' will not even listen to you.

DB: Not (not really?) …

JK: They are creating a world world which is becoming dangerous – and what is the point of you and I seeing something true? This is what people are asking: what is the point of you and I seeing something to be true and what effect has it (upon the total consciousness of mankind) ?

DB: Well if we think in terms of the ( physical) effects...

JK: But also it is a ( holistically?) wrong question.

DB: Because we are bringing in the very thing which is behind the trouble, ( the thinking in terms of) time. That is the first response would be we must quickly get in and do something to change the course of events.

JK: Therefore form a ( non-profit?) Society, a Foundation, organization and all the rest of it.

DB: But you see our mistake is to do that we must think about something, and that thought is incomplete. We don't really know what is going on and people have made theories about it but they don't really know....

JK: But if that is the ( holistically?) wrong question, then as a human being, who 'is' mankind, what is my responsibility?

DB: Yes, we can't look toward ( any immediate?) effects. But is the same as with 'A' who sees, and 'B' who does not – right?

JK: Yes.

DB: Now suppose 'A' sees something (which is fundamentally true) and most of the rest of mankind does not. Then one could say ( that the total consciousness of?) mankind is in some way day-dreaming, or asleep.

JK: It is caught in illusion.

DB: Illusion. And the point is that if somebody sees something (to be true) then his responsibility is to help awake the others up - right? To get out of the ( Collective Stream of ?) Illusion.

JK: That is just it. That is why the Buddhists have projected the idea of the Bodhisattva, who is the essence of all compassion, and is waiting to save humanity. It is a happy feeling that there is somebody ( who is ?) doing this. But in actuality we won't do anything that is not comfortable, satisfying, secure, both psychologically and physically.

DB: Yes, well that ( hedonistic mentality of 'dolce farniente'?) is the ( internal) source of the illusion, basically.

JK: They haven't time, they haven't the energy, they haven't even the inclination. They want to be 'amused'. How does one make (the holistically minded Mr ) 'X' see this whole thing so clearly that he says, "All right, I have got it, I will ( do my homework?) work and see that I am responsible, and all the rest of it. I think that is the (global existential ?) tragedy for (both) those who 'see' and for those who don't (want to see it?) ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Apr 2019 #19
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


J.Krishnamurti: Sir, last time we were asking whether the consciousness of mankind can be changed through time (or a totally different approach is required ?) . This is one of the questions we should discuss this evening.

DB: Yes. We have discussed it last time and what came out was that with regard to (such a holistic change in ? ) consciousness (our thinking in terms of?) time is not relevant, that it is a kind of illusion. We discussed the illusion of ( psychological) becoming.

JK: Can we put it much more simply: there is no (temporal) evolution of the psyche?

DB: Yes. And since the future of mankind depends on the ( condition of the human) psyche it seems then that the future of mankind is not going to be determined through actions in time.

JK: That's right.

DB: And then this (time-free approach ?) left us with the question: what can we do ('now' ) ?

JK: Now let's proceed (holistically?) from there . Shouldn't we first distinguish between the 'brain' and the 'mind'?

DB: Yes, well this distinction has also been made (in the past ) and there are several views. One view is say that the mind is just a function of the brain - that is the materialists' view. There is another (more spiritually friendly?) view which says 'mind' and 'brain' are two different things.

JK: Yes, I think they are two different things.

DB: But there must be...

JK: ...a contact between the two, (an interacting) relationship between the two.

DB: We don't necessarily imply any separation of the two.

JK: No, first let's see the ( physical) brain : one can observe the (mechanistic) activity of the human brain, that it is really functioning like a ( survival oriented ?) computer that has been ( culturally ?) programmed and 'remembers' ( and 'thinks' ?) .

DB: Well certainly a large part of the (survival oriented) activity is that way, but one is not certain that all of it is that way.

JK: No. But it is (psychologically) conditioned by ( the ego-centric mentality of the ?) past generations, by the society, by the newspapers, by the magazines, by all the activities and pressures from the outside.
( In a holistic nutshell:) It is 'conditioned'.

DB: Yes, now what do you mean by this 'conditioning'?

JK: It is ( subliminally ) programmed to conform to a certain pattern, lives entirely on the ( accumulated experience & knowledge of ) past, modifying itself with the ( challenges of the?) present and going on (along the same lines) .

DB: Yes, now we have agreed that ( in the real life) some of this ( cultural) conditioning is useful and necessary.

JK: Of course. We discussed that last time...

DB: ...but the ( subliminal?) conditioning which determines the 'self' (-centred consciousness ) , you know, which determines the...

JK: ...the psyche.

DB: ... now you call it the 'psyche' ?

JK: Let's call it for the moment the 'psyche'.

DB: That ( self-identified ) conditioning is what you are talking about. That may not only be unnecessary but harmful.

JK: Yes. The ( culturally transmissible ?) emphasis on the ( 'individuality' of the ) psyche, as we are doing now, and giving importance to the 'self', is creating great damage in the world because it is separative and is therefore constantly in conflict, not only within itself, but within the society, in the family and so on (As Seen on TV?) .

DB: Yes. And it is also in conflict with nature.

JK: With nature, with the whole ( intelligent ) universe...

DB: I think we discussed last time that this conflict arose because thought is limited ( to function safely & efficiently only within the field of the known ?)

JK: Thought is limited. And the ( temporal?) structure and nature of the human psyche is ( subliminally created by ?) the 'movement' (self-centred activity?) of thought in time.

DB: Now I would like to ask you an (experiential) question. When you discussed the 'movement of thought', it doesn't seem clear to me what ( exactly) is 'moving' ? You see, we discussed the physical movement of my hand, that is a real movement. It is clear what is meant. But now when I discuss the 'movement of thought' it seems to me we are discussing something which is some kind of ( mental) illusion, since you have also said that 'becoming' is ( projected by ?) the 'movement of thought'.

JK: That is what I meant , the movement in becoming.

DB: But this ( thought-projected) 'movement' is in some way illusory, aren't you?

JK: Yes, of course, of course.

DB: It is rather like the ( imaginary ) movement on the screen which is projected from the film projector. We say that there are no real objects moving across the screen but ( only a sequence of pictures ) while the only real movement is the turning of the projector. Now can we say that there is a real movement in the brain which is 'projecting' all this (on the screen of one's consciousness?) , which is the ( actual ) conditioning?

JK: Sir, that is what I want to find out. Let's discuss that a bit. We both agree, or see, that the brain is conditioned.

DB: We mean by that that really it has been 'impressed' physically ?

JK: Physically and/or genetically, as well as psychologically.

DB: Well what is the difference between ( being conditioned) physically and psychologically?

JK: Psychologically, ( the brain's conditioning ) is 'self' - centred.

DB: Yes.

JK: And the constant ( all controlling & all knowing ?) assertion of the 'self' is the psychological 'movement', is the ( self-sustained activity of this) conditioning.

DB: Yes, but in so far as we 'experience' it ( on the 4-D screen of our consciousness?) that is an illusion-right?

JK: We said that this is an ( very realistic mental ?) illusion.

DB: But there is some real movement happening within the brain – both physically and chemically- when we are thinking of the 'self' – right?

JK: Are you asking that the brain and the 'self' (-consciousness?) are two different things?

DB: No, I am saying the 'self' (consciousness) is the result of conditioning the brain.

JK: Yes. The 'self' is ( a self-sustained?) conditioning (of) the brain.

DB: Yes. But does the 'self' actually exist ?

JK: No, no.

DB: So, the conditioning of the brain is 'involving' a ( very realistic mental) illusion which we call the 'self' ?

JK: That's right. Now, can that ( self-sustained psychological) conditioning be dissipated? That's the whole question.

DB: To be dissipated in the neurophysiological sense ?

JK: Yes.

DB: Now the first reaction of any 'scientific(ally' minded) person would be that it looks unlikely that we could dissipate it by the sort of ( holistic dialogues ) that we are doing. You see some scientists might feel that maybe we will discover drugs or new genetic changes or by acquiring a deeper knowledge of the structure of the brain. In that way we could perhaps help to do something. I think that idea might be current among the science people.

JK: Will that change the human behaviour?

DB: Well why not? Some people do believe that it might.

JK: Wait a minute...'it might' means (sometimes ) in the future.

DB: Yes. It would take time to discover this ('Miracle 'Self'-Cleaning' product ?) .

JK: And in the meantime... mankind could destroy itself ?

DB: Well then they (the highly ingenious & lucrative science people ?) might hope that he will manage to do it in time. You see, they could also criticize what we are doing, saying what good can it do? You see, it doesn't seem to affect anybody ( in this neighbourhood?) and certainly not in time to make a big difference. You see that is a question that would arise.

JK: Are we very clear in what way this can affect ( the Consciousness of?) humanity?

DB: Now, will it affect mankind in time to really save... ?

JK: Obviously not (in terms of time?) .

DB: Then why should we be doing it?

JK: Because this is the 'right thing' to do. It has nothing to do with reward and punishment.

DB: Nor with goals ; we do the 'right thing', even though we don't know what the outcome will be – right?

JK: That's right.

DB: And you are saying there is no other way ?

JK: We are saying there is no other way, that's right.

DB: Well we should make that clear. For example some ( holistically minded?) 'psychologists' would feel that by enquiring into this sort of thing we could bring about an evolutionary transformation of consciousness – right?

JK: We come back to that point that through ( thought & ) time we hope to change the consciousness of mankind . We question ( the experiential validity of?) that.

DB: We have already 'questioned' that ( time-binding mentality ) and are saying that it will inevitably involve ( a serious flaw : ) if we are all caught in becoming and illusion and we will not know what we are doing.

JK: That's right.

DB: Now could we say the same thing would hold even for those ( highly motivated ?) scientists who are trying to 'do it' physically and chemically or structurally, that they themselves may be still caught in the same (mentality that ) through time they are trying to become better?

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: They will not know what they are doing really.

JK: Both 'experimentalists' and the 'psychologists' and ourselves, are all trying to 'become' something (or other) .

DB: Yes, though it may not seem obvious at first. It may seem that they are really just disinterested, or unbiased observers, you know, working on the problem, but underneath you feel there is the ( psychological drive or?) desire to 'become better' on the part of the person who is doing it.

JK: To become, of course...

DB: He is not free of that.

JK: That is just it. They are not free of that ( time binding thread of self-becoming ?) .

DB: And that ( subliminally active?) desire will give rise to ( collateral) self deceptions and so on...

JK: So where are we now? ( Realising the inward truth ?) that any form of (psychological?) becoming is an illusion, and becoming implies time.
We are saying that for the (ego-centric) 'psyche' to change (its ways?), time is not necessary.

DB: Yes, now this ties up with the other question of the 'mind' and the 'brain'. You see, the ( functioning of our physical) brain can be understood as an activity in time, as an (ongoing) ' physio-chemical' complex process.

JK: I think the 'mind' is separate from the 'brain'.

DB: Well, what does it mean 'separate'?

JK: Separate in the sense the brain is conditioned (by its long evolution ) and the mind ( the energy-matrix of Human Consciousness?) is not.

DB: Well, we can say that the 'mind' has a certain independence of the ( temporal conditioning of the?) brain - is this what you are saying ? Even if the brain is conditioned...

JK: ...the 'other' (its intelligent energy matrix?) is not.

DB: It need not be...

JK: ...conditioned.

DB: Now, on what basis do you say that?

JK: Let's not begin (again?) with 'on what basis do I say that ?'...

DB: Well what makes you say it, right?

JK: As long as the brain is conditioned, it is not 'free'. And the mind is 'free'.

DB: Yes, that is what you are ( always ? ) saying. Now you see, the brain not being free means it is not free to enquire in an unbiased way.

JK: I will go into it. Let's enquire: what is this 'freedom'?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: Freedom to enquire, as you point out, freedom to investigate, and it is only in the freedom (from the known?) that there is Deep Insight.

DB: Yes, that's clear because if you are not free to enquire - or if you are 'biased' then you are limited in an arbitrary way.

JK: So as long as the brain is conditioned (by its past memory?) , its relationship to the (holistic intelligence of the?) 'mind' is limited.

DB: Yes, but the other way round ?

JK: Yes. The Mind being free has a ( intelligent & compassionate ) relationship to the brain.

DB: Yes. So, we're saying that the Mind is free in some sense, not subjected to the conditioning of the brain.

JK: Yes...

DB: Now one could ask a ( metaphysical) question: what is the nature of the Mind? For example I could ask is the Mind located inside the body, or is it within the brain?

JK: No, it is nothing to do with the ( physical location of the?) body or the brain.

DB: Has it to do with space or with time?

JK: Space - just a minute... it has to do with ( inward ) Space and Silence. These are the two ( active?) factors of the Mind .

DB: But not Time, right?

JK: Not time. Time belongs to the ( physical) brain.

DB: You say (free inner ?) Space and Silence, but what kind of Space is this ? It is obviously not the physical space in which we see ( all material) life moving.

JK: Let's look round at it the other way. Thought can invent ( create its own mental ) space.

DB: Well, thought can invent all kinds of ( mental ) 'spaces'.

JK: And also there is the 'space' (of silence?) between two sounds.

DB: Well, they call that the 'interval' between two sounds.

JK: Yes, also ( the silent) interval between two thoughts. And the 'space' ( psychological 'distance' ?) between two ( ego-centric?) people.

DB: The space between the walls of a room...

JK: And so on. But that kind of space is not the ( Inwardly open?) Space of the Mind.

DB: You say it is not limited ?

JK: That's right. It is not bounded by the ( self-protecting walls of the ) 'psyche'.

DB: By the ( temporal ?) psyche. But is it bounded by anything?

JK: No.

DB: So, you say the ( temporal?) psyche is bounded because we have said it is limited and so on. Right?

JK: So, that is what I want to discuss or talk over : can the human brain, with all its ( time-) conditioned cells , can those cells radically change?

DB: Well, it is not certain that all brain's cells are conditioned. Some (open minded?) people think that only a small part of these cells are being used, and the others ( a 'silent majority' ? )are just ( hanging around?) being ( vacant ?) inactive, or just dormant.

JK: Not used at all, or just touched occasionally ?

DB: Just touched occasionally. But those ( survival oriented) brain cells that are conditioned, they evidently dominate man's consciousness (as it is) now – right?

JK: Yes, and can those cells be changed?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: We are saying that they can ( change qualitatively?) through (being exposed to the light of a timeless ?) Insight.

DB: Yes, now...

JK: Insight being out of time, it is not the result of remembrance, it is not a (personal) intuition, or desire, or hope, it has nothing to do with any (mental endeavour of) 'time and thought'.

DB: So, you're saying that this 'Insight', is (the holistic) activity of the Mind?

JK: Yes.

DB: Therefore you are saying that the ( non-material energy of the?) Mind can act in the material brain ?

JK: Yes, we said that earlier.

DB: Yes, but you see, this is a difficult (meta-physical) point, you see, how mind is able to act upon matter ?

JK: It is able to act on the brain, say for instance, take any crisis, or any problem (a challenge being thrown at you) . And ( generally?) we 'meet it' with all the ( knowledgeable) remembrances of the past, or with a ( prejudice ) bias and so on. And therefore the problem multiplies itself. You may solve one problem, in the very solution of one problem, of that particular problem, other problems arise, as they are doing in politics and so on and so on. Right? Now to approach ( holistically) the problem, and have (an insightful) perception of the problem without any ( lingering) past memories and thoughts interfering, or projecting (themselves ) in perception of the problem...

DB: Yes. Now are you more or less saying that the brain is a kind of instrument of the ( transpersonal intelligence of the?) Mind? Is that what is being said?

JK: (Can be a directly perceptive?) instrument of the Mind when the brain is not ( functioning in the ? ) 'self-centred' (mode) .

DB: Yes, well you see if we think of all this conditioning, the conditioning may be thought of as the brain exciting itself and keeping itself going just from the programme. This occupies all of its ( perceptive) capacities.

JK: All our days, yes.

DB: The whole capacity of the brain. It is rather like a radio receiver which generates a ( strong background) noise, it would not pick up any (useful) signal. Now would this analogy be at all correct ?

JK: Not quite... You see Sir, the brain is operating (100 % fool-proof ?) in a very, very small area (of its past knowledge)

DB: What is preventing it from operating in an unlimited area?

JK: Thought.

DB: Thought. But the brain seems to me to be running on its own, from its own programme.

JK: Yes, like a computer that is running on its own programme.

DB: Now essentially what you are asking is that the brain should really be responding to the (holistic intelligence of the?) Mind.

JK: That it can only respond if it is free from the ( 'self' -centred process of ) thought which is limited (by its mechanistic functioning ?) .

DB: Yes so the 'programme' does not dominate it. You see we are going to still need that programme for many (practical) things. But this intelligence is (coming from ) from the mind ?

JK: Yes, intelligence 'is' the mind.

DB: Is the ( natural activity of the?) Mind... ?

JK: Because there is no intelligence without compassion. And compassion can only be when there is ( selfless?) Love which is completely free from all remembrances, personal jealousies and all that kind of thing.

DB: Now is all that compassion, love, also of the Mind?

JK: Of the Mind.

DB: So, we have here two things which can be somewhat independent. There is the 'brain' and the 'mind', though they make contact. Now then intelligence and compassion we say come from beyond the brain. But I would like to go into the question of how they are making contact ?

JK: Ah! Contact can only exist between the mind and the brain when the brain is ( thought-empty &?) quiet.
DB: Yes, that is the requirement for making it. Now then the brain has got to be quiet...

JK: Sir, it is not a 'trained' (a 'professional'?) quietness. Not a self-conscious desire for silence. It is a natural outcome of understanding one's own (psychological?) conditioning.

DB: Yes and one can see that if the brain is quiet then you could almost say it could listen to something deeper – right?

JK: Deeper, that's right. Then if it is (inwardly silent or ?) quiet it is related to the Mind. Then the ( holistic intelligence of the?) Mind can function ( flow freely?) through the brain.

DB: Now I think that it would help ( many holistically minded people?) if we could see whether the human brain whether has any ( transcending ?) activity which is beyond thought. You see, for example, one could ask is ( a choiceless or transpersonal ?) awareness part of the function of the brain?

JK: As long as it is an 'awareness' in which there is no choice. ( The other choice being that ?) 'I' am aware and in that awareness I choose.

DB: Yes, well I think that may cause ( some experiential?) difficulty. You see what is wrong with ( the personal) choice (in the context of awareness?) ?

JK: ( Inwardly-wise?) 'choice' means ( is a sure sign of?) confusion.

DB: Well, it is not so obvious – the confusion is implied in the ( inward ) choices of the human psyche.

JK: We are talking of the 'psyche' (of the 'self'-identified consciousness?) that chooses.

DB: That 'chooses ' ( what is best for it ?) to become' (inwardly ) ?

JK: Yes. Chooses to become, and also (such) 'choice' exists ( in a brain ) where there is confusion.

DB: So, you are saying that out of ( a lack of inner clarity or?) 'confusion' the psyche makes a choice to become one thing rather than another - right? Being confused it tries to become 'something better'.

JK: And 'choice' also implies a 'duality' ( a subliminal split between the 'chooser' & his 'existential choice' ?).

DB: And it seems that we have another duality which you have introduced, which is between the the 'mind' and the 'brain'.

JK: No, that is not a ( 'psychological) ?) duality'.

DB: Well, then it this is important to get this point clear.

JK: That is not a 'duality' ?

DB: Yes, what is the difference?

JK: All right, let's take a very simple example : human beings are ( generally inclined to be greedy and/or ?) 'violent' and a (very noble ideal?) of 'non-violence' has been projected by thought. So, that is an example ( of 'psychological ) duality' – between the 'fact' and the 'non-fact'.

DB: Well you are saying there is a ( 'psychological) duality' between a fact and some mere projection which the mind makes ?

JK: Between ( thought's projected?) 'ideal' ( inner condition ) and the fact.

DB: This 'ideal' is non-real and the ( ongoing inner ) 'fact' is real. Now then, the ( mental) division of those two you call 'duality'. But why do you give it that name?

JK: Because they are divided.

DB: Well at least they appear to be divided. So there is an (artificial) division brought ( by thought's attempt of ) dividing something which cannot be divided. We are trying to divide the ( ongoing activity of our own?) psyche ?

JK: That's right. ( The ancestral heritage of survival-oriented ? ) violence' cannot be divided' into 'violence' & 'non-violence'.

DB: The human 'psyche' cannot be divided into violence and non-violence – right?

JK: Yes, it is... 'what it is'.

DB: It is 'what it is', so if it is 'violent' ('naturally selfish' ?) it can't be divided into a violent and a non-violent part.

JK: That's right. So ( for 'meditation homework'?) can we remain (in a holistically friendly way ?) with 'what is', not with 'what should be', and/or ( choose strongly recommended ?) 'ideals' and all the rest of it?

DB: Now, could we return to the question of the 'mind' and the 'brain'. You were saying it is not a ( dualistic?) division ?

JK: Oh no, that is not a division.

DB: So, they are ( actually?) in contact ?

JK: We said there is an (authentic) contact between the 'mind' and the 'brain' when the brain is ( inwardly?) silent and has ( sufficient free inner ?) space.

DB: Yes, so we are saying that although ( originally) they are (or...were?) not divided at all, the 'mind' can still have a certain independence of the (psychological?) conditioning of the brain.

JK: Let's see : Suppose that my brain (has) been (culturally) programmed as a Hindu, and my whole life is conditioned by the ( very comforting?) idea that I am a Hindu. Obviously the ( 'intelligent' matrix of the?) 'mind' has no relationship with that ( inherited cultural) conditioning.

DB: So, when you are using the word 'mind', it means it is not my ( particular) mind.

JK: Oh, the ( energy matrix of the human ) 'mind' is ( obviously ) not 'mine'.

DB: So, it is 'universal' or 'general' ?

JK: Yes. And (even biologically ?) it is not 'my' ( self-made?) brain either...

DB: No, but as long as there is a 'particular' brain, would you say there is a 'particular' mind?

JK: No.

DB: That is an important ( holistic) difference. You are saying the ( intelligent energy matrix of the human ?) 'mind' is really universal ?

JK: Mind is universal - if you can use that ( largely abused ?) word.

DB: ( How about ?) 'unlimited and undivided' ?

JK: It is an unpolluted (content-empty consciousness ?) , not polluted by thought.

DB: But then most ( thoughtful?) people there will ask : how do we know anything about this ( universal dimension of the human ?) 'mind' ? The first (experiential) feeling is : 'I can know what my own mind is' - right?

JK: ( Holistically-wise ?) you cannot call it 'your' mind. You only have 'your' brain which is conditioned (by its long evolution in time ?) You can't say, "It is my mind"...

DB: Well whatever is going on inside ( my particular 'mind & brain'?) I feel is 'mine' and it is very different from what is going on inside somebody else.

JK: No, I question whether it is ( essentially?) different.

DB: At least, it seems to be different.

JK: Yes. I question whether what is going on inside 'me' as a human being and 'you' as another human being is ( essentially) different - we both go through all kinds of ( existential?) problems, suffering, fear, anxiety, loneliness, suffer, we have our beliefs, superstitions, and everybody has this ( same psychologically loaded content ? ) .

DB: Well we can say it is all very similar but it also seems as if each one of us is isolated from the other.

JK: By ( the self-centred activity of) thought. My thought has created ( the very realistic feeling) that I am different from you, because my physical body is different from you, my face is different from you, so we extend that same (mentality) into the 'psychological' area.

DB: We have discussed that. But now, what if we see that (inwardly) the division is perhaps ( a very realistic ?) illusion ?

JK: Not 'perhaps', it 'is' !

DB: It is an illusion, all right. Although... it is not at all 'obvious' when a person first looks at it. Now once we see that our mind ( the human consciousness ) is not divided, still beyond there is ( an Universal?) Mind which has no division at all ?

JK: It is 'unconditioned' (unlimited?) .

DB: Yes, but in so far as a person feels he is a separate being he has very little contact with this Mind – right?

JK: Quite right. That is what we said. This is why it is very important to understand ( in the first place?) one's (own) conditioning, not the Mind. So, whether this ( psychologically active?) conditioning can ever be dissolved (or not?) is the 'real' (experiential) issue.

DB: Yes. But we'd all want to understand the (inward ) meaning of what is being said. You see, if we have (a free inward access to ) a Mind that is universal, that ( can be contacted ) in some (inner) space we can create , or has It its own 'space'?

JK: It is not ( located?) in me or in my brain.

DB: But It has a space (of its own?) .

JK: It 'is', It lives in Space and Silence.

DB: So, it is the Space of the Mind. It is not at a physical (location in) space?

JK: No. That is why we said ( that this inward ) Space (of the universal mind?) is not invented by thought.

DB: Yes, but is it possible then to perceive this ( Inner ) Space when the ( temporal) mind is silent, and to be in contact with it?

JK: Not 'perceive'.... Let's see. You are asking whether this Mind can be perceived by the brain ?

DB: Or an awareness of Its (Presence?) ?.

JK: Yes. We are saying yes, ( this could be done ?) through Meditation. You may not like to use that word ?

DB: Well I don't mind...

JK: I think it is possible to bring it about - ( but the experiential ) difficulty is that word 'meditation' it is generally understood ( in terms of ) a 'meditator' who is 'meditating'. ( The 'meditator free' ?) meditation is not a ('self-conscious') process.

DB: are able to say that meditation takes place if it is 'un-conscious'?

JK: It is taking place ( is Present?) when the brain is quiet.

DB: So, by ('self-) consciousness' you mean all the movement (the ongoing activity of the self centred) thought ?

JK: The ( self-centred?) movement of thought.

DB: Including the ( personal) feelings, desires, will and all that goes with it, right?

JK: Yes.

DB: But there is still some kind of awareness, isn't there?

JK: Oh yes. Depends what you call 'awareness'. Awareness of what?

DB: Possibly the 'awareness' of something deeper ?

JK: You see, the word 'deeper', is measurement ( meditator's evaluation ? ) - oh no Sir, I wouldn't use that.

DB: Well, let's not use that. Then, is it some kind of un-consciousness ( non-personal consciousness ?) which we are simply not aware of at all ?

JK: Let's go at it a bit more. If I do something 'consciously', it is the action of (the 'thinker-controlled ? ) thought.

DB: Yes, it is ( the self-consciousness of) thought reflecting on itself.

JK: Yes, it is the activity of thought. Now if you ( endeavour to) 'consciously' meditate, practise (various forms of thought control &) all this kind of ( self-centred?) 'nonsense', you are making the brain conform to another series of ( time-binding mental) patterns.

DB: Yes, it is more ( self-) becoming.

JK: More becoming, that's right.

DB: Yes, because you are trying to become (inwardly) better.

JK: You can't ; there is no 'illumination' by becoming. You can't become illumined by going to a 'cheap' guru.

DB: Anyway, it seems very difficult to communicate about something of which one is not conscious...

JK: That's it. That's the difficulty (of a 'meditator-free' meditation) .
Let's put it the( negative) way: the ( self-) conscious meditation, a conscious activity to control thought, or even to free oneself from conditioning, is not ( compatible with an authentic inner) freedom.

DB: Yes, I think that is clear, but now it becomes very unclear how to communicate what else (is there to be done )

JK: Wait a minute. How can I tell you of what lies beyond thought (or beyond the 'known'?) ?

DB: Or ( of what is there ) when thought is silent ?

JK: Quite, silent. What words would you use?

DB: Well I suggested the word 'awareness'. What about the ( Presence of?) 'attention'?

JK: 'Attention' is better for me. Would you that in this (Presence of?) Attention there is no centre as the 'me'?

DB: Well in the kind of ( holistic?) attention you are discussing. The more common kind is where we pay attention because of what interests us.

JK: In ( this presence of?) attention, thought has no place.

DB: Yes, but could we say more: what do you mean by ( this presence of?) attention? Would the derivation of the word be of any use? It literally means 'stretching the mind' - would that help?

JK: No, no. Would it help if we say ( that this) attention is not ( the result of a mental) concentration ? When 'I' ( the self-conscious 'meditator' ?) make effort to attend it is not attention. Attention can only come into (one's ) being when the 'self (- centred' consciousness) is not (active ?) .

DB: Yes but this (holistic description) is going to put us on a ( loop?) because we are starting (to meditate ) when the (temporal) 'self' is (already present) . So even the (holistically minded ) person who says ''meditation is necessary'', begins with the 'self', he says, "I am here".

JK: No, I used the word ('meditator -free meditation' ?) carefully. As long as there is ( a mental ) measurement, which is ( the natural activity of self-) becoming, there is no Meditation. Let's put it that way.

DB: Yes, we can discuss (the mental condition ?) when there is not meditation.

JK: That's right. And through negation the 'other' is (present ?).

DB: So, if we succeed in negating the whole activity of what is not meditation the ( Presence of?) Meditation will be there ?

JK: That's right. That's right.

DB: So, that which we ( generally) think it is meditation... is not Meditation.

JK: Yes, that's right. As long as there is ( a mental) measurement, which is (part of ) the (self- becoming ?) process of thought, Meditation or Silence cannot be (present?)

DB: Now, this undirected ( Presence of?) Attention is it of the Mind, or...?

JK: Attention is of the Mind.

DB: And It contacts the brain, doesn't it?

JK: Yes. We said that as long as the brain is silent, the 'other' has contact.

DB: That is, this 'true attention' has contact with the ( meditating?) brain when the brain is silent ?

JK: Silent and has (inner) space.

DB: What is this 'space'?

JK: The brain has no ( free inner?) space now because it is (constantly) concerned with itself, it is programmed ( to optimise its self-interest) , it is self-centred and it is limited ( within the field of the 'known' ) ?.

DB: Yes, now would you say the brain have its ( own inner) space too?

JK: Limited.

DB: Limited space?

JK: Of course. Thought has its own limited (mental) space.

DB: But when thought is absent, does the (meditating) brain have its ( own free inner) space?

JK: That's right. That's right. The brain has space, yes.

DB: Unlimited?

JK: No. It is only the Mind that has an unlimited space .

DB: Unlimited... ?

JK: Like when my brain can ' remain quiet' over a problem of which I have thought about and I suddenly say, "Well I won't think any more about it" - there is a certain amount of ( problem-free inner) space. In that space ( may occur the flash of insight which ?) solves the problem (in... no time?) .

DB: Yes, so if the ( thinking) mind is getting silent, its (inner) space is still limited, but it is open to...

JK: the Other.

DB: the ( Presence of?) Attention. Would you say that through attention, or in attention, the Mind is contacting the brain?

JK: When the brain is not inattentive (lost in... inattention?) .

DB: So what happens to that brain?

JK: We said that ( a quality of holistic?) intelligence is born out of compassion and love. That 'intelligence' operates ( creatively?) when the brain is quiet.

DB: Yes, does it operate through ( in the Presence of?) Attention?

JK: Of course, of course.

DB: So attention seems to be the 'contact'.

JK: Contact, naturally. ( But this Presence of) Attention can only be when the 'self' (time-bound self-centred consciousness?) is not (around?) .

DB: Yes. Now you say that Love and Compassion are the 'Ground' , and out of this Ground comes the ( creative action of?) intelligence through attention.

JK: Yes, it functions through the ( selfless?) brain.

DB: And about this Intelligence - there are two ( often asked) questions: (1) What is the nature of this intelligence, and (2) What does it do to the brain ?

JK: Sir, let's see. That is, we must again (take a short detour &) approach it negatively. Love is not ( the 'love' generally associated with) jealousy and all that. Love is not 'personal', but it can be (occasionally?) personal.

DB: Well if it is (coming ) from the universal mind...

JK: That is why I say Love has no ( working) relationship to ( brain's the self-centred) thought.

DB: Yes, it does not originate in the 'particular' brain.

JK: Yes, it is not 'my' love.

DB: Yes...

JK: When there is this (Presence of Universal?) Love, out of that there is Compassion and there is Intelligence.

DB: And this ( Selfless?) Intelligence is able to 'understand deeply' ?

JK: No, not 'understand'...

DB: Then, What does it do? Does it 'perceive' ?

JK: Through perception it acts.

DB: Yes. Perception of what?

JK: Perception - now let's discuss 'perception'. There can be ( an insightful?) perception only when it is not tinged by thought.

DB: When it is not...?

JK: When there is no interference from the movement of thought there is ( a 'though-time' free ) perception, which is direct insight into a practical problem, or into human complex.

DB: Yes, now does this ( holistic) perception originates in the Mind?

JK: Does the ( totally insightful) perception originate in the Mind? Let's look at it. Yes. When the brain is 'quiet' (problem-free?) .

DB: Yes, but we used the words ( insightful) perception and intelligence - how are they related, or what is their difference?

JK: Between perception and intelligence?

DB: Yes.

JK: None.

DB: So we can say ( in a holistic idiom that ?) 'intelligence is perception'.

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: Intelligence 'is' the perception (of the truth or falseness of ?) 'what is' - right? And through ( in the Presence of?) Attention there is contact.

JK: Sir, let's take ( for example) a serious human problem, it is probably easier to understand (the action of a compassionate Intelligence)

DB: Yes... ?

JK: Take the problem of (man's existential ) 'suffering'. Human beings have suffered endlessly, through wars, through every kind of disease, physical disease, (not to mention their ?) 'wrong' relationship with each other. Man has suffered a great deal. Now can this (stream of collective suffering ?) end?

DB: Yes. Well I would say that the difficulty of ending it is that we are conditioned to ( accept the inevitability of ) this whole thing – right?

JK: Yes, we are conditioned by it . Now that has been going on for centuries.

DB: Yes, so it is very deep, somewhat.

JK: Very, very deep. Now can that suffering end?

DB: Yes and because the brain is caught in ( the causation of this) suffering and it cannot take an action to end its own suffering.

JK: Of course it cannot. That is why thought cannot end it. Thought has created it.

DB: Yes, thought has created it (as a collateral effect of its main thread of self-interest?) and now it seems unable to get hold of it.

JK: Yes, thought has created the wars, the misery, the confusion, and thought has become prominent in human relationship.

DB: I think that many (thoughtful?) people might agree with that, but they still think that as the ( self-centred human ) thought can do bad things, it can also ( mend its ways & ) do good things.

JK: No, ( inwardly speaking?) thought cannot do 'good' or 'bad' things . It is limited.

DB: Thought cannot get hold of this ( self-sustained stream of human) suffering. That is this suffering being in the physical conditioning of the brain, and chemical, thought has no way of knowing what it is even. I can't change the course of suffering inside myself because my ( inwardly blind?) thinking will not show me what it is. Now you are saying it is Intelligence that can 'see' it ?

JK: We are asking 'can suffering end'? That is a ( major existential) problem.

DB: Yes, and it is clear that my ( powers of) thinking cannot do it.

JK: Thought cannot do it. But if I have an insight into it...

DB: Now this ( sorrow- dissolving ?) 'insight' will be through the action of the mind, intelligence, and ( in the Presence of a compassionate?) Attention.

JK: When there is that ( kind of?) Insight, ( its Compassionate?) intelligence wipes away suffering.

DB: Yes, now you are saying therefore there is a contact from Mind to matter which removes the whole 'physio-chemical' structure which keeps us going on with suffering.

JK: That's right. In that ending there is a ( qualitative) mutation in the brain cells. We discussed this some years ago.

DB: Yes and that mutation just wipes out the whole psychological structure that makes you suffer.

JK: Yes. Therefore it is like I have been going along a certain ( highway of cultural) tradition, I suddenly change (or drop?) that tradition there is a change in the whole brain, which ( metaphorically speaking?) has been going 'North' ( driven by 'Self-Interest'?) , now it goes 'East' (…???)

DB: Of course this is a radical notion from the point of view of traditional ideas in science because if we accept that mind that is different from matter then people would find it hard to say that Mind would actually...

JK: 'Mind' is after all (a 100 % pure intelligent) energy?

DB: Well, matter is a ( cristallised form of ) energy too.

JK: Therefore ( the energy of) matter is limited, thought is limited.

DB: But we are saying that the ''pure energy of mind'' is able to reach into the limited energy of man.

JK: Yes, that's right. And change the ( active causation of its self-centred ?) limitation.

DB: ... or to remove some of the (existing) limitations....

JK: ...when there is a deep issue, or a problem, or a challenge which you are facing.

DB: Yes, so we have thought - we could also add that all the traditional ways of trying doing this cannot work because...

JK: It hasn't worked.

DB: Well that is not enough. We have to say 'why' because people still might hope it could, it cannot actually.

JK: It cannot.

DB: Because 'thought' ( thinking within the limited the field of one's available knowledge) cannot get at the basis of its own physical, its own physical & chemical basis in the brain cells, and do anything about ( conditioned content imprinted in ) those cells.

JK: Yes Sir, we have said that very clearly that the old ( & knowledgeable?) instrument which is thought is worn out, except in certain (outward ) areas. Thought cannot bring about a change in itself.

DB: Well it never was adequate except in those ( outward ) areas.

JK: Of course, of course.

DB: And man has always been inwardly in trouble as far as history goes.

JK: Yes Sir, man has always been in trouble, in turmoil, fear...
But as (holistically responsible) human beings, facing all the confusion of the world, can there be a solution to all this?

DB: Yes, that comes back to the question that there are a few people who are talking about it, and perhaps 'meditating' and so on, but how is that going to affect this vast 'current (of selfisness' presently going on in the total consciousness ? ) of mankind?

JK: Probably very little (to be noticed during one life-time ?). It might, or it might not....

DB: But you see the first instinct is to say, "What can we do to stop this tremendous catastrophe?"

JK: Yes. What is the new instrument that will put an end to all this misery? You see there is a new instrument which is the Mind, which is Intelligence. But you see the difficulty is also people won't listen to all this.

DB: Yes, well that is the sort of point I had in mind when I said a few people don't seem to have much effect.

JK: I think, after all, that a 'few good people' can changed the (psychological course of the?) world....

DB: Well do you think it is possible that say a certain number of brains coming in contact with ( this Universal) Mind in this way will be able to have an affect on ( the total consciousness of?) mankind , beyond the immediate effect of their communication?

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: I mean obviously whoever does this may communicate in the ordinary way, it will have a small effect but now this is (just opening ) a possibility of something entirely different – right?

JK: I have often thought about it - how do you convey to all this rather subtle and very complex issue, to a person who is so conditioned ( inwardly) that won't even take time to listen, to consider?

DB: Yes, well that is a very good question, but ( people's psychological) conditioning may be thought to have some sort of permeability. Every person has something he can listen to if ( only?) it could be found?

JK: If he takes a little patience. So...who will listen? Perhaps the person, not highly educated and conditioned in his professional career, money, the man who says, "I am suffering, please let's end that." So, perhaps it is like ( starting ) a ( New ? ) 'Wave' in the ( Consciousness of Mankind) - it will ( eventually?) reach somebody ...

DB: Well are you proposing that it can affect ( the Consciousness of?) Mankind directly through the Mind rather than through...

JK: Yes, yes.... It may not show immediately in action.

DB: (So, to wrap it up?) you are taking very seriously what you said that the Mind is universal and is not located in our ordinary space, is not separate...

JK: Yes. You see Sir there is a ( certain) danger in (making statements like) ''the Mind is Universal'' ... as it has already become a ( New Age?) tradition.

DB: You can turn it into a (more lucrative?) idea, of course...

JK: Of course, that is just the danger of it...

DB: Yes. So, the ( experiential aspect of this ) question is that we have to come directly in contact with this to make it Real – right?

JK: Of course, that's it. They can only come into contact with it when the ( time-bound) 'self' is not (around?) . To put it very, very simply, when the 'self'- (cantred consciousness) is not there , there is beauty, there is silence, space, then that intelligence which is born of compassion operates through the brain. It is very simple.

DB: Now is there some aspect of meditation which can be helpful (in real time) when the 'self' is acting ? You see suppose a person says, "OK I am caught in the self (-centred consciousness?) but I'd really want to get out. What shall I do ?''

JK: ( Meditation-wise?) that is very simple : is the 'observer' different from the 'observed'?

DB: Suppose we say, "Yes, it appears to be different", then what?

JK: Is that an idea or an actuality?

DB: What do you mean?

JK: ( the holistic ?) 'actuality' is when there is no division between the 'thinker' and the 'thought'.

DB: But one ordinarily feels that the 'observer' is different from the 'observed' (from what it . I say, we begin there.


K: We begin there. I'll show you. Look at it. Are 'you' (the knowledgeable observer?) different from your ( reactions of) anger, from your envy, from your suffering? You are not.

DB: At first sight it appears that I am, you see, in the sense that I might try to control it.

JK: You 'are' that.

DB: Yes, how will I see that I 'am' that?

JK: You 'are' your name. You 'are' your form, body. You 'are' all the ( self-centred) reactions and actions. You 'are' the belief, you 'are' the fear, you 'are' the suffering and pleasure (the list is left open...) You 'are' (holistically responsible for?) all that ( bunch of subliminal self- identifications ?)

DB: Yes but the first experience is that I am here in the first place and that those are my ( psychological) qualities which I can either have or not have. I might be angry or not angry, I might have this belief or that belief...

JK: ( Which shows a ) contradictory (dualistic mentality ?). You 'are' all that.

DB: But you see, it is not obvious. When you say I am that, do you mean that I am that and cannot be otherwise?

JK: No. At present you 'are' (subliminally identified with all) that. However, it can be totally otherwise.

DB: OK. so I 'am' all that. But as a thoughtful 'observer', I feel an unbiased observer who is looking at anger. Are you telling me that this unbiased 'observer' (aka : the 'witness') is the same as the anger he is looking at?

JK: Of course. Like I analyse myself and the analyser is the analysed.

DB: Yes. He is biased by what he analyses.

JK: Of course.

DB: So if watching my (reactions of) anger so at some stage, I may realise that that I am one with that anger ?

JK: No, not 'I am one with it' ; you 'are' it ! ( in the context of a 'meditator-free' meditation?) the observer 'is' the observed. And when that actuality exists you have really eliminated altogether ( the observer vs observed) conflict. This inner conflict exists when I am separate from my quality.

DB: Yes, because if I believe myself to be separate then I can try to change it but since I 'am' that, ( my mind is not creating a conflict of interests between?) trying to change itself and remain itself at the same time, right?

JK: Yes, that's right. When the quality 'is' me, the ( observer-observed) division has ended. Right?

DB: Yes, but when I see that the quality is me, there is no point to try to change the whole thing.

JK: No, no. What happens before the quality is not me, in that there is ( involved a subliminal inner ) conflict which is a wastage of ( intelligent) energy. When ( I realise that) that quality 'is' me, all that ( psychical ) energy which has been previously wasted is (now gathered together ) there to look, to observe.

DB: But why does it make such a difference to have that quality 'being' me?

JK: It makes a ( big qualitative) difference when there is no division between the quality and me.

DB: Because when then there is no perception of a difference, the mind does not try to fight itself ?

JK: Yes, yes. It 'is' so.

DB: But if there is an illusion of a difference, the mind feels compelled to fight against itself.

JK: The brain.

DB: The brain fights against itself.

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: On the other hand when there is no illusion of a difference (btw the observer & what it is observing inwardly) the brain just stops fighting.

JK: Fighting, and therefore you have ( recycled & gathered a ?) tremendous ( amount of potentially intelligent ?) energy.

DB: Yes. The brain's natural energy is released, eh?

JK: Yes, yes. And which means – that (integrated) energy means ( the holistic presence of?) attention.

DB: Yes. Well you see, the energy of the brain allows for attention...

JK: For that 'thing' (the self- conflicting mental entity ) to dissolve.

DB: Now, as we said before this ( Inward Presence of) attention was a contact of the 'mind' and the 'brain'. So, the brain must be in a state of 'high' energy to allow that contact.

JK: That's right.

DB: I mean a brain which is low energy cannot allow that contact.

JK: Of course not. But most of us are ( functioning in the ) 'low energy' (savings mode) because we are ( feeling safer in being culturally ) conditioned.

DB: So, essentially you are saying that this is the way to start ( by tackling holistically the observer-observed issue) ?

JK: Yes Sir. Start 'simply' with 'what is (going on within myself?) ', with what I am. That is why self knowledge (knowing oneself in real time?) is so important. Self knowledge is not an accumulated process of knowledge, which then looks at, it is a constant learning about oneself.

DB: Yes, well if you call it 'self knowledge' then it is not knowledge of the kind we talked about before, which is conditioning.

JK: That's right. Knowledge conditions.

DB: But you are saying that a 'self knowing' of this kind is not conditioning. Then... why do you call it knowledge? Is it a different kind of knowledge?

JK: Yes, yes. Knowing oneself (in real time?) , - to know & to understand, 'oneself' ( one's own self?) which is such a subtle complex thing, it is living.

DB: Essentially it means 'knowing yourself' in the very moment in which things are happening.

JK: Yes, to know what is happening (in real time ?) .

DB: Rather than store it up in memory?

JK: Of course. Through (observing my 'gut' ?) reactions I begin to discover what I am (subliminally identified with ?) , and ( transcend the time-binding limitations ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Apr 2019 #20
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


(An 'experientially friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (cca 1972)

Bohm: The semantic meaning of 'intelligence' comes from 'inter' and 'legere which means 'to read between'. So we could say that (the active content of ? ) thought is like the written information in a book and (the holistic presence of ?) 'intelligence' has ( as homework?) to read 'between the lines' the true meaning of it. I think this gives a rather good notion of Intelligence.

Krishnamurti: To 'read between the lines'...?

Bohm: Yes, to see what it means. There is also another meaning given in the dictionary which is: 'mental alertness'.

Krishnamurti: Yes, mental alertness.

Bohm: Well, this is very different from what people have in mind when they measure ( the standardised 'quotient of) intelligence'. Now, considering many of the things you have said (for 50 + years?) , thought is a material process taking place in the 'old brain', and it has been amply proved by science that it essentially ( the result of) a bio- chemical process (within the human brain) . Now, if you say thought is physical, then the 'mind' or 'intelligence' is of a different order. Would you say there is a real difference between the physical process of thought and intelligence?

Krishnamurti: Yes. Thought is a material (mental) process and what is the relationship between that and ( the Presence of Compassionate?) Intelligence? Is that intelligence the product of thought?

Bohm: Well, we can take that for granted, that it is not.

Krishnamurti: So ( the mechanistic activity of human) thought is 'measurable' ( & computer simulated ?), while Intelligence is not. Now, how does it happen that this ( holistic quality of ?) intelligence comes into existence? Is it possible that the ending of thought (is allowing ?) the awakening of this Intelligence? Or is it that this Intelligence, being independent of thought & time, exists always ( as a latent potential in the human consciousness?) ?

Bohm: So you're saying that ( some immanent?) intelligence may be there always ?

Krishnamurti: I was just asking - is it there 'always'? You see, the Buddhists, and the ancient Hindus have the theory that ( the seed of universal wisdom of ?) Intelligence, of 'Brahman', exists since always in us , but is covered over by illusion, by ( the countless activities of man's ?) materialistic ( life) & by all kinds of 'mischievous' things created by ( his ego-centric) thinking .

Bohm: Well, we don't see ( proofs of the presence of ?) this 'eternal existence' of Intelligence (within our everyday consciousness )

Krishnamurti: They say 'peel off' all this ( time-binding conditioning ?) and 'That thing' is there. So their traditional assumption is that it existed always.

Bohm: There is a difficulty in assuming that (it exists since) 'always' - because this implies ( thinking in terms of?) time and that is just the trouble. Time is thought – or in other words thought has 'invented' ( the concept of) time, in fact thought is ( projecting its own continuity in ?) time.
When ( the notion of) time is extended, it becomes vast, from the 'past' before I was, going further and further back and also (stretching) forward in the 'future', so you begin to think that time is the essence of all existence. This I is not only the 'common sense' view but also the ( generally accepted) 'scientific' view. And it is very hard to give up such a view because it is an intense conditioning (of mankind's collective consciousness?) . It is stronger even than the ( 'psychological') conditioning of the ( division between) 'observer' and the 'observed'.

Krishnamurti: Yes, quite. Are we saying that thought 'is' time, thought is measurable, thought can change, modify, expand? And ( the timeless Presence of ?) Intelligence is of a different quality altogether?

Bohm: Yes, of a different order, or of a different quality.
Occasionally one may also get the impression that the 'past' and the 'future' are present together (co-present) and there is a ( different inner) movement where the whole pattern is moving ( in a timeless present ?) I can't picture how it 'moves'. At first sight I would think that this movement is ( taking place ?) in another ( dimension of?) time.

Krishnamurti: Quite, quite. Is ( this inward Presence of ?) 'Intelligence' out of time and therefore not related to ( the time-bound activity of thought) ?

Bohm: But still our thinking must be ( somehow?) related to it.

Krishnamurti: Is it? I think it is unrelated.

Bohm: Unrelated? But at first sight it seems that one can distinguish between an intelligent thought and an unintelligent one.

Krishnamurti: Yes, but that requires ( the presence of?) intelligence to recognize the unintelligent thought .

Bohm: But when intelligence 'reads' (between the lines of?) thought, what is their relationship ? Doesn't thought respond to intelligence? Doesn't thought change?

Krishnamurti: Let us be simple. Thought functions ( best only ? ) in the field of ( mattter & ) time : moving, changing, or transforming it . Is ( the presence of ? ) intelligence within the field of time?

Bohm: Something is not quite clear : Firstly, thought is obviously a mechanistic (mental) movement ( in time ?) . But then there is a different (inward) 'movement' which is of a different time ?

Krishnamurti: Thought being mechanical, it can move in different directions and all the rest of it. Is intelligence (part of this ) mechanistic process ?

Bohm: Can you explain what does this 'mechanicalness' ( of thought?) mean?

Krishnamurti: Repetitive, measurable, comparative...

Bohm: I would say also 'dependent'.

Krishnamurti: Dependent, yes.

Bohm: So, let us get it clear - intelligence cannot be dependent on any condition for its (holistic perception of ) Truth . But can this intelligence operate if the brain is not healthy ?

Krishnamurti: Obviously not.

Bohm: So, in (this experiential ) sense, ( the Presence of?) Intelligence seems to depend on the ( physical condition of the?) brain.

Krishnamurti: Or is it ( operating subliminally in ?) the 'quietness' of the brain?

Bohm: All right, so it depends on the 'quietness' of the brain.

Krishnamurti: Not on the (thinking ) activity of the brain.

Bohm: Anyway, there's got to be some relation between intelligence and the brain. Could we say the brain may have used ( its thinking powers ) to create ( a pretty accurate) image of the world it is living in ?

Krishnamurti: Which is one of the ( survival related ) functions of thought.

So, let us proceed from there. Is intelligence dependent on the ( physical condition of the?) brain - we come to that point.

Bohm: So I propose that intelligence depends for its existence on a certain ( inner quality of of the?) brain, but the brain does not have anything to do with the ( holistic ?) 'content' of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: So if the brain is not harmonious, can Intelligence function?

Bohm: That is the ( 64,000 $) question...

Krishnamurti: What we are saying is that cannot function ( freely ?) if the brain is being 'hurt '(psychologically or physically damaged ) .

Bohm: It seems that Intelligence requires the brain in order to ( operate ?) .

Krishnamurti: But the brain is only an 'instrument' - it is not the creator of the 'Other'.

Bohm: ( Obviously) the brain doesn't create ( 100% pure) intelligence but it can be a (Hi-Fi ?) instrument which helps intelligence to function (in the real world) .

Krishnamurti: That's it. Now if the brain is (always busy) functioning within the field of 'time', up and down, negatively, positively, can intelligence operate in that ( chaotic) movement, ? Or must this (survival oriented ) instrument be 'quiet' for the Intelligence to operate?

Bohm: The ( mental ) quietness of the instrument is (allowing ) the ( holistic) operation of Intelligence. And conversely, the non-quietness of the instrument is the failure (or locking out?) of any (holistic presence of ?) intelligence.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: It would be useful to go back into a (controversial ) question often raised in philosophical & scientific thinking. Does Intelligence (aka : the Mind?) exist independently of matter? You see, some people (in the past) have thought that 'mind' and 'matter' have some separate kind of existence. I think the question should be considered in order to help make the ( thought- addicted human ) mind ( naturally) quiet.

Krishnamurti: Sir, any movement of thought is (occuring in the mental field of mankind's knowledge acquired during its long evolution in ?) time. And realizing this ( profound limitation?) thought may say to itself "I will be quiet in order to have that (in exchange?) " - but this is still within the field of time.

Bohm: Yes. It is still projecting.

Krishnamurti: It is projecting ( a plan?) to capture it. So (realising the self-delusory aspect of ) that, how does this ( inward Presence of?) Intelligence 'awaken'?

Bohm: You can only say ( off the bat?) that the condition for it to awaken is the 'non-operation' of thought.

Krishnamurti: Yes. Let us agree, any movement of thought in any direction, vertical, horizontal, in action or non-action, is still in time .

Bohm: Yes.

Krishnamurti : Then what is the ( working?) relationship of this (time-bound ) movement ?) to thts intelligence which is not of time, which is not the product of thought, and so on and so on? Where can the two meet?

Bohm: They don't ( seem to?) meet. But there still got to be some relation...

Krishnamurti: That is what we are trying to find out : Is there any relationship at all, first?

Bohm: That depends what you mean by 'relationship'?

Krishnamurti: Being in (an interacting?) contact with, ( a mutual) recognition, a feeling of 'being in touch' with (one another) .

Bohm: Well, the word 'relationship' might also mean the harmony of the two. That is, two things may be related without contact, but by simply 'being in harmony'.

Krishnamurti: Does this 'harmony' mean a movement of both in the same direction?

Bohm: It might also mean keeping in the same order.

Krishnamurti: In the same order: same order, same direction, same depth, same intensity - all that is 'harmony'. But can thought as ( a time-bound ) movement, can it ever be harmonious ?

Bohm: Well, The ( rational activity of ) thought ( which you call 'static') , like in geometry may have some harmony; but ( the psychological activity of) thought as it actually 'moves' ( in circles within the field of the known?) is always contradictory.

Krishnamurti: Therefore it has no harmony in itself. But Intelligence has harmony in itself.

Bohm: I think I see the source of confusion. The static (theoretical or technological) products of thought seem to have a certain relative harmony. But that harmony is really the result of intelligence, at least it seems so to me. In mathematics we may get a certain relative harmony of the product of thought, even though the actual thought movement of the mathematician is not necessarily in harmony, generally speking- it won't be in harmony. Now that harmony which appears in mathematics is the result of intelligence, isn't it? It is not perfect harmony because every form of mathematics has been proved to have some limit; that is why I call it only 'relative'.

Krishnamurti: Yes...

Bohm: But we want to go further and say that not so much ( in terms of) thought, but ( in terms of) action. There is another aspect ( our physical existence in?) time, which is the (everyday ) 'action' - for which we also seem to need time, chronological time. Now, this ( outward) action should be in harmony it seems to me.

Krishnamurti: But, as we said (the self-centred process of ?) thought is a (time-bound) movement - in this movement is there (an intrinsical) harmony? If there is, then it has relationship with the 'Other'. If there is no harmony and therefore it is ( caught in self-) contradictions, and all the rest of it, then it has no relationship with the' Other'.

Bohm: Then, would you say that we could do entirely without thought?

Krishnamurti: I would put it round the other way. Intelligence uses thought.

Bohm: All right. But can it use something which is disharmonious?

Krishnamurti: It is using (in the outer world the practical skills of ?) thought ( which is not necessarily?) harmonious ( inwardly), to create ( useful) 'things' in the ( material infrastructures of the physical ?) world.

Bohm: But still, there must be harmony in some other sense, in what is done with thought, in what we have just described.

Krishnamurti: Let us go slowly into this (rather subtle issue) : For starters : can we first put into words, negatively or positively, what is (this Presence of?) Intelligence, and what is not Intelligence? Or is that impossible because words are ( mental artifacts of) thought, time, measure and all the rest of it?

Bohm: We can't ( really) put it in words ; we are just trying to 'point' (in that direction) . Can we say that thought can function as a 'pointer' to intelligence, and then the ( verbal) contradiction doesn't matter.

Krishnamurti: That is right. That is right...

Bohm: Because we are trying to use (the words ) as a 'pointer' to something beyond the domain of time.

Krishnamurti: So thought is ( at best?) a 'pointer'. The (experiential) content ( which is 'pointed to'?) is ( the Presence of?) Intelligence.
Can we put this thing differently? May we say (that metaphorically speaking ?) thought is barren?

Bohm: Yes. When it moves ( driven) by its (self-interest) .

Krishnamurti: Which is mechanical and all the rest of it. Thought is a pointer, but without ( the presence of a compassionate) intelligence, the pointer has no ( insightful ?) value.

Bohm: Could we say that ( in the act of 'listening' ? ) intelligence 'reads' the pointer?

Krishnamurti: Quite. So ( a holistic 'reading ' of?) intelligence is necessary. Without that this (fine dialogue?) has no ( experiential) meaning at all.

Bohm: So, could we say that thought ( acting on its own) without ( the enlightening presence of?) Intelligence points in a very confused way?

Krishnamurti: Yes, in confused or irrelevant ways.

Bohm: Then with intelligence it begins to point in another way. But then somehow thought and intelligence seem to fuse in a common function.

Krishnamurti: Yes. So we are asking: what is (our inner & outer) action in relation to ( the illuminating presence of?) Intelligence, and in the carrying out of that action thought (exercising the thinking faculty of the brain ?) is necessary.

Bohm: Yes; well, thought is obviously necessary when points towards (the practical activities in the material world?) . But ( if used objectively) it also seems to 'point back' towards Intelligence as well. One of the ( epistemologic?) questions which always comes up is: are 'intelligence' and 'matter' merely a ( qualitative) distinction of the same thing, or are they really separate? It seems that they ought to be (regarded 'holistically' as?) a distinction in the same thing.

Krishnamurti: I think they are distinct.

Bohm: They are of a distinct (quality ) , but are they actually 'separate'?
Don't they have a common Source ( of creative energy?) ?

Krishnamurti: (...Long contemplative pause....) I think they have, bound to have.But you see, ( the self-interest based ?) thinking has conquered the world.

Bohm: Dominates the world.

Krishnamurti: ( The self-centred) thought & ( the mental skills of ) intellect, dominates the world. And therefore ( the presence of a truly humane ?) Intelligence has very little place here. When one thing dominates, the other must be subservient.

Bohm: One may ask : how has this came about ?

Krishnamurti: That is fairly simple (to explain ?) .

Bohm: What would you say?

Krishnamurti: I would say thought ( our self-centred thinking?) must have ( a temporal) security; it is seeking security in all its 'movement' (self-centred activities?) . But Intelligence has no ( need to project its own temporal ) security : Intelligence is secure in itself .

Bohm: Yes, but then, how did it come about that (in the long evolution of man ) intelligence allowed itself to be dominated?

Krishnamurti: Oh, that is fairly clear. ( For very obvious reasons of ) physical security: security in relationship, security in action, security (not to mention the psychological bonus of?) pleasure & comfort.

Bohm: But isn't this ( temporal security )some kind of kind of illusion ?

Krishnamurti: ( A very realistic?) illusion of security, of course.

Bohm: So, we could say that ( the safety-related activity of ?) thought 'got out of hand' and ceased to stay in harmony with intelligence, and began to move on its own accord (or 'free will'?) .

Krishnamurti: On its own accord.

Bohm: Seeking ( to optimise its own ?) security and pleasure and so on.

Krishnamurti: As we were saying the other day the whole ( mentality of the?) Western world is based on 'measure' ( although?) the Eastern world tried to go beyond that...but ( more often than not?) they used ( the same self centred mentality of ) thought to go beyond it.

Bohm: Tried to anyway.

Krishnamurti: Tried to go beyond the measure by exercising thought; therefore they were caught in ( the same labyrinth of ?) thought. Now security, physical security, is necessary and therefore ( upgrading the everyday ) physical existence to ( include) pleasures, physical well-being became tremendously important.

Bohm: Yes, I was thinking about that a little. If you go back to the animal, then there is instinctive response towards pleasure and security would be right. But now when thought comes in, it can 'dazzle' the ( natural ) instincts and produce all sorts of ( psychological) 'glamour' - more pleasure, more security. And our natural instincts were not intelligent enough to deal with the complexity of thought, therefore thought 'went wrong', because it excited the natural instincts and then these instincts demanded more.

Krishnamurti: Quite. So thought really created a ( psychological) world of illusion, miasma, confusion, and put away ( its original option of) intelligence.

Bohm: Well, as we said before, that has made the brain very chaotic and noisy and, as intelligence is ( generally present in ) the 'silence' (silent inner harmony?) of the brain; therefore the noisy brain is not 'intelligent'.

Krishnamurti: The noisy brain is not ( holistically?) intelligent, quite right!

Bohm: Well that more or less explains the origin of this whole thing.

Krishnamurti: We are trying to find out what is the relationship, in action, of thought and intelligence. Because everything is action or inaction. And what is the relationship of all that to Intelligence? Thought does produce chaotic action, fragmentary action.

Bohm: When it is not ordered by Intelligence ?

Krishnamurti: Of course. And it is not 'ordered' by Intelligence in the way we all live. It is ( self-) fragmented activity, therefore it is not an activity of a wholeness. The activity of wholeness 'is' Intelligence.

Bohm: But this Intelligence also has to understand the activity of thought.

Krishnamurti: Yes, we said that (it can 'read' between thought's lines?)

Bohm: Now would you say that when Intelligence ( is given the opportunity to?) understand the activity of thought, then thought is different in its operation?

Krishnamurti: Yes, obviously. That is, if thought has created ( the isolationist concept of) 'nationalism' as a means of security and when one sees the fallacy of it, the seeing of the fallacy of it is intelligence. Thought then can create a different kind of world in which 'nationalism' doesn't exist and therefore no more ( political & economic) conflicts and all the rest.

Bohm: That is very clear. Intelligence sees the ( global ?) 'falseness' of what is going on. Now when the falseness stops and thought is free of this falseness, it is moving differently - it begins to be a parallel to Intelligence.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: That is, it begins to carry out the implication of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Therefore thought is (finally finding its 'right ?) place'.

Bohm: That is very interesting because you could say thought is never actually controlled or dominated by intelligence, thought always moves on its own. But in the light of intelligence, when the falseness is seen, then thought moves parallel or in harmony with ( the Universal?) Intelligence.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: But thought never has anything that forces it to do anything. That would suggest that intelligence and thought have this common origin or substance, and that they are two ways of calling attention to a 'greater whole'.

Krishnamurti: Yes. Sir, one can see how politically, religiously, psychologically, ( the traditionally 'self'-identified ?) thought has created a world of tremendous contradiction, fragmentation, and the intelligence that is the product of this confusion tries to bring order in this confusion, not the intelligence which sees the falseness of all this.

Bohm: Well, it is rather hard to understand why in some limited sphere it seems that intelligence is able to operate, but outside it doesn't.

Krishnamurti: We are, after all, concerned with a (new way of) life in which intelligence operates. Intelligence which is not of time, which is not of measure, which is not the product or the movement of thought, or of the order of thought. Now a human being wants to live a different kind of life. He is dominated by thought, his thought is always functioning in measurement, in comparison, in conflict. He asks, "How am I to be free of all this in order to be intelligent?" "How can the 'me', how can 'I' be the instrument of this intelligence?"

Bohm: Obviously it can't be.

Krishnamurti: That is just ( the experiential difficulty of ?) it! I would say that thought must be completely still for the awakening of 'that' (inward Presence of Intelligence) . There can't be a (perpetual ?) movement of thought and yet the awakening of 'that'.

Bohm: That is clear on one level. We consider thought to be actually mechanical, but even if this may be seen on one level, but still (thought's internal?) mechanism continues (to sustain itself?) through instincts and pleasure and fear and so on. The intelligence therefore has to come to grips ( in real time?) with this question of the pleasures, the fears, the desires, which make thought continue.

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Bohm: And you see there is always this (perfidious mental ?) trap, to form a 'concept' or an 'image' of it, which is a partial (action)

Krishnamurti: So as a (holistically inclined ?) human being I would be (inwardly) concerned only with this : I know how confused, contradictory, disharmonious my 's life is. Is it possible to change this (pretty sad psychological condition?) so that Intelligence can function in my life, so that I live without disharmony, so that the 'pointer' of the direction is guided by intelligence? You see, sir, that is (probably one of the reasons?) why the religious people, instead of using the word 'Intelligence', have used the word 'God'.
Bohm: What why use such an (all comprehensive?) word?

Krishnamurti: Because (probably) it came from the primitive fears, fear of thunder, fear of nature, and gradually out of that grew the idea that there is a God Father and they said : have faith in God, then God will operate through you.

Bohm: It is a sort of ( user-friendly?) metaphor - 'God' as (the personification of an Universal) Intelligence. But most people didn't take it as a metaphor.

Krishnamurti: Of course not, that's a terrific image.

Bohm: So, you could say that if 'God' means that which is immeasurable, beyond ( the limitations of) thought...

Krishnamurti: is Unnameable, it is Immeasurable, therefore... don't have an 'image'.

Bohm: Then 'that' ( Nameless Intelligence?) will operate within the measurable ?

Krishnamurti: Yes. What I am trying to convey is, that man's desire for this ( time-transcending ?) Intelligence has created the ( greater than life?) 'image' of God. And through ( having faith in?) the (man-made) image of Jesus, Krishna, or whatever it is - which is still the movement of thought - I hope that way there will be harmony in my life.

Bohm: And this sort of ( mental?) 'image' - because it is so total - produces an overriding urge that overrides rationality.

Krishnamurti: It overrides rationality, everything. What I am trying to say is: the whole ( culture of our ?) world is conditioned this way.

Bohm: Yes, but if the whole ( culture of the ) world is the result of this way of thinking, it is both the cause and the effect of (man's inner) disharmony and unintelligence and so on. And this has been going on for thousands of years that thought's reaction is that it has become a vast thing, spread over time and space.

Krishnamurti: But ( inwardly-wise?) it is really very 'simple', extraordinarily simple, (to achieve?) this sense of harmony. And because it is so 'simple' it can function in the most complex fields (of human life) .
So, let us go back (to the experiential 'Square One' ?) . We said the ( Universally Creative?) Source is common to both thought and intelligence.

Bohm: Yes, we got that far...

Krishnamurti: What is that Source?

Bohm: Well that would be beyond 'me' (beyond my 'self'-identified consciousness?) .

Krishnamurti: Wait a minute, sir. That source is the central Movement (of Life?) which divides itself into 'matter' and 'intelligence'. But this being just a verbal statement, you can't find 'It' (or experience the actuality of It?) through thought.

Bohm: That raises the ( paradoxical) question: if 'you' ( eventually manage to?) find It, then.... what are 'you'?

Krishnamurti: Then, 'you' don't exist ( as a separate entity?) . 'You' can't exist when you are asking what is the Source. 'You' ( the self-centred entity?) are ( the result of) time, of ( mental & physical?) movement, environmental conditioning - 'you' are all that.

Bohm: So, in ( asking?) the question (regarding the inward Source of Creation?) the whole of this ( mentality of) division is put aside ?

Krishnamurti: Absolutely. That is the point, isn't it?

Bohm: There is no (self-centred thinking in terms of) time.

Krishnamurti: (To recap:) When the 'me' enters there is division: so by understanding ( 'reading between the lines' of?) what hat we have been talking about, One puts away the 'me' altogether.

Bohm: But that sounds like a contradiction...

Krishnamurti: It takes place (naturally) . Then what is that Source? Can it ever be named? For instance the Jewish religious feeling is that it is not nameable: you don't name it, you can't talk about it, you can't touch it. You can only look. And the Hindus and others say the same thing in different words. The Christians have 'tripped themselves up' over the 'Jesus' image, they have never gone to the Source of it...

Bohm: That is a complex question because they were trying to synthesize several philosophies.

Krishnamurti: Yes, of course. Because after all Christianity came out of Judea.

Bohm: And Greece and Asia...

Krishnamurti: Of course... Now I want to get at ( the experiential aspect of?) what 'is' the ( inward ) Source ( of Creation) from which both thought and intelligence are born . It is like two streams ( coming from the same spring, but...?) moving in different directions.

Bohm: Would you say matter is also born from that Source more generally?

Krishnamurti: Of course.

Bohm: I mean the whole ( physical ) universe. But then the Source is beyond the (physical) universe ?

Krishnamurti: Of course. Now what is That?
Could we put it this (in a meditation-friendly?) way? Thought is energy, so is intelligence. (However, the mental energy of?) thought is confused, polluted, dividing itself, fragmenting itself. And 'this' ( energy of Intelligence?) is not polluted (by self-interest?) . It cannot divide itself as 'my intelligence' and 'your intelligence'. It is ( a holistic?) Intelligence, it is not divisible. Now both have sprung from an (inward) Source of ( Creative) Energy which ( within the total consciousness of mankind ? ) has ( temporarily ???) divided itself.

Bohm: Why has it divided itself?

Krishnamurti: For physical reasons, for comfort, for ( reasons of survivalistic) existence, you know all the rest of it....

Bohm: To maintain physical existence. So a part of intelligence has been (culturally conditioned?) changed in such a way as to help to maintain ( & prioritise?) the physical aspects of existence.

Krishnamurti: Yes...

Bohm: It has developed in a certain ( highly 'knowledgeable'?) way.

Krishnamurti: And gone on in that ( split?) way. But, both are energy. So there is only one ( original Life- sustaining?) Energy.

Bohm: Yes, there are many analogies to this, although it is on a much more limited scale. In physics you could say light is ordinarily a very complex wave motion, infinitely complex, but in the 'laser' it can be made to move all together in a very simple and harmonious way.

Krishnamurti: Yes... So (in a holistic nutshell?) there is only Energy, which is the Source.

Bohm: Would you say this Energy is (or has?) a kind of ( timeless?) movement?

Krishnamurti: No, it is ( the Life Sustaining?) Energy. The moment it is becoming a ( temporal) movement it goes off into this field of thought.

Bohm: We have perhaps to clarify this notion of Energy.( The Greek origin of this word?) is based on the notion of work; energy means, "To work within."

Krishnamurti: Work within, yes...

Bohm: But now you're saying that there is a (Life Sustaining) Energy which works, but has no ( 'space-time'?) ) movement...

Krishnamurti: Yes. ( Meditating?) about this yesterday I realized this (Inward) Source is ( still?) there, uncontaminated, non-moving, untouched by thought, it is there. From That (life sustaining Source?) these two (thought & directly perceptive Intelligence?) are born. Why are they born at all?

Bohm: Perhaps because it was necessary for ( our physical) survival ?

Krishnamurti: That is all. And in ( prioritising?) 'survival' the ( quality of holistic intelligence?) has been put aside , in its wholeness.
But what I am ( actually) trying to get at is this : as a human being living in this ( highly materialistic?) world with all (its largely ignored ?) chaos and suffering, and all the rest of it, can the ( holistically inclined?) human mind (go deep within itself?) & touch that Source in which the two divisions don't exist? And having touched this Source, because it has no (inward sense of ?) division, it can operate ( in the real world?) without the sense of division. I don't know if I am conveying this?

Bohm: But how is it possible for the human mind not to touch the Source? Why does it not touch the Source?

Krishnamurti: Because we are consumed (fascinated?) by the ( collective?) cleverness of thought, by the movement of thought. All their 'gods', their 'meditations' ( & Wide World of Entertainment?), everything is (contributing to ?) that.

Bohm: Yes. I think this brings us to the (perrenial ) question of 'life and death', because all the ( 'self'-identified movement of thought ) is also related to ( man's physical) survival.

Krishnamurti: Because of thought's (instinctual) desire for security, it has ( conceived ?) 'death' as something separate from itself.

Bohm: Yes, and we can look at it this way : thought has constructed itself as an instrument for survival, not to die. Therefore, thought cannot possibly contemplate its own death (or even ending?) . And even if it tries to do so, it always projects some other broader point of view from which it seems to look at it (in a detached way?) . You can always complicate this in all sorts of theories and religion and so on; but it seems to be built into thought that it cannot possibly consider death properly.

Krishnamurti: It cannot.... It means ending itself.

Bohm: That is very interesting (to explore) . Suppose we take the death of the body, which we see outwardly; the organism dies, it loses its (life-sustaining) energy and therefore it falls apart.

Krishnamurti: It is really that the body is ( only ) the instrument of the (life-sustaining ) energy.

Bohm: So let us say this (life) energy ceases to imbue the body and therefore the body no longer has any wholeness. You could say that with thought also; the same (life-sustaining) energy goes to ( the process of) thought, as well as to the physical body. Would that make sense?

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: Now, you have often used the phrase: "The mind dies to the whole of thought." That way of putting it is puzzling at first, because you would think it was thought that should die.

Krishnamurti: Quite, quite...

Bohm: But now you are saying that it is the (life-sustaining) energy that dies to thought. The way I see it is : when thought is working it is invested with a certain energy by the 'mind' or the Intelligence; and when thought is no longer relevant, then the energy goes (out) and thought is being left ( metaphorically speaking?) like a 'dead' organism ( redundant mental process ? )

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: Now it is very hard for the ( materialistic) mind to accept this, because the comparison between thought and the organism seems so poor, because thought is insubstantial and the organism is substantial. So the death of the physical organism seems something far more (real?) than the ( psychological) 'death of thought'. Now this is a point that is not clear. Would you say that in the death of thought we have the same essence as the death of the physical organism ?

Krishnamurti: Obviously.

Bohm: So, although it (the ending of thought) is on a 'small scale', as it were, it is of the same nature?

Krishnamurti: Yes. As we said, there is ( a 'no-name' life-sustaining ?) energy in both, and thought in its movement has created this (its own self-sustained mental) energy and thought cannot ( hates to?) see itself die.

Bohm: It has no way of imagining, or projecting, or conceiving its own death.

Krishnamurti: Therefore it escapes from death ( from facing its own ending?)

Bohm: Well, it gives itself the illusion.

Krishnamurti: Illusion of course. And it has created the concept of a state ( of consciousness ) beyond death, as a projection of its own desire for its own continuity.

Bohm: Well, that is one thing, that thought may have begun by desiring the ( permanent ?) continuity of the physical organism.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right, and then went beyond it.

Bohm: Gone beyond by desiring its own continuity. That was the ( honest) mistake where it went wrong.

Krishnamurti: Yes, went wrong. It saw (it considered ?) the ( physical) organism as (identical with) 'itself'.

Bohm: It felt itself to be an extension, not merely an extension, but the essence of the organism. At first thought is functioning merely in the organism and then thought begins to present itself as the essence of the organism. Then it begins to desire its own immortality.

Krishnamurti: And thought is very well aware that it is not immortal.

Bohm: It knows it only outwardly, though. I mean, it knows it as an outward fact.

Krishnamurti: Therefore it creates (or it projects its own desire for?) immortality in ( virtual?) pictures, images.
Now my ( 'challenge?) question' is: can the ( 'self'-centred ?) mind keep the purity of the Original Source? The original pristine clarity of that energy which is not touched by the corruption of thought, by thought at all? I don't know if I am conveying it?

Bohm: What do you mean here by the 'mind'?

Krishnamurti: The ( temporal consciousness or ?) 'mind' which is (including the physical) organism, thought, the brain with all its memories, experiences and all that, which is all ( the result of man's evolution in ) time. And this mind says, "Can I come to this?" It cannot. Then I say to myself, "I shall learn how to meditate in order to become inwardly quiet''. I see the importance of having a mind that is free of time, free of the mechanism of thought, so I will control or put away thought. But this is a ( devious?) operation of thought. That is very clear. Then a ( holistically responsible) human being who ( is becoming aware that he ) lives in this disharmony, must ( endeavour to?) enquire into this. ( And this is what we are doing).
And in enquiring ( meditatively), we come to (the point where we uncover) this Source. Is it a (knowledge -free ) perception, an 'insight' which has nothing whatsoever to do with thought? Is ( this all-comprehensive) insight the result of thought? The verbal conclusion of an insight is ( the result of) thought, but the insight itself is not thought. So what is insight? Can I invite it, cultivate it?

Bohm: You can't do any of that. But still, there is a kind of (holistically integrated) energy that is needed...

Krishnamurti: That is just (the experiential key of?) it : 'I' (the self-identified entity?) can't do anything. When I try to 'cultivate' it, it is ( the self-centred) desire. When I say I will do this or that, it is the same. So insight is not the product of thought. It is not in the order of thought.
Now, how does one come upon this insight? (Pause) We have come upon (the inward Presence of?) it because we denied all that ( field of the 'self' -centred knowledge?) .

Bohm: Yes, it is ( present?) there. You can never answer that question, how you come upon anything of this kind...

Krishnamurti: I think it is fairly clear, sir : you do come upon it ( it is reaching you?) when you 'see' the ( truth of this) whole thing. So insight is the ( illuminating?) Perception of the Whole and the quality of a mind that sees the whole is not touched by thought; therefore ( in the holistic ) perception, there is insight.

Bohm: Perhaps we will go over this (insightful perception ?) more slowly. Could we say the ( intelligent) energy which sees the 'fragments' is whole?

Krishnamurti: Yes, yes.

Bohm: But we don't manage to 'see the whole' because... ?

Krishnamurti: ...we are ( inwardly-speaking , very poorly ) educated, and all the rest of it.

Bohm: So, 'seeing the wholeness' is the freedom in seeing all the fragments ?

Krishnamurti: That is right. The freedom ( from the 'known'?) doesn't exist when there are fragments.

Bohm: That makes an (apparent ) paradox : the perception of the whole does not start from the (conditioned ) 'fragments'. But once the whole (mind & heart) operates then there are no 'fragments'. And the apparent paradox comes from supposing that the fragments are independently real, that they exist independently of thought. Then you would say, that 'I' must do something about them. The ( holistic perception of the?) whole starts from the inner realisation that ( by themselves) these fragments are nothing. They are very insubstantial.

Krishnamurti: Insubstantial, yes.

Bohm: And therefore they don't prevent the wholeness.

Krishnamurti: Quite...

Bohm: You see, one of the things that often causes confusion is that, when you put ( the issue of inner fragmentation) in terms of thought, it seems that you are presented with the fragments that are real, that have a substantial reality. And as long as the 'fragments' are there, there is no wholeness so that 'you' can't see them ( as a separate 'observer') . But (ultimately) it all comes back to the one thing, the one Source.

Krishnamurti: I am sure, sir, really serious (& thoughtful?) people have asked this question (of holistic, time-free, perception ?) . They have asked it and tried to find an answer through thought...

Bohm: Well... it seems natural.

Krishnamurti: But they never saw that they were caught in (the self-centred routines of ?) thought.

Bohm: That is always the trouble. Everybody gets into this trouble: that he seems to be looking at everything, at his problems, saying, "Those are my problems, and I am looking at them ." But this 'looking' is only (a mental simulation ?) confused with the free act of looking.

Krishnamurti: Quite. So you see, this question has arisen ( throughout the ages?) and they say, "All right, I must control my ( vagrant) thoughts & make my mind quiet so that it becomes whole, then I can see ( holistically) all the fragments, & then I'll touch that (Original) Source." But it is still the operation of thought all the time.

Bohm: Which means that the (inward) operation of thought is un-conscious for the most part and therefore one doesn't know (in real time?) what is going on. If we would have 'consciously' realized that all this has to be changed, it has to be different.

Krishnamurti: But the un-conscious ( threads of self-centred thinking?) are still going on (& on, & on...) . So, (educationally-wise?) can you 'talk' (directly ) to my un-conscious (dormant intelligence ?) knowing that my ( self-) conscious brain is going to resist you? Because you are telling me something ( an inner truth?) which is 'revolutionary', you are telling me something which shatters my whole ( high security 'inner?) house' which I have built so carefully that I won't bother to 'listen' to you. You follow? In my instinctive (mental) reactions I 'push you away'. So you (the holistically minded educator?) realize that (subliminal communication gap?) and say, "Look, all right, old friend, just don't bother to 'listen' to me that way. I am going to talk to your 'un-conscious' ( mind) and ( hopefully?) make this ( originally intelligent?) 'un-conscious' 'see' that whatever ( 'self'-motivated ) movement it does, is still within the field of thought & time..." So your self- conscious mind is never in operation. ( Hint : whenever it operates it must inevitably either 'resist' (seeing the inward truth of it?) , or say, "I will accept it", & therefore it creates another conflict in itself. So, can you talk to my un-conscious (to the originally innocent mind?) ?

Bohm: You can always ( spend years in?) asking 'how'....

Krishnamurti: No, no. You tell me first, "Look, old boy, don't 'resist' ( mentally) – or just look at that beautiful tree, as I am going to talk to you." We two are communicating with each other without the (self-) 'conscious' ( knowledge saturated?) mind listening.

Bohm: Yes....

Krishnamurti: I think this is what really takes place : when you ( Mr DB) were talking to me I was not listening so much to your words. I was listening to your (total presence?) . I was open to the inward quality of your whole 'thinking & feeling' which wanted to tell me something (about itself ?) .

Bohm: I understand...

Krishnamurti: That ( non-verbal presence of attention?) changes me, not all this verbalization. So can you talk to me without the ( self-) conscious mind interfering and saying, 'Please don't touch all (my inner comfort zone) , leave me alone!' You are telling me ( the holistically minded student ?) : don't listen to me with your ( culturally standardised?) 'conscious ears' but listen to me with the ( mind's inner ? ) ear that hears much deeper. That is how I listened to you this morning because I am as interested in ( uncovering?) the ( Inward) Source (of Creation) , as you are. You follow, sir? All this is easily understood verbally - but to come to 'that thing' together, feel it together! You follow? I think that is the way to break(-through?) any psychological conditioning - a habit, or an image which I have cultivated. You talk to me about it at a level where the ( self-) conscious mind is not totally ( or... not at all?) interested.

Say for instance I have a particular conditioning; you can point it out a dozen times, argue, see the fallacy of it, the stupidity. I still go on. I resist it. But if you see the truth that as long as the mind is ( inwardly) conditioned there must be conflict and all the rest of it. So you ( gently?) 'push aside' my resistance and get to that, get the un-conscious ( un-knowing layers of consciousness?) to listen to you, because ( once awakened?) the 'un-conscious' mind is much more subtle & much quicker. It sees the danger of (a thought-generated?) fear much quicker than the conscious mind does.

Bohm: So, to reach the un-conscious (layers of the mind) you have to have an action which doesn't directly appeal to the (self-identified) conscious (mind) ?

Krishnamurti: Yes; this is ( the intelligent action of ? ) Love. When you talk to my waking consciousness, it is hard, clever, subtle, brittle. But if (& when ?) you can penetrate ( through that self-protective firewall ?) with (the natural intelligence of selfless ) affection & with all the 'feeling' you have, it is this (holistic quality that ?) operates, not anything else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 May 2019 #21
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


( an 'experientially -friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1971)

Questioner P: If we could understand and see as if through a microscope what happened to (the young) Krishnamurti, if we could examine what happened to his brain cells which contained this horizontal movement of time, it ( hopefully?) might be possible for us to understand time and mutation in relation to the brain cells.

Krishnamurti: The young man (K) walked along the path laid down traditionally and theosophically. repeated what he was taught and at a given moment, there was a break (-through?) .

P: All of us do just that. But the question is : what was it that triggered that which suddenly made him say that truth is not a fixed point?

Krishnamurti: Look at it as if (the young ) K is not here. He is dead. I am still here and so may answer you or may not, but if I were not here how would you answer it? How would you find out if you were faced with this problem that there was a young man who followed the traditional path, the idea of (finding) Truth as a fixed goal, using time, evolution, and at a given point he broke away. How would you unravel it?

D: The traditionalist would say there is a (cummulative) process which, like the boiling point of water, leads to transformation. Tradition only helps to take you up to the boiling point.

P: So the brain cells of "K" which were (following thought's continuity thread in ) time, underwent some kind of mutation.

Krishnamurti: The 'cultivation' (or the mental formatting?) of any brain takes time. Experience, knowledge and memories are stored up in the brain cells. This is a biological fact. The brain is the result of time. Now this man at a point 'breaks' that movement and a totally different movement takes place, which means, the brain cells themselves undergo ( a qualitative) mutation. And "P" says you must answer what took place; otherwise what happened was merely ( a heavenly?) chance.

S: Two explanations are possible. One is the theosophical explanation that the Masters were looking after "K" and so he was untouched by experience. Another explanation is that of reincarnation.

Krishnamurti: How did it happen? Given these facts, faced with them, how do you answer this?

B: Sir, how can we answer about the change in you which took place back in 1927? You alone can say what took place. We have no personal knowledge nor the capacity to know.

Krishnamurti: Let us investigate it together. Begin with (the direct) perception; is 'seeing' involved with time?

P: What happens to the brain cells in the process of seeing?

Krishnamurti: The brain cells in the process of seeing, either respond in old terms (with memory associations?) or are held back in abeyance; they hold themselves back in abeyance without the past.

P: You say that in a perception which is instantaneous, the brain cells 'hold back'. If they are not operating, how do they exist?

Krishnamurti: They ( continue to exist) as the 'old brain' - the storehouse of memories, experience, knowledge which is the past. ( But in the context of the new ?) perception, this 'old brain' does not respond.

P: Where is it?

Krishnamurti: It is still there ( on 'stand-by' ?) because I have to use (the practical) knowledge to think. The ( memory function of the ) brain cells have to be used.

P: What operates then ? If the brain cells are not operating, what is operating?

Krishnamurti: A totally 'new brain' (newly rewired?) . The old brain is full of images, memories, responses and we are used (addicted?) to responding with the old brain. The 'direct' perception is not related to the ( thinking habits of the ) old brain. This perception (occurs ) is the (silent) interval between the old response and the response which is new, which the old does not yet know. In that interval there is no 'time'.

F: In (the language of) psychology, sensation is in itself direct. In the interval between sensation and (the brain's ) perception, memories jump in and distort. So sensation is timeless but the interval is time.

Krishnamurti: Let us get this clear. You ask me a question. The old brain responds according (to what it already knows?) to its ( available source of) information, according to knowledge; but if the 'old brain' has no knowledge, no information, there is a silent interval between the question and answer.

F: But the memory tracing continue in the brain.

Krishnamurti: You ask me what the (exact?) distance is between here (Bombay?) and Delhi. I would not know. No amount of my thinking with the brain cells would help. The fact is not registered. If it were, I would then think about it and answer. But there is no knowing. In that ( honest aknowledgement of my ) 'not-knowing', there is a (split second ) state in which time does not exist. But the moment I 'know' (or try an educated guess ?) , the 'knowing' is ( a process of) time.

P: What has happened to the 'old brain'?

Krishnamurti: The 'old brain' is ( on stand-by or just being ?) quiet.

P: Has it existence?

Krishnamurti: Of course it has; otherwise I cannot speak the language.

P: The problem is of (thought's projecting itself in ) time as a horizontal movement which has continuity, but when the new exists, the old, does not ?

Krishnamurti: Perfectly right. Let us call them - for ( holistic ) convenience - the 'old brain' and the 'new brain'. The 'old brain' has, through centuries, collected all kinds of memories, registered every experience and it will function on that level all the time. It ( is constantly projecting) its own sense of continuity in time. If it has no ( complete certitude of its ) continuity, then it becomes neurotic, schizophrenic, imbalanced. It must have sane, rational continuity. So, that is the 'old brain' with all its ( constantly refreshed & updated ?) stored-up memories. ( The only problem being that in ) such continuity it can never find anything new ( Hint : only when (the temporal continuity of?) something ends, there is something new)
So, first let me see this continuity as a ( mechanical ) repetition of the old. At a given point of time I call it the new, but it is still the old. I hanker for the new and invent the new within the circle.

P: There is the 'new' which is a rearrangement of the old and there is the "New'', which is not a rearrangement of the old. What is the (perception of the ) new ( brain) which is not the ( knowledge-assisted ) perception of the old (brain) ? Is it recognizable, is it perceivable?

Krishnamurti: It is perceivable but not recognizable. In other words, it is a perception without the 'observer'.

F: Sensation is without the past. Sensation is not loaded. It is direct.

Krishnamurti: The (self-centred) mind which has become 'mechanical' (stuck in the field of the known ?) craves for something 'new'. But this 'new' is always ( projected ) within the field of the known. I want the 'new' in terms of the old (only better?) . "P"'s question was about the brain, which is the result of time, experience, knowledge; what happens to that brain when there is a perception which is ( really) 'new', in which there is no (lurking) 'experiencer', no 'observer'; a perception which is not ( translated as a personal?) experience to be stored up and remembered and therefore to become knowledge.

F: The old brain does not respond ?

Krishnamurti: What makes it not respond? How does this happen?

P: We should remain here, because something of vital significance seems to be happening, but we have still not got the feeling of it.
Suppose that I am really listening to you. I am totally attentive. In that state of attention there is nothing else but sound and movement. Can I understand in that state what has happened to the whole weight of the past?

Krishnamurti: It is fairly simple. The ( active memory of the ) past is in continuous operation; it is registering every incident, every experience, the conscious and the unconscious: Everything is pouring in, the sound, the seeing...

P: You mean that the brain cells are acting independently of whether I am conscious or unconscious (of their recording activity)  ?

Krishnamurti: Yes. So, when the (old ) brain is in operation, it is always acting from (or based upon?) the (memory of the ) past.

P: If you ( take the quality time to) observe it, it is like ripples (of thought) being thrown up, and suddenly one is fully attentive and there are no ripples.

Krishnamurti: In that state of attention, there is ( an insightful) perception. That state of attention 'is' (the ground of) perception.

D: When I see the fact that my brain is registering everything and I suddenly realize that it is going on without the observer, that annihilates the 'me'. It goes on with or without me...

Krishnamurti: It is like a ( well rounded ?) recording machine that is registering everything (that is coming into the field of the senses ?) You have heard that noise of the ( truck ) horn blowing. The brain cells have registered it. There is no resistance or acceptance.

D: There is obviously more to it.

Krishnamurti: Go slowly : This ( survival oriented ?) brain is a machine which registers. It is a tape-recorder that is registering everything all the time. Now, if you come along and challenge the (time-bound) brain. It will respond in terms of like, of dislike, you are a danger and she is not a danger. In that very instant is born (or re-activated?) the "me".
So, (to recap) The ( surival oriented ?) function of the (old) brain is to register, to record every sound, word, every nuance, and this (mechanistic) recording is going on irrespective of the ( self-centred consciousness of the ) 'thinker' as a separate (all-controlling) entity. But out of the ('pychological' processing of that ) registration ( in taking personally some flattery or some insult, or in expecting to get more out of it) emerges the "me".

P: When the registration takes place, 'I' am ( becoming) conscious of the sound.

Krishnamurti: That it ( has been already processed as ) pleasant, unpleasant or ( just neutral) . But at the very moment of experiencing (the incoming sound) , there is no "I" in it at all. Now comes the 'new' (brain's) action. The brain registers that noise, but there is no ( personal?) response to it. The moment there is ( a personal) response, that response is ( refreshing & sustaining ?) the "I". Now, Pupul's question was how is that 'old' brain which is doing all this automatically, mechanically, ever to see (or to listen) without the 'registerer' or 'registration'?

P: We have gone over this. I want to take it further from there. We listen. Sound passes through us. There is attention. In that state, for a second, horizontal movement has come to an end. What has happened to the old brain?

Krishnamurti: It is still there (on hold?) .

P: Do you (Mr K ?) record all the (incoming sounds ) ?

Krishnamurti. There is complete listening. Now what has happened to the old brain in that listening? Let me put it differently. What is the essential need of the brain? (Pause) Must it not feel safe, secure, in order to function (harmoniously) ? One sees the 'fact' that any physical brain needs ( this basic feeling of) security. Then some (unexpected) event happens and the brain sees the fact that to have presumed that there was (a fool-proof continuity of its ) security & comfort is not true.

F: We take for granted that the brain is a storehouse of memories and so on, but this 'storehouse of memories' is outside the brain and the brain is only a lens.

P: Why do we not observe our own minds at this moment, instead of talking of the brain in the abstract?

Krishnamurti: Listen - your brain needs a great sense of protection, both physical and psychological. The brain cells need (this sense of) security, protection, safety (just in order ) to survive. They have survived for millions of years. Now ( faced with the disturbing challenges of life) in its (instinctive) search for security, the ( self-centred) mind is always 'experimenting' (long term safety patterns) and it has invented an (ad-hoc) time sequence of survival - 'horizontal' ( yesterday-today-tomorrow) or 'circular' (repeating every day the same routines) .
But when this basic necessity (of a time-free inward safety?) is granted, what happens? Isn't the (new brain's ) perception in terms of security entirely different?

D: It is the ( old brain's ) demand for ( temporal) security that resists the question you are asking.

Krishnamurti. The inward sense of security is not damaged if the brain says survival (yes, but ) not at the price of illusion. Such a brain says : do not project ( psychologically motivated) 'beliefs' or 'ideals' for in them there is no security at all. Wipe them out because they are illusory. Therefore it is completely secure in itself . Before it sought security 'through something' - through ( the attachment to one's ) family, through seeking God, or through competition. ( But seeking one's inward ?) security 'through something' is (eventually generating ) the greatest insecurity. It discards that. Therefore, because it has no more illusions it can perceive ( the truth regarding whatever is going on in real time ) . Because it does not seek any security (in a self-projected illusion) , it is completely (timelessly) secure. The mind is then free of ( its personal or collective) illusions - the illusion that I will find security in family, in God, or in a knowledge which is of the past. Now what ( who?) is there to perceive? "It" (the totality of the 'new' brain) is perceiving.
( To recap :) Once we grant deeply the necessity for complete survival, for protection, for safety for the brain, we will solve all the other (psychologically motivated?) problems.
Let us put it in this way: Is the perception (of truth?) related to the brain cells which demand (their material ) security and/or survival at any price?

P: Here I am before you and I want to understand this movement of ( thought's self-projected?) 'time' which is horizontal, to see whether there can be a state of the brain cells ceasing to function.

Krishnamurti: Are you saying, having finished with what we have said, my brain cells are still ( indulging ) in a perpetual (mental) movement ?

P: When I am just 'listening' to you, there is no movement in my mind.

Krishnamurti: And why is this happening ? Because you are listening with (a total) attention, an attention in which there is no centre to attend, a (trans-personal ?) state in which one is just attending?

P: Now I ask in that (time-free inner) state, where is the ( time-binding) weight of the past?

Krishnamurti: When you are giving a complete attention, is there time in that?

P: How do I know ?

Krishnamurti: When there is attention, there is no ( inner sense of) time, because there is no (thought projected ) movement at all. In this attention there is no ripple, there is no centre, there is no measurement. Your next (bonus?) question was : what has happened to the 'old brain'? What has happened is that attention is not disssociated from the whole psychosomatic organism, which is also including the brain cells. Therefore, the brain cells are exceedingly quiet, alive, not responding ( mechanically) with the old (memories) . And in that ( holistically integrated state of ?) attention the brain can function (perfectly safe) . That attention is silence, is emptiness; call it what you like. Out of that (inward) silence, innocence, or emptiness, the brain can operate ( non-dualistically ?) ; not as a ( self-identified) 'thinker' (entity operating ) in terms of seeking security in something.

P: Does it mean the whole brain has undergone a (qualitative?) transformation?

Krishnamurti: No. What has taken place is ( a psychological) 'mutation'. The 'observer' (entity ) is not.

P: But aren't the brain cells the same ?

Krishnamurti: Watch in yourself. Attention means complete attention - body, psyche, the cells; everything is there alive. In that state, there is no centre, there is no time, there is no observer as the "me". There is no 'time' in terms of ( the old brain recycling its memories of ) the past, and yet the ( factual memory of the ) past exists when I speak the language, or I have to go to my room. Right? So, what happens to the brain cells? They are registering but there is no "me". Therefore the ( self-identified memory of the ) "me" which was part of the brain cells is wiped out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 May 2019 #22
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


( A reader-friendly edited K dialogue, cca 1970)

Questioner P: You have said when we were discussing about Tantra, that there is a (time-free ?) way of awakening (the 'kundalini'?) energy. The Tantrics concentrate on certain psychic centres, and thereby release the dormant energy in those centres. Would you say there is any validity in this? What is the (other way) way of awakening this energy?

Krishnamurti: Concentrating on the various 'physio-psychical' centres ( aka : chakras), implies a process of time? So I would like to ask, can that (same ?) energy be awakened without a process of time?

P: To bring (the psychosomatic?) body and breath to a (harmonious?) equilibrium, a process of time seems inevitable.

Krishnamurti: There may be a totally different approach to this (ages old ) problem. Is there not an awakening of this (same) energy without going through all these practices?

P: It is only when there is total mastery that effort drops away.

Krishnamurti: You are beginning at this (proxy) end rather than at the other - 'this end' being time, control, ( integration of all one's available ) energy & perfect balance.
( However?) all this ( approach ) seems to me like dealing with a very small part of a very vast field. All these are limited to a corner of the (human consciousness?) field and through some kind of
psychosomatic acrobatics, it is hoped that you will capture the
light (of?) the whole universe. It is (metaphorically speaking?) like seeing the sky through a small window and never going outside to look at the sky. I feel that way is an absurd way of approaching something totally vast, timeless.

In approaching it entirely differently, it is necessary to throw out ( the spiritual authority of ?) all that has been said (by the 'high achievers' of the past ?) where ( metaphorically speaking?) the candle is being lit very carefully in brilliant sunshine. You are not concerned with sunshine, but work away at lighting (your ) candle.

There are other things involved; there is the (gathering & ) awakening of an (intelligent ) energy which has been dissipated so far. To centralize this energy, to gather the whole of it, ( a non-dualistic?) attention is
involved, and the elimination of ( thinking inwardly?) in terms of time altogether.

( In a holistic nutshell:) there are these three major factors – ( the ending of thought's inward continuity in?) time, the (quality of a non-dualistic) attention which is not (en)forced (through will-power ?) , and the gathering of ( the previously dissipated intelligent ) energy.
I think these are the fundamental things one has to ( deal with & ) understand ( experientially?) because Enlightenment is
the comprehension of this vast (human?) life - the everyday living, dying, loving; the whole of mankind's (existential?) travail and (not in the least....?) the 'going beyond' it.
The traditional Masters (of Wisdom?) would also agree that you have to have ( a total focussing of?) attention to go beyond ( the limitations of ) time. But they are the worshippers of the ( homework?) corner. They use time to go beyond time.

P: I take the (lotus) posture and direct my attention (inwardly) . What is the (subliminal process of ) 'time' involved in this?

Krishnamurti: Is ( the inward presence of?) attention the result of time?

P: You ask me a (psychologically challenging ?) question and there is immediate attention. Is this ( self-focussing of ) attention the product of time?

Krishnamurti: No, certainly not.

P: Your question and my attention being there, is there time
involved? If you would regard this as so, the self-knowing process
which is going on all the time also involves time. My mind twenty
years ago would not have known the present quality. This state had
no existence then.

Krishnamurti: Let us go slowly. We are trying to understand
something which is out of time.

P: The tradition says ''prepare the body and the mind''.

Krishnamurti: Through (the means of) time can you prepare the body and the mind to be free of time ? When you say that through time you
perfect the (insightfully perceptive?) instrument, is it so? I question that. First of all 'who' is it that is perfecting the instrument? Is it thought?

P: It would be invalid to say only thought. There are many other
factors involved.

Krishnamurti: The knowing of thought & its intelligence,
are all maintained by thought. To ( glibly ?) say "thought must end and intelligence must come into being" is again an action of thought.
Repeating the statement, "thinker and thought are one", is again a ( subliminally greedy ?) action of thought. To me the traditional approach to perfect the instrument through thought and and the ( mindful?) cultivation of intelligence - all these are still in the area of thought (of the known?) . In that very ( usage of) thought there is the ( knowledgeable interference of the ?) 'thinker' – who says this must happen, this must not happen. This 'thinker' (entity) has become the will of achievement. So, the will to 'perfect the instrument' is part of thought.

P: In the traditional approach there is also implied the questioning of the very instrument which is thought.

Krishnamurti: But the 'questioner' is part of thought; the whole
structure (of trying to become enlightened?) is part of thought. We are still functioning within the area of the known and the man who is
cultivating thought says he will go to the unknown through the
known, perfect the known and get enlightenment. Again all this is (a self-projected illusion of) thought.

P: If everything is (controlled by) thought, it must then be necessary to give birth to a 'new instrument' ?

Krishnamurti: When thought says it must become silent and
becomes silent it is still thought. See how thought plays tricks upon itself - I must have some inner balance, I must have the right posture in order that the life energy flows through. I say thought is ( the knowledgeable response ?) of the past. Thought
can create the most marvellous technological instruments - it can go to the moon, to Venus; but thought can never possibly touch "the Other" because thought is never free, thought is old, thought is conditioned. Thought is the whole structure of the known.

P: What do you mean by "the Other"?

Krishnamurti: That which is within the field of Silence. Therefore ( for optional homework?) find out if sorrow can end. Come out of the corner (of self-interest ?) and find out what life is, what death means, what it means to end sorrow. If you have not come upon this, playing ( mental ?) tricks upon thought has no ( spiritually valid ?) meaning.
Therefore those teaching how to awaken the kundalini or
other various forms of Tantra are all within the bondage of time, which is ( created by the self-centred) thinking .
So I would not touch it because I see the nature, structure and order of this corner. When there is the marvellous sun, all the 'siddhis' and (other magic ) powers are like so many candles.
Can the ( holistically inclined ?) mind, listening to (the inward truth of) this, wipe it away? The very ( act of) listening is (operating?) the 'wiping away'. Then there is attention, love; everything is there.

You see, even logically, this ('insight based' approach?) holds (water) whereas the other does not. The exercise of the brain is to find the truth and the false; to see the false as the false. When the young Krishnamurti saw (that "truth is a pathless land") , it was over. He gave up all organizations, etc. He had no ( personal) training "to see".

P: But Sir, apart from physical discipline, there were (the Masters' ) instructions as to how to bring up that boy.

Krishnamurti: It was (pretty much?) like combing the hair, doing asanas, pranayama; it was all at that level.

B: It is very subtle. I am not saying that what happened had any
relationship to the illumination, but it is necessary to look after the

Krishnamurti: Yes, it is necessary to keep the (physical) body healthy.

P: Sir, if I may say so, you have the way of the yogi, you look
like a yogi, your body takes the (natural) pose of a yogi. You have been
doing asanas, pranayama, every day for so many (50 +) years. Why?

Krishnamurti: That is not important (insight-wise?) . All that you have to do is "to look" (&... learn as you go?)

P: But if one is born ( inwardly) blind, only when a person like you comes and says, ''look !'', something happens. Most people would not
understand even what you are talking about.

Krishnamurti: Most people would not listen to ( the inward implications of) all this. They would just brush it aside.

B: The other ( temporal approach) is easier. It gives something whereas this gives nothing.

Krishnamurti: This ( insight-based approach?) gives everything if you touch it.

B: But the other is easier.

Krishnamurti: How has the mind of ( the young ) Krishnamurti maintained this state of innocence?

P: You may be a (lucky ) exception. How did the boy Krishnamurti come to it? He had ( donations of) money, organization, everything and yet he left everything. If I were to take my grand-daughter and leave her with you, even then she would not have it.

Krishnamurti: No, she would not have it. (pause) Wipe out all

P: Did you have a 'centre' to wipe away?

Krishnamurti: No.

P: are unique, a ( psychological) 'phenomenon', and so you cannot tell us you did this and so it happened. You can only tell us "This is not it" and whether we drown or not, no one else can tell us. We may not be enlightened, but we are not unenlightened.

Krishnamurti: (Parting words:) I think it is tremendously interesting to see that anything that thought touches is not the Real (thing?) . Thought is ( entangled in a process of) time. Thought is ( the constantly updated response of) memory. Thought cannot touch the ( timeless) Real(ity)

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 04 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 May 2019 #23
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1972)

DS: I wonder if we could discuss the 'psychological' momentum -
which is (behind) the creation of the 'thinker' and which produces the
identification with the 'thinker'? The fact is that we are faced with
this (subliminal?) activity of the brain cells . Could we examine that ?

K: I would (also?) like to find out whether there is ( within the human psyche?) an energy which is endless, without a beginning and
without an end, (besides the mental) energy which is mechanical which always has a motive? And is there an energy in relationship?

P: Dr Shainberg asked what is it that gives momentum to the 'thinker'.

K: Let us keep to that.What is the drive, the force behind all our actions? Is it (of a ) mechanical (material nature) ? Or is there an energy, a force, a drive, a momentum which has no friction? Is that what we are discussing?

DS: Let us stay out of the fantasy realm for a while but
keep to just this momentum of thought and desire and its
mechanical nature. What is the momentum of this energy of
thought, desire and the creation of the thinker?

K: Go on, sir, discuss it.

DS: Thought, sensation, desire, and the fulfilment of desire; this whole (time-bound ) drive with a little modification seems to go on endlessly (within the human psyche ).

K: You are asking what is the ( psychical?) momentum behind desire.
Suppose that I desire ( to drive the latest Mercedes?) car. What is behind that desire? We will keep it very simple (for obvious educational purposes?) . What is the drive, the force, the energy behind the desire
that says, 'I must have that car'?

DS: Is it that 'you' desire a car or does the (mental image of the ) car come up as a desire and then it creates the 'I'? Is the 'I' created by desire?

K: If I didn't actually see the car, didn't feel it, didn't touch it, I
would have no desire for a car. But because I see people driving a (sports ?) car, (and thought imagines ) the pleasure of driving it, the fun of driving, I desire it.

P: So, is it only the 'object' which creates desire?

K: It may be a 'physical' object, or a 'non-physical' object, a belief, an idea, anything.

FW: But in the first place, it has to be perceivable by (one's mind or by ?) the senses and then you make an image of it, then you desire it. So, could one say that whatever can be desired has to be 'sensed'? And so from your question I ask: Anything which can be desired, has it first to be perceivable through the senses? One could, of course, speak of
'God'. I can desire (to know?) God.

P: It is desire that maintains and keeps the world going. Can you
take desire back to its roots?

K: What is the momentum behind any desire? Let us begin with
that. What is the energy that makes me desire? What is behind my
being here? I have come here to find out what you are talking
about, to discover something other than my usual rush of thought. So, what is behind the desire that made me come here? Is it my ( existential?) suffering? Is it that I want to learn more (about myself) ? Put all these together, what is it behind all that?

DS: To me it is a 'relief from what I am'.

P: Which is identical with a sense of becoming .

K: What is behind becoming?

DS: ( The simple desire to) get somewhere different from where I am.

K: What is behind that energy that is making you do that? Is it (the subliminal) expectation for a reward? All our (mental) structure of movement is based on reward & punishment. Is that the (psychological causation behind the) basic drive or energy that is making us do so many things? So is the energy derived from these two: to avoid one and gain the other?

DS: Yes. That is part of it. That is at the level of thought.

K: Not at the level of thought only. I am feeling hungry, my reward is food. If I do something wrong, my (negative?) reward is

M: How is that different from pleasure and pain? Is reward the same
as pleasure, and punishment the same as pain?

K: ( A subliminal expectation of a ?) reward or punishment. I think that is the basic (time-binding momentum behind) the ordinary, common drive.

P: Reward and punishment, but to whom?

K: Not 'to whom'. What is (anticipated as?) satisfying I call 'reward', that which is not satisfying, I call it 'punishment'.

DS: Yes...

K: So, ( in the first place?) there is not an 'I' saying: 'I must be satisfied', or 'I am hungry'?

P: Hunger is a very physiological thing.

K: Doesn't the physiological ( need?) spill over into the psychological field and doesn't the whole 'I' cycle begin there? I need food; food is necessary. But that same urge ( filters insidiously?) into the 'psychological' field, and there ( after being taken over by thought?) it begins a completely different cycle. But it is (basically ) the same movement.

Singh: Sir, where is all this process going on? Is it in the brain? Where do I find this 'pleasure-pain' need?

K: Both at the biological level and at the psychological.

Singh: If it is in the brain, then there is definitely something,
which one may say is a 'twilight' between pleasure and pain. There are some responses in the brain which are 'in between' reward and punishment.

GM: You mean there is a state which is neither reward nor

Singh: Yes. Where one merges into another.

P: There may be another state, but how does this answer the question of the nature of this force which brings the ( self-identification?) into being and then keeps it going? Basically, that is the question.

DS: That is the question. Where is (generated?) this momentum of reward and punishment?

K: Are you asking, what is it that is pushing one (subliminally ?) in the direction of reward and punishment? Could it be (the animal-inherited ) drive for (sensory?) gratification, which is ( known as the principle of?) pleasure?

DS: But then, what is your state of being when you are aware that
there is freedom from hunger?

K: It is very simple (to explain the whole process 'holistically' ?) , isn't it? There is ( a sensation of?) hunger, food is given, and
you are satisfied. But the same principle is carried on ( inwardly ?) and there it is never ending. I seek one satisfaction after another ( accumulating a series of collateral frustrations which in turn demand their own satisfaction?) and then it is endless. Is it that this (survivalistic ?) drive to be satisfied, is both biological as well as psychological? Physiologically 'I am feeling hungry' and psychologically 'I am feeling lonely'. There is the ( existential ?) feeling of emptiness, there is the feeling of insufficiency. And so I turn to God, to the Church, gurus. Physiologically, the insufficiency is satisfied very easily, but psychologically, it is never ( getting 100% ) satisfied.

Par: At what point does it go from the physiological fulfilment to the thought process?

K: Sir, it may be that the 'physiological' drive has entered
into the 'psychological' field and there it carries on (mentally) . Is this so?

P: What I am trying to enquire into is that this is not a matter of choice . It is so from the moment I am born. Both types of (needs & ) wants begin. Therefore, I am asking, what is the source of both the physiological and psychological? Both are structured in a ( psychological) force which then propels. That structure within one is the 'centre', the 'I'.

K: Look. I don't think it is the 'I'. I think it is an endless
dissatisfaction, an endless ( personal) insufficiency.

P: Can there be insufficiency without the 'one who feels it'?

K: I don't ( want to?) posit the 'I'. There is continuous insufficiency. The more intelligent I am, the more awake I am, the more dissatisfaction
there is. Then, what takes place?

S: You are implying that there is a 'matrix' without the reality of the 'I' which in its very momentum can act (personally?) .

K: I don't know the 'matrix'. I don't know the 'I'. All that I am
pointing out is the one factor that there is physiological
insufficiency which has entered into the field of psychological
insufficiency and that goes on endlessly.

DS: There is an endless 'sense of incompletion'.

K: Insufficiency.

A: I suggest at this point that we may cut out the 'physiological'

K: I am purposely insisting on that..It may be from the flowing
out of that, that we create all this ( time-binding psychological) misery.

P: What is the momentum then?

K: The brain is (constantly) 'seeking satisfaction' (And/or...trying to optimise it?)

P: Why should the brain seek ( this self-rewarding?) satisfaction?

K: Because it needs ( a sense of temporal ) stability; it needs security. Therefore, it says: ''I thought I had found satisfaction in
'this' but there isn't any. I shall find satisfaction and security in 'that',
and again there isn't any''. And it keeps going on and on. That is so (true ) in our daily life. I go to one guru after another, or one theory after another, one conclusion after another.

Q: Sir, the very nature of this insufficiency at a physiological
level leads to sufficiency at the meta-physiological level. It leads
from some inadequacy in the physiological machine to the
completion of it. And it is this cycle that is operative; that is how
the brain works. If the physiological spill-over is ever to continue
in the psychological field, then this cycle of insufficiency and
sufficiency must continue.

K: Must continue? Examine yourself. It is very simple. You are
seeking satisfaction. Everybody is. If you are poor, you want to be
rich. If you see somebody richer than you, you want that,
somebody more beautiful, you want that and so on and on. Isn't (behind) the whole of this movement a drive to find gratification reward? Shainberg what do you say to this?

DS: I think what is coming out of this model of the
physiological reward-punishment scheme is definitely so. I mean
that is the whole way the 'me' (the temporal self ?) functions, whether it is logical or not.

K: The whole momentum of seeking satisfaction is captured by (psychological structure of the?) the 'I' - 'I' am seeking satisfaction. Actually it should be the other way: satisfaction being sought.

P: Isn't the 'I' sense inherent in the brain cells which have
inherited knowledge?

K: You asked at the beginning, does the brain contain the
'I'? I would say tentatively, investigating, there is no 'I' at all but
only the search (drive?) for (physical safety & ) satisfaction ( along with the accumulation of dis-satisfactions & hurts?) .

P: Is the whole racial memory of man fictitious?

K: No. But the moment you say ''I am the past'', that 'I' ( the self-identified entity ?) is fictitious. There is the whole (collective memory of the?) past, millennia of human endeavour, human suffering, human
misery, confusion, millions of years. There is only that 'movement'
that 'current', that vast River (of Time?) - not 'I' and the vast River.

P: I would like to put it this way: When this vast river comes to
the surface, it brings to the surface the movement of the 'I'. It gets (personal?) .

K: Pupulji, ( for K?) the 'I' may merely be a means of communication.

P: Is it as simple as that?

K: No, I am just stating (a personal fact?) . It is not as simple as that.

S: Sir, when this vast Stream of ( collective self-interest &?) Sorrow manifests itself in the individual, is the 'I' present or not?

K: That vast Stream manifests itself in a (newly born?) human being; the (physical parents?) give to me a ( physical) form and then I say 'I', which is the ( subliminal identification with?) form, the name, the idiosyncratic environment, but that Stream is (inwardly not dissociated from) 'me'. There is this vast Stream which is obvious.

A: I am saying that the identification is done post facto, whereas it really starts with the 'momentum' (of self-interest?)

K: Can I ask, why is the 'I' there? Why do you ( have to) say 'I want'?
There is only 'want' (or...'want not' ?)

P: Still by saying that, you don't eliminate the ( subliminal identification of the?) 'I'.

K: No, you do eliminate that 'I'. But in what manner do you observe this Stream (of self-interest & sorrow?) ? Do you observe it as the 'I' observing? Or is there only a (transpersonal?) observation of the Stream ?

P: What one does in observing is a different issue. We were
talking of the nature of that energy which brings about the momentum (of self-interest?)

K: I want to question whether the 'I' exists at all. It may be
totally verbal, non-factual, a ( convenient?) word that has become
tremendously important, not the fact.

FW: Isn't there an imprint of the 'I' in the brain matter? Isn't
that an actuality?

K: No, I question it.

FW: But the imprint is there. The question is: If it isn't an
actuality, then what is it?

K: This whole momentum, this vast Stream ( of collective thought & time?) is in the brain. After all, that is the mankind's brain, and why should there be the 'I' at all in that?

P: Talking of the 'actual', it is there.

K: It is there only 'verbally'.

DS: It is actually there. In the sense that if 'you' and 'I' are meeting together, my (self-) identification is in relationship with yours.

K: Sir, when are you conscious of the 'I'?

DS: Only in relationship with something else : when I want something, when I identify myself with something, or when I look at myself in the mirror.

K: When you 'experience' (facing an immediate challenge ?) , at the moment of experiencing something, there is no 'I'.

P: All right, there is no 'I'. We agree with you. But then the 'I' (your self-consciousness) emerges a second later.

K: How? Look, go into it slowly. There is ( a challenging ) experience. At the moment of crisis there is no 'I'. Then, later, comes the ( self-centred processing of that incident by) thought says: 'That was exciting, that was pleasurable,' and (as a closing conclusion?)
thought says: 'I have enjoyed it.' Right?

P: What has happened there? Is the 'I' ( created in) the energy that dissipates?

K: It is the energy that dissipates, an ( intelligent ) energy that is being misused.

P: So, the 'I' itself is a concentration of ( intelligent mind-) energy that dissipates. And as the body wears out, the 'I' has the same nature, it gets old, it gets stale.

K: Pupul, just listen to me. At the moment of ( a major existential ?) crisis, there is no 'I'. Now is there a (possibility of ) living (inwardly) at the 'height' of that crisis, all the time? Crisis demands your total energy. In fact, existential crisis of any kind bring about the influx of all (one's ) energy. At that second, there is no 'I' (no self-consciousness ?) . Now, I am asking: 'Is it possible to live ( inwardly ) at that height all the time?'

DS: Why are you asking that?

K: If you don't live that way, you have all kinds of other (self-centred ) activities which will destroy that.The moment ( the 'thinker' & its thread of ?) thoughts comes in, it brings about a fragmentation of energy.
(In a nutshell:) when 'thought' enters, then it is a dissipation of energy.

P: But still that does not answer the question as to why the 'I' has become so powerful. You have still not answered the question even though at the moment of crisis, the 'I' is not, the whole ( memory of the ) past is not (active) .

K: That is the point. At the moment of crisis, there is nothing.

P: Is ( getting rid of ) the 'I' structure as simple as that?

K: I think it is (ultimately???) extraordinarily simple. But what is much more demanding is that whenever (the self-centred process of ) thought comes into being, then dissipation of energy begins. So, I say to myself: 'Is it possible to live at that height?' If you left out the (emphasis on your?) 'I' and I left out ( my emphasis on my ) 'I', then we would have a right relationship.

DS: When you say 'dissipation of energy', I immediately see myself take up the position of the observer and say 'that is bad'. What I am suggesting is that you can be neutrally aware. There is a crisis and a
dissipation, a crisis and a dissipation. That is the flow of (the real life?) existence.

K: No.

P: K's point is, there is that, but the (psychological) 'transformation' of which we are talking about is to negate that.

DS: I question whether there is any such thing as 'breaking out'
of this (natural flow of time?) . I think we remember the intensity of the energy of the crisis, and then we say I would like to keep it all the time. Do you do that?

K: No.

DS: Then why ask the question?

K: I am asking that question purposedly because thought interferes.

DS: Not all the time.

K: All the time. Question it, sir (for optional homework?)

( To recap:) The moment you have a (profound existential) crisis, there is no (thinking about your ) past, or your present , only that moment. There is no time in that crisis. The moment (your thinking in terms of ) time comes in, the dissipation (of total attention ) begins.
Keep it for the minute like that.

P: At the moment of ( a major existential?) crisis, many things happen. You talk here of a 'holistic' position at the moment of crisis. But even to come to that, one has to investigate it very deeply, in oneself in order to know what this thing is (all about) .

K: You see Pupul, 'holistic' implies a very sane mind and body, a
clear capacity to think, and also it means holy, sacred; all that is
implied in that word 'holistic'. Now, I am asking: 'Is there an (inward source of intelligent ?) energy which is never dissipated, which you want to draw from?'b A holistic way of life is one in which there is no dissipation of energy. A non-holistic way of living in dissipation of energy.

P: What is the relationship of the holistic and the non-holistic to
the brain cells?

K: Let us look at it. I want to be quite clear that we understand the meaning of that word 'holistic'. It means complete, whole, harmony, no disintegration, no fragmentation. That is the holistic life. That is (the source of ) an endless ( inexhaustible?) energy. (Hint:) When
there is a feeling of the whole, there is no 'I'. The other (existential option?) is (indulging in) the movement of thought, of the past, of time; that is our daily life, based on reward and punishment and the continuous search for satisfaction.

P: Sir, the non-holistic (mentality?) is held in the brain cells. That is, it throws up (self-centred) responses when meeting life's challenges. It is the whole stream of (self-interest of ?) the past meeting the challenge. Now, what relationship has the new 'holistic' (existential attitude?) to the brain cells and the senses?

K: The question is ( holistically speaking ?) very simple. Our brain cells now contain the past, memory, experience, knowledge of millennia, and those brain cells are conditioned to a 'non-holistic' way of living. What takes place in the brain cells when there is an (insight into the?) holistic way?

DS: I would put it differently : what takes place in the brain cells in the holistic state of perception?

K: I am going to answer that question. The holistic brain does still contain the past, but can the (memory of the?) past be used 'holistically'? Because the ( holistically integrated consciousness?) is ( becoming ?) whole, it contains the part, but the part cannot contain the whole. Therefore, when there is the operation of the part, there is dissipation of energy (in a whole spectrum of psychological & physical conflicts?)

P: After going through all this, we have come to this point...

K: A marvellous point. ( But unfortunately ?) as of now, we know only the 'non-holistic' way of living, that is the (true ?) fact, that we live non-holistically, fragmentarily. That is, our daily way of life is a wastage of (our finest ressources of intelligent?) energy. We see that there is an (inwardly) 'broken' life - saying something, doing something else, a way of life that is contradictory, comparative, imitative, conforming, with rare moments of ( inner peace & ) silence. Now, we are asking: 'Is there a way of living which is not a wastage of energy?' Is there (within the human psyche?) a ( quality of non-entropic ?) 'energy' which is not wasted? And with that question let us investigate it to see if it is possible to end this (time-binding ?) way of living.
Occasionally, I may have a 'flair of freedom' but that is still within the field of (thought & ) time. Now, can the brain that is conditioned to a ( survival-oriented) non-holistic way of living, can that brain so completely transform itself that it no longer lives the way of conditioning? That is 'the' question.

DS: Could you say anything about (when & ) how you can ask this question ?

K: It can be asked (only when) the (old?) brain has realized for itself the game it has been playing. It says, 'I am seeing through that.' Now, it says: 'Is there a way of living which is non-fragmentary, which is holistic?'

S: (For most of us?) this question is as 'holistic' as any.

DS: That is what I am having trouble with - what brain is producing this question?

K: The ( newly awakened?) brain which says: 'I see very clearly the waste of energy'.

P: So, the very 'seeing through' the whole problem of fragmentation...

K: Is the ending of it.

P: Is that (action) 'holistic'?

K: The 'ending' of it, that is holistic.
(To recap:) My concern is with one's life, actual, daily, fragmentary, 'stupid' (or... just sad & boring?) way of life. Can that be transformed?
Not into ( a life providing a ) greater satisfaction, but can that structure ( that wasteful way of life?) end itself? I ( K ?) say : if you are
capable of observing without the (mental filter of the?) 'observer', the brain can transform itself. That 'is' (the transformational function of) meditation.
( Parting words:) The ( mind's spiritual?) essence is the whole. In fragmentation, there is no essence of anything

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 08 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 May 2019 #24
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

( an 'experientially -friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1973)

P: Krishnaji, you have spoken about holding the quality of anger, or fear or of any other strong (personal?) emotion, without the word, in consciousness. Could we probe into that, since the 'wiping away' of any (psychological) hurt, fear, anger or any one of the 'darknesses' within one, is only possible if what you are talking about takes place. Can that passion of feeling be (wisely?) held in ( the free inner space of?) one's consciousness ?

K: What does it mean to hold the feeling of 'anger' (for instance?) or of whatever 'is' (going on inwardly?) without the word?

P: And is there anything (left ) without the word?

K: Go on (and discuss it?)

FW: Is there fear when there is not the word 'fear'? And what is
the nature of the energy in the body or in the whole being if there is
no naming?

A: Clarity for us is related to naming. When we want to probe into a
strong feeling, or into any (psychological) disturbance, we want to know precisely what it is, as we don't want any self-deception. So, even before we have been able to grasp it completely, we have named it. So, 'naming' is both our instrument of clarity and ( a secondary ) cause of (mental?) confusion.

K: Isn't the word different from the fact, from 'what is'? (Obviously?) the word is not the (actual) 'thing' (which is going on inwardly) .
We are trying to find out if the word 'fear' is different from the actuality.

S: What is ( left of) the feeling of fear without naming it ?

K: Let us go very very slowly. Is the word 'fear' different from the actual the feeling of fear and without the word is there that feeling?

R: (Using the ) word ('fear') is ( due to the controlling intervention of) thought.

K: So, the word (the verbal recognition of a disturbing feeling through naming) is the medium through which thought expresses itself (its control?) . Without the word, can thought express itself? Of course it
can; a (meaningful?) gesture, a look, a nod of the head, but only to a very very limited extent. When you want to express something very complicated in thought, the word is necessary. But the word is not the actual thought, the actual state.

A: I raise one difficulty: we perceive with the senses. That
process ends when there is (the secondary process of) naming. That starts a tertiary process : with the naming, a number of complicated things begin in my brain. Now, even if I see this and wipe out the naming I have still not wiped out the feeling.

K: Pupulji was asking, what is the quality of the mind that without the word can hold that feeling without any movement, right?

P: There are many things in ( our everyday ) consciousness which arise prior to the word. Take, for instance, tenderness, joy.

K: Can't you observe something directly without the word? Can you
observe me, the physical form, without the word ('K'?) ?

P: Yes.

K: You can. Now, you have removed the word 'K' and you are observing the form.

P: We are observing. I don't say we are observing the form. The moment you say 'I am observing ( K's physical) form', there has to be naming.

K: Of course, you are observing more than this . I am limiting it ( for experiential purposes?) to just observing ( K's physical) form.
Are you observing the form?

P: Yes. And I am trying to see whether the word is prior to that.

K: Pupul, let us keep simple ( in terms of inward observation?) . There is fear. Using the word 'fear' is (implying) thought's recognition
of that (emotional response) which I have called 'fear', because that fear has gone on for many years, and ( in order to keep it under control?) I have recognized it through the word. Ten years ago I was afraid (of the R&R's ? ) , that fear is registered in my brain (associated ) with the (labelling?) word. If it occurs again today, immediately the recognizing process sets in, which is the word, and so on. So, the word (the verbal recognition?) has stabilized the feeling.

R: Yes. Sustains it.

K: It 'holds' it (under the thinker's control?) . The word holds the thing by recognizing it, by remembering it and so on. Now, I am asking whether without the (usage of that) word there can be (the same reaction of ) fear. The word 'fear' is (involving?) a process of recognition. Look at it : how do you know you are afraid?

FW: I have been afraid (of them ?) before, so I know that feeling. So, as it comes again, I recognize it.

K: If you recognize it, it is (starting a secondary ?) verbal process; but if you don't recognize it (by naming it?) , what is the state of the mind ?

FW: There is no fear. There is just a surge of (emotional) energy in the body.

K: If there is no recognition, no verbal (intellectual processing?) movement, would there be fear?

P: There is (still an emotional) disturbance. If I may say so, (the psychological) fears are not such a simple thing that you can say, if there is no naming of it, fear is not...

K: Of course, there is a lot of (memory related?) complexity involved in it

S: Psychologically something happens even before its 'naming'
takes place. If we accept only this (over-simplified?) position that the word creates fear, that means there is no (psychologically related?) 'content' to fear at all.

K: I don't say that. There is a process of (mental ?) recognition. But if that process of recognition (could be 'held' or 'suspended'?) if that is at all possible, then, what is the thing called fear?

P: Remove the word 'fear', and see what remains. Any word I
use is going to apply exactly as much as the word 'fear'.

K: I am attacking it quite differently. Suppose that tou insult me because I have an (inadequate 'self' ?) image. There is an immediate registration (of the psychological hurt) taking place. I
am asking: Can the (psychological) registration come to an end (ASAP ?) when you insult me and so there is no (personal) recording (of it?) at all?

S: I don't understand this. That is a totally different process.

K: It is exactly the same thing. Fear arises because I am afraid
of the (potential damage caused to my excellent 'self- image' created in the?) past. The (psychological incidents of the ) 'past' are being registered and (the painful memory of) that incident (that took place) in the past awakens the sense of fear. Is it possible to observe the new feeling (of insecurity ?) , or whatever it is, without bringing the (psychological memory of the ) past into action? Have you got it?

Rad: There is a feeling of (subliminal ?) recognition even before you actually call it 'fear'.

K: Let us go calmly. ( Suppose that?) I insult you. What takes place? You register it, don't you?

Rad: I register it only if I recognize it (as a personal insult?) . That (recognition) itself creates its own momentum.

K: Therefore, stop that momentum. Can that momentum be
stopped? Look Radhika, let us put it much more simply : we are hurt even from childhood for various reasons and it has been deeply registered in the brain. The instinctive reaction is not to be hurt any more. So, you build a (self-protecting ?) wall & (safely) withdraw (behind, whenever necessary) . Now, without building (or consolidating ?) this (imaginary) 'wall', can you be aware of (the psychological inadequacy of) it and the next time a similar process of hurt begins, not register ( it personally?) ?

FW: What do you mean by registering?

K: Our brain is ( operating as ) a tape recorder. It is registering all the time, there is like and dislike, pleasure and pain. It is moving, moving. I
say something ugly to you and the brain immediately takes charge,
registers it. Now, I say: 'Can you (become aware & ) stop (the inertial mechanism of?) that registration, though it has registered? And next time if there is an (incoming) insult, do not register it at all.' You understand what I am talking about?

FW: That means not to form any (mental) image of it right away ?

K: No, no. Can you recognize the (insulting intention of the?) word but not register it? I want to keep it very very simple. First, see that the
brain is registering (everything that is going on?) all the time. You call me a 'fool', that is registered for various reasons. That is a fact. The next question is: Can that (blind mechanism of?) registration stop? Otherwise the human mind (including) the brain, has no sense of (inward) freedom.

P: The brain is a live thing. It has to register. Registration is one
thing, but the ' ending of (the temporal continuity of this ?) momentum' is the 'movement away' from registration.

K: That is what I am talking about.

S: Aren't you speaking of two things: one is the (momentary ?) stopping of the momentum and the other stopping registration altogether ?

K: First, get (experientially in contact with?) what I am talking about. Then you can question and then you can make (the details?) clear.

P: When you say do not register, does that mean the (survival-oriented activity of the?) brain cells come to a (full?) stop?

K: Look, Pupulji, it is very important (to have a total insight into it ? ) because if there is no possibility of stopping registration, then the brain
( driven by this un-conscious mechanism ? ) becomes (sooner rather than later?) mechanical.

A: Aren't we oversimplifying the matter ? Actually, our state of receiving anything is without our knowing that there is either a (choicy mental ?) preference or an aversion, and fear is contained in that cycle. It arises from the ( total memory of the?) past, and is not directly related to what I perceive. But it is (part of) that which perceives.

K: As long as the brain is (unawarely) registering all the time, it is moving from knowledge to knowledge (wthin the field of the known?) . Now, I am asking myself whether (the psychologically-related ? ) registration can stop.

GM: Can the (average human) brain answer that question?

K: I think it can, in the sense the brain can become aware of its
own registering process.

P: There are certain fears which you can deal with in that way.
But the fear (of not-being?) has been the cry of man for millennia. And you 'are' that cry.

K: That cry of millennia is (expressing itself as the ) fear (of anything unknown?) . The brain has been registering (indiscriminately factual & psychological knowledge) for millennia. Therefore, the registering (mechanism) has become ( a vital) part of it. (But, unfortunately, by the same stroke?) the brain has become (inwardly more & more ) mechanical. I say: Can that (inertial) mechanical process stop? That is all. If it cannot be stopped it becomes merely a (culturally programmable thinking ?) machine, which... it (almost?) is. This is all part of (mankind's cultural) tradition, part of repetition, part of the constant registration through millennia. I am asking a 'simple' (meditation-related?) question which has great depth to it, which is: Can it stop? If it cannot stop, man is never (inwardly?) free.

Par: May I ask you an (often neglected?) question? Why do we register at all?

K: For safety, security, protection, certainty. The registration is
to give the brain a certain sense of (its own temporal) security.

P: Isn't the evolutionary human brain involved? It has evolved through

K: It has evolved through ( gathering, processing & applying) knowledge, which is ( based on this ) registration.

P: What is the factor which makes you say 'stop'?

K: Someone comes along and says: Look, through millennia
man has evolved through knowledge and at present you are
certainly different from the great apes. And he says: Look, as long
as you are registering, you are living a fragmentary life because
knowledge is fragmentary and whatever you do from that
fragmentary state of brain is incomplete. Therefore, there is pain,
suffering. So, at the end of this (holistic) explanation, can that
registration, can that movement (momentum?) of the past, end? Can this (inertial) movement of millennia stop?

P: Has its 'ending' something to do with the (holistic) quality of listening (to truth?) ?

K: Yes, that's it.

P: So, that (quality of holistic?) listening ends, silences this registration.

K: That is it. That is my point. You ( K?) have come into my life by
chance. You have come into my life and you have pointed out to
me that my brain has evolved through knowledge, through
registration, through experience; and that knowledge, that
experience is fundamentally limited. And whatever action takes place from that limited state will be fragmentary and therefore there will be conflict, pain. Find out if that (psychological) 'momentum' which has tremendous volume, depth, can end. ( Experiential hint:) It is a tremendous flow of energy which is (involved in the 'knowing' attitude of?) knowledge. Stop this ( presumptious ) knowledge. That is all (for now...?) .

FW: May I ask you an ( experiential ?) question? Much reference has been made to the tape-recorder which just goes on registering, and it can't stop itself. It has to be stopped. But then, how can the brain stop itself?

K: We are going to find out (soon ?) . But first, 'listen' to the (inward implications of the?) question, that is my point.

S: In the whole of my (temporal) consciousness, is there only registration going on?

K: Of course.

S: Then, what is it that can observe that (subliminal proces of) registering?

K: What is it that can observe this registering or can prevent registering? I also know silence, - the silence that is between two noises...

S: Is the silence which 'I' experience also registered?

K: Obviously. As long as there is this registration process going on, (the 'self' controlled silence of the brain?) is mechanical. Is there silence which is non-mechanistic? A silence which has not been thought about, induced, brought about or invented (imagined?) . Otherwise, the silence is merely mechanistic.

Raj: Sir, is it possible for this non-mechanistic silence to come ( spontaneously?) ?

K: No, no. I am not interested in that. I am asking something entirely different: this momentum of the self-centred consciousness is the (memory of the ) past, registered, remembered, stored up as (personal or collective) experience, knowledge. That is the whole momentum of the past. And somebody comes along and says: Listen to what I have to say, can you end that
momentum (of self-centred recording) ? Otherwise this momentum, with its fragmentary activity, will go on endlessly.

Raj: I think this movement can be stopped only if you don't
hang on to it.

K: But this momentum (of psychological recording?) 'is' you. You are not different from the momentum. You don't (seem to?) realise that you 'are' this vast momentum, this collective drive with the so-called 'individual' assertions. If there is no stopping of that, there is
no future. You may call it a ( glorious?) future, but it is only the same thing modified. There is no (authentic) future. I wonder if you see this.

P: A (hidden ) reaction takes place and ( a state of psychological) darkness arises in me. The question arises: Can consciousness with its own content, which is darkness..

K: ...end ?

P: What does this ('ending') mean exactly?

K: Can the ( total attention of the ) brain ( comprehend & ) 'hold' this momentum, or is it just an 'idea' ? If it is not an (intellectual) conclusion, then the brain is (coming) directly in contact with the
momentum and therefore, it can say: 'All right, I will watch (what is actually going on inwardly). And when watching, it is not allowing it to move (to go on inertially ?) So... are you observing this
vast movement ( being fully aware that) you 'are' the vast movement. Is 'you are that vast movement' an ( self-projected ) idea?

Raj: No.

K: Therefore, if you 'are' that, find out ( for optional 'homework meditation'?) if that ( momentum of psychological recording ) can 'end' – the incoming ( personal & collective memory of the ) past, meeting the 'present' - a challenge, a ( personally disturbing) question - and … 'ending' there. Otherwise, there is no end to ( mankind's existential ?) suffering. Man has put up with (the inevitability of his psychological ) suffering for thousands upon thousands of years. That 'momentum' ( recycling the suffering of the past?) is going on and on (in the un-conscious layers of consciousness?) . I can give ten ( clever ?) explanations, but ( at the end of the day...?) I still suffer. This (stream of 'selfishness' generated?) suffering is the vast momentum of man. Can that (psychical) 'momentum' come to an end without (thought's) 'control'? ( Hint:) The controller 'is' (part of?) the controlled. So, can this 'momentum' (of psychological registration?) stop?
If it does not stop, then there is no freedom (from sorrow ?) and one's actions will always be incomplete. Can you 'see' the whole of that, see it actually?

P: Can we ever 'see' that? When we 'see' a feeling in the present, what is it we are 'seeing'?

K: I call you a 'fool'. Must you register it?

P: I can't just answer ''why should I register ?'' .

K: Don't register.

P: If these eyes and ears of mine are are 'still' , there is a listening but no registration.

K: So, what are you 'seeing' then ?

P: There is no seeing of this movement. I have been observing
while this discussion has been going on and if my listening is directed to the words, I register, and this very movement outward throws it
back. But if the eyes and the ears are ''seeing and listening'', but ''still'',
then they take in without any (psychological) registration.

K: So, you are saying that if there is a 'quietness' (in the very act of ) listening, there is no (psychological) registration.

P: But we still can't answer that (academical) question of yours: Why should one register?

K: I am asking now quite a different question. Someone calls
you 'a fool'. Don't register it at all.

P: It is not a (conscious ) process in which I can register or I can't register. The way you put it, you are suggesting two alternatives: it is either to register or not to register.

K: No. You are registering all the time.

P: There is a registration all the time. So long as my senses are
moving outwardly , there is registration.

K: When you say 'as long as'... that means you are not (doing it?) now.

P: I was just giving an explanation.

K: I want to find out whether this vast Stream of the past (of psychological time?) can come to an ending . That is all my question.

P: There has to be a way to end it .... So, we'll have to move (still deeper ) to the (level of the ) brain cells - to their actual registration.

K: So, in that momentum (of constant registering?) the brain has found tremendous security. Right? The (knowledge of the ) past meeting the present, moving on, modifying - the brain is conditioned to that. And as long as that ( back-up memory?) 'stream' exists, it is feeling ( less or more???) perfectly safe. Now, how are those brain cells to be shown that the momentum of the past in which the brain cells
have found ( their temporal) security and well-being, is ( inwardly-wise?) the most dangerous movement? Now, to point out to that brain the (psychological) 'danger' of this ( mechanistic ) momentum is all that matters. The moment it (brain's natural intelligence?) 'sees' the actual danger, it will 'end' (at once?) it. you see the danger of this movement? Not the theoretical danger, but the actual (truth of this ) danger?

P: Are your brain cells saying that this movement is (psychologically) dangerous?

K: My brain is using the words to inform you of the danger, but
it has seen it and dropped it (long ago?) . Do you see the
danger of a cobra? When you see the ( actual) danger, you avoid it, which is an instant action.

( To recap:) The brain has been conditioned to 'carry on' (as usual ?) because in that ( process of constant recording ) there is complete safety, in meeting the present, learning from it, modifying it and moving on. To the brain, that is the only safe movement it knows, so it is going to remain there. But the moment the brain realizes that (psychologically-wise?) it is the most dangerous thing, it drops it because it wants (an authentic) security.

Raj: I don't see the 'danger' of this ( inertial recording) momentum as actually as you see it.

K: Why not ?

Raj: Partly because I have never ( actually) 'observed' this vast momentum to see its danger.

K: Are you living with ( K's holistic ) description of the momentum or living with the ( actuality of this) momentum itself, which 'is' you? You understand my question, sir? Is this ( inertial recording ?) momentum different from you?

Raj: No, sir.

K: So, you 'are' the momentum? So, you are watching yourself (in real time?) ?

Raj: Yes. But this does not happen very often.

K: Often? The words 'often' and 'continuous' are awful (psychologically very slippery?) words. Are you now aware that you 'are' this momentum? You can say: ''I only see the ( mechanism leading to the psychological) 'precipice' only...occasionally''
The word is not the thing. So, without (using) the word 'fear' , would the (psychological) raction called 'fear' (continue to) exist? The ( use of the ) 'word' is the ('recognition' part of brain's ) registration process. Then, (if that reaction is not named?) a totally new (insight?) arises. That 'new' (perception) , the ( temporal) brain refuses because it
is a ( potentially disturbing?) new thing; so, it rather says ''it is (that good old ?) fear''. But for the brain to 'hold' the momentum of that (recording/recognising process ) give a 'gap' ( a silent interval) between the ( mental recognition ) of thought, without interfering with the actual movement of feeling. This ( thought-suspending ) gap can only happen when you ( realise that) the word ('fear') is not ( the actual feeling of) fear. Immediately, you have stopped the momentum.

P: Is it a matter of 'holding' a quality of feeling without (naming it?) whether it is hatred, anger or fear.

K: Of course, you can 'hold' (& contemplate?) the feeling of anger, fear, without the word; just remain with that feeling. Just 'do it'.

P: But what you 'do' exactly?

K: When ( a psychological response of) fear arises from whatever cause, remain with it, without any (knowledgeable interference or?) 'movement' of thought.

P: What is it then?

K: It is an energy held without any movement. When (in meditation?)
the energy is held without any movement, there is an 'explosion'. Then that ( psychologically active 'content' ?) gets (qualitatively?) transformed .

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 10 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 May 2019 #25
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

Can the Brain Renew Itself?

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1982)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): I was wondering whether we could discuss the nature of rebirth in the human mind, that is, whether a mind that is jaded, old and incapable of perception can renew itself totally. Can it have a new perception? The problem with many of us (old timers?) is that as we grow old we find that the quickness of our minds, the capacity to perceive and to take in deeply grows dim.

K: Are you asking whether it is possible to keep the mind very young and yet 'ancient'?

PJ: Yes, but I would like to know what is meant by the word ‘ancient’. Obviously the 'ancient' you speak about is unrelated to time as the (passage of countless ? ) yesterday.

K: Let’s go into it. After all, the human brain is very, very ancient, very, very old. It has evolved through time, through a tremendous ( materialistic?) experience. It has acquired a great deal of knowledge—both outward as well as inward—and so it is really very ancient. And as far as I can understand, it is not a 'personal' brain. It is not ‘my’ brain or ‘your’ brain.

PJ: But, sir, obviously your brain and my brain have a different quality of the ancient in them.

K: Now wait. Is it granted that the human brain is very old, very ancient and that our brains are not 'individual' brains?

PJ: Yes.

K: Our brains are not 'individual' ('personal'?) brains. We may have reduced the brain to a personal ( belonging?) —in fact most of us think of it as ‘my’ brain and ‘your’ brain—but the human brain cannot have evolved through time as ‘my’ brain. I mean, such a thing is obviously absurd. But unfortunately it is from this (proprietary attitude?) that is born the whole 'individualistic' mentality . Now, are we saying that such an ancient brain has been so conditioned ( by its survivalistic experience?) that it has become superficial, rather vulgar and artificial and (apparently ? ) lost what is imbedded very deep down in the (collective?) unconscious?

PJ: But an ancient mind—as you said just now—is the result of evolution in time.

K: Of course. Evolution means time.

PJ: Now man's (spiritual) search which has gone on for centuries whether it is possible to free the brain of time—time which is built into this aging process. Sir, when you talk of an ancient brain, are you talking of a brain which has also inbuilt in it...

K: The quality of its own deterioration? Yes.

PJ: Why is that so?

K: It is so because its ( materialistic?) experience and knowledge has limited it, conditioned it, narrowed it down. The more the brain acquires knowledge, the more it limits itself. Right?

PJ: So, by 'ancient' you seem to be implying two things. One is the sense of the ancient as the weight of the past which gives it a sense of being very old, because it is many thousands of years. And all its experiences...

K: Have conditioned it, narrowed it down, limited it.

PJ: But the other the 'ancient' quality you were talking about, is it also related to what the human brain that has experienced through time?

K: No. We will go into that (timeless quality later?) But first let us see how 'ancient' it is in the sense that thousands of years of ( survivalistic) experience have limited itself. Therefore, in it there is the quality of its own deterioration. ( Not to mention that?) living in the modern world with all the noise, with the terrible shocks and the agonies of war, and so on—has made the brain still more limited, still more enmeshed in conflict. The very ( nature of self-centred?) limitation brings its own conflict(ual attitude to life?) .

PJ: Sir, the sense of the thousands of years of existence , gives to the human brain a density and weight.

K: You’re quite right, it has a coarseness to it, a heaviness to it.

PJ: Now, is that what you mean by the 'ancient'?

K: Not quite. Let’s go into it slowly. Do we admit that the human brain by its own (self-centred?) evolution has conditioned itself and has in it an inherent quality of its own deterioration?

PJ: Yes...

K: Now, the (64,000 $) question is whether that quality of its inbuilt deterioration can ever be stopped. Can the brain cells renew themselves in spite of their (time-binding ) conditioning? In spite of the agonies, failures, miseries, and all the complexities of this modern world in which we live, can the brain renew itself so as to achieve its (true?) originality? (By ‘originality’ is meant not a sense of egotistic individuality, but the sense of its 'origin'.)

PJ: Would you say that the brain cells of the baby are 'original' in that sense?

K: No, of course not (necessarily?)

PJ: So, what is meant by the 'originality' of the brain cells?

K: The word ‘original’—what does it mean? Unique? Special?

PJ: A quality of 'the first time'.

K: Yes, a pristine quality, uncontaminated by (brain's past?) knowledge.

PJ: Yes.

K: Can such a brain wipe away its (time-binding ) conditioning and achieve a quality of pristine freshness?

PJ: Scientists say that the brain cells are dying all the time. Therefore the number of brain cells available...

K: But the brain also renews itself. Apparently certain cells die and some others are born. The cells are not dying all the time. Otherwise the brain would go to pieces; it would 'die'.

PJ: The very fact of aging is that the renewal does not keep pace with the dying of the cells.

K: That’s the whole point. Is it possible for a brain that has been conditioned and which therefore has, as you put it, the inbuilt quality of its own deterioration, to renew itself? Can that brain renew itself? Can that inbuilt quality of deterioration 'end', and the brain keep itself young, fresh, alive, with the quality of its 'originality'?

PJ: How would you proceed from there?

K: Before we proceed, I think we have to (take a brief detour?) & go into the question of what is our 'consciousness' - for that is part of our whole being. Not only into the 'being-conscious-of-things', both outwardly and inwardly, but also into the whole 'content' of human consciousness. Without this ( psychologically active?) 'content' there is no (self-centred ) consciousness as we know it. The question is: Can this 'content' which makes up the (self-centred) consciousness end by itself, so that there is a totally different dimension to human consciousness?
Now, the ('psychological') content of consciousness 'is' (constantly active within one's ?) consciousness: ( the constant pursuit of) pleasure, excitement, sensation, reaction, faith, agony, suffering, affection. The whole of that 'is' (consciously or not going on in one's) consciousness. And, as long as this 'content' exists, the brain - because of the ( various ) conflicts (generated) within (one's temporal) consciousness – must wear itself out. And that’s why there is no 'freshness' (no renewal?) in it, he brain ages and dies.

PJ: Is this (psychologically active) 'content' of consciousness identical with the ( memory stored in the?) brain cells?

K: Of course; after all, the brain is a product of time. Now, the question really is whether (this self-centred) consciousness with its content can totally end. That is, can (its inward) conflict totally end?

PJ: But with its conflicts totally ending, will ( the 'psychological ) time' end?

K: Yes. After all, that is what the real thoughtful people have inquired into. They have all asked the question whether time stops, or (in K terms?) whether there is an 'end to time'.

PJ: Yes; so you are talking of the 'ending of time' as ( ending) the psychological process of ( the observer-observed) conflict ?

K: Yes, of course.

PJ: Because that very process is wearing out the brain cells ?

K: That is (implied in the psychological) conflict: the disturbance, the shocks, the pressures.

PJ: So the physical and the psychological are really the same. The pain is physical. The memory of the pain (stored in) consciousness is psychological.

K: Which is also a ( mirror- ) process of the physical. So, it is the psychological as well as the physical which is all this—the reactions which bring about the thought of pain, the thought of agony, the thought of pleasure, the thought of achievement, ambition, belief, faith, and so on...

PJ: ...that creates (constant conflict & ) disturbance in the human brain ?

K: Yes, and the brain has also its own (neuro-) chemical reactions to protect itself.

PJ: Yes. And so is ( the memory of ?) 'time' inbuilt in the brain cells.

K: Yes. So what were we trying to investigate together?

PJ: What is it that will bring this quality of ( re-)birth into the brain?

K: Let’s be clear what we mean by ‘birth’. Do we mean by ‘birth’ a new, fresh element entering the brain?

PJ: By using the words (a 'new) birth’ I am suggesting freshness, purity...

K: Be careful. What do you mean by ‘birth’? A baby is born but its brain has already the quality (tendencies & ) and tradition of its father, its mother.

PJ: But birth also has the quality of the new. It was not (manifested) , and now it 'is'.

K: You are using ‘birth’ in the sense of the 'old' being born. The ancient brain—which is neither yours nor mine, because it is universal—is reborn in a baby.

PJ: Yes, but what is born in a brain that is free of time ? Is it the ancient that is reborn?

K: Let’s be clear, Pupul, whether it is possible to be free the brain of its ( time binding) conditioningthat has brought about its own decay? And, also, is it possible for that ( awakened ?) consciousness to totally end all its conflicts? For only then will it be possible to have a new birth.

Do you follow what I’m saying ? As long as one’s consciousness, is ( solidly entangled) in conflict, no new element can enter into it. Do you see the (inward truth of the ) fact that as long as I am fighting, fighting, struggling to become something...

PJ: Yes, I think one sees that.

K: Now, if one actually sees this 'inwardly' (with mind's eye?) , then the next question arises whether it is possible to 'end it'—end suffering, end fear, and so on.

PJ: You see, you can 'end' it—end suffering, and all that and yet diminishing.

K: Then...we mean two different things by ‘ending’.

PJ: Ending what?

K: Ending that ‘which is’ (going on) —which is my ( self-conflicted) consciousness. All the thoughts that I have had, all the complexities that have been accumulated through time—the ending of all that. And we’ll have to be clear what we mean by ‘ending’. Do you end all ‘that which is' (going on inertially?) by a deliberate act of will, because of a (higher?) purpose, or some superior goal?

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, when an ending actually happens, the 'standing still' of the (temporal) mind happens without any reason. It is not due to any single cause. So, is it that you throw yourself to chance?

K: No. No. Let’s be clear first, Pupulji. What do we mean by ‘ending’? Does this 'ending' create ( high expectations for) its opposite?

PJ: No.

K: Be careful ! Generally I end 'this' in order to get 'that'.

PJ: No. I am not talking about that ( conditional) ending....

K: I mean by ‘ending’ the total perception of ( the actual truth regarding ) ‘that which is’. In other words, having a complete perception of that ( time-bound) consciousness which is (operating ) inside. This total 'insight' has no motive, no remembrance; it is an immediate perception, and in the ending of it, there is something beyond, which is not touched by thought. That’s what I mean by ‘ending’.

PJ: Is it the million years (brain?) which you call the ‘ancient’?

K: That’s part of the ancient brain—of course, naturally.

PJ: Is it that the (transpersonal?) totality of that 'million years' (of life experience) sees itself?

K: Yes, that’s right. That (to make that happen?) is the real question. Let’s (try to) make it a little simpler & definite. Do we see the point that our consciousness has been cultivated (to optimise its survival) through time and any reaction towards the 'ending' of that is (entailing?) a further series of reactions. Which is, if I desire (or plan?) to end it, then that very desire creates (the mental image of) another object to be gained.

PJ: Yes...

K: Can there be a possibility of perceiving (this 'ending' ?) without the movement of (projecting a reward in the?) future? Do you understand what I mean? ( The psychological) ending has no 'future'. There is only ending. But the ( million years old?) brain says, ‘I cannot end that way, because I need ( to think about my) future (in order ) to survive’.

PJ: Yes, because inbuilt in it, is the 'future'.

K: Of course. So ( in the meditational context ?) is there an ending to the psychological demands, conflicts, and so on, without the thought of the future? Is there an ending to all this without the thought, ‘What will happen (to me ) if I end (or 'leave' the field of the 'known') ?’ You see, we generally give up something if we are guaranteed something else. I’ll give up, for example, ( my ego-centric ?) suffering, if you guarantee me that I’ll be happy with the ending of it, or if there is some extraordinary reward awaiting me. This is because my whole brain, my whole ( survivalistic) consciousness, is based on the notion of reward and punishment. Punishment is the ending and reward is the gaining. So, as long as these two (time-binding) elements exist in the ( mentality of the ) brain, its present (psychological condition ?) modified, will go on, will continue.

PJ: Right.

K: So, can these two (time-binding?) principles of reward and punishment 'end' so that, when ( the psychological causation of one's ) suffering ends, the brain is not seeking a future ( rewarding?) existence in 'paradise'?

PJ: But even if it is not seeking a future in paradise, suffering itself corrodes the brain.

K: Yes. But you see, Pupulji, it is very important to understand that the brain is constantly seeking security (in terms of time). That’s why tradition, remembrance, the past, have extraordinary significance. Right? The brain needs security. The baby needs security. Security being food, clothes, shelter and also ( culturally enhanced by) the faith in God, our in some ideal of a better society in the future. So, the ( million tears old) brain says, ‘I must have deep security; otherwise I can’t function (properly) ’. But just look at it : physically there is no ( 'fool-proof' ?) security, because eventually, you are going to die. And 'psychologically' too there is no actual security (in terms of time?) at all.

PJ: But I still say that there is one central demand (that needs to be provided ?)

K: What is this central demand?

PJ: The central demand is to have a mind, to have a brain, which has the flavour of a new existence.

K: Who demands it? Who actually wants (to create) such a brain? Not the vast majority of people. They only say, ‘Please, let us stay as we are’.

PJ: We are not talking here about the 'vast majority'. I am discussing it with you, or X is discussing with you. And what I am getting at is that there are many ways of getting security.

K: Pupul, I question whether (inwardly) there is ( a permanent?) 'security' in the sense we want it.

PJ: Sir, the brain will never understand this, because (this sense of time is ) inbuilt in it...

K: That is why I am saying that ( a totally insightful ?) perception is important.

PJ: Perception of what?

K: The ( direct?) perception of what actually ‘is’ actually going on around me, physically, outwardly, and what is going on or happening psychologically, inwardly—that is, of ‘what is’. Now the ( 64,000 $) question is: Can ‘what is’ be transformed? ‘What is’ is my ( self-centred temporal ?) consciousness which is part of the brain.

PJ: So, the 'emptying' of that (self-centred?) consciousness...

K: That’s the whole point. Is that possible? Is it possible to 'empty' the whole of my (psychological memory of the ) past? The whole ( psychologically active?) content of my consciousness 'is' the past, which may project ( itself in?) the future, but this 'future' still has its roots in the past. Do you understand?

PJ: Yes...

K: Now, is it possible to empty out everything? This is really a tremendous ( experiential) question : is it possible not to have (to carry on?) the psychological burden of a 'thousand' ( thousands of?) yesterdays?
The 'ending' of that ( self-sustained continuity?) is (allowing?) the beginning of the 'new'. The ending of that 'is' the new.

PJ: Is the problem ( consisting) in the 'burden' or in the 'thousand yesterdays'?

K: The thousand(s) of yesterdays 'is' the burden. You cannot separate the two.

PJ: Now, the ( residual memory of the ) thousands of 'yesterdays' is a fact. The 'burden' is because I have given a special (personal?) content to many of the experiences I have had.

K: Just a minute. Would there be the (psychological burden of the ) thousand yesterdays if there was no remembrance of the (all the personal & collective?) sorrows held in those thousand (of thousands of?) days?

PJ: One can try to separate the ( factual memory of the ) 'thousands yesterdays' from their ( psychological?) burden.

K: Show me how.

PJ: Let us take one’s own life. You can 'cut away' the (objective memory of the ) thousand yesterdays from the ( psychological memory of the ) pain, from the sorrow, which is the 'burden'.

K: Can 'you' cut away?

PJ: It is possible to understand what one has to do with the superficial memories of the yesterdays.

K: But does this end the ( psychological memory of the ) 'thousands yesterdays' with all their superficialities, their pettiness, their narrowness, brutality, cruelty, ambitions, and so on? Who or what is the entity that is cutting?

PJ: Why do you draw a distinction between the ending (the psychological momentum of) ‘what is’ and the cutting away?

K: ‘Ending’ to me implies that there is no continuation (in a modified form?) of something that has been. ‘Cutting away’ implies two parts of the same thing.
So, how is it possible to completely end the whole (time-binding?) 'content' of human consciousness which has grown through millennia – all this (self-sustained burden of ?) confusion, vulgarity, coarseness, pettiness and the triviality of our stupid lives.
(In a nutshell:) is it possible to end all (one's existential?) conflict?

PJ: Yes, there is an ending to conflict.

K: But is it really an 'ending' or merely a 'forgetfulness' of that which has been and which has caused conflict?

PJ: You mean to say, sir, that the very fact of the 'ending of conflict' is the birth of the new?

K: Yes. But do you 'see' all the implications of conflict? Do you see the depth of it, not just the superficiality? The superficiality is merely to say 'I don’t belong to this country or that country' or to this religion or that religion. I am not speaking of the ending of superficial things. I am talking of (ending) what is deeply imbedded.

PJ: You are talking ( holistically?) of 'conflict' as (one's inner sense of?) separation from another ?

K: Yes, as separateness, as ( self-) isolation which inevitably breeds conflict. That is the real thing (to be dealt with experientially?) ) . When there is no conflict, can all ( our psychological) problems end? And when such a problem arises, can one end it immediately? Problems mean 'conflict'.

PJ: Why do 'problems' arise?

K: (Ethymologically) a 'problem' is something thrown at you, a challenge which you have to face (& deal with)

PJ: Yes.

K: We ( generally try to?) resolve a problem intellectually or physically (materially ?) —which ( more often than not?) creates still further problems.

PJ: You mean to say, sir, for the 'birth of the new'...( there has to be the 'ending of the old'?)

K: Yes, you’re getting it. And, therefore, the birth of the new is ( allowing the unfolding of ?) the most ancient.

PJ : Would you say a little more about it (for our fine readers?) ?

K: See, Pupul, this is really a question of whether the brain can ever be free from its own (temporal) bondage. After all, ending something is not total freedom. Right? I can end, for example, my ( psychological) hurts. I can end them, very simply. But the ( self-protective) images that I have created about myself, those images keep getting hurt.

PJ: Yes...

K: So, the 'maker of the images' (brain's self-centred thinking?) is the problem. So the thing is to live a life without a single 'image'. Then there will be no hurt, no fear, and if there is no fear, there will be no ( need for psychological) safety or comfort—God, and all the rest of it.
Would you say that the origin of all life is the ancient of ancients, beyond all thought of old or new? Would you say that that is the origin of all life and when the (meditating?) mind—which includes the brain—reaches that point, it is the Ground (of one's Being) which is totally original, new, uncontaminated? My question (for homework meditation ?) is whether it is possible for the ( new human ?) mind to reach that.

Meditation has been one of the means to reach it. The silencing of the mind has been one of the ways through which man hopes to bring it about. But what (is new in what) I’m saying is that (the authentic meditation) requires no effort. The very word ‘effort’ means conflict. 'That' which has no conflict, cannot be approached through conflict.

PJ: In tis sense, sir, does it mean that there is no partial approach at all in your teaching?

K: How can there be? If I were to approach 'It' (Truth?) through the various ( personalised?) paths which the Hindus have discovered—karma, yoga, and the rest, all of which are partial—I would never be able to approach it.

PJ: Then what does one do? I am an ordinary human being—what do I do?

K: That is the real ( crux of the ) problem. 'You' cannot do anything. You can only do physical activities. Psychologically ( inwardly) 'you' cannot do anything (to reach it?) .

PJ: So... what can one do (negatively?) ?

K: (For starters?) If there is no psychological fear, there will be no ( inner sense of) division.

PJ: Yes, but the fact is that there is psychological fear.

K: That’s just it. A ( self-centred?) mind, a brain, which has lived in psychological isolation and all its attendant conflicts, can never possibly come to that Ground, which is the Origin of all Life. Obviously not. How can my petty mind, worrying about my beastly little self...?

PJ: Then the whole of our (earthly?) life is so futile, sir. If after doing everything, I haven’t even taken the first step, then where am I?

K: What is the first step? Just go into it.

PJ: I would say that the first step is seeing ‘whatever is (going on inwardly )’.

K: Seeing ‘what is’. And how do you approach it? For on that depends the seeing of the totality of ‘what is’. If you see the totality of ‘what is’, it is finished.

PJ: But sir, it doesn’t just work out like that.

K: Of course not. Because our thoughts are fragmented; therefore you approach life, or ‘what is’ actually with your fragmented mind, fragmented brain...

PJ: But I’ll say that with time the inner fragmention gets less and it is possible when we listen to you, for the mind to be still, for the mind not to make any movement, not to make any effort. But if that’s not even the first step....

K: The first step is to observe or to perceive ( non-dualistically the?) ‘what is’. That is where I would begin—by seeing ( the inward truth?) that I lead a life of fragmentation. (Pause) You see, Pupul, if I were to perceive ‘what is’ partially, that would lead to further complications. Right? Partial perception creates (its own) problems. Now, is it possible to see the whole complex of ‘what is’? Is it possible to look at life as a whole without ( the observer-observed?) fragmentation? Pupul, that is the crux.

(To recap:) The real question is whether a human being can live a life in which there is no fragmentary action. If somebody were to ask, ‘Where am I to begin?’ I would say, ‘Begin there; find out for yourself if you lead a fragmentary life’. Do you know what a fragmentary life is? It is saying one thing and doing another. A fragmented way of living is isolation; therefore you have no relationship with your husband or wife; you have no relationship with the rest of humanity. So, begin there. Do you know what a tremendous inquiry you have to make ( for homework?) to find out?

PJ: What is this ( homework?) 'inquiry'?

K: To observe very clearly, without any bias, without any (preset ?) direction, without any motive, how my life is fragmented. It is just to observe it, and not to say, ‘I must not be fragmented and, therefore, I must be whole’. The idea of 'becoming whole' is another fragmentation.

PJ: So the birth of the New...

K: Is not possible unless you see (the inward truth of ?) this.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 12 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 May 2019 #26
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue from Commentaris on Living 3-rd series: cca 1955)

He was young and very earnest and after hearing the previous evening’s talk, he had decided to come along to discuss about the meaning and significance of meditation.

Q: Although I have read about the various types of meditation (highly recommended?) for different temperaments, and have evolved a way of controlling the vagrant thoughts I am not foolish enough to imagine that what I am doing is really meditation. I have also practised a little yoga as a means of quieting the mind: special breathing exercises, repeating certain (magic ?) words and chants, and so on. The (bottom line) is: I am really interested in practising
meditation, it has become vital to me and I want to know more about it.

K: Meditation has significance only when there’s an understanding of the 'meditator'. In practising what you call 'meditation', the 'meditator' is apart from the meditation, isn’t he? Is it inevitable, or must this gap be bridged? Without really understanding the truth or the falseness of this apparent division, the end results of so-called meditation are similar to those which can be brought about by any tranquillizer that is taken to quiet the mind.

Q : You sem to wipe away at one stroke all the yogic exercises, the traditional systems of meditation that have been practised and advocated through the centuries by the many saints and ascetics. How
can they all be wrong?

K: To understand what (the insight-based ?) meditation is, there must be (an inward) questioning, inquiry; and mere acceptance destroys inquiry. You have to see for yourself the false as the false, and the truth in the false and the truth as the truth; for nobody can instruct you concerning it. Meditation is (or...should be?) part of one's daily existence, and the fullness and beauty of life can only be understood through meditation. Without understanding the whole complexity of life, and one's everyday reactions from moment to moment, meditation becomes a process of self-hypnosis. Meditation of the heart is ( beginning with?) the understanding of daily problems. You can’t go very far if you don’t begin very near.

Q: I can understand that and I have endeavoured in my daily life to remove the obvious barriers, like greed, envy, and so on, and to my own surprise I have managed to put aside the 'things of the world'. But surely, sir, meditation is something far greater than merely laying the right foundation.

K: That may be (very true?) ; but ( a glimpse of) its totality (should be present?) at the very beginning. It is not that one must first lay the right foundation, and then build, or first be free from envy, and then ‘arrive’. (The way of ?) Meditation in itself is timeless, it is not a way of arriving at a timeless state. But these are mere words, and they will remain as such as long as you don’t understand for yourself the truth or the falseness of the 'meditator'.

Q: Why is that so important?

K: The 'meditator' ( entity ? ) is the (all-controlling ) 'centre', and from there he weaves the net of thought; but thought itself has made him; thought has brought about this gap between the thinker and the thought. Unless this (dualistic?) division ceases, so-called 'meditation' only strengthens the centre, the 'experiencer' who is always craving more experience; each experience strengthens the accumulation of past experiences, which in turn dictates, shapes the present experience. Thus the (time-bound) mind is ever conditioning itself. So ( the accumulation of) experience and knowledge are not the liberating factors that they are supposed to be.

Q: I’m afraid I don’t understand all this.

K: The (meditating?) mind is free (of time?) only when it is no longer conditioned by its (past) experiences, by knowledge, by vanity, envy; and (the first task of?) meditation is the freeing of the mind from all these self-centred activities and influences.

Q: I realize that the mind must be free from all self-centred activities, but I do not quite follow what you
mean by 'influences'.

K: Your mind is the result of (your cultural) influences, isn’t it? From childhood your mind is influenced by the food you eat, by the climate you live in, by your parents, by the books you read, by the cultural environment in which you are educated, and so on. Your mind is a result of time, which is memory, knowledge. All ( self-centred?) 'experiencing' is a process of interpreting in terms of the past, of the known, and so there’s no freedom from the known; there is only a modified continuity of what has been. The ( meditating?) mind is free only when this continuity comes to an end.

Q: But how does one know that one’s mind is free?

K: This very desire to be certain, to be secure, is the beginning of (mind's temporal) bondage. It’s only when the mind is not ( comfortably installed or?) caught in the net of certainty, that it is in a state of discovery.

Q: The mind does want to be certain about everything, and I see now how (in the meditative context?) this desire can be a hindrance.

K: What is important is to 'die' to everything that one has accumulated (psychologically?) , for this accumulation 'is' (becoming ) the 'self', the ego, the ‘me’. Without the ending of this (kind of) accumulation there is the continuity of the desire to be certain, as there is the continuation of the past.

Q: Meditation, I am beginning to see, is not simple. Just to control thought is comparatively easy, and
to worship an image, or to repeat certain words and chants, is merely to put the mind to sleep; but
real meditation seems to be much more complex and arduous than I ever imagined.

K: It is really not 'complex', though it may be arduous. You see, ( what makes it look complex is that?) we don’t start with the 'fact', with what we are actually thinking, doing, desiring, but we start with assumptions or with ideals and so we are led astray. To start with ( the direct perception of the inner?) facts, we need to (give them) close attention. (Hint:) Every form of thinking not originating from the 'actual' (inner facts) is a distraction.

Q: Are not (the mystical) visions such 'actualities'?

K: Are they? Let’s find out. If you are a Christian, your 'visions' follow a certain pattern- you see ( the vision of) Christ according to your conditioning; your education, the culture in which you have been brought up. Which is the 'actuality': the vision, or the (visionary?) mind which has been shaped in a certain mould? The 'vision' is the projection of a particular tradition which happens to form the background of the
( personal or collective?) mind. This conditioning, not the vision which it projects, is the actuality, the 'fact' (that has to be dealt with?) . To understand the (truth regarding this?) 'fact' is simple; but it is made difficult by our likes and dislikes, by the (value?) judgments we have about the fact. To be (mentally?) free of these various forms of ( personal) 'evaluation' is (allowing one ) to understand the actual, the 'what is'.

Q: To use your own words, we are never aware of ourselves as we 'actually are'. I see that you are right, sir. The fact is the one thing that matters.

K: Let us look at the whole problem (of insightful meditation?) differently. What is attention? When are you attentive? And do you ever really pay attention to anything?

Q: I do pay attention when I am seriously interested in something.

K: Is ( self-) interest ( generating the authentic?) attention? A child is absorbed in a toy. Would you call that 'attention'?

Q: Isn’t it?

K: The toy absorbs the interest of the child, it takes over his mind, and he’s getting quiet, no longer restless; but...take away the 'toy', and he again becomes restless, he cries, and so on. Such 'toys' become important (for parents & educators?) because they keep him quiet. It is the same with grownups. Take away their ( favourite?) 'toys' - activity, belief, ambition, the desire for power, the worshipping of (the local?) gods or of the State, or the championing of a (meaningful?) cause - and they too become restless, lost, confused; so the 'toys' of the grownups also become important. Is there ( an authentic) attention when the toy 'absorbs' (or fascinates?) the mind? To understand what ( the authentic?) attention is, we must be concerned with the ( 'facts' of the self-centred?) mind, not with the 'toys' of this mind.

Q: Our ( mental) 'toys', as you call them, hold the mind’s interest.

K: The 'toy' which holds the mind’s interest may be a picture of the Master, or any other 'image' made by
the hand or by the mind; and ( usually?) this 'holding' of the mind’s interest by a ( mental) toy is called concentration. But is such concentration attention? Isn't it rather a narrowing down of the mind? And is this attention?

Q: As I have practised concentration, it is a ( mental) struggle to keep the mind fixed upon a particular point to the exclusion of all other thoughts, all distractions.

K: Is there 'attention' when there is resistance against distractions? Surely, distractions arise only when the mind has lost interest in the toy; and then there’s an (inward) conflict (of interests?) , isn’t there?

Q: Certainly, there’s a (certain amount of inner) conflict to overcome the distractions.

K: Can you pay ( full) attention (to what is going on?) when there’s a conflict going on in the mind?

Q: I am beginning to see what you are driving at ; do please proceed.

K: ( To recap:) When the 'toy' absorbs the mind, there’s no attention; neither is there attention when the mind is struggling to concentrate by excluding distractions. As long as there’s an 'object' of attention, is there attention?

Q: Aren’t you saying the same thing, only using the word ‘object’ instead of ‘toy’?

K: The object, or toy, may be external; but there are also inward toys, are there not?

Q: Yes, sir, and you have enumerated some of them. I am becoming aware of this.

K: A more complex ( mental) toy is (having an open or hidden personal?) motive. Is there attention when there’s a (personal) motive to be attentive?

Q: What do you mean by a 'motive'?

K: A compulsion to action; an urge towards self-improvement, based on fear, greed, ambition, an (ignored?) suffering that makes you want to escape, and so on. Is there attention when some hidden motive is in operation?

Q: When I am compelled to be attentive by pain or pleasure, by fear or the hope of reward, then there’s obviously
no ( authentic ?) attention. Yes, I see what you mean.

K: So there’s no ( free) attention when we approach anything in that manner. And also, does not the word, the
naming process , interfere with attention? For example, do we ever look at the moon without verbalization, or
does the word (blue?) 'moon’ always interfere with our looking? Do we ever 'listen' with full attention,
or do our thoughts interfere with our listening? Do we ever really pay attention to anything? Surely attention has no motive, no object, no toy; no struggle, no verbalization.
This is true attention, is it not? And where there is (such) attention, reality 'is'.

Q: But it is practically impossible to pay such full attention to anything! If one could, there wouldn’t be any (psychological) problems. I can see that every form of inattention only increases the problems, but ( in the context of the real life) what is one to do?

K: ( In a nutshell?) In the seeing of the false there’s the perception of the true; and truth has its own action. All this is ( an excellent subject for homework?) meditation.

Q: If I may say so, sir, I have rightly listened, and have really understood many of the things you have (clearly?)
explained. What was understood will have its own effect, without my interfering with it. I hope I may come again.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 May 2019 #27
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline


P: Could we discuss one of the chief blockages to self-understanding - the factor of self-centred activity?

K: Where there is a ( subliminal identification with a?) 'centre' (of self-interest?) there is a boundary, a (self-protective?) limitation and all action must be within the circle of centre and periphery? That is self-centred activity.

P: What are the boundaries of the 'self'?

K: You can push ( the boundaries of the known?) as far as you like. As long as there is a centre, there is a periphery, but its boundary can be

P: Does that mean, sir, there is no limit to this stretching?

K: This 'centre' (of self-consciousness?) may expand itself through (engaging in) social service, political activities ( and so on & on ?) everything is within that area.

A: The point is, sir, is there an action possible which does not nourish a

K: Or, can there be no ( self-identifying?) 'centre'?

A: Sir, that cannot be said from our position because we start
with having a centre. We can factually say that we know there is
a centre, and every activity nourishes that centre.

K: The ( experiential) point is this: the energy that is expanding (& contracting?) within the circumference and the centre is a limited energy, a mechanistic energy. Do you realise that any (psychologically motivated?) action that takes place within that area is limited, fragmented and therefore a wastage of (intelligent ) energy?

VA: We have been discussing ( pretty 'holistically' about ?) the circumference and the centre. But to realize the actual 'self (- identification' ?) in ourselves would be the first problem.

K: That is the problem, sir. We are selfish entities. We are self-centred
human beings, we think about ourselves, our worries, our
family - we 'are' (subliminally identified with this) 'centre'. We can expand this centre (of self-interest ) to social work, to political work, but it is still the ( same quality of selfishness?) operating.

P: This is a little more subtle to see, because you can concern
yourself with something in which you feel the 'centre' is not

K: But it is still (a sublimated?) 'I' who works for the poor - one is
still working within this limitation (of personal or collective self-interest?) .

P: Sir, I want some clarification. It is not the work for ( helping) the poor
which you are questioning?

K: No. It is my identification with the ( the cause of the ) poor, my self-
identification with the nation, or with some ( noble) ideal and so on, that is the ( hidden aspect of the ) problem.

Apa: Pupulji was actually asking whether this movement of the (self-centred) mind can be stilled? Can this movement of the mind which is exhausted by identification, by the constant movement from the centre to the periphery ( back & forth ), can it be silenced? Is there an ( awakening ) energy which can gush out, which will silence it or make it irrelevant, make it seem a shadow?

K: I don't quite follow this...

P: It is really like this: we have done everything to understand
the nature of this 'self'-centred activity. We have observed, we have
meditated, but this centre does not cease, sir.

K: Because we don't actually 'see', perceive in our heart & in our mind, ( the inward truth?) that any (mental) action ( within the field of the 'known'?) from the centre to the periphery, back and forth, is a wastage of ( intelligent mind?) energy, it must be limited and must bring sorrow. Everything within that area is ( openly or subliminally generating) sorrow. We don't see that.

P: Sir, if (self-interest) is part of ( the biological conditioning of ) our brain cells and if it is the action of our brain cells to constantly throw out these ripples of self-centred existence, then...

K: No, Pupul, the brain needs two things: ( physical) security and a sense of permanency.

P: And... both are provided by the 'self'.

K: That is why it has become very important.

Apa: Sir, the human brain is a physical entity ( seriously entangled?) in its habit of seeking security or ( temporal) continuance. Now, how do you break out of its habits, of its mechanical operations? That is what Pupulji has been hinting at.

K: Any ( calculated ? ) movement to 'break out', is still within the periphery. (However?) is there an action, a 'move' which is not

P: We know states, for instance, when it appears as if the self is
not (present) , but then if the seed of self-centred activity is held within the brain cells, it will repeat itself again. So I say to myself : there
must be another energy, there must be another quality which will
wipe it out.

Apa: Our brains are functioning like (self-interst programmed) computers and our behaviour patterns and actions are conditioned to that. Now, sir, what is the (redeeming ?) energy; is it attention, is it silence, is it exterior, is it interior?

K: Our brain is programmed to function ( cvasi-exclusively within the field of the known?) from the centre to the periphery, from the circumference to the centre, this back-and-forth (self-centred activity). It is trained for that, it is conditioned for that. Is it possible to 'break' that (time-binding ?) momentum of the brain cells? Can this momentum, can this programming of the brain, which
has been conditioned for millennia, can that stop?

Apa: And the brain start deconditioning itself ?

K: The moment it stops, you have broken it. Now, if this momentum of ( self-interest ) stops, is there a (new source of 'mind ) energy' which is without a motive, without a cause, an energy which without these would be endless?

P: And is it possible to investigate (into the source of) that energy?

K: We are going to. Is there ( within the holistically integrated human mind ?) an 'energy' which is not from the centre, an energy which is without a cause, an energy which is inexhaustible and therefore non-mechanical  (freely avalable when?) there an ending of that movement (mechanistic mental activity ) from the centre to the circumference and back and forth, extending or limiting itself ? and so on. We just now said that it ends when the (meditating?) brain stops moving in (any?) direction – but if there is any ( hidden) causation for the stopping, you are back again in the circle (of the known?) . Does that answer your question ? That is, can the ( meditating ?) brain which has been so conditioned for millennia to act ( constantly within the well trodden circle of the known?) from the centre to the periphery and from the periphery to the centre, can that ( psychologically addictive mental ?) movement stop? Now, the next ( redundant?) question could be: Is it possible? I think that is a 'wrong' question (because) when you see the
actual necessity of stopping, when the (meditation-friendly?) brain itself 'sees' the necessity of the movement ceasing, it 'stops'.

Q: Yes, it stops the movement for a while, but then it starts again .

K: No, sir, the moment you say you want it again, you are back
in the centre.

Q: Probably because I want to bring about a permanent stopping ?

K: That is greed. If I see the truth of the fact (regarding) the (holistic necessity of?) ending of that movement, the thing is over. It is not a continuous stoppage. When you want it to be continuous, it is a time movement.

Apa: This (totally insightful?) 'seeing' then is without movement. The (self-centred?) 'seeing' has come to an end. The ( regular?) 'seeing', is it a movement of the centre?

K: ( To recap:) Seeing, observing the whole movement of the centre to the circumference, from the circumference to the centre, that
movement is 'what is'.

Apa: But the (insightful?) seeing is without any centre.

K: Of course.

Q: So, sir, this seeing is of a different dimension altogether.

K: There is (this total) perception when you are aware without any (personal attitude or?) choice. Just be ( contemplatively?) aware of this mental movement. The ( survivalistic brain?) programme stops. Let
us leave that.
Pupul's ( bonus?) question is: Is there a ( timeless Mind -) Energy which is non-mechanical, which has no causation, and therefore an energy that is constantly renewing itself?

VA: That is the energy of 'death'.

K: 'Death' in the sense of 'ending'? The total ending of this
movement from the centre to the circumference, that is ( a psychological) death, in one sense. Is that the energy which is causeless?

VA: There is a sense of 'timelessness' at that point in time.

K: Yes, sir. Then, what takes place?

VA: Then again thought comes back.

K: And so, you are back again (in the circle of the 'known' as the 'thinker') moving from the centre to the periphery.

VA: Eventually, one gets afraid of that particular (experience) happening again because it is like total death.

K: It has happened without your invitation.

VA: Yes.

K: Now, you are inviting it.

VA: I don't know whether I am inviting it or whether I am
afraid of it.

K: Afraid or inviting it is still within the field of the (self-centred activity) . That is all.

The other ( bonus question that ?) Pupulji raised was about an 'endless
journey'. ( En clair?) you wanted to discuss about 'kundalini'?

P: Yes, sir.

K: If you really want to have an (open) dialogue about kundalini, would you forget everything you have heard about it before?)
Then you have to enquire, really not knowing anything about

Q: We just wanted to know whether there is an ( available spiritual ) energy that can wipe out conditioning.

K: So long as self-centred activity exists, you cannot touch it.
That is why I ( generally avoid?) any discussion on kundalini or whatever that energy is, because we have not done the 'spade work'. We don't lead a ( selfless?) life of correctness and we want to add something new to it and so to carry on our ( psychological) mischief (at higher levels?) .

VA: Even after awakening kundalini, the self-centred activity

K: I question whether the ( real?) kundalini is awakened.

P: But do you know of such an energy when self-centred activity ends?
We just assumed that this is the source of this endless energy.It may not

K: Are you saying that the complete ending of this movement from the centre to the circumference and from the circumference to the centre, the
ending of that, is (triggering?) the release of that energy which is limitless?

P: I didn't say that.

K: I am saying that. ( But first?) can we put the 'kundalini' energy in its right place? A number of people have the experience of what they call (the awakening of) 'kundalini'. I question whether it is an actual reality or some kind of ( para-) physiological activity which is then attributed to kundalini. You live an immoral life of vanity, sex, etc. and
then you say that your kundalini is awakened. But your self-centred life, continues....

P: Sir, the awakening of kundalini is (traditionally) linked to ( the activation of?) certain 'psychic centres' (chakras) located at certain physical parts of the body. The first question I would like to ask is whether that is so? Has the release of this (timeless?) energy, which has no end, anything to do with the psychic centres in the physical parts of the body?

A: I say, sir, that before we ask that question, there is in the
Indian (spiritual) tradition a word which I think is very valuable. That word is 'adhikar'. Adhikar means that the person must cleanse himself
sufficiently before he can pose this question to himself. It is a
question of ( inner) cleansing .

K: Are you saying that unless there is an actual stoppage of this
movement from the centre to the circumference, Pupulji's question is not valid?

A: I think so.

P: I take it that when one asks this question, there is a depth of
self-knowing with which one asks. If one's life has not gone
through a certain degree of inner balance, anything that K says has no (experiential) meaning. When one listens to Krishnaji, one receives at the depth to which one has exposed oneself, and therefore I think it is right to ask about this ( kundalini?) question. Why is it more 'dangerous' than inquiring into what is thought or what is meditation? To the
mind which will comprehend, it will comprehend this and that. To
the mind which will not comprehend, it will comprehend neither.
And to the mind which wants to misuse, it will misuse anything.

K: Unless your everyday life is a completely non 'self-centred'
way of living, the 'other' cannot possibly come in.

P: Why has this question awakened so many (negative?) ripples? Most
people go through a great deal of psychic experiences in the
process of self-knowing. One has understood because one has listened to Krishnaji, that all 'psychic' experiences when they arise, have to be put aside.

K: Is that understood? ( The craving for?) 'psychic' experience must be totally put aside.

Q: Sir, I want to ask a (pre-bonus?) question. Taking for granted that one is leading a holistic life, is there something like kundalini?

K: Sir, are you living a holistic life?

Q: No.

K: Therefore, don't that question.

P: I was asking from a totally different point. As it is generally understood, 'kundalini' is the awakening of certain psychic energies which are (located ) at certain physical points in the human body, and if it is possible to awaken these (dormant) psychic energies, as they go through these various psychophysical states and centres, they can transcend ( the temporal) consciousness, and when they finally break through, they pierce through self-centred activity.

K: I would put it the other ( holistically correct?) way. Unless the self-centred movement stops, the 'other' can't be.

A: The whole Hatha yoga tradition has engendered a belief that by manipulating these centres, you can do (lots of psychical ?) things. The whole idea is based on a wrong belief.

P: As it does not seem possible to proceed with this discussion, may I put another ( optional bonus?) question? What is the nature of the (inner) field which needs to be prepared, to be able to receive 'that' which is limitless?

K: Are you cultivating the 'soil of the mind', in order to receive it?

P: I understand your question. But I can neither say yes nor no
to it.

K: Then, why call it (kundalini) energy and bring the word 'soil'? Work at it. We live an (inner) life of ( inner) conflict, misery. Therefore
( for meditation spadework ?) find out if you can end the whole of human sorrow and enquire into the nature of compassion.

P: I have asked : What is the nature of the soil of the human mind which has to be cultivated to receive the 'other'? You tell me that is also a wrong question. You say I am in conflict, I am suffering and I see that a
life of conflict and suffering has no end.

K: That is all. If it cannot end, then wanting to awaken the 'other' in order to 'wipe this out' is a wrong process. It is asking an outside agency to come and clear up your house.
I say : in the process of cleaning this house (of residual selfishness & sorrow ?) , there are a great many things that are going to happen. You will have 'clairvoyance', the so-called 'siddhis' and all the rest of it. They will all happen (some time or other ?) . But if you are getting caught in (indulging in ?) them, you cannot proceed further. If you are not caught in them, the 'heavens' are open to you.
Pupul has asked : is there a 'soil' that has to be prepared ? ( Definitely : ) Clean the (inner) house so completely that there isn't ( even) a shadow of escape. Then, if you are doing that, working at the ending of sorrow, and you come along and ask is there something known as kundalini power, then I am willing to listen.

So, is there ( within the human psyche?) an 'energy' which is nonmechanistic, which is endlessly renewing itself? I say there is. Most
definitely. But it is not what you may call 'kundalini'.
(For starters?) the body must be sensitive. If you are working, clearing up the (inner) house, the body becomes very sensitive and then it has its own intelligence. Then, is there an (Intelligent 'mind?) energy'
which is renewing itself all the time, which is not mechanistic,
which has no cause, which has no beginning and therefore no
ending. It is an eternal movement. I say there is. But... what value has that to you? Will you go off into ( fantasising about) that and not clear up the house?

P: That means, sir, that to the person who enquires seriously, the ending of suffering is essential ?

K: The only (homework meditation ?) job. The 'Other' is the most sacred thing, therefore 'you' can't (afford to?) invite It.
Clearing the house demands a tremendous (inward) discipline, it demands a tremendous ( presence of?) attention. Then you will see a totally different kind of thing taking place, ( the awakening of?) a ( highly intelligent?) energy in which there is no repetition, an (self-sustained?) energy that isn't coming and going. ( Meditation-wise this?) ) implies, keeping the mind completely empty. Can you do that?
Then, there is that energy. You don't even have to ask for it. When there
is ( a free inner) space, it is empty and therefore full of energy.
So, in cleansing the (inner) house of sorrow, can the mind be
completely empty, without any motive, without any desire? When
you are working at this & keeping the house clean, other things come
naturally. That is ( the true purpose of ) meditation.

P: And the nature of 'that' is the transformation of the human mind ?

K: You see as Apa Saheb was saying, we are programmed by
centuries of ( survival oriented) conditioning. When you pull the plug out of the computer, it can't function any more.
Now, the question is: Can that 'centre', which is (the focussing of collective ) selfishness, end? When the movement of the ( self-centred) mind from the centre to the periphery stops, ( the 'psychological' projection of ) time stops.
( In a nutshell?) When there is no movement (no further temporal projection ? ) of selfishness, there is ( the awakening of ) a totally different kind of ( inwardly creative?) 'movement'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #28
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

Biological Survival and the Holistic Intelligence

( a reader-friendly edited K dialogue, cca 1971)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): In his talk of yesterday Krishnaji seemed to suggest that before any movement in the new dimension could take place, a total stripping to the bare bedrock was essential. In a sense he was back to a totally materialistic position.

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): We know both biological and psychological survival. But the factors for psychological survival make the biological survival ( of all human beings ) almost impossible. Psychological fragmentation is destroying the beauty of survival. Can one strip man's (consciousness ) of the psychological factors?

PJ: Isn't any other element (in the human consciousness ?) apart from the (concern for ) biological and psychological (survival) ?

K: As far as we know it, ( in his everyday existence) these are the only two factors that operate in man.

MF: Is there not, apart from the physiological factor, such a thing as 'psychological' survival?

K: The 'psyche' (the temporal self?) is the result of the environment and of heritage. Last evening, we said that the whole of man's consciousness 'is' (driven by its psychologically active?) content. The content of consciousness is conflict, pain; the whole of that is consciousness.

PYD: You also said that intelligence is more than consciousness.

K: We said that understanding the 'fact' of (one's temporal) consciousness and going beyond its (limitations?) is Intelligence. You cannot come to that intelligence if this consciousness is in ( a state of ) conflict. All that we know for now is (the daily struggle for?) biological survival and (for) the survival of our 'psychological' consciousness. What is the next question?

PJ: You implied yesterday that there was a necessity to strip (this temporal) consciousness of everything save the factors which ensure biological survival.

K: Can you strip that whole content of consciousness which is psychological? In that 'stripping', ( a different quality of ) intelligence operates, Then there remain only the factors which ensure biological survival and ( a holistic?) Intelligence—there is no other.

PJ: You did not speak about this 'intelligence' yesterday. You said: When there is a total stripping of (the psychologically active content of ) consciousness and nothing else remains, what is in operation is the movement which perceives. Is there such a 'seeing'?

K: Then the mind is not merely the survival-element, but there is another quality in it which perceives.

PJ: What is that quality?

K: What did K say yesterday?

PJ: He said that after the stripping away of (the psychological content of) consciousness, there is only the movement of survival and silence. And that silence 'sees'.

K: Perfectly true. We have also said that that Intelligence is beyond ( the self-centred temporal) consciousness and when the mind is stripped of the psychological elements, in the very stripping, there is the uncovering (awakening ) of this (holistic) intelligence; intelligence comes into being in the very stripping. This (holistic) Intelligence has no heritage, but the (time-bound ) consciousness has a ( million years of survivalistic ?) heritage. Within the field of ( this temporal) consciousness, we are caught in becoming; we are (constantly) trying to become something (or somebody) within that field. Let the mind empty itself of all that (endless struggle for psychological becoming) . In this very emptying comes ( the quality of compassionate?) Intelligence. Therefore (in the absence of further psychological conflicts ) there are only two things left: the highest form of intelligence and ( the concern for the physical) survival, which is very different from living like a (lonely ? ) animal. Man is able to think (creatively), design, construct.

PJ: Do you mean to say that there is an ( awakening of ) Intelligence which manifests itself in the action of stripping consciousness?

K: Listen carefully. My ( self-centred) consciousness is all the time (keeping itself busy by ?) trying to become (something or other) , to change, to modify, to struggle, and so on. That and biological survival are all that I know. Everybody operates within these two. And within that struggle, we project ( the existence of) something beyond ( our self-conflicted ) consciousness; but that is still within consciousness because it is projected.
(In a nutshell:) The ( holistically friendly ?) mind that really wants to be free from all this wrangle, ( and also?) from the back-chattering asks itself : Can the mind strip itself of its own ( psychologically active ) content? That is all. And ( the awakening of a holistic ?) intelligence comes to being in that asking.

PJ: Is this 'emptying' an endless process?

K: Certainly not. If it were an endless process, I would be caught in the same phenomenon .

PJ: Is the choiceless awareness of a (particular content) of one's consciousness - such as jealousy - ( necessarily leading to seeing) the totality of consciousness?

K: If you mean being aware of all the implications—a state where there is no choice, no will, no compulsion, no resistance—obviously it is so.

PJ: So, at any point this is possible.

K: Of course.

PJ: Yes, because that is the ( experiential) 'door'—the door of dissolution.

K: Hold it a minute. My consciousness is part of the whole (consciousness of mankind ?) , both at the superficial and at the deeper level. You are asking: Is there any awareness which is so penetrating that in that very awareness the 'whole' is present? Or is there a looking in, an analysing?

PYD: The yogic position is that nature is a flowing river. In that flow, man’s organism comes into being. As soon as it comes into being, it has also the capacity to choose. And the moment it chooses, it separates itself from the flow, from the river. This is a process of separation from the flow, and the only thing which brings this into being is choice. Therefore, they say that the dissolution of choice may bring you to total emptiness and that in that emptiness you see.

K: Right sir, that is one point. But Pupul’s question was: does this (transpersonal ?) awareness in which there is no choice, empty the whole of consciousness? Does it go beyond consciousness?

PJ: My first question was : Is there an end to the 'stripping' (of the psychological content) ? And the second question was: Where there is intelligence, is there ( a need for) stripping?

K: Let us begin again (from square one) . My ( self-centred) consciousness is used to the process of (personal growth in ?) time, it thinks in terms of gradualness - practice, and through practice achieve (a superior condition) —which is (the mentality of) time; my consciousness 'is' a process of time.
Now I am asking whether this (time-bound) consciousness can go beyond this. Can we, who are caught in the movement ( mentality of evolving in ) of time, go beyond time? ( The temporal) consciousness cannot answer that question ; it does not know what it means to go beyond time because it only thinks in terms of time. So, when questioned whether the process can end—leading to a state in which there is no time—it cannot answer, can it?

Now, since ( the temporal) consciousness cannot answer the question, we say: Let us see what 'awareness' is and investigate whether that awareness can bring about a timeless state. But this brings in new elements: What is this 'awareness'? Is it within the field of time, or is it outside the field of time? Is there in this awareness an 'observer', the 'one who chooses'? So, is there a ( choice-free awareness) in which the observer is totally absent? Obviously there is. If I am aware of that lamp, I do not have to choose when I am aware of it. ( Similarly) is there an (trans-personal inner ) awareness in which the observer is totally absent? ( Hint:) Not a 'continuous' state of awareness in which the observer is absent, which again is a fallacious (a thought projected?) statement.

ACHYUT PATWARDHAN (AP): The traditional term for this is 'svar?pa ??nyat?'—the 'observer' becomes empty.

K: Now, is this (transpersonal?) awareness to be ( developped & ) cultivated? ( If not?) how does this ( holistically friendly ?) awareness in which there is no 'observer' come into being (occur) ? How is it to come about without ( the temporal?) consciousness interfering? Does it come out of ( the self-centred) consciousness or it is free of it ?

PJ: Does it come about when I ask ''Who am I ?'' ? Or, does (the quality of transpersonal) awareness come about when one tries to discover the (mental mechanism of the?) observer?
In fact, you can strip ( the self-centred ) consciousness at any point—where is the 'observer'? We are taking it for granted that the 'observer' is there . What is the element in my consciousness which seems to me the most potent and powerful? It is the sense of the ‘I’.

K: Which is the ( self-identification with the memory of the ) past.

PJ: I will try not to use your language. Can there be a perception of the ‘I’?

K: Is the ‘I’ the central factor in consciousness?

PJ: It seems so. And then I say: Let me see the ‘I’, let me find it, perceive it, touch it.

K: So you are asking: Is this central factor perceivable by the senses? Or, is that central factor, the ‘I’, something (a virtual image?) which (thought & the ) senses have invented (created) ?

PJ: That comes later. First of all, I want to see whether it can be touched. And ( eventually?) I find that it is not something which can be touched or perceived. All that can be perceived is a (post-facto) manifestation of this ‘I’. Then I explore: From where does thought emerge? Can I pursue a thought? How far can I go with a thought? How far can I hold a thought? Can thought be held in consciousness? These are tangible things which the ( spiritually earnest) individual has to ( meditate & ) completely feel for himself.

K: Let us be ( holistically?) simple. Is the ‘I’ ( the temporal self-consciousness located ?) within the ( memory ) field of the senses? Or, have the senses created the ‘I’?

PJ: The very fact that it is not within the field of the senses...

K: Do not move away from that. Is it not also within the field of the senses? We jump too quickly.

PJ: Anyway, I find that the very investigation into the ‘I’ creates light; it creates ( a free inner space for?) intelligence.

K: You are saying that the (non-dualistic self-) inquiry brings about awareness. Obviously. I did not say that it did not.

PJ: And, in this inquiry, one can only use certain instruments, which are the senses. Whether the inquiry is outside or within, the only instruments which can be used are the senses - the seeing, listening, feeling—and the field of the without and the field of the within are illuminated. Now, in this state of (timeless) illumination, you suddenly find that there has been a thought (or...a whole train of thoughts?) , but that it is already over. So, your (purely academical question?) ''is the stripping partial or total ?'' has no ( experiential) meaning.

K: I am not sure. Is perception partial? I have investigated through the senses—the (integrated perception of the ) senses investigating the ‘I’. This ( meditative?) , activity brings some inner clarity.

PJ: I would not use the words ‘some clarity’, but ‘clarity’.

K: It brings clarity. But this perception is not only visual but also 'non-visual'. We said that the perception is that which illuminates.

PJ: I would like to ask you (a bonus question?) . What is the nature of this 'non-visual' seeing?

K: The 'non-visual' perception does not pertain to thought. It is without meaning, without expression, without thought. Is there such a perception without thought? Now proceed.

PJ: There is a (visual) perception that can see close, that can see far.

K: Wait. We are talking of a perception which is non-visual, which is neither deep nor shallow. 'Shallow' perception or 'deep' perception comes only when thought interferes.

PJ: We were asking: Is there a perception in which ( the 'psychological') stripping is not necessary?

K: There is no such thing as an everlasting perception.

PJ: Is it identical with what you call 'intelligence'?

K: Isn’t the 'non-verbal' perception 'thought & time' free ? Where does the question of stripping or not stripping arise?

PJ: You mean that the new perception is never carried into another thought. I see that lamp. The seeing has not been carried. Only thought is being carried.

K: That is obvious. My (temporal) consciousness is the result of sensory perception. It is also the result of evolution and time. It is ( personally) expandable and contractible. And thought is part of this ( temporal) consciousness. Now, is the ‘I’ a permanent entity in this consciousness?

PYD: It is not (really?) 'permanent'.

K: Isn't the ‘I’ ( the self-focussing of one's temporal) consciousness?

MF: We are mixing the ( philosophical) concept of 'consciousness' with the experience of consciousness.

K: This is very clear (experientially-wise?) — the ‘I’ is the ( self-identified ) consciousness.

PJ: The ‘I’ has a great 'reality' for me until I begin to investigate.

K: Of course. But after looking, after observing, I see that I 'am' ( the focussing of ) the whole of this consciousness. I am the ( cultural & genetic) heritage—I am all that.
Now, who is this ‘I’? Is it part of consciousness, part of ( the self-centred activity of?) thought? I say yes. The moment thought moves away from the technological & scientific field, you come to the ‘I’, which is part of the biological heritage.

MF: The ‘I’ is an 'ad hoc' working centre of perception, and the ‘other’ is an effective centre.

K: Be simple. The ‘I’ is the ( identitary ) centre of the field of ( our temporal) consciousness .

PJ: I see that the most important element in me is the ‘I’. Now what is the ‘I’? What is its nature? One investigates that, and in the very process of observation there is clarity.

K: Full stop.

PJ: Clarity being not eternal...

K: But it can be picked up again.

PJ: I say, 'maybe'. Can the question whether clarity is eternal legitimately arise in this state?

K: It does not arise in the state of perception. It only arises or exists when I ask: Is this process everlasting?

PJ: And what would you say?

K: At the moment of ( a totally clear) perception, the question does not arise. The next moment, I do not perceive so clearly.

PJ: If I am alert to see that I am not perceiving so clearly, I will investigate that.

K: Let us be simple about this. There is ( a timeless holistic) perception. In that perception there is no question of duration. There is only perception. The next minute I do not see clearly, there is no clear perception; it is muddled. Then there is the investigation of pollution, and so clarity. Muddle and again perception, covering and uncovering—this goes on. This is going on. Right?

PJ: The very nature of this (transpersonal) awareness is that it operates on inattention.

K: Wait. There is attention followed by inattention. Then by becoming aware of ( the time-binding activitias of) inattention, it becomes attention. This 'balancing' is going on all the time.

PJ: So, awareness lessens inattention. There is an action of attention on inattention.

K: Does that action on inattention wipe away inattention, so that inattention does not come again? Attention does affects the (functioning of the ) brain cells. Look at what has happened. There is attention, and then inattention. In inattention there is confusion, misery, and all the rest of it. Now what takes place?

PJ: Is it not really that 'you' can do nothing about it?

K: I agree Pupul, but hold on a minute. There is attention and there is inattention. In inattention everything is confusion. But why do I want to put the two together? When there is the urge to put the two together, there is an action of the will, which is (the observer's?) choice: I'd (rather) prefer attention to inattention. And so I am back again in the field of ( the old self-conflicted ) consciousness. So what is the ( intelligent?) action where the two are never brought together?
When there is ( the holistic presence of?) attention, thought as ( the mechanistic response of) memory does not operate; there is no ( self-centred) thinking process in attention, there is only attention. I am only (becoming) aware that I have been inattentive when my ( everyday) action produce discomfort, misery or danger. And as inattention has left a mark on the brain, I am now concerned with the ( residual inner ) misery that inattention has brought about. Then, in investigating this (psychological) misery, attention comes again, leaving no mark. So what is taking place? Each time there is (a span of) inattention, there is the quick and instant perception of it. ( The insightful) perception has an immediacy; it has no duration. The immediacy of perception is always taking place.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 May 2019 #29
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

The Future Of Human Consciousness

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K Seminar 1981 )

Achyut Patwardhan: Sir, there is a general feeling of a deepening crisis in the human consciousness . This feeling is due to various factors in the environment - the arms race, pollution, economic problems, underlying all this is a deep feeling of moral decline; and in an (overpopulated?) country like India, this feeling is quite overpowering. It would be valuable to understand the relationship between man's moral crisis and its outer manifestations which threaten the survival of man. The problem is: Can we discover for ourselves the relationship of the crisis within man and the deepening crisis outside?

K: If I may point out, I think the crisis is in ( man's self-centred) consciousness and knowledge. Unless the human beings radically transform this consciousness, we are going to end up in bloody wars. Has knowledge transformed man at all, at any time? This is the real crisis. Man has lived for more than twenty-five thousand years, from what the modern discoveries has shown. During these two hundred and fifty centuries, he has not radically changed (inwardly) . Man is anxious, frightened, depressed, unhappy, aggressive, lonely, all that. The crisis is there, and the crisis is in ( the wrong usage of?) modern knowledge. We have to understand deeply down in our being the nature of our consciousness and whether this tremendous accumulation of knowledge in the last hundred and fifty years has any place at all in the (inner) transformation of man.

P.J.: What kind of 'knowledge' are you talking about? Should we not clarify your conception of 'knowledge'?

K: I would like to discuss what 'consciousness' is, and what is the nature of knowledge. These two factors apparently are dominating the modern world.
Thought is ( both the creator & the user of) knowledge. Knowledge, memory, thought, action - this is the (mechanistic mental ) cycle man has been caught in for twenty-five thousand years - accumulating ( all kinds of ) knowledge and functioning from that knowledge, either skilfully or unskilfully. This process is stored in the brain as memory, and this memory responds in ( the everyday) action. This is the (time-binding?) cycle in which ( the consciousness of) man is caught; always (thinking ) within the field of the known.
Now, will man's ( highly developped ) knowledge (skills) change him (inwardly) ? That is one problem. The other is ( related to the active content of man's ) consciousness. Man's consciousness is (subliminally influenced by) its ( psychologically active) content - the superstitions, beliefs, the class divisions, the ideas about 'God', the (existential) pain, loneliness, depression, uncertainty, insecurity, all that is within human consciousness. It is not (only) my consciousness; it is the (collective) human consciousness, because wherever you go, America or Russia, you meet the same problems. All human beings carry this complex burden of ( self-centred) consciousness which contains all the things that thought has put together.

P.J.: Perhaps if you open up the whole problem of knowledge, thought, consciousness, it may be simpler to come together to a meeting point.

K: What is (the basic process of) thinking? If you ask me what is my name, I would respond immediately because I am familiar with it. But if you ask me something which is more complex, it takes some time to investigate, to ( seek & fetch the correct ) answer. That is, I look to my (available) memory and try to figure out the answer or (... 'google' it ?) or talk to somebody ( who is more knowledgeable) to find the answer.
So there are: an immediate response, then a response (that requires some thought & ) time, and the ( simplest possible ) response : 'I really do not know.' ( But...for various cultural & personal reasons?) we never (get to honestly) say, 'I do not know.' We are always responding from ( our past) memory. This ( knowledgeable) memory is stored in the cells of my brain, derived through tradition, education, personal experience, perception and so on.
I 'am' all that. The content of my (temporal) consciousness is the result of innumerable talks, discussions with scientists, religious people. My consciousness 'is' me; I am not different from my consciousness. So the observer 'is' the observed. My consciousness is (also an integral part of the ) the consciousness of humanity; it is not separate. And this ( collective) consciousness has known ( lots of) conflicts & pain. Human beings have lived for twenty-five thousand years in this (psychological) misery, inventing new technology, and ( eventually ?) using that technology to destroy each other.

Seeing all this ( 'psychological' picture?) , what am I to do? What I 'am' ( consciousness-wise ) 'is' the rest of the world; I am the world. This is no intellectual idea, but 'fact'. Will all this tremendous accumulation of knowledge help me to change all that? That is the real crisis and not in the world of technology or in the intellectual world or in the totalitarian world.

R.K.: Are you not ascribing a certain homogeneity to everything? You are giving the same character to different civilizations, different religious systems, systems of modern science and systems of thought as creating wars all over the world ?

K. Of course, I don't see any difference.

R.K.: The question is not of differentiation but about the stream of consciousness that have gone on in the past. You talk in terms of twenty-five thousand years. Can the modern, scientific, homocentric view of knowledge and its impact on consciousness be put on a par with some of the ancient streams of consciousness? In other words, doesn't the human experience offer no choices to us at this moment of history, or are we doomed?

P.J.: As long as we continue within our known consciousness, its concern with the little better, the little worse, we are still caught in the grip of something from which we do not seem to be able to get out. Krishnaji is hinting at a 'quantum leap', and we are still thinking within the structure of time.

K: My question is: At the end of twenty-five thousand years I am what I am. And is it possible to be totally unconditioned? I say 'yes', it is possible to be completely unconditioned.

P.J.: Can we start (this titanic endeavour by ?) laying the landscape of the future of man, the problems which he faces and what lies in the matrix of the human mind which makes it impossible for him to break free?

K: What is the future of ( the human consciousness ?) when everything that man has done or will do, the computer can outdo?
Either he seeks entertainment – in the world of sports, or seeks religious entertainment. Or he goes inward. The (inward potential of the ) human mind is infinite. It has got an immense capacity; not the capacity of specialization, not the capacity of knowledge. It is infinite.
So either he goes very deep inwardly, delving into the depth of his mind, and into the depth of his heart. Or he will ( indulge in) being entertained. So, the freedom of choice, freedom from dictatorship, & the freedom from chaos, are problems that man has to face.
In the ( present consciousness of the ) world, there is great disturbance, corruption; people are very very disturbed. It is dangerous to walk on the streets. We want outward freedom, freedom from chaos, anarchy, or dictatorship. But we never demand or enquire if there is an inner freedom at all: freedom of the mind. So what kind of freedom do we want? Outside of us? Or the inward freedom? The inner (condition of the human) psyche always conquers the outer (conditions) . The psyche, that is, the inward structure of the consciousness of man - his ( self-centred?) thoughts, emotions, his ambitions, his actions, his greed - always conquers the outer. So, where do we seek freedom? Could we discuss that? A new civilization can only come about through a really religious mind, not through superstition, dogma or traditional religions.

P.J.: You have asked a question: What is the choice that man has in the world of the 'outer' when the world of the inner is not participating in the movement of freedom? That is, without knowing whether the mind is free or in bondage, is it possible for a mind which is unexplored, to make a ( genuine existential ) choice in the outer?

S.K.: Sir, you talked about the computer and the possibility of the human brain withering away from lack of activity. Do you then foresee the possibility of man becoming extinct and being replaced by a non-biological entity?

K: Perhaps, but my point is, we must take things as they are and see if we can't bring about a mutation in (the very consciousness) of our brain.

S.K.: I would like to ask you a little more about the freedom of the mind when it is (entrapped in its temporal) bondage. We only know relative freedom. There is a complete distinction between inner and outer freedom and bondage; they somehow confuse me. I would like you to throw a little more light on this freedom. Is it relative freedom? Does it include the human emotions?

K: The human mind has lived in fear for so many millions of centuries. Can that fear possibly come to an end? Or, are we going to continue with it for the rest of our lives?

P.J.: What Dr. Kakkar said was that it is these very elements of fear, envy, anger & agressivity make up humanness.

K: Are they? We accept them as 'human nature'. Our ancestors and the present generation have accepted that as the condition of man. I question that. Humanity, a ( truly humane ? ) human being, may be entirely different.

P.J.: If you question it, then you must be able to show what it is that makes it possible to 'quench' these elements so that the humanness which you speak about can flower totally. How is it possible?

R.T.: It also means that there can be no such thing as (inner) freedom unless you have quenched these elements.

K: Yes sir, as long as I am 'attached' to some ( personal) conclusion, to some concept, some ideal, there is no freedom. Should we discuss this?

P.J.: This is after all the core of the whole problem of mankind.

J.S.: In the statement or the question which Dr. Kakkar asked, there is implied another concept of freedom, where you obtain freedom not by getting rid of fear, anxiety, greed, so on and so forth, but by integrating them, incorporating them within a larger whole.

K: Integrating them in a larger awareness of consciousness.

Swami Chidanand:. Or in learning successfully to cope with them.

S.K.: May I elaborate? There are two things involved ; fear is a part of humanness; the elimination is also part of humanness. If you talk of quenching it and reaching another state is, to me, leaving out the other part. And this is very important to me for a strategy. My strategy is that I believe that envy, greed, etc., are part of humanness because that is what makes man. Man has to live with them, but he has to 'make friends' with them and use them. Then he will see that fears are not as great as we think; that greed is not really that frightening. To have fear reduced, lessened, used - that is my strategy.

P.J.: Dr. Kakkar is right; you cannot take only the dark elements in man. It is the same 'centre' which talks of transformation of the good, which talks of all the elements which are today considered the opposites. The whole thing makes up ( the consciousness of) man - the dark and the light. Is it possible to integrate the dark and the light? And who integrates them? So the problem is really a central one. That is, is there an entity who can choose, integrate?

K: Why is there this division; dark, light; beauty, ugly? Why is there in ( the minds of) human beings this contradiction?

Shanta Gandhi: The real life is full of ( conflicts & ) contradictions. The (natural) outcome of ( our material) life is contradiction.

K: So, to you life is an endless conflict. You reduce life to a perpetual conflict ?

S.G.: The real life, as we know it, certainly is.

K: We have accepted life to be a conflict. That may be our habit, our tradition, our education, our conditioning.

S.G.: My difficulty is that the tool for attaining this (global) awareness is also my own mind. It is the sum total of that which is conditioned by what has gone by. And I can only start from that point.

K: So we start with the human condition. Some say it is impossible to change that condition; you can only modify it. The existentialists say that you cannot possibly uncondition that. Therefore, you must live perpetually in conflict. We are contradicting ourselves, that is all.

S.K.: What I feel is, there are two conditions; this is part of human growth and development. There are two conflicts which are inescapable. One is separation, the awareness of 'I am' as different from my parents. This is part of human evolution. And the second is differentiation, when one learns sex differentiation - I am male and the other one is female; these are part of human evolution, facets of contradiction, of differences, and they are the basic anxieties which are inescapable in the human mind.

K: So what is integration?

S.K.: Trying to get them together.

K: Can you bring the opposites together? Or (realise that) there is there no opposite at all? I am (inwardly) violent; human beings are violent. That is a fact. My ideal of non-violence is not a fact. Violence is 'what is; the other is not. But all your (spiritual?) leaders & philosophers, have tried to cultivate 'non-violence'. Which means what? Through the cultivation of non-violence I am being violent. So non-violence can never be. There is only violence. Why does the human mind, create the opposite? As a lever to escape from ( the fact of its inherited) violence? Why cannot I deal only with violence and not be concerned with non-fact? There is only violence; the other is merely an escape from this fact. So there is only 'what is; not 'what should be; ideals, concepts, all that goes .

A.P.: When you say that non-violence is only an idea and violence is the fact, then the enquiry must logically proceed a step further and ask: Can violence end?

K: Surely, but first we should understand what actually is ( our inner) violence. ( The mentality of?) conformity is violence. ( The self-) limitation is violence.

S.K.: I would like to understand this a little more.

K: What do I call violence? Anger, hatred, hitting another, killing another for an ideal, for a concept, for the word 'peace'. And is this violence ( perceived as?) an idea or as a fact? When I get angry, it is a fact. But why do I give a ( condemning) name to a reaction which is called violence. Why do I do that? Do I do it for purposes of recognition, thereby strengthening the present reaction? Of course. So the present reaction is caught up in the past remembrance and I name the past remembrance as violence.

S.C.: When you speak of violence, we of course know of violence; one refers to anger; but there is also a subjective violence.

K: I was coming to that. What is violence? Doing harm to others, hurting another psychologically by persuasion and through reward and punishment; by making him conform to a pattern by persuading him logically, affectionately, to accept a certain framework - all that is ( a psychological act of?) violence. Apparently that is inherent in (the temporal consciousness of) man. Tradition does it; the whole religious world does it; the political world does it; the business world does it; the intellectual world does it, enforcing their ideas, their concepts, their theories.

S.G.: Is all our education ( based on) violence?

K: I won't use that word 'education' for the moment. Is there a mind which cannot be persuaded, a mind that sees very clearly? That is the point.

S.K.: No.

K: Why do you say 'no'?

S.K.: Because the question you asked is whether there is a mind that cannot be persuaded. My point is there is no such mind.

K: We are the (menrtally-wise) result of persuasion; all propaganda, religious or political, is persuading, pressurizing, dragging us in a certain direction.

S.K.: So deep is that persuasion that it cannot be reached by us. It wears so many masks that those masks cannot be seen by us any more.

K: Can we be free from that violence? Can we be free from hatred? Obviously we can.

P.J.: You cannot leave it there and say, 'Obviously you can be free.'

K: Have we agreed up to that point?

S.K.: That we hate, yes. But can we be free from that hate? No.

K: We will go into that. What is the cause of hate? Why do you 'hate' (or...dislike?) me when I say something which you don't like? Why do you push me aside, you being stronger, intellectually more powerful, etc? Why do I get hurt? Psychologically, what is the process of being hurt? What is hurt? Who is hurt? The image I have of myself is hurt. You come and tread on it and put a pin into it; I get hurt. So the 'image' I have about myself is the cause of hurt. You say something to me, call me an idiot, and I think I am not an idiot; you hurt me because I have an image of myself as not being an idiot.

S.K.: With one provison - when you say that the image is hurt when it is called an idiot, it means it is not you who is hurt but something which you have invented.

K: We are the result of every hurt.

S.K.: It is not (the real) you who is hurt.

K: No. Suppose I think I am a great man. You come along and say, don't be silly, there are many greater men than you. I get hurt. Why? Obviously, I have an image of myself as a great man. You come and say something contrary to that. I get hurt. You are not hurting me; you are hurting my image of myself. The image which I have built about myself gets hurt. So the next question is: Can I live without an image of myself?

P.J.: Where do I discover that I am making an image of myself?

K: I don't discover; I 'perceive'.

P.J.: Where?

K: What do you mean by 'where'? You pointed out to me just now that I have an image about myself. I have not thought about it, I have never seen my image. You point it out; you make a statement that I have a (self-protective ) 'image'. I am listening to you very carefully, very attentively, and in that very listening I discover the fact that I have an image of myself. Or, do I see an image of myself?

P.J.: I don't think I am making myself clear. If I don't see it as an abstraction, then that 'image-making' machinery is the ground on which this is seen. Let me go into it a little further. There is a ground from which the image-making machinery rises.

K: Why do you use the word 'ground'?

P.J.: Because, in talking and responding, there is a tendency to become conceptual. If one comes out of the conceptual to the actual, then the actual is the process of perceiving.

K: That is all. Stop there.

P.J.: I cannot stop there. I ask you further: I don't perceive it in your statement; then where do I perceive it?

K: You perceive it as it is taking place.

P.J.: When you say 'as it is taking place', where do I perceive it? Do I perceive it outside or in my imagination?

K:. I perceive the fact, I watch the fact that I have an 'image'.

P.J.: This is not very clear.

K: It is very very clear. You tell me that I am a liar. I have told a lie. I realize that I am a liar.

P.J.: Is there a difference between realizing that I am a liar and perceiving that I am a liar?

K: I have 'perceived' (the inward truth?) that I am a liar. I am ( becoming) aware that I am a liar. That is all.

P.J.: Can you open up this 'seeing' (the truth ) of the movement within the mind? I think this is the core of the whole thing.

K: We can discuss the whole movement of fear. It begins with desire, with time, with memory; it begins with the fact of the present movement of fear. All this is involved in the whole river of fear. Either the fear is very, very shallow or it is a deep river with a great volume of water. We are not discussing the various objects of fear, but fear itself. Now is it an abstraction of fear that we are discussing, or actual fear in my heart, in my mind? Is it that I am facing the fear? I want to be clear on this point. If we are discussing abstract fear, it has no meaning to me. I am concerned only with the actual happening of fear. I say in that fear all this is involved, the desire and the very complexity of desire, time, the past impinging on the present, and the sense of wanting to go beyond fear. All this must be perceived. I don't know if you follow. We have to take a thing like the drop of rain which contains all the rivers in the world, see the beauty of that one drop of rain. One drop of (thought's) desire contains the whole movement of (thought's) fear.

So what is desire? Why do we suppress it? Why do you say it has a tremendous importance? I want to be a minister; my desire is for that, or my desire is for god. My desire for god and my desire to be a minister are one and the same thing - it is desire. So I have to understand the depth of what desire is, why it drives man, why it has been suppressed by all religions.
One asks what is the place of desire and why the brain is consumed with desire. I have to understand it not only at the verbal level through explanation, through communication, but to understand it at its deepest level, in my guts. What is the place of thought in desire? Is desire different from thought? Does thought play an important part in desire? Or is thought the movement of desire? Is thought part of desire or does thought dominate desire, control and shape desire?
So I am asking: Are 'thought' and 'desire' not like two horses? I must understand not only thought, but the whole movement of thinking, the origin of thought; can the (self-observing?) mind be aware of the beginning of thought and also of the beginning of desire? First, there is perception, contact, sensation. That is, I see a blue shirt in the window. I go inside and touch the texture, then out of that touching, there is sensation. Then thought says, how nice it would be if I put on that blue shirt. The creation by thought of the image of that shirt on me is the beginning of desire.

S.K.: You said, you feel it 'in the guts'. I think that is where desire resides.

K: We understand desire, how it arises, where thought creates the 'image' and desire begins. Then what is 'time'? Is 'time' a movement of thought? There is (the outward) time, the sun rises, the sun sets at a certain time; then there is the whole area of 'psychological' (my continuity ) time. I have been, I am, I will be. That is a movement of the (personal memories of the ) past through the present, modifying into the future. Time as acquiring knowledge through experience, memory, thought, action - that is also time. So there is psychological time and physical time.
Now, is there psychological time at all? Or, has thought as (my personal) hopes created time? That is, I am violent, I will be non-violent, and I realize that that process can never end violence. What will end violence is confronting the fact and remaining with it, not trying to dodge it or escape from it. There is no opposite; only 'what is'.
And what is the origin of thinking? Why has man given a tremendous importance to the intellect, to words, theories, ideas? Unless I discover the origins of my thinking, how it begins, can there be awareness of thought arising? Or, does awareness come after it has arisen? Is there a (transpersonal ?) awareness of the movement of the whole river of thought? Thought has become extraordinarily important. Thought exists because there is knowledge, experience, stored up in the brain as memory; from that memory there is thought and action. In this process we live safely) , always within the field of the known. So desire, time, thought, is essentially fear. Without this there is no fear. I am afraid inwardly, and I want order out there - in society, in politics, economics. How can there be 'order out' there if I am (unaware of the ) disorder 'in here'?

P.J.: Can I bring order within me if there is disorder outside? I am deliberately posing this problem which lay in your early dichotomy between the outward and the inward. The outward is compared to the computer on the one hand and the atom bomb, which I think is taking over.

J.U.: We cannot realize that (inward) freedom without relating ourselves to the outside where there is 'dukha' (sorrow), where there is so much turmoil. We cannot understand the process of ( spiritual) freedom without relating the inward and the outward.

K: You are saying that the division between the outer and the inner is false. I agree with you. It is a movement like a tide, going out and coming in. So what is ( happening ) outside is (part of) me. The outer is a movement of the inner; the inner is the movement of the outer. There is no dichotomy at all. But by understanding (objectively) the 'outer', that criterion will guide me to the 'inner', so that there is no self-deception; because I do not want to be deceived at the end of it. So the 'outer' is the indicator of the 'inner' (aspirations) and the 'inner' is the indicator of the 'outer' (tendencies) . There is no (real qualitative?) difference.
My (holistic responsibility ?) is not to put away the outer; I say I am responsible for that. I am responsible for everything that is happening in the world. My brain is not my (personal) brain: it is the brain of humanity, which has grown through evolution and all the rest of it. So there is responsibility, political, religious, all along the line.

( Intermission)

K: We have talked over the movement of 'fear' together. How do you 'listen' to those statements? How do you "read" those statements? What is the impact of those statements on you? We said desire, time, thought, the (memory of the past ) hurts, the whole of that is ( are the causes of all psychological) fears, and you tell me that very clearly in words which are common. You have communicated to me the truth of it, not just the verbal description of it. How do I listen to that statement? (If?) I am not comparing what you say with something I already know, and I am actually listening to what you say, it (the inward truth of it?) has entered into that (open minded ?) part of one's consciousness which is willing to comprehend entirely what you are saying. What is the impact? Is it (a) a verbal impact or (b) a logical one, or c) at a level where I see the truth of what you have said? ( In the latter case?) what does it do (or how does it operate in?) my consciousness?

P.J.: Speaking of the future of ( the Consciouness of?) mankind and of the danger of (the computerised ) technology taking over most of man's functions, you said there are only two ways open to man : either the way of ( entertainment & hedonistic ? ) pleasure or the way of ( awakening ) an inner movement. I am asking you the 'how' of this inner movement.

K: When you ask 'how', you are (drawn) back again to the same old pattern of ( acquiring) experience, knowledge, memory, thought, action. Can't we move away from the 'how' for the moment and observe ( the inner workings of our) brain? Can there be a pure observation of it, which is not 'analysis' ( the knowledgeable 'analyser' searching for a cause in that which is 'analysed'). The direct observation is totally free of analysis - just observing (what is going on inwardly) without any (personal) motive ( or drawing) any conclusions - just a pure, clear looking? Obviously, (such direct looking) is possible when you look at those lovely trees; it is very simple. But to look ( in real time?) at the operation of the whole movement of one's existence, to observe it without any distortion, in this observation the whole process of analysis has no place. I can look at that tree without any distortion because I am looking (purely visually). Now, is there any observation of the whole activity of ( one's psychologically motivated?) fear without trying to find the cause, or asking how to end it, or trying to suppress it, or running away from it? Is it possible just to look and stay ( or contemplatively abide?) with the whole movement of fear? By 'staying with it', I mean to observe it (non-verbally?) without any movement of thought entering into my observation. Then with that ( quality of transpersonal?) observation comes 'attention'. That observation 'is' (the perceptive action of) total attention. Is my mind capable of such attention, which is to bring (together?) all the energy of my intellect, emotion, nerves and look at this movement of fear without any ( personal attitude of ) opposition, support, or denial?

P.J.: ( The experiential difficulty in trying to observe this way is that) thought arises (interferes with?) this observation, and ( the mind) does not stay (focussed ) with observation of fear. So, what happens to ( the all-controlling interference of ) thought? Does one push it aside? What does one do? Thought does arise, which is also a fact.

K: Just listen. The (K) 'speaker' ( is talking ) not only of the personal fears but of the fears of ( the collective consciousness of) mankind in which is ( 'flowing' ? ) this Stream (of self-interest?) , in which is included thought, desire, time and also the desire to ( transcend it or) go beyond it, all that is ( involved in observing?) the movement of ( thought generated ) fear. Can you look at it, observe it without any (mental) movement? Any such movement is ( the controlling interference of ?) thought.

P.J.: You may say ( the observed) movement is 'fear', but in that observing, ( the controlling intervention of) thought arises, which is also a fact.

K: Please listen. You have shown the whole 'map of fear' , in which thought is (implicitly) included : desire, time, thought; thought is ( projecting itself in ) time, and ( the motivating) desire is part of thought. There is no question of suppressing thought; that is impossible. I said, first (try to) 'look at it' . We don't give full attention to anything. When you said something about (the interference of?) thought. I listened to it very, very carefully; I was 'attending' to what you were saying. Can you attend so (non-personally?) ?

P.J.: In that instant of total attention, thought is not ( interfering) but then thought arises (surreptitiously?) . This is the actual state of the human mind. It is neither possible to remain immovable nor to say that thought will not arise. If it is a 'stream' (of all mankind's collective thinking) , it is a stream which flows.

K: Are we discussing what is 'observation'?

P.J.: Yes, we are discussing observation. And in that observation there is the ( experiential) problem that in observing, thought arises. So, then what does one do with this (interfering) thought?

K: When in your attention a thought arises, you put aside the initial observation of fear and you pursue ( the interfering action of) thought. The movement of fear is no more actual, but the arising of thought and the total attention on that (controlling interference of) thought.
( To recap:) There is this 'Stream' of (man's psychologically motivated?) fear . Tell me what to do: How am I, caught in fear, to end it? You say : ( the dualistic process of) 'analysis' will not end it; that is obvious. So, what will 'end' it - a perception of the whole movement of fear, a perception without ( any personally motivated ?) direction?

J.U.: I do not agree with your ( global ?) rejection of analysis. It is only through (an earnest self-introspective ) analysis that the weight of ( man's psychological) memory can be broken. It is only when that ( time-binding condition?) is broken that a (pure inner) observation is possible. Otherwise, it would only be the same conditioned mind which would be observing. By your insistence on direct observation as distinct from analysis, perhaps there is the possibility of 'sudden happenings' occurring, of which other (enlightened) people have spoken - the opportunity in which the 'shaktipata', or the 'transmission of power' takes place.

A.P.: I see a (potential) 'danger' in what Upadhyayaji has said. He says there cannot be ( a clear inner ) observation unless it is accompanied by analysis, and if there is observation without analysis then that observation may have to depend upon an accidental awakening of an 'insight'. He speaks of that as a possibility. My submission to him is that unless observation is cleansed of analysis, it is incapable of freeing itself from the fetters of conceptualism, the processes in which we have been reared, the process where observation and conceptual understanding go together. It is difficult to bring simultaneously into operation, both unconsciously and consciously, a process of conceptual comprehension. Now, observation that is not cleansed of verbal comprehension distinguishes itself from pure observation. Therefore, in my opinion, it is very necessary to establish that analysis is an obstacle to observation. We must see this as a fact that ( the subliminally dualistic?) analysis prevents us from observing.

K: Sir, do we clearly understand that the 'observer' is (not separated from) the 'observed'? Is the 'observer' separate from the 'greed' ( it is trying to control ) ? The observer himself 'is' the observed, which is greed. Is (this experiential point ) clear, not intellectually, but actually, that you can see the truth of it as a profound reality, a truth which is absolute? When there is such observation, the observer 'is' the (whole movement of the ) past. Even when I observe that tree, all that past ( mental) associations with that tree comes into being. I name it as (being an ) 'oak tree' or whatever it is; there is ( an undertone of) like or dislike. Now, when I observe ( my existential) fear, that fear 'is' me. I am not separate from that fear. So in this (non-dualistic ) observation there is no ( separate) 'observer', there is only the ( ongoing) 'fact': of ( thought projecting its own) fear. Then, what is the need for analysis? In that observation, if it is pure observation, the ( truth about the ) whole thing is revealed, and ( later on ) I can even logically explain everything ( that came out of this non-dualistic) observation, without ( any need for ) analysis.

(Unfortunately?) we are not (always very ?) clear on this particular (experiential) point that the thinker 'is' the thought, the experiencer 'is' the experience. ( What generally happens is that) the 'experiencer' , when he experiences something new, is first ( trying to) recognize it. And to give to it a (personally significant) meaning, I must bring in all the previous records of my (similar previous) experiences; I must remember the nature of that experience. Therefore I am putting it outside me. But when I realize that the experiencer 'is' the experience, in that ( holistic) observation, there is no ( sense of) division, no conflict (of interests?) . Therefore when you realize the truth of that, you can explain (in logical terms?) the whole sequence of it.
( To take a real life example)  : I am getting angry. At the moment of (the arousing of this) anger, there is no ( sense of) 'me' at all; there is only that ( sudden violent) reaction called 'anger'. A few seconds later, when I say ''I have been angry''. I have already separated anger from 'me' ( recreating my zone of inner comfort ?) So, I have already divided a ( natural ?) reaction which 'is' ( not divided from) me, into 'me' and 'not-me', and then the whole conflict begins. Whereas anger 'is' me, I am made up of ( such inherited ) reactions. Right? Obviously. I 'am' anger.
What happens then (inwardly?) ? Earlier, I wasted (time & intelligent ) energy in being in conflict with (my fits of ) anger. That energy is now 'concentrated'; there is no waste of energy. With that (integrated ) energy which is now 'attention', I 'hold' (in suspended time ) this reaction called 'fear' (or...greed, anger?) and I do not move away from it because I 'am' that. Then, because I have brought all my ( compasionate & intelligent) energy to it, that ongoing 'fact' ' called ( 'psychological') fear disappears.
You wanted to find out in what manner fear can end. I have shown it. As long as there is a ( subliminal) division between 'you' and the 'fear', ( the thought process creating that particular ) fear will continue (in the background) . ( In a nutshell:) as long as this ( subliminally dualistic) division exists there must be ( a psychologically motivated mentality of ?) conflict.

P.J.: But, sir, 'who' observes?

K: There is no (self-conscious entity?) who observes. There is only the state of ( holistic) observation.

P.J.: Does it come about spontaneously?

K: You have told me that it is not (the result of self-) analysis. I discard it. My mind is now free from all the conceptual, analytical process of thought and is now listening to the (inward truth of the ) fact that ''the observer 'is' the observed''.

P.J.: You see, sir, there are two things involved in this. One is that when one observes, when there is an (inward) observing of the mind, one sees the extraordinary movement in it. It is beyond anyone's control or capacity to even give direction to it. It is there. In that state, you say, bring attention onto 'fear', w hich actually means, bring all attention onto 'that which is moving'.
Now, when we (attempt to ) inquire into ( the depths) of our mind, the response (of unconscious fear) immediately arises. In your mind such response does not arise; you 'hold it'. Now, what is giving you the capacity to hold ( this surge of unconscious?) fear in consciousness? I don't think we have that capacity.

K: I don't think it is a question of 'capacity'... I don't know.

P.J.: I will cut out the word 'capacity'. There is a (natural?) 'holding of fear', by which the movement (of thought) which is fluid becomes immovable.

K: That is it.

P.J.: And fear ends. But...with us that does not happen.

K: Can we 'hold' anything in our minds for a few seconds, or a minute? Anything? ( For instance the fact of ) love; can I remain with that feeling, that beauty, that clarity which love brings? Can I 'hold' it, like a vessel is holding water? You are all (looking?) sceptical.
You see, sir, when you have a ( total ?) 'insight' into ( the inward mechanism of) fear, fear ends. This 'insight' is not (the result of self-) analysis, time, remembrance, all that. It is an immediate perception of ( the truth or falsehood of ) something. We do have it. Often we have this sense of total clarity about something.

J.U.: Sir, when you speak of that moment of total (inner) clarity. I accept that. But it must come as a result of something that happens. It must move from period to period, from level to level. My clarity cannot be the same as your clarity.

K: Sir, clarity is clarity, it is not yours or mine. Intelligence is not yours or mine.

P.J.: Sir, I would like to go into something different. In observing the movement of the mind there is no point at which you say I have observed totally and it is over.

K: You can never say that.

P.J.: So, you are talking of an observation which is a (dynamic) state of being; that is, you 'move in observation', your life is a life of observing...

K: Yes, that is right.

P.J.: And out of that observing, action rises; analysis arises; wisdom comes. Unfortunately, when we observe ( we may surreptitiously) enter into the other sphere of 'non-observing' and therefore have always this dual process going on. None of us knows what a 'life of observing' is.

K: I think ( that for starters?) it is very simple: Can't you observe a person without any ( cultural?) prejudice?

P.J.: Yes.

K: What is implied in that observation? You observe me, or I observe you. How do you observe? How do you look at me?

P.J.: With all the energy I have, I observe you. But then it becomes very personal...

K: Could we take this ( real life) example? Say I am married. I have lived with this ( pretty boring?) person for a number of years. I have all the ( psychological ) memories of those twenty years or five years. When I see her (or him) in the morning, do I see that person afresh, as though for the first time, or do I look at her with all the memories flooding into my mind?

Q: Either is possible.

K: Anything is possible, but what happens actually? Do I observe anything for the first time? When I look at the moon, the new moon coming up with the evening star, do I look at it as though I have never seen it before? The wonder, the beauty, the light, do I look at anything as though for the first time?

Q: In other words : can we 'die' to our yesterdays and to our ( 'psychologically tainted' memories of the ) past?

K: Yes, sir. We are always looking ( in a self-protective mode?) with the burden of the past. So, there is no actual looking. This is very important. When I look at my wife, I do not see her as though I have seen her 'as for the first time'. My brain is caught in memories about her or about this or that. So I am always looking from the ( 'fool-proof' memory of the ?) past. Is it possible to look at that moon, at the evening star, as though for the first time without all the associations connected with them? Can I see the sunset as though I am seeing it for the first time? Don't just say 'Yes, we can'. That means my brain is not recording the previous sunsets I know of.

Q: Very rarely... You are asking, can you see the moon and the evening star? Maybe it is the memory of the first time which makes you look.

K: That leads you to another ( still deeper experiential) question. Is it possible not to 'record' ( psychologically-wise ?) , except what is absolutely necessary? Why should I 'record' ( & keep personal files on) the insults or flatteries I have received ? Both are the same. You flatter me saying it was a very good talk, or he comes and says you are a (perfect?) idiot. Why should I record either?

P.J.: You ask this question as if we would have ( any conscious control on ) whether to record or not to record.

K: I am asking this question to investigate ( for homework meditation?) . Because the brain was registering the squirrel on the parapet this morning, the kites flying, all that you said in our discussion at lunch, so it is like an (old?) gramophone ( recording & playing back) over and over again ( time goes by?) . The ( self-centred ) mind is ( keeping itself) constantly occupied, isn't it? Now, in that ( background noise of mental  ?) occupation you cannot 'listen'; you cannot 'see' clearly. So one has to enquire 'why' the brain is occupied (busy ?) . I am occupied with the search for God, she is occupied about her husband, somebody else is occupied with ( playing golf along with ?) power, position, politics, cleverness, etc. Why? Is it that when the brain is not 'occupied' there is the ( gnawing?) fear of being nothing? Because occupation gives me a sense of ( purposeful?) living and if I am not occupied, I say I feel lost. Is that why we are ( getting) occupied from morning till night? Or is it an (old survivalistic) habit, sharpening itself?
( Hint :) This ( self-centred) occupation is destroying the (perceptive freshness of the?) brain and is making it (dull & ) mechanical. Now, does one actually see that one is (constantly keeping oneself inwardly?) occupied ? And seeing that, remain with (the inward truth of?) it, not saying, I don't want to be occupied, it is not good for my brain? Can you just see you are occupied? See what happens then : when there is (a constant self-centred) occupation there is no free space in the mind.

( Parting words:) I am the ( living) collection of all the experiences of mankind. The ( life-) story of all mankind 'is' (to be found in ) 'me', if I know how to read the book of myself. You see, (at this critical moment of mankind's spiritual evolution?) we are so conditioned to the idea that we are all separate 'individuals', that we all have separate brains with their self-centred activity and which ( hopefully?) are going to be reborn over and over again.
I question this whole concept that I am an ( isolated ) 'individual'. I am ( the total consciousness of) humanity, not the 'collective' ( conglomerate of individualistic minds  ?)

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 20 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 May 2019 #30
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

Is There a Time of Non-Movement?

( A reader-friendly edited K dialogue Dec 1985)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): I looked up the word ‘dialogue’ in the dictionary, and found that it can be a conversation between a group of people. It is not restricted, necessarily, to two people. And the essential nature of a dialogue is a probing into something. Now, it seems to me, that all problems of the brain are born of time.

K: Are born from (thought's self-projected ?) process of time.

PJ: Problems arise because the brain ( constantly tries to) change ‘what is’ into something different, and this ( 'psychological' activity or ?) 'movement' of the brain which wants to change ‘what is’ into something else, creates ( a very realistic illusion of) 'time'.

K: Could we say this very simply? All ( material ?) movement is a matter of time. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: Now, there is also a 'psychological' (dimension of) time—the time of becoming something. ‘I am this, I will be that.’

PJ: Yes.

K: There is also this whole process of man's evolution—both psychological and physical. All this is fairly clear, and we all accept this. Now, my question is: Is there a (different dimension of ) time outside this ( material) movement which we know and call time? That is, is there a 'time of non-movement'?

Let us go slowly into this. Time as we know it is a ( dimension, intimately associated with) movement. The (interval or) gap between one action and another, between one understanding and another, is time. Time is a movement of (thought's projected) fears or hopes. The whole movement ( of life) from the 'past' to the 'present' to the 'future' is generally acknowledged as 'time'. Any movement—of evolution, of growth, of ( any personal or collective?) achievements, of becoming something ( better?) —involves time. The interval between seeing something, thinking about it and acting is (part of the linear process of) time.
And I question whether there is a (qualitatively different dimension of) 'time' which doesn’t belong to this category at all.

PJ: When you use the word ‘time’ and say that it does not belong to the category of movement, does it belong to the category of 'matter'?

K: Matter as I understand it is a solidified (form of) energy; matter is manifested energy. The body is manifested ( life) energy.

PJ: You see, sir, the human brain is material. Now, in that ( living) matter evolution must exist.

K: Of course. We were monkeys at one time. Gradually, through a million years of evolution, we became Homo sapiens—what we are now.

PJ: Yes, so, if you accept that the brain is material, you must accept that evolution is inherent in the brain itself, because it is matter.

K: Just a minute! The brain is matter. That’s a statement. What is the next statement?

PJ: The next statement is, there is a ( temporal ) 'content' in the brain's cells.
K: Which is memory.

PJ: Yes. And there is a direct link of the ( physical) evolution which is happening in the brain with the evolution in memory. And the ( psychological) problems arise because we apply to memory the same rules as exist for matter.

K: All right, I understand. The brain which is ( a living form of) matter, has evolved...

PJ: And within ( the memory field of?) that brain is the content of a million years of evolution .

K: Yes, millions of years of memory. Now, is the gathering process of memory ( as personal & collective knowledge & experience) a process of time?

PJ: Yes, and the problem is that we take the content of the brain which is memory and feel that there is a (smarter) 'entity' which can change that content of the brain. The whole process of becoming is that; that is the time of the within, the time of the interior.

K: Yes. Time as becoming; time as accumulating more knowledge—advancing more and more...

PJ: And becoming ( inwardly & outwardly ) better. My question is: Is there ( a psychological) evolution in time?

K: Evolution is (a process of) time.

PJ: If evolution is time, then why should it not be applicable to becoming? Is the ( psychological) content of the brain nothing but a gathering of experiences and knowledge, identical with the physical nature of the brain itself?

K: I see...

PJ: You see, we all know that ( thought's self-projected ) becoming is an illusion. That is very simple to understand. But there is something much more than that, and the ‘much more than that’ is involved when you ask: ''Is there another ( dimendion of) time which doesn’t belong to these two (physical & psychological) categories?

K: That’s my question.

PJ: Now, time and matter are one.
K: Time is matter. Time is a manifested (form of) energy. The very manifestation is a process of time.

PJ: Time cannot exist without ( a material) manifestation.

K: That’s what I want to inquire into. Is there a (different dimension of) time which is not manifest?

PJ: When you say that it is not the outcome of manifestation, why do you then use the word ‘time’?

K: I have no other word for the moment.

SUNANDA PATWARDHAN (SP): Are you saying that the very ground from which all life's manifestation arises is (operating in ) another ( dimension of) time?

K: Probably. ( For instance?) Love is not ( dependent ) of time.

PJ: You see, forgive me for saying so, sir, the moment you use the word ‘love’, it is an absolute statement. And with such absolute statements, no discussion is possible.

K: Wait, Pupul. That’s rather an unfair statement. We are trying to find out what is ( the timeless dimension of) eternity . We are trying to find out a Reality which is not of time. We know that what is mortal grows and dies. We are asking whether there is an (inward) state (of mind?) or a ( creative inward ) movement which is beyond ( the limitations of matter & ) time. Do you understand?

PJ: I understand, sir.

K: Which means, is there (within mankind's total consciousness ?) a timelessly ( creative?) activity which is infinite and measureless? You see, we are using words to (describe) a state (of Mind?) which is not measurable, and that which is not measurable is not of time.

PJ: Now let us go into it. What is the (nature of the ) perception of that instant which is the only Reality?

K: Let us examine the 'seeing' and the 'doing' : there is the 'seeing' which is projecting its action in the future—‘I must do’, ‘I will become’. Now, this 'future' is the (memory projection of the ) 'past' modifying itself. That is time. Now, there is also a timeless action, which is 'perception-action'. In this timeless action, that is, in 'perception-action' there is no ( time delaying ) interval. Right? Do go slowly, if you want to understand it.

PJ: Before I can even go into this, I want to go into what this ‘modifying in the present’ is.

K: That is very simple (to explain?)  : (the time-binding action of) thought? (Suppose that) I am afraid of ( suffering the consequences of my actions in the ) past and when I meet the present, (this very intimate thread of) thought modifies itself and goes on, but it’s still ( the same psychological movement of ?) ‘fear’.
PJ: Can't we examine that instant where this 'modification' takes place?

K: Yes. The ( active) present , the ‘now’, is (containing both?) the past and the future. The present contains that.

PJ: So, the insightful perception ( of this time-binding process of fear ) in the present negates both the past and the future ?

K: That’s what I am saying. That the perception (of truth ) requires a ( timeless ) state (of min) without the past. Perception is timeless. That’s it.
( But if my mind ) is full of prejudices, knowledge, conclusions, convictions, beliefs, and with that is looking at ( what is going on in ) the present, ( its psychological condition) is modified by the (incoming) challenge—I might alter certain beliefs but I still remain in the same field. The present is modified, and so the future is the modification.

PJ: So when you speak of a ( dimension of) time which does not belong to these two—the past and the future— obviously the essential element of this perception is the ‘now’.

K: Yes, and that perception is not of time. Because that perception doesn’t contain the ( psychological memory of the ) past.

PJ: What is the ‘Now’?

K: The ‘now’ (containing ) is all ( the movement of) time: past time, future time and the present time.

PJ: You can experience your 'past' time, and you can experience a projection of your 'future' time , but what is the experiencing of the instant of ‘now' containing all time?

K: You can’t 'experience' it (as a separated 'experiencer' ?)

PJ: You see this is exactly what I am trying to get at—the past you can experience...

K: ...and you can project the 'future' and experience it without going through it...

PJ: ... but ( how is it that) this experience of ‘all time’ is not an experience ?

K: When the 'experiencer' is experiencing (something?) This 'experiencer' (mental entity ?) is of time.

PJ: Therefore when you say that the ‘now’ contains the past and the future, what does it exactly mean? What is this ‘now’?

K: How does one see or assert that the past is contained in the present? Does one actually see ( the inward truth of) it or is it a theory?

SP: I 'understand' it.

K: Wait, go into it a little more. Pupul is asking: What makes you certain that the past is contained in the present? Is it an intellectual idea, or do you see the whole implications of that? Do you have an insight into that?

SP: Normally we don’t get this insight.

K: Therefore you are talking theoretically.

PJ: Krishnaji is asking whether there is another (dimension of) time which is not the linear time of the 'outside' or the time of 'becoming'. He asks a question: Is there a time which is independent of both these times?

K: That’s all.

PJ: The only moment of perception where the 'revelation' of this or the 'insight' into this can come about is in the present. Now, how do I come to this ‘now’ of existence?

K: 'You' cannot come to it.

PJ: Yes. 'You' cannot come to it—then what ?

K: You cannot experience it; you cannot conceive of it, but your brain is conditioned to ( recognise & name any ) 'experience'. Your brain is conditioned to ( respond in terms of) knowledge, is conditioned to measurement (describe or evaluate any experience ) in words. But this cannot be approached that way. And this is where the 'religious' minds meet ; because they have wiped away the theories, they have wiped away ideas and concepts. They deal with the actual state, And that is where the religious inquiry begins. But if you are inquiring into theories and, so on, you will play around with it infinitely.

PJ: Is it possible to probe into this ( other dimension of) time which is not of this...?

K: Yes, it is possible. Possible in the sense, you may use words, but the words are not the thing. You can’t measure this with words.

PJ: Because there are no words, the moment words cease...

K: ...the question remains.

PJ: This is something quite extraordinary : the question remains, but the 'questioners' do not remain...

K: Yes. The question remains and the questioners don’t exist.

ASIT CHANDMAL (AC): What does the question operate upon?

K: I said: Perception means that there is no perceiver. See what the implication of that is. The 'perceiver' is the (active memory of the?) past and the future. But the ( 'seeing is doing') perception is now. Therefore it is timeless just as action is timeless.

PJ: Therefore, in that perception, the past and the future are totally annihilated. The listening taking place in this state of perception, in this state of dialogue wipes out this...

K: Do you see what is happening now? Listening is not of time. If I listen, it is 'now'. So attention has no time. And, therefore, there is no linear or horizontal time.

AC: I understand. In that state what is there a perception of? Who or what is listening or inquiring into that state? How can you ask a question?

K: You can. I am going to show it to you in a minute.

PJ: Is it possible to probe?

K: Yes. I say, yes. But, please, realize what has happened before we probe. The mind has rid itself of all concepts, all theories, all hopes, all desires. It is now in a state of clarity. Right? So in that state, you can inquire 'non-verbally'. That’s what I wanted to get at.

AC: I don’t understand...

K: Look, sir, if I tell you ''love is not of time'', can you listen to the (inward) truth of it?

AC: I don’t think I can listen that way. I am listening to the words. How can you separate the words from the rest of it?

K: Oh yes, you can. The word is not the thing. Sir, don’t you understand the simple truth of it? ''Love is not of time''.

AC: Sir, the next question is: What do you mean by ‘love’? What do you mean by...

K: We can go into all that. But we must remember that the verbal description is not the fact.
PJ: I ask: How do you listen? Without translating everything into memory. In a dialogue with Krishnaji you can listen without thought operating and, yet, comprehend fully (the actuality of) what he is saying. It is in listening at such depths that it—the statement, the question, ‘what is’—opens up, it tells you; there is no other action.

SP: Pupulji, what is the comprehension of the statement ‘Love is not of time’?

PJ: There is no ( intellectual) comprehension... You take it like a perfume...

K: Let's have a dialogue regarding that. Here is a statement K makes: ''Love is not of time''. Do you grasp the ( inward) beauty, the depth of it? Have a dialogue regarding that.

SP: I understand that love is not attachment. I understand that where jealousy is, love is not. But, in spite of all this dialogue, this state of ''love'' which is not of time...

PJ: Sunanda, you can never use words to ''open up'' this statement. Forgive me for saying it.

K: You are using your intellect. You are not using a totally different capacity. We all have been trained to be highly intellectual. A poor man who is not so bright, who has not passed exams and secured professorships, will ( probably?) understand ( the inward truth of) a simple statement like this. At least I think he will...

AC: How can there be an inquiry into the 'now' state of perception?

K: Sir, just listen, I will show it to you. I tell you, ‘Love is not of time’. To me that’s a tremendous fact; it is the (timeless?) truth. You say, ‘I really don’t understand you’. And I tell you, ‘You won’t understand it the way you want to understand it, because you want to understand it through the intellectual process’ : through argument, through a constant back and forth of words. I say that you won’t understand it that way. You might say that the (intellect) is the only ( relable) instrument you have—there is a dialogue going on now—and I reply, ‘Look, there is a totally different (directly perceptive) instrument. I will tell you what that instrument is if you can put aside the enormous weight of knowledge which is of time’.

AC: You are saying that the intellectual instrument is inadequate

K: Isn't there a (more direct, non-verbal ) comprehension, an insight, an immediate perception without the word, without analysis, without bringing all your knowledge into it? Oh yes, sir.

AC: I can understand that, sir.

K: So, if you understand that there is a state ( of inward listening) where words have lost their meaning, but that there is pure perception of something, you will probe ( for the meditation homework) into that perception.

AC: How can I inquire into that state? This state, to me, is the end of inquiry, not the beginning of inquiry.

K: All right, if it is the end of ( the mental) inquiry, but do you stop there? The brain—does it see its (limitation) ? Then that’s finished. Do you get it ( in the sense that ) that the brain says, ‘Yes, that’s ( known-based approach is ) finished’?

AC: No, my brain doesn’t say it. Energy lapses. The brain cannot maintain that level of energy—it lapses.

K: On the contrary.

AC: But as long as there is 'that' ( timeless intelligent ?) energy, there is no need for further inquiry or question.

K: I agree.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 43 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)