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

K The essential Texts

Displaying all 16 posts
Page 1 of 1
Fri, 21 Dec 2012 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 320 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 320 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 320 posts in this forum Offline


( 'reader friendly' edited- the full verbatim text is available online at

A: Mr Krishnamurti, we came to the subject of 'meditation'.

K: If I may suggest, we should begin, not with what is the right ( or wrong ?) kind of meditation, but with what is 'meditation'.

A: Yes...

K: Then we can share together this question of what is meditation, the word means to ponder, to consider ( something) very, very deeply. But could we start with saying that we really do not know what is ( the 'holistic' approach to ) 'Meditation' ?

A: Very well...

K: And in asking the question, what 'is' meditation, we'll ( hopefully ?) begin to meditate ourselves.

A: We're back again to the ( fine) distinction between the 'goal' which lies outside the activity, in contrast to the ( experiential) activity itself.

K: So, could we start with saying 'I do not know what meditation is' ?

A: Yes, yes. I'm willing to start from there.

K: It's really marvelous if you start from there. It brings a great sense of (inwardly purifying sense of ?) humility.

A: Also one intuits even from afar a ( sense of inner) freedom.

K: Yes, that ( not-knowing) is a tremendous acknowledgment of one's freedom from the established 'known', the established methods and practices of meditation. I start with something I don't know. That has, for me that has great beauty. Then I'm free to flow with the ( living truth of the ?) enquiry. So, if we can start with 'I don't know', my first question : is meditation divorced from our everyday living - our daily conduct, our daily desires of personal fulfillment, ambition, greed, envy, the daily competitive, imitative, conforming (mentality) , from our daily appetites, sensual, intellectual and so on. Is meditation ( an activity) divorced from all that? Or does meditation flow through all that, includes all that? Otherwise our meditation has no ( practical) meaning. You follow?

A: Yes, I do, and I've never personally undertaken meditation with respect to its ritualistic character in some traditions or its radically methodical approach. However, I've read rather deeply in the literatures that have emanated from those practices – like of what in the hesychast tradition, is called the 'Jesus prayer' uttered by the monks on Mount Athos, "Lord, Jesus Christ, have mercy upon me a sinner." This is repeated over and over in the hope that someday it will become so automatic that the ( sinner's?) 'unconscious' comes into possession of it. The claim being that when this is achieved, when I no longer have to utter the prayer, the prayer is uttering itself ( and keeps resonating?) in me.

K: The same thing, sir, is expressed in India with the 'mantras'. You know that?

A: Yes.

K: ( A mechanical) repetition of a sentence or a word. And the repeating loudly first, then silently. Then it has entered into your being and the very sound (the silent vibration of it?) is going on. And from ( the silent vibration of ) that 'sound' you act, you live. But ( the problem is that) it's all self-imposed in order to arrive at a certain goal.

A: This speaks to me very personally. The basis for the decision that I made years ago not to do (this kind of) things was embodied in your statement a little earlier, namely that it is ( subliminally) expected that out of these (magic?) words will come somehow this permeation of my total being. And the question that arose for me at the time was whether the mantram or the Jesus prayer is itself a finite expression.

K: Absolutely.

A: Therefore, aren't I doing something strange here ? And if I somehow attain to anything that's worth attaining to, it would probably be in spite of that rather than because of it. That ( particular topic) was 'thinking about thought' and I was making an intuitive response to it and didn't go ahead with it.

K: Quite, quite right sir. So you see, all that implies that there is a ( particular ?) path to Truth - the Christian path, the Hindu path, the Zen, the various gurus and systems, that there is a path to that enlightenment or to that immeasurable 'something' , and all you have to do is keep on walking, walking, walking toward it. Buit that means 'that thing' is established, fixed, static, is not living.

A: It flashed into my mind the Biblical text in which God is described as the 'lamp unto my feet, and the light unto my path'. It doesn't say He is the path. But rather he's the lamp...

K: the path, quite.

A: That's very interesting, but maybe nobody really looks at those words closely enough.

K: You see, sir, how you are looking at it ? You see the truth of that statement. The feeling of it.

A: Yes, yes.

K: So, that's one thing. Then, does meditation cover the whole field of all human existence or is it something totally apart from ( our everyday) life? Like being in business, politics, sex, pleasure, ambition, greed, envy, the anxiety, death, fear, all that is my life, life, living. Is meditation apart from that or does it embrace all that? If it doesn't embrace all that, meditation has no ( holistic?) meaning. So, if it is divorced from ( our everyday) life then meditation is just an escape from all our daily miseries, sorrows, confusions. And therefore it's not worth even touching.

A: Yes. Right.

K: If the (traditional meditation ) is not for me, then what 'is' meditation? You follow? Is it an attainment of a ( spiritual) goal? Or is it a perfume, a (sense of inner) beauty that pervades all my activities, therefore it has tremendous significance? When you deny all these systems, methods, gurus, authorities – Meditation is a 'religious' question.

A: Yes, profoundly religious.

A: We have a long tradition in western civilization of the artist as an outsider, don't we ?

K: Yes. Something outside. But he is much more sensitive, much more alert to beauty, to nature, but apart from that he is just an ordinary man. To me, that is an (existential) contradiction. First be a total human being, in the sense of a total understanding of life, death, love, beauty, relationship, responsibility, not to kill. All that's implied in (the quality of holistic?) living. Therefore it establishes a relationship with nature. And the expression of that relationship, if it is whole, healthy is creative. So, meditation covers the whole field of existence. Meditation implies freedom from the method, the system, because I don't know what ( a holistic) meditation is, I start from that ( basic) freedom ( from the known?) and therefore the mind is free to enquire what meditation (really is) ?
( In a nutshell:) one starts with the mind emptying itself of the burdens of others, their methods, their systems, their acceptance of authority, their beliefs, their hope, because its part of me, all that. And, now I start by saying, I don't know what meditation is. That means the mind is free (from its conditioning cultural background) and has this ( inner) sense of great humility.

A: Exactly...

K: Now I'm in a position to enquire. First of all I look at my life, because, as I said, meditation covers the whole field of one's life. My daily conscious living and also there is the question of sleep. What is my sleep (consciousness?)
And what is (my) waking (consciousness) ? Am I (totally) awake? Or, I am only awakening when there is a crisis, when there is a shock, when there is a ( life threatening) challenge, when there ia a (critical) incident, death, failure. Or am I ( being inwardly?) awake all the time during the daytime ? So what is it to be awake? You follow, me sir?

A: Yes, I am. Since you are saying that meditation must permeate, obviously, to be awake cannot be episodic.

K: That's it. Cannot be episodic.

A: Can't be described as 'peak' experiences.

K: No, no. The need for stimulation, external or internal, only implies that you are asleep and you need a stimulant to keep you awake.

A: Having a 'shot' to go to sleep and have a 'shock' to wake up...

K: So, what does it mean to be 'awake'? Not only awake to what is happening politically, economically, socially, that is pretty obvious. But ( inwardly) awake. What does it mean? I am not ( fully) awake if I have any ( psychological) burden (to carry?) . You follow, sir? There is no sense of being awake when there is any kind of fear. If I live with an illusion, if my actions are neurotic, there is no state of being ( fully) awake. So I'm enquiring and I can only enquire by becoming very sensitive to what is happening in me, outside me. So is the mind aware during the day completely to what is happening inside & outside of me ?

A: Upon every instant ?

K: That's it. Otherwise I am not ( fully?) awake.

A: I was just thinking about something that has always given me a great sense of wonder. At home we have some birds and, of all things, a cat too. But they love one another. That is to say, the birds don't run around in the room ( playing ) with the cat, but the cat 'supervises' the birds. When the birds are put to bed in the evening the cat goes into that room and stays with them, maybe an hour or two, watches. Just seems to have the feeling that it must look after the birds. And in the day time, I've often watched the cat sit and look at the birds with an immense intensity, and the ordinary reaction is, "Well for heaven's sake, haven't you seen them before?" What is this everlasting intensity, but she's 'looking' and her eyes are always with that jewel-like intensity and clarity. Cleaner than flame. And it never stops. And when she sleeps, she really sleeps - yes. When you asked me what is sleep, there must be a relation between the wonder that we feel for the cat's ability completely to sleep. And when she awakes she's completely awake.

K. That's right, sir. So in asking and enquiring what is sleep, I must also ask what is to be awake. Am I (really) awake? Or is the ( active memory of the ) 'past' so alive that it is dictating (the course of ) my life in the present? Therefore I am asleep (day-dreaming?) .

A: Would you say that again?

K: I'll put it differently. Is my mind burdened with the ( active memory of the ) past? And therefore bearing (this psychological) burden, one is not awake to the present.

A: Not fully awake in the present, exactly.

K: Therefore what am I to do with the ( psychologically active memories of the ) past? You follow, sir?

A: Yes, I do.

K: ( Our factual memory of the ) past is necessary.

A: Of course, the whole field of ( practical & academic ) knowledge.

K: But when the ( 'psychologically active' memory of the ) past covers the present, then I am ( inwardly inattentive or?) asleep. So is it possible to know what the (right place of the ) past is and not let it overflow into the ( living) present? That ( meditation related?) question and seeing the reality of it brings its own (inner) discipline. Therefore I can keep ( inwardly) awake totally and widely and yet operate ( mentally ) in the field of knowledge. So there is no contradiction (no conflict of interests?) . I don't know if I am conveying it ?

A: You are, you are.

K: So both are moving in harmony. One doesn't lag behind the other. One doesn't contradict the other. There's ( a dynamic ) balance.

A: Well, if I am following you correctly is, on the one hand we have knowledge and the grasp of its necessity with respect to know how to run the practical affairs. And on the other hand we have ( the inner) seeing & understanding. And the act of meditation is the 'nexus' between them, so that there is no interruption of flow in the activity of understanding and knowing.

K: That is part of ( the holistic approach to ) meditation.

A: Of course.

K: Then, because my enquiry is to find out whether meditation covers the whole field of life, what is ( the right place of ) sleep? Resting, shutting your eyes, going to bed at 9 or 10 or later and in sleep, dreams. What are dreams?
( Generally, ) dreams are the continuation of a daily life which is in disorder; so I go to sleep the disorder continues (in the 'dream world'?) . If our mind doesn't put order in its life during the day, the brain tries to bring order during the night.

A: Through the dreams ?

K: Through dreams, or through ( symbolic clues & ) intimations and when I awake I say, yes I have the feeling that this must be done.
Now, when ( and if?) the mind is ( fully) awake during the day, it establishes ( a conflict free inner) order, which comes out of the (holistic) understanding of disorder. The ( insightful) negation of disorder is ( bringing its own ) order, not by following a blueprint or an 'orderly' pattern, all that's disorder. So if during the day, the brain has established order, in the 'sleep-time' the brain doesn't need to re-establish order in itself, therefore it becomes (naturally ) quiet and sleeps without dreams. ( It may have superficial dreams when you eat wrongly, or all that kind of psychosomatic things. I am not talking about that . So, then 'sleep' means ( a total) regeneration of the brain. I don't know if you follow?

A: Yes, but I wonder if I could ask you a ( metaphisical ) question about dreams here, that might introduce a distinction between dreams in terms of their nature. Sometimes we report that we've had a dream which points to future event.

K: That's another thing.

A: That's entirely different from what you are talking about ?

K: I think we can understand that (kind of premonitory visions or dreams ?) very simply ( and metaphorically) . You are walking high up in the hills and there is a river flowing down below. And if two boat ( ongoing events?) are coming in the opposite direction one can see (if and ) where they were going to meet.

A: But that has nothing to do with my subjective unfinished business which you were talking about. What an amazing thing it would be to have all your business done and 'go to sleep' (like a cat?) . And if order should present you with a (quality of insightful) understanding, then this ( gift of intelligent ) understanding never stops from waking through sleeping. Marvelous !

K: So you see, that way the brain is ( completely) regenerated, keeps young. No conflict (of interests between the various fragments of thought-desire ?) Conflict wears out the brain.

A: Yes.

K: So, ( the dreamless) sleep means not only order, rejuvenation, innocence, but also in ( this) sleep there are states of absolute (inner) freedom in which one may see into something which one has never seen with the physical eyes.

A: Yes...

K: So we went sufficiently into that. So does the ( holistically integrated) mind live that kind of life during the day?

A: That would be pretty rare...

K: Otherwise it is not ( a holistically friendly ?) meditation. So am I (capable of) living at that (height) ? And it gives me energy to live that way because I have no burden of the other ('psychological' stuff) . I don't know?

A: This is very remarkable indeed. It reminds me of a Zen story about a swordsman and his three sons. And he was an old, old swordsman in old Japan and he wanted to pass on the responsibility for his art to his sons. And unbeknown to them he put a ball on top of the lintel and as they passed in, they, of course, were quite unaware of that. The youngest was called in first, and when the youngest walked in, his father had arranged for this ball to drop, you see, and the ball dropped and the son, in a flash, cut it in two with his sword when it fell down. And the second son came in, ball fell on his head but precisely as it touched his head he reached up and he took it in his hands. The eldest son came in, he opened the door, and as he opened the door he reached up and he took the ball. And the father called them in and he read out the youngest son and he said, "Very brilliant. You've mastered the technique. You don't understand anything." He said to the second one, "Well, you're almost there. Just, just keep on, keep on." And he said to the eldest son, "Well, now you can begin." And it's like the sanscrit word 'prajna' which means 'pra' - ahead, 'jna' to know ; to 'know beforehand', in the ( intuitive) sense, not of some work of prediction based on the study of rats in the lab or something but ( an insightful ) 'understanding ahead' in the total movement of that one act.

K: Yes, sir. And I see this, because I do not separate meditation from my daily living. So ( to recap:) I see the importance of (having an inner & outer) order during the waking hours. And therefore freeing the brain from conflict, so that during ( a dreamless) sleep there is total rest to the brain.

Then, what is ( the necessity for 'thought -) control' ? All religions have said control ( your desires & thoughts) . Be without desire. Don't think about yourself. But can I live without ( 'thought?) control'? You follow, sir?

A: Oh yes, one has to start by asking that question at the very beginning.

K: That's what we are doing.

A: My statement was just a mirror to that, yes.

K: Is it possible to live without ( 'thought) control'? Because... 'who' is controller? The controller 'is' (essentially not different from the thoughts & desires that are being ) controlled. When I say 'I must control my thoughts', the 'controller' is ( the supervising) creation of thought. A (central part of?) thought controls ( the collateral ) thoughts. ( Meditation-wise this artificial division ?) has no meaning. One fragment controls another fragment, and yet therefore remain (separated) 'fragments'. So I say, is there a way of living without ( thought) control? Therefore no ( inner) conflicts, no ( endless corridor of ) 'opposites'. Not one (dominant) desire against another ( secondary) desires. One ( self-identified) thought opposed to other thoughts.
So, no ( 'thought) control'. Is that possible? I've got the (necessary intelligent) energy ( to as it?) now because I am not carrying that burden anymore. So can I live a life of (integrated action &) meditation in which there is no (necessity for thought ) control?

A: When ( the newly released) intelligence 'breaks out', then with it comes order and in that ( holistic) order, the seeing 'is' the doing.

K: Yes.

A: Therefore there is no conflict (of interests) at all (between them) .

K: You see, therefore can I live this ( control-free ) way ? I've got ( lots of sensory) desires: I see a car, a woman, a house, a lovely garden, beautiful clothes, or whatever it is, instantly all the desires arise. And not to have a (controller vs controlled) conflict. And yet... not yield to (those desires) either . If I have money I go and buy it. ( Problem solved ?) But...if I have no money the desire is aroused ( seeing, contact, sensation and thought taking charge of that) desire. Now once that desire is there, (rather than trying to control it or 'cut it off'?) to allow for the 'flowering of desire' without control. So its very flowering allows the (natural) ending of that ( thought- sustained) desire. ( Clue : if you try to 'chop it' off... it'll come back again)

A: Yes, yes. It's the subtle difference between a 'terminus' and a 'consummation'.

K: Quite, yes. So I let the desire come, flower and ( the holistic action is to) 'watch it' not yield or resist. Just 'let it flower' and be fully aware of what is happening. Then there is no ( need for thought & desire) control.

A: And no ( inner conflict & ) disorder.

K: No, of course. The moment 'you' try to control 'it' there is disorder. Because you are trying to suppress it or or accept it - you know all the rest of it. So that is disorder. But when you allow the thing to flower and watch it, watch it in the sense of being totally aware of it - the 'petals', the subtle forms of desire to possess, not to possess, to possess is a pleasure, not to possess is a pleasure, you follow? - the whole of that ( self-splitting) movement of ( thought &) desire.

A: Exactly.

K: And ( in order to be able to 'do' ) that, you have to be very sensitive, watchful, very sensitive, a 'choiceless watching'.

A: This image that you have referred to metaphorically with the 'plant' itself, could we pursue that in our next conversation through the continuation of concern to look further into meditation ?

K: We have not finished (the subject of) 'meditation'. There's lots more involved.

A: Good, good...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 May 2018 #4
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 320 posts in this forum Offline


(this is a 'reader friendly' version - the full verbatim text is freely available at

A: Mr Krishnamurti, we were discussing in our previous conversation (about your holistic approach to ?) meditation. And you brought up the very beautiful analogy with the flowering of a plant, and it struck me that the order that is intrinsic to the ( living ) movement of the plant as it flowers is a revelatory image of order that you have been discussing. And we were talking also about the qualitative difference between a meditation ( based on a holistic ) understanding and ( a meditation based thought & ) knowledge - a distinction that's very, very rarely made.

K: Yes.

A: But then in going into that distinction there was something you were beginning to do. And perhaps we could...

K: We could go on from there. If I remember rightly we were talking about (the meditative validity of controlling thought?) And we said that the 'controller' 'is' ( not different from) the ( thoughts which are being ?) 'controlled'. And we went into that sufficiently : control implies ( self-centred) will. And in the desire to control (one's own thoughts or...other people's thoughts?) there is established a 'goal' and a 'direction' ( a course of action) . Which means that in the 'carrying out' of the decision made by ( thought's own ) will (power) is implied time, control, will, and (the subliminal expectation of a gratifying ) 'end'. All that's implied in the word 'control'. Isn't it?

A: Yes...

K: So what place has ( controlling one's thought ?) in meditation and therefore in ( our everyday) life? Or it has no place at all ? That means there is no place (in meditation?) for ( thought enforced ? ) 'decisions' at all. Only seeing & doing. And that doesn't demand will-(power) , nor direction.
You follow the beauty of ( the inner freedom implied in) this, sir, how it works out ? When the ( meditative ?) mind sees the futility of ( thought-) control because it has understood that the 'controller' is ( not separated from its thoughts & feelings supposed to be ?) controlled - one ( self-identified?) 'fragment' trying to dominate the other fragments, and therefore ( the 'thinker' trying to control its thoughts ?) is going around in a vicious circle, never getting out of it.
So can there be an ( meditation-friendly quality of ?) living without ( thought-?) control, without ( the thinker exercing its) will (- power along any egotistic ) direction? There must be ( a sense of) 'direction' in the field of knowledge, otherwise I couldn't get home, I would lose the capacity to drive a car, speak a language, all the ( other countless?) 'technological' things (and gadgets ?) necessary in life. There, direction, choice , calculation & decision in that field are necessary. But in ( the inner world) where there is choice there is confusion, because there is no ( clear) perception (of the truth or of the false) . Where there is ( the insightful clarity of pure ) perception, there is no choice. Choice exists only when the mind is confused between ( following) 'this' or 'that' (course of action?). So, can a (holistic) life be led without (thought) control, without ( ego-centric) will and direction, that means time? And that is ( the 'real' value of) meditation, which then has a meaning in ( the context of our everyday) living.

A: But I'd like to ask you about the relationship of will ( in the context of practcal ?) knowledge, where it does have a proper career.

K: Of course.

A: So we are making a ( clear ) distinction here between 'will' and its role in relation to the whole field of the 'know-how', and the confusion that occurs when that activity (of will power?) is brought over into this (psychological) area...

K: That's right.

A: And if we don't...then we can't do properly either of them, really.

K: Then, that's just it. Therefore we become inefficient, 'personal' (-ly biased?) .

A: But you see, what we think usually is that we can be terribly efficient in knowledge and be what is called 'unspiritual' (or the other way round) be a success here and not be a success here. Whereas, if I understand you correctly, you don't fail in one or the other, you just 'fail'. It's a total failure if this confusion is made. You simply can't operate well even 'here' ( in the material world) no matter what it might look like in the short run...

K: long as you are not completely in order inside yourself (as long as thought has not found its right place?) .

A: Exactly. So the very division that we make between 'inner' and 'outer' (aspects of our life) is itself a symptom of this terrible...

K: ...( confusion of our self-centred?) thinking which has divided the 'outer' and the 'inner'.

A: Yes, yes. I hope you'll bear with me in going through that...

K: Yes, actually you are quite right.

A: ...because I know the weight of the confusion in the 'religious' thinking : as soon as you begin to make a ( holistic) comment of this kind, the extreme rigidity and nervousness that occurs is dramatic. Yes. Yes...

K: You see, sir, meditation (should?) cover the whole field of living, not one segment of it. Therefore living an (inner) life without ( ego-centric thought-) control, without the action of will, decision, direction, achievement. Is that possible? If it is not possible it is not ( a holistic?) meditation and therefore ( our daily) life becomes superficial, meaningless.

A: You know, in the classical ( philosophical) tradition we have a definition of 'will'. We say that it's 'desire made reasonable'. But of course, we've long since lost the idea of what the ancients meant, against their contemplative background, by the word 'reason'. It points to that ( quality of holistic) order which isn't 'defined' (in terms of our self-interest) . And it occurs to me that if we understood that statement correctly we'd be saying, 'will' is the focus of desire without myself focusing it 'self'- consciously.

K: Yes, that's right. And therefore watching 'desire' flower, or watching ( one's own ) 'will' ( power?) in operation and let it flower and ( hopefully???) as it 'flowers', ( providing one is) watching it, it 'dies', it 'withers away' (and its concentrated intelligent energy is getting recycled or integrated ?) . ( In a nutshell:) after all it's (pretty much) like a 'flower' you allow ( all the inner space, loving care & freedom ? ) to bloom and it withers.

A: It 'comes to be' and 'passes away' in its own time.

K: Therefore if you are ( becoming) 'choicelessly' ( non-personally?) aware of this movement of desire, control, will, focusing that will in action, and so on, let it ( express itself freely, but nevertheless ?) watch it. And as you watch it you will see how it loses its vitality. So there is no ( need to keep it under ) control. So from that arises the next question which is : What is space ?
The ( mental ) space (of the 'known'?) which thought has created is one thing. Then there is the space that exists in the universe, ( the physical ) space. There must be space for a mountain to exist. There must be space for a tree to grow. There must be space for a flower to bloom. So what is 'space'? And have we ( enough living) space? Or are we all so limited physically to living in a little apartment, little houses, no space at all outwardly, and therefore having no space we become more and more violent.

A: Yes.

K: I don't know if you have watched of an evening when all the swallows are lined up on a wire and how exact 'spaces' they have in between, you follow, sir? Have you?

A: Yes I have. It's marvelous.

K: So, space is necessary. And we have no space physically with more and more population and all the rest of it. And therefore more and more violence, more and more living together in small flats, you know, crowded.

A: Oh yes...

K: Breathing the same air, thinking the same things, seeing the same television, reading the same books, going to the same church, believing in the same thing. You follow?

A: Yes.

K: The same sorrow. The same anxiety. The same fears. So ( as it is now, the human) mind, and so the brain, has very little space. And space is necessary, otherwise I stifle. So can the mind have ( its own inner?) space? And there will be no inner space (in meditation?) if there is a (movement of thought in any ? ) direction. ( In a nutshell:) There is no (inner) space if ( thought's movement in a certain ) direction means 'time'. So when the mind is ( constantly ) occupied with family or (with problems related to:) business, God, drink, sex, ( or with seeking a transcendental?) experience, there is no ( 'problem free' inner?) space.

A: Exactly !

K: So when ( thought is constantly occupied within in the field of ?) knowledge there is no ( free inner) space. And thought creates a ( self-prorective ?) space around itself as the 'me' enclosed, and 'you' enclosed, as 'we' and 'they'. So the 'self' (-centred consciousness), the 'me', which is the very essence of thought has ( created & furnished?) its own little inner space.

A; Yes.

K: And for it to 'move' (and explore the unknown?) out of this ( relatively safe & cozy inner?) space is ( resulting in fear & ) anxiety because I am only used to that little space.

A: Yes, exactly, terror !

K: Yes, that's right. Our whole being is ( safely enclosed ?) in this little ( or wide?) mental) space which thought has created. ( As a general rule of thumb :) thought can never give space. So, ( a thought-free ?) meditation is freeing of the mind of the ( mentally active ) 'content' of ( self-) consciousness which creates its own little 'space'. You follow, sir?

A: Yes, I do...

K: Now is ( the creation of a thought-free free inner space really  ? ) possible when I'm (keeping myself constantly ) occupied (with thinking about) my wife, my children, about my responsibilities (plus) I care for the ( garden ) tree, I care for ( my meditating?) cat, I care for this and that and I'm occupied, occupied, occupied.

A: This throws a marvelous light on that ( obscure?) saying of Jesus : ''Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests but the son of man hath not where to lay his head''. The man who understands himself is not inventing a (busy 'home - ) space' for himself. That's marvelous !

K: I don't know...

A: It's a demonstration to me of what you've said. For instance, in so far as I ask these questions of myself personally, all these things out here become answered. For instance, what could be more empirically demonstrable to any individual ( consciousness ) than : ''I am the world and the world is me'' ?

K: That's right, sir. So, sir, look. The world is getting more and more overpopulated. Cities are growing more and more, spreading spreading, spreading, suburbs, and so on. Man is getting less and less ( free inner & outer ) space and therefore driving out wild animals, or killing the Indians in Brazil, and so on. They are doing this, actually it is going on.

A: Oh yes...

K: And, having no space out there, outwardly, except on the occasions when I go off into the country and say to myself, my god, I wish I could live here. So, can there be ( created spme free ) space inwardly? When there is ( a sense of open) space inwardly there is ( a sense of having) 'space' ( even ) outwardly.

A: Exactly...

K: But just having the necessary outward space (of freedom) is not going to give the ( necessary ?) inner space of a ( meditating) mind that is free from (time binding) occupation, though it is occupied at the moment with what it has to do, but the moment that is finished, it is over. I don't ( have to) carry the office ( problems) to my home. So ( creating free inner) space in the mind means the 'emptying' of our consciousness of all its ( time-binding) content which ( my self-centred) thought as the 'me' has created – and when it ends and therefore there is ( inner) space. Now, that ( open inner) space isn't yours or mine. It is (an universally intelligent 'mind' ) Space. You follow?

A: Yes, yes I was thinking of the 'creation story' in Genesis. The appearance of space occurs when the waters are separated from the waters and we have a vault now over which the birds fly and this space is called Heaven.

K: It is heaven. So ( the understanding of inner ) space, direction, time, will, choice, control - has ( a holistic) importance in the daily living of every human being. If he doesn't know what the meaning of meditation is, he merely lives in that field of knowledge and therefore that becomes a (self-created mental) prison. And being ( safely installed?) in (this 'consciousness') prison he says, I must escape through entertainment, through Gods, through this and through that, through 'amusement'. You know, that is what is actually taking place.

A: The word 'vacation' says it all, doesn't it ?

K: Absolutely.

A: To 'vacate' is to exit into space. But then we go from one hole to another...

K: Now, if that is clearly perceived in myself, if I see the thing operating in my daily life, then what takes place? (Having this free inner) space means 'silence' inwardly.

A: That's very deep. Very, very deep...

K: Yes, ( the) 'sound' ( of silence?) .

A: Now, what you have said puts the whole thing into astonishing...

K: Silence isn't the space between two noises. Silence isn't the cessation of noise. It ( the inner sound of silence?) comes naturally, inevitably as you open (up inwardly?) , as you observe, as you examine, as you investigate.
So then the ( meditating mind is fully immersed in this ?) Silence, without any ( mental) movement. ( no movement of thought, no movement of time) . Now, that (inner sound of ?) 'silence' operate in my daily life? I live in the field of noise as ( thinking within the area of) knowledge. That I have to do (or...not?) . And is there a living with ( this inner peace & ) Silence and at the same time with the other ( necessary daily chores?) ? The two moving together, like two rivers flowing in ( inner harmony & ) balance. No division. Is that (level of inner integration?) possible? Because if it's not possible be so deeply honest, I can only live ( & optimise my living) in the field of (time &) knowledge. I don't know if you see?

A: Oh yes, yes...

K: So, for me it is ( naturally?) possible - and I say this in great humility – So I think that is possible (for anyone) .
Then what takes place next ? Then what is Creation? Is creation something to be expressed in painting, in writing poems or ... in bringing about a baby? Is that Creation? Does Creation need be expressed? To most people it must be expressed ( for some personal profit?) . Otherwise one feels frustrated, anxious, not alive. You follow all that business. So what is ( the inner meaning of?) Creation? ( Clue : One can only answer that if one has really gone through all this. Otherwise creation becomes a rather cheap thing)

A: Yes, it becomes, simply something 'pressed out'.

K: Like the life of ( many ) literary people who are everlastingly in battle in themselves, tension and all that, and out of that they write a book, (and eventually) become 'famous' (or not...) .

A: Yes, ( Freud's) psychological theory that works of art are based on neurosis, driven by it....

K: So what is Creation? Is it like an (inner) flowering in which the flower does not know (or is not self-conscious?) that it is flowering.

A: Exactly, exactly.

K: Have I made it clear?

A: Yes, you've made it very, very clear. All through our conversations the one word that has, for me, been like a clean blade of a two edged sword has been this word 'act'.

K: So, sir, see what takes place ? Creation ( enters?) in my living. And from this arises another ( still deeper ) question which is really much more important : ( the self-centred process of ) thought is (essentially based on) measure. And as long as all our actions are based on thought -as it is now - the search for the Immeasurable has no meaning. ( it may be just a supposition, a speculation, or the assertion of a few who think they know).
( And, supposing that one has discarded all that stuff?) one asks, when the mind is utterly silent what is the Immeasurable? What is the Everlasting? What is the Eternal? Not in terms of what man has invented as 'God', but actually to 'be' ( one with?) That. Now, Silence in the deep sense of that word, opens the Door. Because in it here is no dissipation of energy at all. Therefore there is all that energy which has been wasted is now gathered in that silence. You follow? That silence has become sacred. So it is only such a (blessed?) mind can see this the most supreme sacred, the essence of all that is sacred, which is Beauty. You follow, sir?

A: I do...

K: So, God isn't something that man has invented out of his image and longing and failure. But when the mind itself becomes 'sacred' then it opens the door to something that is Immeasurably Sacred. That is the religious ( or holistic way of?) life. And that affects the daily living, the way I talk, the way I treat people, the conduct, behaviour - all that. If 'that' doesn't exist (in our daily life) , then every other kind of ( crude or sophisticated?) mischief exists, however clever, however intelligent, however - all that.

A: And 'meditation' does not occur in the context of all this disorder.

K: No.

A: Absolutely not. But 'that' is precisely where your word 'religious' is pointing to.

K: That is the most profound religious ( or holistic?) way of living.
You see sir what takes place  (as a bonus?) ? Because all one's ('psychic'  intelligent ) energy is being gathered, you have other kind of extra sensory powers (ESP's ) , can do 'miracles', which has happened all this to me, exorcise, and all that kind of stuff, and healing. But they are all secondary issues. Not that you don't ( have compassion & ) love for people. On the contrary, it is the essence of ( a holistic/religious way of life ) . But ( more often than not, such gifted ) people get caught in the secondary issues. I mean, look at what has happened, the man who really can heal - people worship him, a little healing.

A: It reminds me of a story you told me a year ago: it was about this old (wise?) man sitting on the banks of a river and the young man came to him, after the older man had sent him away to undertake whatever he needed to learn and he came back with a marvelous 'announcement' that he could now walk on water. And then the older ( & presumably wiser?) man looked at him and said, "What's all that fuss about? So you can walk on water. And you have taken all these years to learn how to walk on water. Didn't you see the boat over there?"

K: That's right. Religion ( the religious or holistic way of life?) is as we said, is the gathering of all ( one's intelligent) energy, which is 'attention'. In that 'attention' many things happen. Some have this gift of healing, miracles, but the religious man never touches it (except occasionally?) but it is a ( heavenly gift that has to be wisely ?) put away, like any other gift or talent, because it is a ( psychologically potential ?) danger - the more you are talented, the more 'I' am important, so... worship me. (not to mention that with the public recognition of ) that talent I'll get money, position, power. So a mind that is religious is aware of all this and lives a life...

A: this space, in this marvelous (open inner) space.

K:And when there is this sense of religious summation of all ( one's inner) energy that is love, that is compassion, and care. And that operates in daily life. You see, sir, with that (holistic quality of Intelligence & ?) Love , do what you like, it will be still Love.
( In a nutshell:) can the human mind - in the sense mind, the brain, the (psychosomatic) body, the whole thing - can the mind be really 'silent'? Not the induced silence of a church or temple. They have their own silence when you enter a temple or the old cathedrals. They have an extraordinary sense of silence. Thousands of people chanted or talked, prayed and all that. But it (the inner Sound of Silence?) is above all that.

A: The discussion that we have undertaken is so total. The (authentic) meditation isn't a thing that you do 'among other things'...

K: Meditation also implies attention, care - for my children, for my neighbour, for the earth, for the trees, for the animals. Therefore, sir, all this (holistic approach to life) comes to a sense of deep, inward seriousness, and that seriousness itself brings about attention, caring and responsibility. One sees it, and the very perception 'is' action which is ( the ultimate ?) wisdom. Because wisdom is the ending of suffering and its 'ending' means the (holistic) observation and the 'seeing' (direct perception?) of suffering. Just see it and let it flower. And as one is choicelessly aware of this flowering, it comes naturally to wither away. You don't have to do something about it.
So, (the holistic meditation) covers the whole of man's endeavour, his thoughts, his anxieties, everything it covers. And in ( this inner peace & ) silence, 'time' stops.

A: In silence time stops. Immensely beautiful. I must express to you my gratitude from the bottom of my heart. Because throughout the whole set of our discussions I have been undergoing a transformation.

K: Quite. Because you are willing to listen, good enough to listen. Most people won't take the time, or care to listen (with the mind-in-the-heart ?)

A: I've already seen, in my relation to my classes, in the ( scholastic) activity with my students, the beginning of an (inner) flowering. Thank you, so much again.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 May 2018 #5
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 320 posts in this forum Offline


FIRST K SEMINAR, JUNE 1984 (reader-friendly edited)

A: I would like to introduce Dr.Shainberg, a psychiatrist from the United States, Dr.Peat is a physicist from Canada, professor Bergstrom, a neuro-physiologist at the University of Helsinki, Professor Varela, neuro-biologist at the Max Planck Institute for brain research in Frankfurt. I am a neuro-biologist and was wondering if we could discuss whether thought can help us to understand the human brain, and the complexity of life.

K: Can one understand the very complex structure and nature of the human brain in oneself, rather than seek it externally, outside? I feel it is possible if one can watch very carefully & objectively, one's own reactions, biological responses and the inward urges and temperaments (moods?) and idiosyncrasies, the whole complexity of human existence.
One can approach this very, very complex problem very 'simply' - without compulsion, without a ( personal) motivation, just to watch the whole operation of one's own (self-centred ) activities, without seeking it ( by observing other people's behaviour? ) externally.

E: Well there seems to be a fundamental distinction between completely observing oneself, without the 'me', the and creating of a ( working hypothesis or?) ) model, a 'process', or a theory. Now would this second endeavour be out in the approach you are proposing?

A: Perhaps it would be good to clarify what we mean by 'observing' something ( directly & non-verbally?) .

K: Sir, does that imply to observe ( anything directly) there must be no (self-centred?) conditioning?

A: We'll have to go slowly here because somehow you mentioned an observation without the 'me'. It doesn't seem for me so clear because whenever I am looking at something there seems to be the separation between 'my observing' and that 'something'. There seems to be this division in the brain.

K: Is that our ( ages old cultural?) conditioning? There is the 'see-er' and the 'seen', the observer and the observed, the thinker and the thought, the experiencer and the experience.

B: I would like to know what you think the relationship is between the theory and observation?

K: I don't think there is any theory (involved in direct perception?) .

B: Well, then the endeavour you are proposing would be a radical departure from what has been all of the models of knowledge from the west.

K: Yes sir. In observing why should I have a 'theory' about it?

E: Not really, but there is this inquisitiveness ( in the very nature of human knowledge ?) that seems to constantly come up of asking the question of how is it like that, how can we understand that, how can we have an image, a representation of the process where that comes up?

C: I don't think you are saying enough. The 'theory' ( or the working hypothesis?) also functions to establish for you and for me the interrelationship between these issues, therefore you are not just 'looking' but the 'theory' function is a way to help you to distinguish and therefore to have an interdigitation of many different aspects of ( scientific) curiosity.

E: We are talking here about the 'psychological' perception and Krishnamurti has said it is possible to explore the whole mechanism of 'seeing' this glass of water by simply observing oneself doing it. There must be many levels of mental operation which are purely mechanical, which we never can have any direct experience of, at the level of the eye and the optic nerve. And Krishnamurti seems to be saying something different : we must be aware of every level of the process.

D: Coming back to the original question about the brain, understanding the brain as such (being alive) , or dissecting it. Now, from the point of view of the brain surgeon, there exists two kinds of brain. The whole brain, which sees red or blue and so on; and then the other brain is the brain which consists of the parts, the cells, molecules and so on. And the physiologist looks, and here comes the ( necessity of a working model or ) 'theory', experimenting, dissecting and so on, looks at the brain which consists of the parts. And then the other way , facing the 'brain which perceives' as a whole, which is only one 'me', or whatever the individual calls itself . I always think that we have to distinguish between those two. And the first will be the theoretical brain, with (interacting) fragments, parts and so on, and the other will be the human brain as a whole. And therefore I think we can really know about brain without dissecting it.

K: Why divide the brain at all? Why not treat it as a whole movement?

C: I don't have anything against that. But this doesn't resolve the issue of whether we need a theory for organising the observation. I can have a 'holistic' theory, which deals with the brain as a totality. But the necessity of ( creating a working model or ) a 'theory' comes into being in order to organize the certain facts that you have observed . You have to give certain logic to the facts that you are accumulating. And I think Professor Varela said something very interesting, you take for example a child. From the very beginning it seems this natural tendency to discover things and to attribute meaning to things.

D: But a theory cannot be holistic, there are always parts, a collection of parts.

K: By collecting all the parts you make the whole?

E: Of course not. What I mean by 'holistic theory' is a theory that has built in itself the awareness of its 'fragmented-ness'.

K: All right. Can we put it this way: one is aware that ( consciousness -wise) we are fragmented human beings - right? Those fragments we are trying to bring all of them together, but that doesn't ( necessarily) make (our consciousness) whole.

A: How is one to proceed then?

K: You collect all the spokes of a wheel, but all the spokes don't make the wheel, you have to put it together - right?

B: To put the wheel together you also need some technical knowledge as well as the perception of the whole.
strong text
K: Yes.

B: And where does the technical knowledge come from?

K: Is that what we are trying to do? (Acquire the ) 'technical' knowledge of how to put the brain together?

D: There is one reason why we should know a little bit about ( the functioning of the ) brain cells and so on and that must be one of the reasons why they began to fragmentize this.

A: We started by asking : that can the brain understand itself, what does that mean really? And is it possible that thought can understand the brain? I think we should stick to that somehow.

K: Would you say, sir, the brain is the centre of thought, feelings, physical responses, biological responses. And also the brain is the centre of one's 'consciousness', fears, pleasures, anxiety, all that, sorrow, the whole of that consciousness, if you will accept that word, all is ( happening ) in the brain. It is not out there.

B: I am afraid I would have to disagree. I don't think that thought or consciousness is ( located ) in the brain. That this is precisely one the greatest mistakes... It is neither outside nor inside, there is a quality of relationship which thought...

K: Wait a minute. Then we have to enquire what is ( the origin of) thought. Can we begin with that?

E: Yes, let's do that.

K: Let's do that. What is thought? What is thinking?

B: I would say that thought it is imminent in ( any ongoing) action.

K: Thoughts are being born all the time. From where?

C: That may be the wrong question: 'from where ?', because you have already created a definition.

K: No, I want to know the ( originating) cause.

E: When I inspect that question in myself, the only answer I can give to it is, that the source of thought is an unlimited (inner) space which is beyond thought.

K: I wonder what is the relationship between thought and ( the everyday) action? That's what we are discussing, aren't we ?

E: Yes. But thought 'occurs', thought 'happens'. I find myself ( engaged ) in thought.

K: Sir, you just now said that thought (occurs or?) comes into being - right? It must have some causation.

E: Yes, but in order to see the causation I have to put myself out from thought.

K: Isn't it possible to observe the causation ( of thought) without the 'observer' who is the outside – right?

E: Right, absolutely.

K: Wait. So can one observe this (origin or ) cause of thought without the ( interference of the?) 'observer'? Can the causation be observed without the witnesser, which means the observer, the person who perceives ? Is not the ( thought) observed ( of the same origin as ) the 'observer'?

C: Say that again ?

K: I'll put it another way. There is a perception of 'you' sitting there and 'I' sitting here. When I see you, I remember all my (past) memories of you , ( and the active memory of the past ) is the 'observer'. Can I look at you without the observer? Without the ( previous) knowledge of you? You understand? Of course I can.

E: Yes, you can.

K: Of course. Therefore the observer 'is' (not separating itself from the ) observed.

E: So that is a (holistic ) observation.

K: That is real observation : without the (subliminal interference of the?) observer. The 'observer' is ( self-identified memory of ) the past, knowledge, experience. All the ( active content of the?) observer is the ( 'personal' memory of the?) past. Can I look at something without the (subliminal interference of the ) past? Of course it is possible.

D: I don't know...

K: And when there is no ( mental interference of the ) 'observer', what is (the directly perceptive?) action?

A: But then why is our brain doing it anyhow ? Some people could say that it might be normal for the brain.

K: That may be our ( ages old cultural ?) tradition, that may be our ( mainstream) education, being told from childhood that 'you' are different from 'me' (not only outwardly but also inwardly ?) .

C: Yes, but when you were first introduced to him, your first perception was an observation without the observer. Then now when you see him next time ...

K: The brain begins to accumulate the knowledge about him. My ( holistic experiential) point here is : not to record ( suspend the auto-recording 'psychological' process). If in my relationship with you all, I have 'recorded' then that 'record' ( is subliminally becoming an integral part of ) the 'observer'; but if there is no ( personal) record there is only seeing, observing.

C: Suppose we say that the brain is recording everything indiscriminately .

K: But once I know the mechanism of 'recording', is it possible not to record?

C: Yes. It is ( at least theoretically?) possible.

A: You see, normally in science one could say that this division between the observer and the observed is necessary to a certain extent – especially when you are dealing with some experimental outside world. But it doesn't necessarily follow that psychologically we are doing exactly the same.

K: I understand sir. After all as a human being with the result of fifty thousand years – tremendous accumulation of knowledge, experience – we are ( both the beneficiaries & the victims of?) all that. And that ( divisive mental attitude ) is looking at something else, so separating itself constantly.

E: Yes, but you see, this separation has to be sustained by an ongoing ( thought) process which has constant breakdowns. So in my perception of you right now I am constantly having gaps or flashes of this 'observer'.

K: I say why is this ( dualistic) contradiction all the time ?

E: No, no, this is precisely my point. Why do we have to see contradiction there? It seems we have both ( these perceptive modes : ) the observation with the 'observer' and (as well, a capacity for direct perception)

K: At one level (the recording) is necessary - if I met you again tomorrow I can't re-introduce myself, it would be silly. But at a deeper level, why should I carry all the ( 'personal files'?) of meeting you, and why should there be a recording of it at all. I meet you, finished...

C: I have never heard you use those words 'level'. What do you mean by 'levels' and what is the relationship between these levels, in your terms?

K: I think it is fairly simple. I need to know how to write a letter - right? There knowledge is necessary, to drive a car or anything. Physically to do anything I must have a great deal of information, knowledge and accumulated memory and so on. Right? But 'inwardly', why should I ( care to) accumulate?

A: What do you mean by, 'when the brain does not record'?

K: You say something brutal to me, why should I record ( my emotional response to?) it? This recording is the 'self'.

B: I would say that there is no perception without a so-called 'accumulation' of memory and knowledge.

K: Of course, sir, we agree.

B: So this is something that always continues. And how is this different from 'psychological' recording?

K: I am questioning whether inwardly, 'psychically', why should there by any recording at all? This recording inwardly is ( fueling) the divisive process. The ( self-divisive) thinking in terms of 'me' and the 'not me', which is creating havoc in the world - can this ( pseudo-identitary mental) mechanism which has gone on for centuries 'stop', so that there is no 'me' inwardly? This has been a serious question for the 'religious' (or 'holistically minded'?) people : can there be no self at all, and live in this world ? Actually live without the (time binding illusion of the?) 'self'. That's all. Which requires a further statement, which is: is it possible not to record inwardly, 'psychically' ? I say it is possible.

D: There is I think a stage in the development of the child, you see very, very early child, possibly a child can have this.

K: You see ( this psychical 'recording') already in the child. Give him a toy and if you try to take it back, he says, "It is mine".

D: But I think before that stage when they are one with the mother and so on, there might be (some hope?)

K: Sir, I have been told by ( behavioral) scientists who are looking at the babies that the babies already know when a visitor is friendly to the mother or not. By the feeling, by the mother's shrinking, or by seeing the ( 'gut' response of the ) mother.

E: But as a brain researcher, as a scientist, it seems reasonable to say that the brain is organized so as to construct ( for itself) a stable ( image of the ) world. That is what it is there for. Now, when we ask ourselves the question, is this 'no recording' possible, it looks like swimming against the current of natural evolution. Because natural history goes the other way. It seems impossible to 'unlearn' - evolutionary wise- so as to come to the state of living in the world without recording, without self, and yet be a functional human being.
My feeling is that is a question that can only be answered by exploring it from actual (inner) experience of ( individual) human beings. And we have examples and we know people who seem to have done that. Now from a point of view of what that implies for the (future evolution of the human) brain is a fascinating point.

K: Therefore could we put the question differently? The human brain has evolved through ( a long span of chronological) time, a million years, or whatever it is. So, ( its survival-oriented) evolution involves ( thinking in terms of ) time and duration. So, what is ( brain's inward mechanism of?) time? Unless we understand what is (creating its sense of continuity in ) 'time' , we can go on ( repeating the same mistakes ?) indefinitely.
Now what is ( brain's virtual mechanism of?) 'time', apart from ( looking at the ) the clock? ( Inwardly speaking) 'time' is (the constantly updated & upgraded continuity of its recorded memory of the) 'past' ( responding to the challenges of?) the 'present' and ( projecting themselves in ) the 'future'. So ( brain's virtual mechanism of) 'time' is contained ( constantly active?) in the 'now', all time. So the 'future' is (constantly created by recycling the 'good & bad' memories of the past ?) now.

E: Yes...

K: No, sir, it is not a ( 'new age'?) theory. The future is (being constantly created) now and the ( memory of the?) past is ( subliminally active right ) now - right? Then what is ( a time-free ?) action? If action is, "I will do", the future, or "I have done", it is ( obviously) not ( a fullly integrated) action. Action is now. (The 'time-free) acting' means 'now' - right? So can the brain which has evolved...

E: Even your saying that the brain has 'evolved in time' , is creating ( another time-binding ) trap.

K: It is (the statement of) a fact. I am not denying that. But if there is no radical 'revolution' (or 'mutation' now ?) psychologically (inwardly speaking) I will tomorrow be exactly as ( self-centred as I am ?) today.

C: I see a connection here, which is the fact that inwardly, there is ( always some kind of ) action. The imminent inward action is ( generally speaking ) thought, and it is also imminent in the very activity of thought that it separates (the 'observer' from the fact which is being ) . And this is exactly where the 'time' ( process) gets involved . My question is : what is the relationship of that 'now' action to ( the time-bound movement of?) thought?

K: I don't quite follow you.
C: In other words, in the 'now' state of observation without the observer, the action of ( upon) thought is imminent .

K: ''The observer is the observed'' is a (verbal expression of) a tremendous (inner) fact. ( Seeing its actual truth ?) changes the whole way of living. There is no division as the observer and the observed, therefore no conflict. And to live ( in ) this (non-dualistic) way, means a total eradication of ( all survival & competition related ?) conflicts, upon which the human brain has evolved. You follow?

E: Yes...

K: So when the observer 'is' ( not separating itself from ) the 'observed' and therefore no conflict, there is a radical ( qualitative ?) change in the brain. A whole ( psychological) mutation takes place, if I can use that word.

E: Yes, but even ( this qualitative) mutation implies time.

K: No, mutation it is a radical ( qualitative) revolution, because the brain has ( survived) for many thousands of years on conflict (constantly fighting against nature & his neighbours ? )

E: Now, what is the ( experiential) connection between the question you posed at the beginning: can I observe my brain by seeing 'what is' and the actuality of the everpresent 'now'-ness where the observer 'is' the observed ?

K: Sir, do you realize what that means?

E: I do and I don't! It comes and goes.

K: ( Then...?) to you it is a 'theory' ( oe a working hypothesis?) . It is a theory.

E: Well sometimes it is not.

K: Ah! Either it is, or it is not.

E: It comes and goes.

K: No, it can't.

E: Why not?

K: Sir, when you see something (which is existentially ?) 'dangerous', it is finished. You don't go and say, "I'll go back and play with that something dangerous", it ( the mind game ) is over.

E: No, but you can see the ( dangerous) car coming and get out of the way.

K: No, but you can't ( realistically) each time you see a car coming keep out of the way all the time.

E: Sir, are you telling me that it is not possible to learn by having a 'glimpse' of something ? When you have the glimpse you are 'all there', and then something else happens that takes you off. But there is also a possibility of building on the continuity of the glimpse. Why does it have to be a 'black and white' issue .

K: Don't put it as 'black and white'.

E: How is it then?

K: I will put it very simply : I have been ( metaphorically speaking) 'going north' ( 'self-interest' driven?) for the last forty thousand years. You come along and say, look that goes nowhere, ( try ) going south, or east, or west. The very moment of moving away from ( going) north, the cells of the brain have changed (qualitatively) , because the brain has been accustomed to (the ages old mentality of) following that direction .

E: Do you think this ( radical) 'option' is available to all human beings?

K: Oh yes, if (and when???) they 'pay attention'.

E: Yes, but this is precisely my point that in my own experience...

K: ...they don't.

C: Why don't they?

K: Sir, that is simple enough (to explain analytically ?) . First of all that they have to earn a livelihood, plus dozens of other problems.

C: Coming back to something we spoke earlier - at the moment there is 'recognition' what is the action - is there a state of action without the memory also going on?

K: What do you mean here by 'action' ?

C: Is one able to 'observe without memory' while one is still using memory? While seeing the relevance of memory in some areas but not...

K: I see it is relevant to have memory of (the practical) kind. But inwardly why should I have ( to carry ) the burden of ( all my past personal ) memories? You say something to me ( derogatory or?) flattering, why should I carry that (kind of memories)  ?

E: So here is our man, walking for forty thousand years to the north, and then you come along and say it is possible to walk south. But the first observation is that I tense up and say : I (assumed that I ) have to go north....but maybe I can ( tutn around & ) 'go south'. There is this kind of ( re-orientation) process until one finds the 'right' direction.

K: Why do we do this? I have been going north and you come and tell me, look don't go that way, it is stupid, go east. And I am not quite convinced. I am not quite sure whether you are right because I have been used to 'going north' (follow my self-interest all the way ). There is this ( inertial momentum of ) attraction to ( going) north, also there is some logic in what you say, it sounds reasonable, seems sane, and I ( may try to) turn (around) but the attraction goes on, which means what? I have not really 'listened' (with all my being?) to ( the truth of) what you have said.
( So it all comes down to?) whether you are really 'serious' - whether you mean what you say. And I ( may) say, ''By Jove, I have listened to you very, very carefully and then I go east, I forget north.''

E: But an observation of that that kind implies a complete communication...

K: That's all. 'Complete' communication, then I forget ( about wanting to 'go ) north'.

E: Now...why doesn't it happen?

K: It is really simple sir. In 'going north' ( constantly following the true North of 'self-interest' ? ) you have found ( a long lasting temporal) security.

C: But that's not true.

K: Don't just 'reject it'. Look at it a bit more closely. It (may be) fairly simple to change a physical habit, but a psychological habit demands much greater ( gathering together of one's intelligent) energy.

C: OK … Then what is it that would break the habit of ( our inertial) memory?

K: Inwardly why should there be all this ( burden of psychologically related) memory carried on: what you said to me, why you hurt me - you follow? All that stuff, 'throw it out'.

C: That's simplistic, just 'throw it out', we actually don't...

K: It may sound 'simplistic' but (to K personally?) it is not.

C: We still don't...

K: I think we are cursed with ( a whole spectrum self-protective) 'theories' – sorry!

E: I go back and look at the history of many of the greatest and most alive spiritual traditions, and all they have been concerned with is precisely coming up with skilful means to constantly open up, reopen up that communication because human beings seem to be incapable of actually sustaining that communication except in the most extraordinary cases.

K: Why?

E: The only way I can say of why, is to become again a biologist and say there is just too much ( waight of the ) past...

K: Yes sir.

E: And therefore it takes a long time for a ( radical qualitative) change to occur (in the human brain) . There is no way we can change that fast.

K: I know that argument. So we have taken forty thousand years (for going north) and now another forty thousand years (to turn around & go south?) .

E: Well maybe less...

K: All right, twenty thousand years! You don't say that to a person who is suffering ( now) !

E: No.

K: Exactly. A person who is now living in fear , in lack of security, can't wait twenty thousand years.

C: Wait a second. You just said that I don't change because I am finding security in the 'going north', but I am not really finding security in the going north...

K: I think I am.

C: I just 'think' that I am. Now what is ( the nature of) this understanding of the false security? In other words how am I going to understand that it is false security?

B: I will tell you why one 'listens' at least for glimpses, and then frightens back, is because ( the going) north causes pain.

K: Why?
B: Because that (temporal) security is constantly based on this sense of struggle, which is painful. Therefore that is what allows the communication of the alternative to happen because you say, that seems better. It is as simple as that.

K: The human brain can't function as its highest ( potential of intelligent?) energy if it is not ( feeling inwardly & outwardly protected & ) secure. Right? So where is this (sense of total) security (to be found?) ? In a bank account, or in my relation to somebody or I seek security in some belief – right? The human brain is always searching for security somewhere – right?

E: Someone who has been falling for twenty thousand metres and five metres before the ground he cannot say, stop! He can say, it is stupid that I am falling, but there is this 'mass of ( gravitational) inertia' and so on.

K: That's the whole point. You say going north has taken time.

E: Oh, a long time.

K: And you also think that you need time to 'go east'. So we think that time is necessary to change.

C: No, I don't think that. I think we need to come to an awareness. The thing I object to in what you are saying is that you are implying somehow or other that we can just 'see it', and I am saying that we are so caught by stepping on our own toes we will never get out of it, we have to somehow come to terms with what we are.

K: Yes sir. Somebody like me comes along and says, just 'keep quiet' for a minute. Just listen. But we can't 'keep ( so totally) quiet' - right? There is (some background) chattering, telling me you are right, you are wrong. And I say : For God's sake keep for five minutes quiet!

A: So...where are we now? We started with the question can we understand the brain.

K: Let's begin again ( experientially from Square One) ! First of all : do we see thought is limited? Which means our ( personal) experience is limited, our knowledge is limited, now or in the future. Technologically, 'psychically', or inwardly, it is limited - right? And ( this 'self-interest' generated ) limitation must inevitably cause conflict, division - right? And therefore is it possible for thought to operate where it is necessary and not operate in other directions? You understand?

D: Is there something ( else within the human consciousness ) which is not limited?

K: Maybe (there is?) but you can only find 'That' out if thought has found its proper place . Has ( the self-centred way of thinking & ) knowledge any place in the 'psyche'?

A: ( Thinking properly ?) helps to a certain limited extent to understand oneself.

K: Wouldn't you use a different word? Insight.

E: Or intuition ?

K: Intuition is a bit doubtful, because having ( hidden) desires you can...
Let's use the ( holistically friendly?) word 'insight'. I have an 'insight' that going north is futile, and the ( newly generated clarity of that ) 'insight' says 'goes east' and I 'move' (ASAP?) . There is no ( time-delaying) interval between the seeing & movement.

E: You asked a good question a moment ago: can thought take its proper place ? That is to say we are respectful for what it is. Now when you say I have the insight to go east and I do it, to be respectful to thought is also to realize that it is in the nature of thought to obscure that insight, to fill it with thought.

K: Of course, then it is not ( anymore 'pure?) insight'.

E: My ( 100 $) question is : what is the basis from which you are saying that in that 'insight' all thought would be put into its right place without the ( on & off) flickering. What is the basis for that?

K: First of all we ought to discuss what is ( the verbal meaning of ) the word 'insight'- to have ( a clear, objective ?) 'sight into something'. And (psychically ?) 'insight' implies having an 'instant perception' (into the truth or falsehood of something) - no (interference of) memory, no time (to think about it ?) , just an 'instant perception'. Have you got that?

Say for instance, ( that as a young man) K saw something instantly and that perception never changed - for instance, the ( spiritual ?) futility of the 'organized' religions. That's over, I don't belong to any religion. There is no going back to the temple, or to the church, or to another guru, it is finished. I realise that they are forms of ( spiritual) 'entertainment' really, and I don't want to be entertained, it is finished. Wiped out. And this is an (actual) 'fact' to me because I have done it (in 1929 with the TS organisation ?) . I am not boasting or anything, it is so. Or, take another common factor which human beings ( like to) cling to - nationalism. I have also finished with it. I don't go back and say, "Oh, let me play with nationalism a little bit." So can one move that way, all through life?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 May 2018 #6
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 320 posts in this forum Offline

K's 2ND BRAIN SEMINAR 1984 ('reader' friendly edited)

A: Wouldn't it ( be nice ?...) if we could have a 'friendly' dialogue in the sense that when we go into the questions we have a certain hesitation, rather than assert things ? Yesterday we opened up the Seminar by asking whether thought can help us to understand the brain and whether it is possible for the brain to not have ( a permanent ?) psychological recording. And finally we touched very briefly the question of 'insight'. To me the question doesn't seem so clear of whether the brain can be in a 'state of not recording'. I think perhaps that might need a little bit of clarification.

K: Sir, I would like to ask whether we are discussing speculatively, theoretically, or actually? Actually in the sense functioning not theoretically but with facts - 'fact' being that which has happened and that which is happening, but not ( our high hopes regarding ?) what will happen.

E: So is the brain a 'fact' ?

K: Of course.

E: How so?

K: Because it is 'functioning' (right now) - in the sense that it wants to communicate something verbally, and also perhaps non-verbally.

E: All right, our communication her is a 'fact'. But when you describe it as the brain doing something or other, that is a theoretical inference.

K: That is a fact.

E: No, because the (concept of the ) brain is associated to our actual communication through a long series of observations which are not 'now'.

K: Of course, of course. I said that the 'fact' is what has been & what is now. What has happened and what is happening now – right?

E: But sir, isn't it an inference when you used the word 'brain' just because there have been people in the past who (used extensively the 'brain' concept)

K: , I don't quite understand this...

E: Maybe I am not understanding you correctly, but when we say, "I experience pain", it is clear to all of us that this is a 'fact' which is happening now. Now when I come around and say, "Pain has to do with ( the functioning of the ) brain", the juxtaposing of these two words, 'brain' and 'pain' has a long series of intermediate steps, which required a lot of work from the past of people who actually pointed out the existence of such a thing as 'brain', which is not something we are doing now. So you see, the moment I invoke the word 'brain', I am bringing with it a huge edifice of inferences and relationships which are not (the result of our direct observation) 'now'.

K: Yes, sir, which is all the ( result of the ) past.

E: So how is your use of the word 'brain' consistent with your desire to deal only with present facts? If I may I phrase it this way, you are trying to establish the ground of what are we dealing with. And you said, can we deal with facts now and not theories about things. Fine. So the next moment you say 'brain', which I am claiming cannot be said unless we invoke theories.

K: I agree.

E: OK , so how are these two things consistent?

K: The brain is the result of long evolution – right?

E: That is also a theory.

K: No, it is a fact.

E: Can we say that from what we are experiencing now?

K: That is a fact.

B: If I have a pain in my hand, there is a pain. But to talk ( conceptually) about the 'brain' is to talk about something I have read in a textbook. There are a lot of nerve cells and I don't experience (right now ) the ( functioning of the ) nerves, the (neuronal) connections.

K: Tell me simply, sir.

K: Yes sir, but if I had no brain I wouldn't feel that pain.

C: But when you make the statement, "the brain is responsible for the experience of pain", you have entered a whole new world of language. When using the word brain it connects you to assumptions that people have made about what a brain is, what a brain does.

K: I know nothing about that.

C: Well then you can't use that word. All you have got as fact is the sensation of pain.

K: All right. All that I have is pain. And also ( I can see ) the fact I must be free of pain. That is all I have. All right , proceed from there.

E: If this is something that science has to contribute, then it must address to what science can say. Things like brain, or atoms or whatever.

K: Yes, I understand.

E: So if you rip that apart and say, all we have is the 'moment you experience now'.

K: No, I don't rip that apart.

E: OK. So if we have to evoke the 'brain', ( and deal with it as a holistic concept?) we have to jump out of the immediate experience of 'Now'.

K: Yes, sir, agreed.

A: Could we say that whatever goes inside the brain is the 'fact' - whether it is an illusion, whether it is a pain, or so on, but perhaps the difference is whether it is actually taking place in this moment or not.

K: Is that it?

B: Could we ask whether in wanting to be rid of the pain, does knowledge and science have anything to do with the very next step?

E: What is the relationship between the actual fact and and our knowledge.

K: Keep it to that. At last! What is the relationship between what is happening now (like a 'psychological ) pain', and knowledge. What do we mean by 'knowledge'? The ( thought processed?) accumulation of various experiences, incidents. And those human experiences can be enormous or very small. And all those experiences have become ( part of our personal & collective?) knowledge - right? And all this 'knowledge' is stored in the brain as ( conscious or sub-conscious?) memory. That's all. And from that ( spring our everyday ) thoughts.

E: Yes, absolutely. But I would add that the scientific knowledge is accumulated by language agreement between people. ''This is the 'fact', do we agree ? Yes we agree'' and so we ( write it down?) and move to the next. So there comes this network of assumptions and presuppositions.

K: Knowledge is all that, stored in the brain, or wherever you like to call it, stored - right? And we function with that knowledge, as a carpenter, as a surgeon, as a psychologist, we function with what we have learnt as knowledge, accumulated.

E: Absolutely.

K: So there is all this vast (pool of collective) knowledge, accumulated, and what is the relationship of that knowledge to action?

B: What action ?

K: There is this ( vast deposit of all mankind's ) knowledge - right? And I have to act. Is my action born of knowledge?

A: It seems to be that way.

K: Apparently it seems so. Agreed?

E: It is not so clear...

K: So we have to ( take a brief detour &?) enquire what is 'action' before we...
What is our everyday 'action'? Either it is (guided by our available) knowledge from the past, or according to an idea ( projected) in the future, or an ideal. Right?

E: But what about those actions that your description doesn't cover? In my experience is those actions that seem to be born out of nowhere.

K: Out of language ?

E: (Spontaneous actions apparently coming ?) out of nowhere.

K: We will come to that in a minute. ( But generally speaking?) our everyday actions are born from the ( memory of the ) past : Yesterday I have done this, ( now I'm working at it?) I will do that tomorrow. So what we know ( in terms of material) action is born of the past or ( based on a projection into?) the future.

A: So any (material or mental) action involves information.

K: Information - right? Agreed?

E: Maybe...

K: Then that is a limited action.

E: It is limited by the knowledge you have ?

K: By the ( accuracy of the?) knowledge which you have accumulated, and which the race has accumulated.
( In a nutshell:) When action is based on the past or on the future that action must invariably be limited.

D: Isn't there another kind of action?

K: So, is there an action which is not limited? ( Clue : if our action is ( self-centred or otherwise?) limited it must create conflict.)

B: Maybe I haven't quite gone all that distance. Every action born of knowledge must be limited ?

K: No, I didn't say that.

B: ( You said ) ''action born of knowledge must be limited''.

K: We said that the action according to the past or to the future is limited.

B: I pick up this glass and drink the water, now is that a limited action , does that lead to conflict?

K: No, no.

B: Can't there be an action which is just a simple, mechanical self-contained action which begins and ends and that is the end of it?

K: I am going to explain (what is the psychological limitation) If I am ( inwardly) thinking about myself all day long, which most people do (while outwardly doing lots of other things?) , it is a very 'small' (minded) action, a limited action. When I am ( getting) identified with a nation, it is a very small action – and one of the reasons of war is nationalism, based on economic division, and so on and so on. Those ( kind of actions) are all very limited. Agree?

B: Well these are psychological(-ly motivated?) actions.

K: Even physical actions.

B: Well yes but are they to do with simple things like digging a hole, lighting a fire? Let's make a distinction between that and the larger actions which are motivated by nationalism or relationships.

A: It seems you know that you might have an action within the limitation that can be also be rational, it might not necessarily create conflict.

K: Just a minute. When I am thinking about myself, I am digging a hole for myself, it is small. Right? When I am thinking about my future, my problems, you follow, it is all enclosed, small.

A: So it is ( the psychological aspect of ) limitation that creates conflict.

K: Yes, naturally. You are doubtful ?

E: Yes, I am doubtful because it seems that you're saying that if the knowledge has 'me' has reference point it will ( inevitably) create conflict.

K: That's all.

E: Isn't there the possibility of a limited action, limited understanding, but which does not have 'me' has a reference point?

K: If I am a scientist and I am (inwardly ) only concerned with my career, it is ( holistically speaking?) a 'very small affai'r ; I don't care a hang what happens outside in the world.

E: But is that a limitation of thought or it is a limitation of... (the culturally programmed brain?)

K: It is a limitation of thought, limitation of ( one's intelligent ?) capacity, limitation of environment. I include everything.

E: I understand what you are saying but you seem to be shifting from the general nature of knowledge to the nature of a particular kind of ( psychologically related?) knowledge.

K: We started with knowledge, and I said, what relationship has action to knowledge?

E: And you said every action born of ( our past?) knowledge is limited and it creates conflict.

K: Yes, because ( qualitatively & quantitatively our?) knowledge is limited.

E: Yes, but again I am trying to examine that step of the relationship between the limited actions born of our limited knowledge to the conclusion that such actions necessarily lead to conflict.

K: I'll show it to you.

E: You ( seem to refer to a ) particular kind of to knowledge which is the 'self-centred knowledge'.

K: We said that the action born of any limited knowledge the action also must be limited. Next step: such action breeds division, and where there is division there must be conflict.

E: I can see the conflict arising only when this extra quality of having an absolute 'reference point' such as 'me'.

K: I said this, sir.

E: The division in itself is not ( necessarily) conflictive. It the division plus a solid reference point that makes the division divisive.

C: Suppose you work in the laboratory and your knowledge is limited and you are working on this chemical, or whatever, you forget about everything outside. Now you may say there is no self in that but that may bring a lot of conflict for the world if you don't take into account the whole environment, you don't take into account the ( ethical) implications of what you are doing.

E: I don't see it that way . The overall eco-system is a very harmonious totality. Every part of it has a limited part but they all work as an harmonious totality. But it seems to me that we have to separate the 'me'-ness , and our (collective heritage of ) self-centredness, from knowledge as such. Knowledge as such can exist in its own limited way, like for example, my knowledge that I can ( safely) pick up this glass of water , or larger knowledge of how to run an economy.

K: Of course, that is understood.

E: I am just trying not to make a distinction between knowledge and a particular kind of knowledge...

A: Let's return to your statement that all our actions seem to be born out of knowledge. There seems...

K: And since all our (inner & outer ) knowledge is limited, the ( knowledge based?) action is limited - right? And this is one of the causes of human division, in their (ego-centric ?) relationships : his competitiveness and my competitiveness, my aggression, and so on. This constant division is naturally breeding ( a lot of un-necessary?) conflict in the world. That's all.

A: And the next ( holistic?) question would be...

K: Is there an action (outside the common ground of the 'known'?) which is not divisive, which is not limited - right? Now how are we going to find that out (experientially) ? That's all my point.

E: It seems to me there are two possibilities of answering . One is : can we have an action which is not born out of limitation? But the other possibility is to say, is there not a possibility of a learning action which is not centred in defending the point of view of 'me'. Both are equally valid to me.

K: Of course, both are valid, and both are (holistically?) contained in this one question.

C: Now wait a second. There is still another question: we are all scientists sitting here in a sense, and one of the things that has come out of science, or investigation of the brain in a scientific way has been the fact that we never perceive anything except with reference to what we already know ( as scientifically proven facts) .

K: I question that.

C: I know you 'question' it. But if this (scientific position ?) is true then the only way we can discover an unlimited action, the only road that we can take is through that kind of situation. If that is not true then it may be possible to have an unlimited action. So, how can we discuss your ( holistically friendly ) question if there is this other statement to the effect that it questions you.

K: What are you trying to say, sir?

C: Well I am saying that there is some questioning among scientists as to whether it is possible to have an action that is not born out of knowledge.

B: You are saying that the (psychologically related ) action goes from perception.

E: There are two separate questions therefore. One is, can we actually discover ( through a 'meditator-free' meditation the ?) action which is unlimited, and two, is that ( holistic?) action something that can be possibly related to what science is.

K: To ( the totality of ) human existence, of which 'science' is a part...

C: You see, what I am interested in, is the fact that we really only know limited action.

K: That's all. And somebody ( the speaker?) comes along and says, perhaps there is an action which is not limited.

C: Exactly, yes.

K: Unless I am totally 'blind' ( inwardly) and (/or?) 'stupid' (outwardly?) , I would listen to it.

D: Yesterday I talked about small children. There is a stage in children where their action is not that limited. Their ( self-centred) limitation begins of course then, but in the beginning they have some 'quality' of action where they are open to the whole of the environment, to the family, to other children. They don't distinguish between nationalities...

K: Babies, young children don't. Later on they are ( culturally) 'trained'.

D: But even when we grow older we have still this ' innocence' of the little child in our mature brain. We have it, we know it, and as I see it we have in our brain - which can act quite unlimited, or perhaps not that limited. So I think we have to (re-discover in ourselves ) this childlike ( innocent) view. You understand me?

K: You are saying that there is in all of us a 'divine spark' ?

D: Yes, exactly.

K: Millions of people feel that there is within them something far superior than this ordinary brain, far superior to environment, economics, etc.

C: Krishnaji, an interesting experiment that was done with a child three months old. And these children were ( monitored or ?) hooked up to where they were sucking a breast. And if they sucked this breast in a certain way there was a moving picture on the wall, - these were three month old children - the picture came into focus. In other words, the child responded at three months old positively to the picture coming into focus.

K: I understand.

C: There is something built into the (directly perceptive) organs which responded to the focussing of that image.

K: I understand all that sir.

B: I think David tried to answer your question whether is there a ( quality of direct ) perception that doesn't require knowledge?

K: Yes sis, yes sir.

D: So, in the little child there is this kind of perception. Little children are still perceiving.

E: Let's continue with the investigation of how can we come to know (or re-learn?) , this unlimited action, unlimited perception.

C: it possible? That's the whole question. Science says no, there is no such thing as 'unlimited' action.

K: There are millions of people in the world who say 'there is God'. You come along and say that is just the invention of thought. The other says, (then you ?) go to hell, I will go on worshipping. That's that. We are not in that position, I hope.

E: So let's investigate.

K: So we have to explore : is there an action which is not limited?

C: OK. Right.

K: Now, how are you going to find out?

A: Do you have any suggestions?

E: Well as I said before, I agree entirely with David, that from the point of view of the scientific framework there is no way to approach that question. But at the same time, as a human being, by examining my own being...

K: You are a ( first ) human being, not a (specialised) 'scientist'.

E: I see, I am a human being. But also I happen to have this 'craft' as a scientist.

K: Yes, yes, sir. That is of secondary importance.

E: Secondary important, all right. And as a human being, when I observe my mind, I do notice that there are certain actions which do not seem to come out of knowledge. This is my observation now.

K: Yes. So it may be false, or it may be true.

E: It is 'observation'.

C: Before we go on, I want to present him this question: in our scientific investigations very often when we think that this action is born out of an unlimited (scientific insight) , on further investigation we discover how limited it was. More often than not.

K: I want to find out if there is an (inwardly perceptive?) action which is not - consciously or unconsciously - connected with knowledge. Is there an action in which there is no limitation? The 'self' (-consciousness?) is limited, the me - right? This 'self' (consciousness) is ( thriving only in the field of?) knowledge.
To explain ( it holistically?) : the 'self' is a bundle of ( self-focussing personal?) memories. So as long as it is 'thinking or acting' there is ( an intrinsical self-centred) limitation. Right? So is there an 'ending' of the ( self-projected ) continuity of (this 'self-) consciousness', with all its ( personal ) memories, with all its fears, sorrows, pain, anxieties, depression, faith, beliefs, the whole ( psychological) 'content' of consciousness as the ( time binding) movement of thought. That is the self-(consciousness?) . Agree to that?

E: Yes, yes, no problem.

K: So can this ( thought created ) 'self (- consciousness?) 'end'? Only then there is (the possibility of ( an insightful ) action which is not limited. It is a logical step.

B: Yes, absolutely...

K: Can this 'self (-focussing' of our total consciousness come to a natural ?) end? And this 'self' (-identified entity) is so deceptive, it can hide behind the most 'holiest' things - right? And it has the most extraordinary (powers of) imagination, and even in the 'scientific' (field ) - it can hide like a cockroach!
So, ( the question left for homework is ) can this 'self (- focalised' entity?) end? ( Clue : ) The original root meaning of the word 'Mantra' is ''to meditate on ( the spiritual virtues of ?) not becoming''. ( In a nutshell:) to put away all the 'self-centred' (mental) activity. The meaning of that word is that, the root meaning. You understand what I am saying?

E: Yes, I understand...

K: To meditate on 'non- becoming', which is an immense factor (in the ending of the 'thought-time' process) . That means there is no 'psychological' evolution if there is no 'me' to evolve.

B: Absolutely...

K: So can the 'self' - which is a whole series of ( 'very intimate') memories and (their self-projected continuity in ?) time, can that completely 'end', knowing that it is the most deceptive thing - right sir? Find it out ( as optional homework?) if it can 'end'. I say that it can 'end' totally and (one can still ) live in this world.

E: Well, if indeed it can 'end', and you are saying you are still in this world, then for example, how this ( selfless?) person who (is still living ) in this world, would drive safely a (Mercedes sports ?) car.

K: Of course there he has to use ( a certain amount of ) 'self (consciousness')

E: But then that means that (some self-centred) knowledge is there.

K: Of course.

E: So that action out of knowledge is still limited.

K: Of course. If I have to write a letter, which means a great deal of knowledge involved just in writing a 'stupid' letter. That knowledge is necessary.

E: Then its a self-centred action.

K: It is not.

E: Why not?

K: If the 'self' (-focussing of one's consciousness  ?) is not ( active ?) , one's (action) is not ( self-centred?) .

E: But how could it not be non 'self-centred' if, according to your definition, the 'self' is only a bunch of memories.

K: Not 'my' definition. At least we agreed (on it )

E: Wait a second, we agreed, but I repeated at least a couple of times that at least to me there was a ( big qualitative) difference between 'knowledge', and 'self-centred knowledge', and that not all our knowledge was 'self-centred' knowledge. And there was a possibility...

K: Wait. I said sir, the 'self' is ( existing in the field of?) knowledge.

E: Yes, so it follows. if there is no 'self 'there is no knowledge...

K: But one can still use it. So we have to ( take a brief detour and?) enquire into something totally different, which is: what is 'intelligence'?

E: OK. I am willing to enquire into that, but why do we have to do that?

K: I tell you why in a minute : where there is ( self-less?) Intelligence, that intelligence can use knowledge. And this ( quality of compassionate?) intelligence is not born of knowledge.

D: From where is it?

K: Take is slowly. So we have to ( take another small detour &?) enquire: what is (the right place of?) knowledge? Knowledge has a certain place (in our material existence) , but psychologically, inwardly speaking, it has no place whatsoever.

A: So, being free from the 'self' doesn't mean that you are completely free of knowledge.

K: Sir, I said to drive a car, to write a letter, to talk a language – right?

E: Yes but then we are back to the question of what is 'Intelligence'.

K: What is Intelligence? Is it born out of knowledge, born of thought? Sir, it required tremendous (amount of scientific intelligence & ?) knowledge to go to the Moon. Tremendous - right? That is the intelligence of thought. So, that intelligence is limited.

E: This much is clear, yes. And there is also an 'intelligence' which seems again to have a quality of coming 'out of nowhere'.

K: We will come to that in a moment.

E: All right. Therefore to me there are two intelligences.

K: Yes sir. There is the 'intelligence' which thought has brought about - rational, clever, cunning and this ( self-centred) intelligence becomes cruel, kindly, you follow, which is ( time bound & ) limited. Then is there an intelligence which is not born of thought? I say there is. Let's enquire into the ( timeless?) nature of this Intelligence which will then say, "I will use knowledge, and no one else".

E: Right, so what is this Intelligence?

K: How do you enquire into this?

E: The same way you would investigate action which is unlimited, namely by completely observing without thought.

K: Is that possible, first?

E: Well it seems that it is possible.

K: Let's be clear. That ( an authentic insightful ) perception is not based on thought.

E: Yes, right. You are walking out of your house and all of a sudden, ( supposing ) it is a very sharp beautiful day, and you open the door and you 'see' the tree, and there is a moment when you simply see the tree, there is no thought coming in. The quality of the experience is that there is no thought, there is a gap in your thoughts and there is an absolute purity of perception. There is a complete sense of 'present-centredness'. The 'tree-ness' of the tree is right there. And then thought comes up again. Isn't that an experience for you?

C: Well I am going to play the devil's advocate : I think in that very experience there are elements in which there is a sense in which we project out our knowledge.

E: Wait a second. I didn't say there was no knowledge. I said there was no (self-centred ) thought.

K: Please just a minute. Is there a perception without the word?

C: Perception without a word ?

K: Without the ( whole mental) 'network of words'. Can you look at me without all the 'images' , all the nonsense, just 'look' at me?

C: I don't think we can. I think in some way we are always operating out of some ( hidden background of) knowledge.

E: Can we take this slowly. I can look at you or at a tree and not have any thoughts.

K: Yes, sir, that is all I am saying.

C: But there is an important question here, Krishnaji, what is the relationship of ( your) 'intelligence' to the actuality that I am saying you can't have a perception without ( any background of) knowledge?

K: We are coming to the same thing in a different (roundabout?) way. What is (the nature of ) this intelligence which is not cultivated by thought ? Is it temporary? Is it something casual, 'perchance'? Or is there an intelligence which is not intermittent or illusory ? I say there is.

E: How do we find that out?

K: Now I am coming to that. I am ninety years old. I have been ( working?) at it for a long time! What place has ( the quality of selfless?) Love in all this?

E: So you are now asking us to examine the nature of ( selfless?) love because it seems to be necessary to answer the 'intelligence' question ?

K: How does that Intelligence exist? I say it cannot exist without ( a quality of selfless?) love.

D: What is this 'love'?

K: I'm saying that this ( universally open?) intelligence which is not born of thought which is limited, that intelligence is the essence of ( Selfless) Love. Therefore I say, is love ( a convenient by-product of ?) desire? Or is Love something outside of the brain?

E: OK, that's the question.

K: And which means Compassion. Where there is ( selfless) Love and Compassion there is that ( universal?) Intelligence, which is not the product of thought. And that is not intermittent, it doesn't come and go. And compassion, love cannot exist (in the human consciousness?) if there is any form of ( personal?) attachment. To 'K' that is the only thing that matters. If that ( Universal Quality?) does not exist the rest is all limited. And therefore you will have perpetual conflict between each other, between the world and so on and so on. It means unconditioning the whole human, or the structure and the nature of thought. Right?

E: I have another question : how do I know ( that what you have just said about Intelligence, Compassion & Love) is 'true'?

K: You don't 'know'.

E: I don't know. So, I have to investigate ( the truth or falseness of it?) ?

K: With what?

E: Well this is exactly the point, with what? How can you actually make it possible for people to 'see' that it is ( the Truth?) not just words?

K: Therefore you have to ( take another brief detour &?) go into the whole question what is the ( right) place of 'desire' and why has desire become so important in our life ? You follow the whole movement of ( our thought-sustained) desire.

E: Yes...

K: Have we time? There are people waiting for (a desired?) lunch!

A: We have got five more minutes.

K: If there is no ( strong desire of?) becoming something 'psychologically' there is no self(-focussing of consciousness ?) . Theoretically it sounds all right.

C: You keep going back to this, in theory it sounds all right, but...

K: To 'see the reality' of it and 'cut it'...

A: How do you 'see' that ?

K: He (the Speaker) he has been at it for a number of ( 60 +) years, he says, look, '( inwardly) there is no becoming'. Is it this (ages old survivalistic desire for) becoming (something safer, better, etc...) that has spilled over from the physical becoming, into the inner field and therefore you are still thinking in terms of becoming psychologically, inwardly.
So (for extra homework : ) don't let it spill. Then is there any ( validity in the desire for 'psychological'?) becoming? I ( hope I ) will become ( That), I must not (remain like this) - comparing myself all the time . So the ending of (the 'thought & desire' activity ) involved in this measurement. You understand? Complete ending of ( ego-centric?) measurement, which is comparison. Sir, is there an end to knowledge?

C: Well, is there an end to desire?

K: No, sir. Is there an end to (living entangled within the field of?) knowledge ?

E: I don't see that.

K: Ask ( yourself ) that question, sir.

D: I think there is an end.

K: If we are functioning all the time within the field of knowledge it is very limited. So, is there an 'ending ' to it ?

E: Yes there is.

K: Sir, could I put another ( collateral?) question? Can the brain stop (its endless mental) chattering and remain completely 'empty'? Only act when it is asked, like a drum, highly tuned, but it is always empty, it is only when you strike on it that it gives the (right vibration or ?) note. Right?

D: What is ( the nature of inner ?) 'emptiness'?

K: That is why I was saying: is there an end to ( the time-binding existence within the field of?) knowledge? Of course there is, but ... that's another matter (left for optional 'homework' ?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 May 2018 #7
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 320 posts in this forum Offline


INTELLIGENCE & THE ENDING THOUGHT ( an 'experientially friendly' edited text )

A: During the last two days we have been talking about many topics, and what has struck me is that it seems very difficult to penetrate even a ( single) topic. And I was wondering what does it mean to enquire into something in an 'intelligent' way. And perhaps with that spirit to go into the question of Intelligence, that we were talking about yesterday.

K: I thought we did that yesterday. We said, if I remember rightly, that there is the ( mental ?') intelligence of thought', but that intelligence is limited. And is there any other kind of 'intelligence' which is not bound to time? And we said that there is. So we went into that, love and compassion, and out of that, that intelligence which is not limited at all. Because we said if love is limited then it is not Love. If (our) love has an opposite as hate, anger, jealousy and so on then it is not Love. How would you enquire into that intelligence which is not born of thought? Would you enquire into it by saying that which it is not?

A: You mean by ( negating ) what is false?

K: Yes, ( by seeing ) what it is not. We said hate is not love - right? So is there ( any Intelligence & Love) in our psyche, in the brain ? Is Love within it, or outside it? We asked that question too, yesterday. How do you enquire into it?

A: Well perhaps we could start by saying what is an action which is not 'intelligent'? For example if we take a ( thinking) machine that is repetitive, all the time doing ( less or more?) the same thing. And in the same way one could say that the brain is working in the same way as a machine that has been programmed, preset.

K: After all we are ( culturally) programmed.

E: I wouldn't call it a 'machine', is capable of coming up with something which is completely new, creative. So in that sense it is nothing to do with a machine. And precisely the fact that it can up with creative acts means that the process cannot be so simply characterized as being mere repetition, as in a trivial machine. I would make a distinction between what we call a trivial machine, which is a coca-cola machine, you know 10 pence going in or 50 pence going in and a coca-cola comes out. That is a trivial machine. This is not what life is about.

K: Of course not.

A: Could we say that this intelligence has not to do with a certain pattern which is repetitive? Would you agree to that? Because somehow intelligence has to do something that's new, out of the pattern.

D: I think what you said is true. We know that for instance, the brain is capable of producing new values, constantly it is ordering the whole outer world in a new way. In that sense it produces quite new kind of attention or values. And that is not the same as ( recycling the existing?) knowledge, it is just...

K: Is it new, or is it a different aspect of the old?

B: What is the nature of the creative act?

K: Then we must ( take another small detour &?) go into what is 'creation', and what is 'invention'.... But can this (Loving & Compassionate?) Intelligence be cultivated? All cultivation implies ( self-centred) thought, time and also it has a motive and ( is expecting ) a result. Cultivation implies motive, result and time. That is the ( common) factor of any 'cultivation'. Is that intelligence which is born of some totally different (dimension of?) time, is it cultivable?

E: Well I would say that the 'cultivation' ( of intelligence) would come from actually observing in our life this quality of the new - for example, the freshness of perception is something that is happening all the time, but we normally tend to obscure it because our (intellectual ) mind is too speedy. But it is possible to cultivate a 'slowing down' of thought and thereby one begins to see constant flashes of this quality of creative insight, or creative intelligence happening all the time. So it seems to me that we can cultivate our accessibility to it.

A: You mean by a process of 'observation' ?

E: Well 'observation' is not the word I would use. It is more a quality of taming the poor quality of one's ( self-conscious?) mind.

K: Would you use the word 'attention'?

D: 'Attention' would be good, yes.

E: I am not so happy with 'attention' because it implies something that is too forced somehow.

K: No, awareness ... But can that ( non-personal quality of Compassionate?) intelligence (which is not born of thought) be cultivated? Obviously not, since any kind of ( mental) cultivation implies a motive, time and a beginning and an end. Is Love cultivable in that sense? I know you don't like that word (Love?) , it is foreign to you, probably to all of you.

D: If we begin to look at things differently then in my brain I am changing my brain also. So I think after all there is some kind of possibility for changing the brain and it is coming with considering the new values.

K: Sir that means, doesn't it, a quality of silence ?

D: Yes, a quality of silence.

K: The quality of quietness, a sense of everything in abeyance. And then in that tranquillity something happens.

D: Yes, not of thought, being quiet, letting the brain just be.

K: Can that be when our brain has been active from childhood: work, struggle, pain, learn, unlearn, the whole human struggle, human endeavour, can the brain, which has been so conditioned, can it ever be ( inwardly ) quiet?

D: There exists the possibility but it is difficult. But can you tell us - brain researchers - what ( the new 'holistic?) values' would be , because in the human brain ( big or small) changes do occur, and these changes bring about new values, but what are they? We don't know because with knowledge we cannot go into them. Can you please (tell us what are the holistic values ) ?

K: We both agree that there must be a certain ground of ( inner) quietness, of tranquillity, so that something new can come. Would you agree to that?

E: And this (inner tranquility ) can be cultivated.

K: Wait sir, question it, go into it.

E: I mean the attitude.

K: No, silence is not an 'attitude'.

E: No, but to make yourself open to ( that inner) silence is an attitude.

K: Then 'who' is it that is making you available?

E: That which needs, or requires or wants the silence.

C: ( A mentally focussed ?) desire ?

K: Again desire. Again thought.

E: We might go into a very long discussion here when you say that the (mental activity of the?) brain stops. I have never seen a brain stop which is not dead.

D: I have seen my brain stop. Be silent.

E: As an electro-physiologist, if I put electrodes in your brain it will not be inactive. It will be just as active as now. So that doesn't mean anything.

K: Would you say the brain has its own ( vital) rhythm ?

E: All right...

K: And ( intermingled with it ?) there is the rhythm of thought - right? Can the (all controlling ) 'rhythm' of thought be quiet? That is all we are saying.

E: Yes, it can.

K: Wait a minute sir. Quiet, not just temporarily, not 'off' and 'on', but quiet.

E: Once and for all?

K: You see this is our ( major experiential) difficulty. ( The inner ) Silence is not 'once and for all'. When you say, 'once and for all', you introduce the whole movement of ( thought projecting itself in?) time.

E: Are we in time now? Right now?

K: Of course.

E: We are in time and you are mentioning something ( an inner Silence?) which is 'out of time'. But how can we do it except by a pointer in time?

K: We are asking sir, whether the brain can ever be quiet apart from its own (natural) rhythm? That is the question we are asking.

A: I think this is important to clarify that perhaps this (condition of inner) quietness doesn't mean that the brain rhythm has to stop.

K: I said that. The 'rhythm' ( of the biological activity ) ' goes on.

E: He is talking about the 'rhythm of thought', not the 'rhythm of the brain', which , if it stops, it is dead.

K: Of course. No oxygen and there is the end of it.

D: It is ( theoretically very?) possible that the thought process stops but nevertheless there are other functions going on which we ( holistically ) call 'consciousness'. It is just a 'being' or whatever is inside, that is not the thought, not the sensation, the sensory, not the perception, not action. That we know quite well.

K: This has also been a question in the most ancient days : can thought come to an end? Stop?

C: But if we say thought can come to an end, will it be ( the result of) a ( personal) choice?

K: No.

C: You don't think there is any choice?

K: The sun is setting, ( for that day) it is finished. It may come up again tomorrow, but the sun has set.

E: But the sun setting is an event in time.

K: I introduced this ( poor example?) forget the 'sunset'. ( We were talking of the inner ) silence, quietness, tranquility, which means the 'ending of thought' - right? Not for a few seconds, but an 'ending' (without a hidden self-projection in the 'future'?) .

C: Would you conceive of that ( 'ending') as being some sort of ( special?) 'event' of the brain?

K: No, sir. I am thinking all day long about my problems, my wife, my children, my career, my research, I am at it all day long, and when I go to sleep it is there again going on, all day and all night, ceaselessly. And it is wearing itself out. Now I am just asking can all that ( self-sustained mental?) movement stop? Stop, not stop for some days, or for some hours.

E: It is not my experience.

K: Then your ( inner?) experience may be very limited.

E: Of course. But when you say 'thought can stop', hear it as a possibility, and it remains for me a possibility unless it becomes reality.

K: Wouldn't you like to learn about it?

E: Of course, but can I say something before? It seems that there is a third 'middle way' , which is not thought as ceaseless, neither is thought gone, but there is an intermediate possibility which is close to my own experience, which is, ( the mental process of?) thought being 'permeable' ( semi-transparent?) . In other words, at the beginning it seems that thought is a solid ( mechanistic ) thing, that it never stops; but upon a closer investigation one sees that thought has actually lots of 'gaps', it has big holes in it. In between the holes there is...

K: A (silent) interval between thoughts ?

E: No, it is not just intervals, it is like thought is like little glimmers in a much larger (inner) space.

K: But it is still the movement of thought.

E: There is a movement of thought, but within a vaster context, which is not the same as the ceaseless thought. There is a dramatic change from one to the other. So I want to know whether this is not also part of your experience.

K: I distrust all ( personal) experience.

E: Including yours?

K: Including mine! Yes sir, I am very sceptical about my own 'experiences', because you can get deceived terribly.

E: So what is the source of an ( insightful ) understanding then if it is not your own experience, or my own experience for myself?

K: Let's leave the word 'experience', that is a complicated word.

E: OK, What would you use instead?

K: I don't know, we'll ( eventually) find out. (But in the meanwhile?) we were asking a very 'simpl'e question : there is the ( internal) rhythm of the brain. Then ( superposed ) there is the rhythm of ( our self-centred ) thought. Can that ( ego-centric) rhythm of thought stop? That's all. Not induced, not cultivated.

C: Not chosen.

K: When 'you' choose ( to stop it) there is the ( subliminal) activity of desire.

C: Right...

K: So is there a cessation of thought?

D: Could there be a possibility that if I don't give any ( personal) value to thought, could it be possible that then thought ceases?

K: Just a minute sir. How do we investigate into this? If I pose a question, and you reply to it, and then I reply to your question, and we keep this dialogue going until only the 'question' remains and 'you' and 'I' disappear, there is only the question, which then has a tremendous vitality. You understand what I am saying?

E: Absolutely.

K: Are we ( going) together in this (non-personal approach?) ?

E: Yes.

K: That is, we have posed a question '' Can the rhythm of ( the self-centred process of ?) thought which has been going on from the beginning of one's life until we die, can that 'rhythm of thought' come to an end?'' You reply and this dialogue goes on. And then you ( K) said, look, in that process only the 'question' remains -and your brain is ( non-personally?) quiet, because 'you' are not acting, I am not acting, only the question. Right?
This has been a problem (and a 'work in progress'?) of every ( serious?) human being, to have some quietness inside there, some inner peace, and they have even 'put together' various methods to stop it - right? Control, suppression – agreed?

E: It seems that ( man's spiritual) history records many, many attempts to do this, yes.

K: Many systems, many methods to say, for god's sake let me have some inner peace, so that my brain is ( getting) quiet, apart from (sustaining ) its own ( biological ) rhythms. Right?

A: But why does it have to be so full of itself from the very beginning ?

K: Ah! From childhood, I have been trained that way, we have been educated, all education is work, work, work, learn, learn.

A: You mean it has been conditioned that way?

K: Yes, of course...

E: This is pretty much like having a wild monkey enclosed in a very small room. But if the same monkey gets in a large field it is fine, it doesn't bother anybody.

K: Yes, but any amount of space you may give it, the activity of thought it is still there.

E: Yes it is the same monkey running around, but it doesn't bother anyone.

K: People have asked this question thousands of years ago, saying can thought, in its ( mental) inner space can it be silent ?

C: Krishnaji, the fact of the matter is that if you give it plenty of ( roaming) space you don't experience the desire to have that ( inner) peace. The people that experience you know, give me that quiet peace are people who are searching.

K: Are you saying because I live in a city, in a drawer, various drawers, I want space and therefore that is my desire?

C: Yes. Your relationship inside your thought process is the thing that's the matter, not the fact that you have thought. You are so busy trying to get out of thought that you are cramped.

K: So if you are in the country, not in a city's drawer, you then say, my god, how beautiful all this is. You revel in it, you say, it is beautiful. But thought is still going on. That's is all my point.

E: But you have also raised the question of 'stopping thought' and you implied that it has a motivation which is the desire to be free from that (condition of psychological ) slavery.

K: So ?

E: So we are raising the possibility that to be free from that slavery maybe it is not necessary to stop thought but simply to give it space and may be then that state of (inner) mystery can come ( into our daily consciousness).

K: Would you say thought is a material process?

E: In some sense it is and in some sense it isn't. In the same way that the image on the television screen, is that 'image' a material process? It is because it needs those little e-chips, but at the same time it is not, because it is a relationship within a material process.

K: All right, what is thought?

C: It's a ( mental form of ) relationship which is imminent in your existence as a human being on this earth.

K: All right. And a human being, what is he?

C: He is also a 'relationshi'p in the sense that he is a form that has taken place in all of this.

K: All right, do you want to ( take another detour and?) discuss relationship?

C: You can't discuss thought without discussing ( our inner & outer ) relationship.

K: Yes sir. Let's discuss relationship. What do you mean by that word? To be related. I am related to my brother, my father, my mother, my wife, my children. I am related to the world.

C: To the trees...

K: To nature.

C: And you express that relationship (by using your thinking ?) ...

K: Yes sir. So are we related to Nature? When you see that tree in all those marvellous fields, and flowers, and the animals, are you related to it?

C: Actually yes. You are in actual connection to everything around you.

K: Are you? Sir, don't let's quibble.

C: No, no, I mean actually.

K: That means what? That you will not kill anything.

C: It doesn't necessarily mean that.

K: Oh yes. Because if you kill that you kill yourself.

E: That seems to be the way of nature's relationship.

K: Just a minute. This is the (generally) 'accepted' way of living.

C: Yes but that's inbuilt into nature.

A: Are we not going away from the main point?

B: There seems to be tremendous ( 'psychological ) resistance' when you have asked ''can thought stop, can there be an end to it'' and we won't go into the question. We want to go round in different directions and nobody seems to want to stay with the question.

E: I want to stay with the question but I want also to see that the entire question is dealt with, which is (a) the possibility of thought continuing, (b) the possibility of thought stopping, and ( c) the possibility of thought having so much inner & outer space that it doesn't create the problems that it is normally creating. I would like the three possibilities to be considered and not discard one off-hand.

K: Now which shall we take?

C: What would you consider an intelligent way to approach this issue since we have said that we want to consider all aspects of thought and we have said thought is relationship, what is the intelligent way to proceed, given this fact?

K: First of all, what is the question? Is it desire? Is it ( the lack of inner ) space? Thought being contained in a small space? If it has vast space would that prevent thought from having problems?

E: OK that is a perfectly valid question, because that is something I can explore and it is part of my experience. But stopping ( thought altogether) is foreign to my experience.

K: Forget the 'stopping'. Throw it overboard for the moment.

E: I would not like to 'throw it away' because I am interested in learning something which is not available for me.

K: We will come to that presently. We said yesterday that ( the self-centred process of) thought is limited (both by its limited memory and by its ego-centricity ?) . It can have vast space (around itself) it is still (inwardly ) limited.

E: Yes absolutely, the (thinking) monkey will still be a... monkey.

K: Then what is the next question?

E: When I discover the monkey's action in a vaster space...

K: It is still the monkey.

E: is still the monkey but the space around it has a completely new quality.

K: Yes, but it still remains the monkey.

E: The monkey does, but not the space around the monkey. That's new.

K: That's it.

E: Just listen to me for a moment : stopping ( thought) to me is a synonym of control ; instead if I take this 'wild animal' which is our uncontrolled thought, and make room for it, then by itself the wild monkey in the big field simply goes to sleep.

C: Then you think there is enough room in the universe for thought?

E: That is precisely my point : it is possible to grow infinitely.

K: Grow? I question that. What is it to grow infinitely? What is growing?

E: The ( free inner space) which is around thought.

K: Just a minute! You see where he is leading to ? It is speculation.

C: Well, it is also speculative to say that thought can stop...

E: It is speculative only to the extent that one is not willing to see the source of the observation. The source of the observation is to remain in silence and see how thought moves.

K: I don't quite follow all this, sorry.

C: I think Krishnaji was having an issue here because he would (probably say that) 'staying in silence' is an act of control. In other words to 'stay in silence' implies that I am going to 'think my way into silence' – which can be just another subtler form of control.

K: Sir, you used the word 'space'. I can go to the Himalayas and there is immense space - three hundred and fifty miles of mountains & valleys covered by snow. Tremendous. But the monkey is still there! That's all I am saying.

E: I am not disagreeing with that.

K: And that space doesn't affect the ( core-mind of the ) monkey.

E: Oh, yes it does.

K: Somewhat.

E: It makes it tame and it usually just takes a nap, goes to sleep. It is like a monkey in a small cage is all neurotic but once it has all the ( tropical ) jungle ( for itself) it is a 'happy monkey', it 'goes to sleep' (unless attacked by mean bugs & predators?) .

K: Please. This ( free space option) isn't quite accurate, because you give man any amount of space - are you talking physical space?

E: No.

K: Psychological space, inward space.... Then how does it come about?

E: It doesn't just 'come about'.

K: Then ( the modern ) human beings haven't got that ( free inner) space.

E: They have it (but may not be aware of it) , so, it's a matter of paying attention to it, of making yourself available to it.

K: Which means what?

E: Which means not 'speeding' ( along the 'highways & by-ways of thought'?) so much so that I don't see that it is there.

K: Would you say that in order to have (free inner) space there must be no self?

E: Yes.

K: That's all. That means the 'self' (centred consciousness ) is limited, there should be no ( egotistic) activity of the 'self' and no deception, saying 'I have no self', but I am hiding there. Then the ( 'thinking) monkey' doesn't exist.

E: Well this is again where I don't agree- you continue to exist.

K: Of course I exist, it is the (psychological?) 'self' I am talking about - this vast (mentally active) bundle of memories which is (identifying itself as ) 'me', if this bundle of ( self-identified) memory ceases, then there is infinite inner space - that's all.

C: Where is the monkey now?

K: There is no (more) 'monkey'.

E: Well this is what I don't see. The monkey is still there, it is just existing in a bigger space.

K: Let's define it. You mean the 'monkey' as the ( self-consciousness of the psycho-somatic?) body ?

E: The 'monkey' as the self, as the body, the memories, the senses.

K: We said that. Memory, thought, experience, knowledge is limited. Therefore give ( this 'thinking monkey' ?) any amount of space inwardly it is still limited ('ego'-tethered?)

E: I don't really know what you mean by (free inner space) , that's all.

K: I mean to create it and live in that ( open ended inner) space. And I say that (without this ) space, however wide, however extensive, however deep, the (thinking) 'monkey', the 'self' is still there. You agree?

E: That's fine.

K: That's all. I have watched the monkey operating at various levels, it is still the 'monkey'. What is the next question? If the monkey is very satisfied, says, I have got a lot of ( vital) space and (is daily tweeting?) ''blah, blah, blah''...

E: Fine. So the next question is to cultivate the 'larger' (selfless inner ) space.

K: Now can that ( open ended inner) space be cultivated?

E: The space itself, no, but 'my' (ego-centric) attitude to it, yes. I can say for example, just as a metaphor, if I close the curtains of this room it doesn't mean that there is no sky - right? I have to have an attitude to open up the curtains, and say, oh, there is sky. So it is not that I 'cultivate the sky', I cultivate my attitude to make myself available to the perception of sky. It is the same sort of phenomenon.

K: What do you mean by 'attitude' ? How does the ( 'thinking) monkey ' create space for itself?

C: The question is that as long as the 'monkey' is caught in the self, the monkey makes small space. But it seems to me that there is some ( intelligent) understanding of seeing that small space that dissolves it.

K: That's it : when the ( 'thinking) monkey' realizes, sees, or 'perceives' that whatever it does is still limited …

E: that point it 'lets go' of his being the monkey.

K: Wait a minute, that's the whole point.

E: In order for the the monkey to 'be' ( a self-conscious ) monkey, it has to be very smart to create all of the illusions of its own enclosure. But it is now so intelligent that he can also see his own trappings.

K: We have said that.

E: Right. That is precisely the interesting thing: that our 'intelligence' is two sided. On the one hand it can create this confusion and on the other hand it can see itself. But when it sees itself it is, in some sense in a limited sense but nevertheless in some sense, its own creation.

C: Isn't there something more necessary to the stop (the 'thinking monkey') other than this insight?

K: When does the (thinking) monkey realize its own limitation?

E: At the moment it sees its own futility.

K: Now when does that happen? When does it see, my god whatever I do will always be limited?

E: When there is a 'breakdown' in its world – like you lost your wife, or your house burnt down.

K: In an ( existential?) crisis.

B: Crisis, suffering...

K: See what you are saying ? That it needs a crisis for it to wake up. Right?

E: Yes.

K: I question that.

E: It needs it usually as a first step. But then one realizes that ( existential) breakdowns are happening all the time, right now.

K: Just a minute sir. I asked when does the ( thinking) monkey realize the fact, or sees the truth, that it is limited? When does it say, ''My God, I am limited !'' - not theoretically ?

A: In a (major existential) crisis, we said.

K: I question ( the necessity of?) that. We have had untold suffering, not only me but the whole world. That hasn't changed the monkey because we have ( put up with our) suffering for thousands of years.

D: Why?

K: We have ( also) had thousands of pleasures (to indulge in?) .

E: So you need the 'convergence' of (a holistic ) combination of the two of saying it is futile and also that there is an alternative. It is like your example the other day you run into somebody who says, you could go 'south'. It is the same sort of thing.

K: Yes sir. So when does the monkey wake up and say, I am limited?

D: Can you say what should be done in this regard ?

K: I can.

D: I am waiting.

K: Have you come to this (total existential) 'impasse'? Whatever the monkey does, it is still the monkey.

E: Yes, agreed.

K: That means you (as the 'thinking monkey'?) have come to a stop. It is an impasse, you have come against a Wall. You have come to the realization whatever it does is...

E: limited.

K: Limited. What does that mean (experientially?) ? It is an actuality that you are up against a wall, you can't move?

D: There are many researchers, scientists who know that. We agree.

K: Then what do we do sir?

D: We should do something, we just can't wait.

K: Look what you are doing sirs, you don't just stop (thinking further) , and say, look I am at a (total existential) impasse. We never ( allow ourselves to?) come to that point.

E: I question that.

K: Otherwise you would have the answer.

E: There is the realization of the absolute impossibility, and at the same time there are all the gaps, all the holes, and all the 'space' is right there.

K: No, there is no 'hope' when you are up against a wall.

E: It is not true. The sudden realization of the complete limitation brings with it the complete clarity of the space with it.

K: Is that an actuality to you?

E: Is it not sir? Why couldn't it be shared?

K: We can share it together if we are both 'hungry' and food is put on the table.

E: But it is here.

K: Yes sir. If you can remain with that shock, and not dissipate it there is then a totally different ( inner clarity of?) action. Yes sir.

E: This is exactly what I just said. But you said 'there was no hope'.

K: No, it is not a ( personal?) hope. If I 'hope' I want to escape.

E: But you have just said there is a totally different action coming out of ( facing this total existential impasse?) .

K: Ah, for me, not for you, maybe.

C: What do you mean, "For me and not you"?

K: You are there in front of me. Have you 'stopped'?

C: There is no answer to that question.

K: Yes sir, there is. When one actually faces the ( inner truth of the?) fact that you cannot do anything, the ('thinking) monkey' comes to be quiet, says, right. No more (mental) 'tricks' .
Sir this has been the whole problem of ( an authentic) 'meditation' – for thought to come up against this (' non-thinking' impasse ) and say, "Look, this is the end".

E: Now won't you cultivate that?

K: No, not according to me, sir. We all said 'cultivation' implies ( a personal goal or ) motive, time (a time line) and... ( lots of ?) effort.

E: Yes absolutely. But if my motivation says, "I know of my lack of (inner) vision but a change in attitude would make possible the realization of limitation", then that is cultivating a 'meditative action'.

K: Therefore...

E: Motivation by itself is not problematic. Motivation is problematic when it is completely devoid of any context of its limitation, when it 'believes in itself'.

K: Sir, you, not you sir, the monkey is still active.

E: I said again I don't see a problem with the monkey acting and being a monkey. The problem is when the monkey is (feeling itself trapped) in a little room. Constrained.

K: Constrained. Aren't we constrained ?

E: Indeed. That is precisely what needs to be worked on and dealt with. Therefore what really interests me is what are the actual practicalities, the actual practicalities of cultivating that (inward) spaciousness? Because the monkey is not the problem, the constraint is what makes the monkey crazy.

K: You see the difference? I say it is not the constraint, it is the ( thinking) monkey constraining himself.

E: It comes to the same thing. The way we can 'cultivate' ( our inner space?) is to make room for it. Not to hit it on the head.

K: The monkey cannot make room for itself.

E: I thought we concluded that it can, because we said its intelligence can apply to seeing its limitations. and when it becomes aware of that limitation there is space right there.

K: When it becomes aware that whatever it does...

E: limited, it creates space right there.

K: Yes. All right.

E: Well isn't that a fact?

K: If you say so...

E: I am posing you the question very much in the spirit of hearing what your experience is.

K: I would ( first) question whether one has really realized the nature of the monkey, the monkey whatever it does is still the monkey, and the depth of that realization, which may be very superficial, or it may be profound. When it is a profound ( insight into it) this totally changes one's life. That's all I am saying. I am not saying anything else.

E: I guess I am saying that that is possible but it may not be possible for every human being. This is my experience, and I cannot go by your experience...

K: Of course not.

E: ...nor by anybody else's, my experience is that those realizations come and go and come in different degrees of depth. Sometimes it is a realization of a stupid limitation that I have imposed on myself and I can drop it. Sometimes it can be profound, then it is forgotten again. It is not a 'one-shot' deal (as you seem to imply?) . It is not like that.

C: I think you are raising another issue. What you seem to be saying is that when the monkey is totally caught up in its monkey business, that it has no relationship to an (insightful ) intelligence whatsoever. Now the question is: whether the intelligence comes in and for instance there is an aspect of the (mind of the ) monkey which is ( potentially) intelligent. And therefore the Intelligence appreciates the limitations of the monkey and at the same time it sees that thought is limited.

K: There is the intelligence of thought, and the ( Universal?) intelligence of Love.

C: And what is the relationship between the intelligence of love and the intelligence of thought?

K: What is the relationship of the man who doesn't hate and the man who hates? There is no relationship.

C: None?

K: No.

E: That is not my experience.

K: Just look at it sir : what is the relationship of the man who 'loves', in the (compassionate & intelligent) sense we are talking about, and the man who hates? How can there be?

C: I think there is a relationship. I have seen you embracing people who hate.

K: Of course.

C: So what is your relationship when you embrace a man you know who hates?

K: Ah! Hate has no relationship to love; but love has a relationship to hate.
That's all. Not the other way round.

C: So what is the relationship between intelligence and thought?

K: We said that sir (in a roudabout way ?) .

C: No, we haven't.

K: Thought has its own 'intelligence' - right? Love, Compassion, has its own intelligence. The intelligence of thought has no relationship with that intelligence, but that intelligence has a relationship.

C: Sir, what is the relationship of (That) intelligence to the (thinking) monkey?

K: That (one) way, yes, but not the other.

C: OK Now what is the 'event' of intelligence seeing the limitations of the ( 'thinking) monkey'?

K: ( Holistically speaking?) it is very 'simple': you are no longer the (thinking ) monkey. When I cease to be the (thinking) monkey, the ( ego-centric) 'I' is finished. Right?

E: How would it be otherwise? You do what you do, and I do what I do?

K: Can we all be together (be inwardly as 'all-one') ?

E: Yes.

K: Where?

E: Cultivate our love.

K: Oh, no. Don't say 'cultivate love'. That is not cultivable.

E: Itself it is not, but...

K: Look sir, can we 'all be together' , not physically but inwardly so that you are a light to yourself ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 May 2018 #8
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 320 posts in this forum Offline


THE HOLISTIC NATURE OF THE MIND (reader friendly edited)

JOHN HIDLEY: Perhaps we could start with the question of what is the source of 'psychological' disorder ?

KRISHNAMURTI: Isn't ( the psychological?) disorder (implicit in ?) the very nature of a self ?

JH: Why do you say that?

K: Isn't the ( ego-centric consciousness?) divisive? Isn't it an exclusive, isolating process – this self-centred activity which causes so much disorder in the world, isn't that the origin, the beginning of all disorder?

JH: So, our selfish activity ?

K: Yes, self-centred activity, at all levels of life. Is not the 'self' - our the egotistic attitude towards life, the emphasis on the 'individual': his salvation, his fulfillment, his happiness, his anxiety, isn't this the beginning of all disorder? I mean, if you go all over the world, it is the same ( indiviualistic) expression, it is the same way of living. They are all living their own personal lives unrelated to another, though they may get married, they may do all kinds of things, but they're really ( and perhaps unconsciously?) functioning from an isolated 'centre' .

JH: So, that 'centre', that 'self' (-centredness ) , is the source of all the difficulties in the human relationships?

K: In relationship. And I wonder if the 'psychologists' have tackled ( directly?) that problem, that the self is the origin, the beginning of all contradiction, divisive activity, self-centred activity, and so on.

JH: Not (really) - the way psychiatrists and psychologists look at this is that the problem is to have an 'adequate' self.

K: Which means what?

JH: Defining the 'normality' of a 'self' that is functioning efficiently.

K: Which means furthering more misery.

DAVID BOHM: Well, I feel that the psychiatrists would assume that a properly organized 'self' could get together with other properly organized 'selves' and make an orderly society. But you are saying, as I understand it, something quite different : that no 'self' can create ( a harmonious) order.

K: That's right. The very ( ego-centric) nature of the 'self' must intrinsically bring disorder.

DB: Yes, but how can that be made clear, evident?

RUPERT SHELDRAKE: It seems to me that the context is even broader than that of psychology, because in the world we have all sorts of things which are not just human beings with 'selves', there are animals and plants and all the forces of nature and all the stars and so on. Now we see disorder in nature too. It may not be consciously experienced and a cat that's suffering or a lion suffering or a mouse or even an earthworm that's suffering may not come into a psychiatrist's office and say so, but the fact is that there seems to be disorder and conflict within nature. There are conflicts between forces of nature, inanimate things, earthquakes and so on; there are conflicts within the animal world; there are even conflicts within the plant world - plants compete for light, and bigger ones get higher up in the forest and the smaller ones get shaded out and die. There's conflict between predators and prey; all animals live on other plants or animals. There's every kind of conflict: there's disease, there's suffering, there's parasites; all these things occur in the natural world. So is the context of psychological suffering and disorder something that has merely something to do with the human mind or is it something to do with the whole of nature which is full of separate (living) things interacting with each other, so that there's always going to be conflict in the 'real' world.

DB: I'm wondering, whether it is clear that there is ( a certain amount of 'natural') disorder in nature. Would we say that disorder is only in human consciousness?

K: Yes.

DB: Then what is the difference between the disorder in consciousness and whatever is going on in ( the wild world of?) Nature?

K: Are we saying that it is natural in Nature and in human beings to suffer, to go through agonies, to live in disorder?

RS: Yes.

K: So what do you say to that, sir (JH) ?

JH: Well, I think that's the way it's looked at by the (psycho-) therapist. To some degree it's felt that this disorder arises in the course of development and that some people are suffering more than others, while other people are more fortunate in their upbringing, or in their heredity. But it isn't questioned that that may not be necessary in any absolute sense.

K: Dr. Sheldrake says it is generally accepted human condition is to suffer, to struggle, to have anxiety, pain, disorder.

JH: People do get sick, they die, but we're wondering whether or not psychological suffering is analogous to that (physical counterpart?) or whether there's something intrinsically different about it.

K: I do question seriously whether human beings must inevitably live in this ( disorderly inner) state: everlastingly suffering; everlastingly going through this agony of life. Is this condition inevitable?

JH: Well, physical suffering is inevitable. But maybe we increase the physical suffering because of our 'psychological' ('self-created'?) problems.

K: That's just it ! So is there a (redeeming?) activity in the (human) psyche that helps the ('psychological') suffering to be wiped away? Is it the 'psychological remembrance' of pain (& personal shocks ?) that gives us a sense of continuity in pain?

JH: So you are saying that the psychological suffering has an action of its own.

K: Yes. Right. You have had a toothache, I'm sure.

RS: Yes. I've forgotten...

K: have forgotten it. But if we accept that pain is inevitable, suffering is inevitable you must continue with it. You will even sustain it (subliminally?) .

RS: We can easily forget a (passing) physical pain, but can we 'forget' the kind of psychological pain that's caused by natural things like loss, death of people?

K: Yes, we'll come to that (after a brief 'psycho-therapeutical' detour ?) I come to you, I've got a problem with my wife, I can't get on with her. And she can't get on with me. And we have a problem in relationship. I come to you. How will you help me? Is a 'mutual adjustment' possible when each one wants to fulfil oneself , pursue his own desires, ambitions, and so on?

JH: You are saying that the problem arises out of the fact that they each have their own 'self- interests' at heart.

K: We are all so terribly 'individualistic' (minded) . I want ( to do things) 'my' way and my wife wants 'her' way. Deeply.

JH: And we see that our needs are in conflict for some reason.

K: Yes, that's all. Right away you begin (with a 'royal' wedding?) and after a few months of ( a very rewarding?) relationship, pleasure and all that, ( the thrill of it?) wears off and we are (finding ourselves?) stuck (in various committments & responsibilities?) .

JH: Okay, that's the same problem then with the mother raising this child and making it her toy. Her needs are in conflict with the needs of the child. The whole world is like that, sir. It's not just the mother.

JH: You are saying that it's a much broader problem - their needs are in conflict.

K: No, I wouldn't say their needs are in conflict. Basically, they are ( thinking in a ) divisive (way) ; self-centred activity and this inevitably must bring contradiction - you know, the whole business of relationship and conflict because each one wants his/her pleasure (and/or safety) .

JH: And the child is the victim of that ?

K: Of course.

JH: And then grows up to perpetuate it.

K: And the mother's father and father's 's fathers are like that too (...all the way down the line) .

JH: Yes. Now why does it have to happen that way? Are we saying that's the way it is in the human nature?

RS: Well, there are lots of examples of conflict in the animal kingdom which are quite needless. There would be enough food for these hens without pecking each other. So these are not ( just psychologically motivated?) exceptions; we can find this kind of thing throughout the animal kingdom. So I don't think that the origin of this kind of selfish conflict is something just to do with human societies and the way they are structured. I think we can see this kind of thing in our biological nature

K: Are you saying that as we are the result of the animal, as we human beings evolved from the animal, we have inherited all those 'pecking order'?

RS: Yes, I think we've inherited a lot of animal tendencies from our animal forbearers. And I think that many of these show up in our 'psychological' problems.

K: Yes, but is it necessary that we should continue that way (indefinitely) ? We are ingenious in our (technological) inventions, extraordinarily capable in certain directions, why should we not also say, we won't have this (ego-centric) way we live, let's change it.

RS: Well, we can say that; many people had said it, but without very much effect.

K: Why?

RS: Well, that indeed is a question. Is it that we're so completely trapped in the ancestry of the past?

K: Or so heavily conditioned that it's impossible to be free.

RS: Well, there are two possible kinds of conditioning: one is the genuine biological conditioning that comes from our animal heritage, which means that we inherit all these tendencies.

K: Let's accept that.

RS: Now that is undoubtedly extremely strong. It goes right back into our animal past.

K: Right.

RS: The other kind of conditioning is the kind of argument that I'm putting forward, perhaps: the argument, this has always been so; human nature is like this, there have always been wars and conflicts and all that kind of thing, and therefore there always will be; that the most we can do is try to minimize these, and that there'll always be psychological conflicts within families and between people and that the most we can do is try and minimize them or at least make them livable with.

K: But you cannot fundamentally change it ?

RS: Yes. The belief that we can't really change it radically is becoming another kind of conditioning. I'm a victim of it myself. So I don't know if it's possible to get out of it.

K: That is what I want to discuss. Whether it's possible to change the (ego-centric) human conditioning. And not accept it, say, as most philosophers, the existentialists and others say, this is the human nature. You cannot change radically . You can modify it; you can be less selfish, have less problems, but we'll go on like this for the rest of our lives and for the lives to come. Do we accept that? Or should we enquire into whether it's possible to change this conditioning?

RS: Yes. I think we should enquire into that.

K: If you say it cannot be changed, then the argument is over.

RS: All right, so I'll say that I deeply want it to be changed. And I think that enquiring into this possibility is extremely important. But one of my points, to go back to the conditioning point, is that a lot of this conditioning is deep in our biological nature and people who wish to change it merely by changing the structures of society are operating at too superficial a level.

K: But society is formed by us and by us is going to be changed, so we have to change ourselves. I may have inherited the violence from the from the apes and so on, so on. Can't I change that? This inherited biological conditioning, surely that can be transformed.

RS: Well, all societies surely seek to transform ( and/or contol?) these biological drives we have, and all processes of bringing children up in all societies seek to bring those drives within the control of the society. Otherwise you would have complete anarchy. However these drives are always brought within certain social forms and individual aggression is obviously discouraged in most societies. But is it really transformed? Doesn't it just come out again in the aggression of the society as a whole, war and so on. So we can see that these things are transformed by society, these basic drives that we inherit.

DB: But I think you (K) are meaning by 'transformed' a fundamental change and not just a superficial change or a transfer of the object of aggression from other individuals to other groups. So if you talk of transformation you would say really that they would more or less 'go away', right? That's as I understand the meaning which Krishnaji is using for the word 'transform,' but essentially can't we be free of them ?

K: That's right. Sir, why do we divide, if I may ask, society and me? As though society were something outside which is influencing me, conditioning me, but my parents, grandparents, so on, past generations have created that society, so I am part of that society. I am (responsible for this?) society. Even ( the collective mentality of ) that society is part of us.

RS: Oh, yes. Through growing up in it, it becomes part of us and we become part of it.

K: I want to abolish (in this discussion), the separative (mentality) between me and society. I am society, I am the world. I am the ( psychological ?) result of all these influences & conditionings, whether in the East or in the West or in South or North, it's all part of conditioning. So we are 'attacking' (challenging?) this ( egocentric?) conditioning, not where you are born or East or West. Personally I don't separate myself (inwardly ) from society, I am society. I have created society through my anxiety, through my desire for security, through my desire to have power, and so on. It's all biologically inherited. And also my own individualistic activity has created this society.
So I am asking, ( if I realise that?) I am conditioned (to think in a self-centred) way; is it not possible to be free of my conditioning?

RS: Well, I would say first that it's not possible to be free of all of the conditioning. I mean, a certain part of it is necessary biologically, the (somatic) conditioning that makes my heart beat my lungs operate, and all that.

K: I admit all that.

RS: Now, then, the question is, how far can you take that necessary

K: I am conditioned to (carry on my) suffering , psychologically. Or I am conditioned to go through a great deal of (unnecessary) conflict in my relationship with my wife or father, whatever it is. And we are saying, either we investigate into that and free ourselves from that, or accept it and ( hope to) modify it.

JH: That's right.

K: Now, which is it that as a (trained) psychologist you maintain?

JH: Well, generally the approach is to attempt to modify it; to help the patient make it work more effectively.

K: Why?

JH: Because it is that it's seen as biological (engramming?) and therefore fixed. A person is 'born' with a certain temperament. His drives are the drives of the animal ; but I also think that it isn't clear to therapists that this problem can be dealt with as a whole, it is clear that it can be dealt with as particulars.

K: Is it that the psychologists don't think 'holistically'? Our only concern is solving individual problems.

JH: Yes, they are concerned with solving individual problems.

K: So therefore they are not thinking of human suffering as a whole, but with the (personal) suffering of 'X' who is very depressed for particular reasons. We don't enquire into what is ( the nature of psychological?) depression, why human beings all over the world are depressed.

JH: Or we don't tackle that as a single problem. We try and tackle it with this particular individual who comes in.

K: Therefore you are emphasizing his particular suffering and (implicitly) sustaining it.

JH: Now, can we get more clear on that?

K: I come to you and I am depressed for various reasons which you (may or not?) know. And you tell me that my (personal) depression is the (existential ?) depression of the world.

JH: In the first place I am helping you to be less self-concerned because then you may feel better and able to better relate to people.

K: But again, on a very superficial level.

JH: Meaning that I leave the 'self' intact ?

DB: Well, I feel that people generally wouldn't accept (your holistic paradigm ?) that the 'self' is not there, which is what you're implying saying that the 'self' is rather unimportant. But rather the common root assumption is that the 'self' is really there and it has to be improved, and people would say that certain amount of self-centredness is only normal as long as you keep it within reason, right?

K: Modify ( refine one's?) selfishness, right? Continue with selfishness but go slow.

DB: So, I think you're saying something which is very radical because very few people have entertained the notion of non – 'self centredness'.

JH: That's right; it isn't entertained, both for biological reasons and because of the universality of the phenomenon? Because this issue isn't even seen as relevant, really.

DB: I think most people feel that's the way things are, it's the only way.

K: That means ( accepting the ) status quo, or trying to modify it.

JH: Yes.

K: To me that seems so (holistically?) 'irrational'.

DB: Why you feel so differently from other people about it ?

K: It seems so 'practical', first of all. The ( conflict ridden) way we live is so impractical.

DB: But that wouldn't be a (totally valid) argument, because people say, we all understand that (all these conflicts are impractical) , but since that's the way we are, nothing else is possible. You see, you really are challenging the notion that 'this is the way we are'.

K: I don't quite follow this.

DB: People say we are separate individuals and (in our very competitive society ) we'll just have to fight and make the best of it. But you are saying something different, I mean, you're not accepting this (individualistic outlook ) .

K: All right. But will the ( holistically minded) people who don't accept that way of life, will they give their minds to find out?

JH: Well, this question isn't even raised usually. Now why do you think that this selfish activity, isn't necessary?

K: No, sir, first of all, do we accept that we can never be free from this anxiety, depression, from the (deeper existential) agony of our life ? If you accept that, there is no ( holistic) communication between us. But if you say, ''I know my conditioning, let's just talk about whether one can be free from it'', then we have a ( creative) relationship, can communicate with each other.

RS: So, there are those people who say we can't change it. But there are other people, and I would say that some of the most inspiring leaders of the different religions of the world are among them, who have said we can change it; there is a way beyond this. Now since religions have wide followings and since their doctrines are widely dispersed, there are in fact large numbers of people in our society and in every society who do think it can be changed. Because all religions hold out the prospect of change, and of going beyond this conditioning.

K: Yes. But when you use the word 'religion,' is it the organized religion, the religion of belief, dogma, rituals, or of a religious (individual attitude?) in the sense, the accumulation of energy to find whether it is possible to be free ?

RS : I think that even within all religious traditions, this second kind of religion you talk about has been kept alive and I think that the impetus in all great religions of the world has been that, though it's then been debased and degraded in various ways. But this vision has never left any of these religions, there are still people within them, I think, who still have it. And this is the inner light that keeps them going above the simple 'political' part and all the rest of it.

K: I know, I know. But suppose a man like me rejects anything that has been said about Truth; about God, of the 'other side'. So if you wipe all that out and say, look, I must find out - not as a (self-centred) 'individual' - can this truth or this bliss, this illumination come without depending on all that?.

RS: Well, you put forward the question of a man who rejects all these traditions. You say, suppose that I am a man who has rejected all these traditions. I would then say, well what reason do you have for rejecting all these traditions in such a (radical) way? What I was saying is that the inner core of all the great religions of the world there is a vision of this possibility of a transformation, whether it's called 'salvation' or 'liberation' or Nirvana, and there have always been people within those religions who had this vision and lived this vision; now out of your radical rejection of all (organised) religions you've always denied that. But I would say, why? Why should we be so radical as to deny...

K: I question ( if being) anchored to a certain organized belief, whether I can ever find the 'Other'. If I am a Buddhist, for example, I believe that the Buddha is my saviour. Suppose my parents have been Buddhists and so on, and as long as I have found (my psychological?) security in that idea, or in that belief, in that person, there is no (inner) freedom.

RS: No, but it's also possible that you can move beyond that framework, starting from within it and go beyond it ?

K: That means I wipe out everything.

RS: It means you wipe it out, but there's a ( big) difference between an approach where you wipe it out from the beginning...

K: From the beginning, I am talking about. What is important is 'breaking down' all the barriers at the beginning, not at the end. I am (culturally conditioned as ) a Hindu, anf if I see what (the limitation of) Hinduism is, why should I go through number of years to end it, why couldn't I finish it the first day?

RS: Because you'd have to reinvent and rediscover for yourself a great many things that you would be able to get through more quickly if you didn't.

K: If in my everyday relationship I (realise that I) am living in conflict, he (K) says, don't go about religion and illumination and nirvana and all the rest of it. Transform this, live rightly here, then the 'Door' is open.

RS: Yes, but surely, isn't that easier said than done?

K: I know! I know it's easier said than done, therefore let's find out how to live in this world without conflict. Right, sir?

JH: That's what we're asking.

K: Can I find out, or is that impossible?

JH: We don't know.

K: Therefore we start (on the right foot with?) , 'we don't know' and enquire into what is my relationship with life – if this relationship is not 'right' how can I find out something that's immensely beyond all this? Beyond time, beyond thought, beyond measure. I can't. 'Til we have established right relationship between us, which is order, how can I find that which is supreme order? So I must begin with ( putting order into my relationship with ) you, not with 'That'. I don't know if you are meeting me ?

RS: I would have thought that you could easily argue the other way around.
Until you have That, you can't get this right; because the whole history of man shows that starting just from...

K: Ah! Therefore you (may) invent 'that' and hope that (Cosmic) order will filter into you. And it seems so illogical, irrational, whereas this is so 'rational'.

RS: But is it possible?

K: That is it! Let's find out.

RS: But you've now completely reversed your argument to start with, you see. He started with the patient coming to the psychiatrist's office who wants to get his relationships right, get the human relationships out of this state of disorder and conflict into something that's more tolerable.

K: Forgive me, Doctor, but I question whether they are doing it right.

RS: But they're doing just what you said right now, starting with the everyday relationship, and not going into these bigger questions.

K: But I question whether they are really concerned with bringing about a right relationship between human beings, fundamentally, not superficially, or just adjust themselves for the day.

JH: I don't think that you're denying that larger questions are involved in that, you are just saying that we shouldn't invent ideas about what a solution would be like.

K: Yes. I come to you with my problem: I cannot get on with somebody, or I am terribly depressed or something dishonest in me, I pretend. I come to you. You are concerned to tell me, become more honest (inwardly) , but not find out what is the ( nature of the?) 'real' honesty.

JH: Don't we get into the problem of creating the idea of 'real honesty' at this point?

K: No. ( If you the 'psy' see that ?) I am (inwardly) dishonest. You enquire, why are you dishonest? Go - penetrate into it, disturb me. Don't pacify me. Don't help me to say, well, be a little more honest and a little more this or that, but 'shake me' so that I ( negate it and) find out what is real honesty. You don't disturb me, that's just my point.

JH: I do disturb you.

K: Partially. You disturb me to (perform) little adjustments. You don't say to me, look, you are dishonest, let's go into it.

JH: I do say that.

K: No but, go into it, so that he is totally honest.

JH: Well, how deeply do I need to go into it so that I have disturbed you totally?

K: Yes. You tell me. Do it now, sir.

JH: Okay. You come in and in our talks we notice that the thing that you are up to is that you are always trying to find some other person to make your life be whole.

K: Yes. I depend on somebody.

JH: Yes, deeply.

K: Deeply.

JH: And you may be not be even aware of that. So I disturb you. I tell you what going on and I show you you're doing it with me. I show you you're doing it with your husband. Now is that sufficiently deep?

K: No.

JH: Why?

K: What have you shown me? A verbal picture...

JH: No, not just verbal; not verbal.

K: Wait, wait. An argument which tells me that I am dishonest. Or whatever you tell me. That leaves me where?

JH: Well, if it's verbal it just gives you more knowledge about yourself.

K: That's all. Knowledge about myself. Will (that second hand) knowledge transform me?

JH: No.

K: Then why do I come to you?

JH: You come thinking that maybe somehow I have some answers, because the society is set up...

K: Why don't you tell me, 'do it yourself' don't depend on me. Go into it. Find out, stir.

JH: Okay, I tell you that. I tell you, go into it yourself. And you say to me I don't know what you're talking about.

K: That's just it.

JH: Yes...

K: So how will you help me to 'go into myself' and not depend on you? How will you help me to go into myself so deeply that I understand and go beyond. You know what I mean?

JH: No, I don't know what you mean. But I understand how to help you go into it without depending on me.

K: I don't want to depend on you. I don't want to depend on anybody.

JH: Okay. I can help you do that. We can discover together that you are depending on me, but I don't know how deeply this (introspective enquiry) has to go.

K: So you have to enquire into 'dependence'. Why am I dependent? Security.
Is there such thing as (psychological) security?

JH: Well, I have these real life experiences as I grew up that taught me what security is.

K: Yes, which is what? A principle, a belief, a faith, a dogma, or an ideal, which are all projected by me or by you, and I accept those. But they're 'unreal'.

JH: Okay....

K: So, can I push those away?

JH: Yes. And then you are not depressed anymore ?

K: Ah! I am dependent and therefore I get angry, jealousy, all the rest of it. That (psychological) 'dependence' makes me attached and in that attachment there is more fear, there is more anxiety, there is more... you follow?

JH: Yes.

K: So can you help me to be free ( of the psychological dependence) or to find out what is true security? Is there a deep (inwardly) abiding security? Not in furniture, not in a house, not in my wife or in some idea - find deeply if there is such thing as complete security.

JH: So you're suggesting that if I simply work on this with you and you come to understand that you're dependent that that's not sufficient because you won't have discovered any abiding security.

K: Because that's all I want. I've sought ( my total ) security in this house. And there's none, I've sought security in (relying on) my wife, there isn't any; then I find security in a church, in a god, in a belief, in a faith, in some other symbol. You see what is happening? You are all 'externalized', if I can use that word - giving me security in things in which there is no security: in nations, all the rest of it. Could you help us to find out if (inwardly) there is complete security which is unshakable?

RS: Are you suggesting that this is one of our most fundamental needs?

K: I should think so.

RS: Drives and activities?

K: I should think so.

RS: So indeed it's a fundamental question as to whether this sense of abiding unshakable security is possible.

K: Yes. Yes. Because if once you have 'that' ( holistic integration?) there is no ( personal) problem any more.

JH: But this point isn't clear : is it the 'individual' consciousness that has that?

K: No. ( The self-centred) 'individual' can never have that ( sense of total inner) security. Because he is in himself divisive.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 May 2018 #9
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 320 posts in this forum Offline


2ND K CONVERSATION (reader-friendly edited)

JH: Yesterday, we started with the question of the origin and nature of psychological disorder, and suggested that it has its roots in ( a subliminal?) 'self'-centred activity which is divisive and conflictual in nature and that biologically such factors as instinctual aggression and dominance drives or the facts of illness and death all contribute. I wondered if we could start this morning, David, by having you comment on the relationship between these biological factors and the 'psychological' security.

DAVID BOHM: Yes, well, biologically if you begin with the animal they're fairly simple. They exist for a short period while the 'fact' is there and then they generally disappear, leaving little trace. There may be a few cases in the 'higher' animals where there's some (residual) memory, but in man this memory becomes very significant : (by) remembering all the (past) experiences and anticipating the future you get a very different sort of behaviour. For example, with an animal he might have a bad experience with another animal, but shortly afterward he'll be in fairly good state of equilibrium, but say we have a quarrel between two groups, as in Northern and Southern Ireland, this has been going on for 350 years and there is a specific (cultural) effort to remember it which you can see going on. And I think this is the biggest difference.

JH: Memory being the...

DB: Yes, the effect of memory, the consequences of (our psychological?) memory. You see memory by itself would obviously not cause any trouble, it's only the (memory of ) facts, right? But ( the psychological component of our) memory has ( time-binding) consequences: it may produce fear, you see, it may produce anger, it may produce all sorts of disturbances in remembering ( the personal impact of?) what did happen and to anticipate what may happen.

RUPERT SHELDRAKE: You mean thinking about it?

DB: Yes. Based on memory, right?

RS: I mean, obviously the animal that's been attacked by another animal remembers in the sense that when it sees the other animal again, it's afraid. It probably doesn't think about it in between.

DB: Yes, it can't form an 'image', you see, I don't believe that most animals can form (mental) images of the other animals, and I can base that on experience, that I have seen dogs fighting very hard, and as soon as they turn the corner, the dog sort of forgets what happened. He is disturbed but he doesn't know why he is disturbed, you see. Now, if he could remember the other dog after he turned the corner, he could continue the struggle over his territory indefinitely. So the point about territory is, the animal maintains it in a certain limited context. But man remembers it (far longer) and he maintains this territory indefinitely and wants to extend it, and so on, because of his 'thinking' about it.

RS: So, are you suggesting that the basis of the specifically human kind of pain and suffering over and above the kind of suffering we see in the animal kingdom is this ability to remember (personally?) , to 'brood over' , or to 'think about' it?

DB: I think the major point is that with man a (physical or psychological shock ?) can build up like a tremendous explosion that fills his whole mind, you see, and it can become the major motive in (one's personal) life, to remember the bad experience you had with somebody and to be frightened of what's coming.

K: But have you answered his question, sir?

DB: Which is?

JH: How does the biological fact of illness or death or instinctual drive result in a 'psychological' problem or disorder?

DB: By 'thinking about it' and making (very realistic mental) images about it, along with thought reviving that memory and anticipate the feeling of the future; and while you are ( mentally caught in this kind of ?) it becomes a very serious problem because you can't stop it, you see. You will never attain (an authentic sense of inner?) security by 'thinking about it', but you are constantly seeking security. You see, the purpose of thinking is to give you security in practical affairs, technical affairs. Now, therefore you are doing a similar sort of thinking, saying how can I be secure against the possibility of suffering again? And there is no way to do that. You may take technical steps to make it unlikely, but as you think about it, you begin to stir up the whole system and distort the whole mental process.

JH: Well, it seems clear that by thinking about it we stir up the emotions and the associations that are those thoughts, but we're not suggesting we shouldn't think about it, are we?

DB: Well, it depends on 'how' you think about it. You see, this ( psychologically motivated?) thinking gets to be directed toward giving you a sense of security, you see, an image of security.

JH: Right, I get hurt when I'm little or some time along the line and it creates a fear in me and I anticipate that kind of situation. I may not even remember the incident, but I want to avoid it in the future.

DB: Yes, and now, the point is this: the mind is always searching for how to avoid it, and searching out thoughts, images, you know, saying, that fellow is the one who did it, I must keep away from (this kind of people?) ; coming to conclusions and if one particular conclusion gives you an image of security, then the mind holds on to it, right? Without actually any basis.

JH: Could you elaborate on that a little?

DB: Well, if you have had a bad experience with somebody, you may conclude that you should never trust him again, for example. Although that might be quite wrong (or... not?) . But the mind is so anxious to have ( a long term temporal?) security that it will jump to the conclusion that it's not safe to trust him. Right?

JH: Yes.

DB: Now, if you find somebody else who seems to treat you well and reassures you and flatters you, then you may jump to the conclusion that you can completely trust him. The (thinking) mind is now looking for thoughts that will give it 'good feelings', you see, because the feelings of the (painful personal ) memory are so disturbing to the whole system that its first function is to make the mind feel better, rather than find out what is the fact.

JH: Okay, so we're saying that at this point the mind isn't interested in what's true, it's interested in getting secure.

DB: Yes, it's so disturbed that it wants to 'come to order' first, but it's adopting a wrong way, as I see it.

JH: The 'wrong way' being?

DB: 'Thinking about it' and trying to find (alternative ) thoughts that will make it feel better.

JH: So you're saying these thoughts themselves in some sense are taking the place of reality, that the person is trying to get certain thoughts in his head that make him feel better.

DB: Yes. And that's ( a subliminal form of?) self-deception, you see.

RS: What makes you think that the primary drive is for (psychological) security?

DB: Oh, we discussed that yesterday : for the animal it's a very important drive to want security, right? But we also want pleasure, I think that's another drive - they are closely related.

RS: But to come back to this question of security, in its limited forms, security is clearly one goal that we have. People like to have houses and have them secure and cars and possessions and bank balances and that kind of thing. But there are some (collateral) factor that comes in : one is maybe the fear that you'll lose it, and the other is boredom with the whole thing and the craving for more excitement and thrill. And this doesn't seem to fit within this model of this central craving for security.

DB: Well that's why I said it's only one of the drives, right? That there's also the drive toward pleasure and much of what you said is included in the drive toward pleasure, right?

RS: I'm not so sure.

DB: Excitement is pleasurable and then people hope for pleasure and excitement rather than pain, as a (simple) rule (of thumb?) .

RS: But don't you think there's a pleasure in itself in curiosity and there's a sense of freedom in discovery that you can get from certain kinds of exploration which is neither just straightforward pleasure, it's not a repetitive kind of pleasure, nor is it security.

DB: Yes, well, I didn't want to say that all our drives are caught in this ( security & pleasure) thing, you see, I said that if you think about them and base them on memory, then they are going to get caught in this problem. Now there may be a natural free interest in things which could be enjoyable, and that need not be a problem, right? But if you were to become dependent on it and think about it and say, if I don't have it I become very unhappy, then it would be a similar problem.

K: Could we go into the question, what is ( psychological?) security? What does that word convey?

RS: I would have said invulnerability.

K: Not to be hurt ?

RS: Not to be hurt at all, not to be able to be hurt.

K: Not to be able to be hurt and not to hurt others. Now, physically we are all hurt, one way or another: (prostate?) operations and illness and so on, so on. When you talk about being hurt, are you talking about psychological hurts?

JH: Yes, when a person comes into my office, his complaint is his psychological hurts.

K: How do you deal with it? Suppose I come to you. I am hurt from childhood. by the parents, school, college, university and when I get married she says something, I am hurt. So this whole (time-binding) living seems to be a series of hurts (along with intervals of 'no-hurt' ?) .

JH: It seems to build up a structure of the 'self' (consciousness) that is hurt, and a perception of reality that is inflicting hurt.

K: Yes. How do you deal with it?

JH: I try to help you see how you're doing it.

K: What do you mean by 'how I'm doing it' ?

JH: Well, for example, if you have built up in yourself the notion that you're the victim. Then you perceive yourself to be victimized and you perceive the world to be a victimizer. And I help you realize that that's what you're (unconsciously ?) doing.

K: But by showing me that, will I get rid of my hurt? My hurts, very deep unconscious hurts that I have, that make me do all kinds of peculiar actions, neurotic, and (finally leading to completely ?) isolating myself.

JH: It appears that people 'get better' when they realize that they are doing it. And in some local areas it seems to help.

K: But aren't you concerned, if I may ask, with not being able to be hurt at all?

DB: What do you mean by that, not hurting somebody else or not hurting inside of you.

K: I may hurt others unwillingly, but I wouldn't hurt voluntarily somebody.

DB: Yes, you really don't 'intend to hurt' anybody.

K: Yes. I wouldn't.

RS: Well, maybe not, but I don't see the connection between not hurting other people and not being hurt oneself. There must be one, but it's not obvious. And most people's view of the best way not to be hurt would be to be in such a position that you can hurt others so much they'd never dare (to think of hurting you) . This is the principle of 'nuclear retaliation' and so this is a very common principle.

K: Yes, of course.

RS: So it's not obvious that not hurting others is related to not being hurt oneself. In fact, usually it's taken to be the reverse. It's usually assumed that if you're in a position to hurt others very much you'll be very secure (at least for a while?) .

K: Of course, I mean if you're one of those (hard boiled?) people who have built a 'wall' round themselves- you can never hurt them.

RS: Yes.

K: But when they were children they were hurt. And the memory of that hurt remains in the deep recesses of one's own mind. Now, how do you, as a psychoanalyst, help another who is deeply hurt and is unaware of it and to see if it is possible not to be hurt at all?

JH: I don't (even try ) address the question about is it possible to not be hurt at all. That doesn't come up.

K: Why? Wouldn't that be a (holistically?) 'reasonable' question?

JH: Well, it seems to be what we are asking here. It is the essence of the question that we're asking.

K: So how should we proceed?

JH: Well, it would seem that the (mental ?) structure that makes the psychological hurt possible is what we have to get at rather than (dealing with ) this hurt or that hurt.

K: I think that (in terms of superficial observation?) it's fairly 'simple' . Why am I hurt? Because you say something to me which is not pleasant.

JH: Well, why should that hurt you?

K: Because I have a (pretty good?) 'image' about myself and you come along and ( contradict it ?) . And I get ('personally' ?) hurt .

JH: What is it that's being hurt there?

K: The ( identitary ?) image which I have (created) about myself. I am a great cook, a great scientist, or whatever . I have got that ( 'fool proof' ?) picture in myself and you come along and put a pin into it. And that gets hurt. The ( emotionally loaded self-) image gets hurt. The image 'is' me ( my temporal identity?) .

DB: I feel that this (holistic view?) will not be totally clear to many people. I mean, how can I be just an 'image', you see, many people will ask. You see, how can an 'image' get hurt, because if a (mental) image is nothing at all, why does it hurt?

K: Because one has invested a lot of (thinking & ) feeling into that 'image'.A lot of ideas, emotions, reactions, all that is me, my ( temporal self-) image.

JH: It doesn't look just like an 'image' to me, though, it looks like something very real.

K: Ah, of course, for most people it's very 'real'. But the reality of that image is ( given by the 'thinker' ?) 'me'.

JH: Well, how can we get it more clear that it's just an image and not the real (me) ?

K: ( A mental) image is never real; the 'symbol' is never the real (thing ?) .

JH: You're saying that (in the field of thought?) I'm just a (mental) symbol ?

K: Perhaps.

JH: That's a big step...

K: From that arises the question whether it's possible not to have (mental) images (of oneself?) at all.

RS: Well, wait a minute. I don't think we've clearly established that I am just a (mental) image.

K: Ah, let's go into it.

RS: I mean, it's not entirely clear. I mean, it's obvious that to some extent one is an image, that when I have a feeling about myself and so on. But it's not entirely clear that this (over- simplified concept of the 'self') is entirely justified. You see certain aspects of it may be exaggerated, certain aspects may be unrealistic, but, you see, one ( rational?) approach would be, well, we've got to remove, shave off these unrealistic aspects and then that which remains would be the 'real thing'.

K: So, sir, are you raising the ( ages old existential?) question : (who or?) what am I?

RS: I suppose so, yes.

K: What are you ('attached to' or 'identified with'?) ? What is each one of us? What is a human being? That's the ( existential) question that's involved.

RS: Yes, that seems unavoidable.
K: Yes. What am I? I am ( subliminally identified with ) the physical form; the name, and with the (compounded?) result of ( our knowledge oriented ?) education.

JH: Your (personal?) experiences...

K: My experiences, my beliefs, my ideals, principles, the incidents that have marked me.

JH: The structures you've built up that are how you function, your skills...

K: fears, my so-called affection, my gods, my country, my language; fears, pleasures, suffering, all that is ( the time-bound?) me. That's my consciousness.

JH: And your 'unconscious'...

K: That's the whole (psychological) content of 'me'.

DB: But there's still that feeling of the 'actuality' that the 'me' is there. You could reasonably argue that it is only this (self-identified?) content, but when something really critical happens there's the feeling of its actual 'presence', at that moment.

K: I don't quite follow you there.

DB: Well, you see if somebody reacts to being hurt or angry, he feels at that moment that there's more than that, you see, that there is something deep inside which has been hurt, right?

K: My (self-identified) image can be so deep, that's my image at all levels.

DB: Yes, but how...

K: Wait, sir, I have an image of myself; suppose: that I am a great writer. But apart from that ( public?) image as a writer, I have ( collected many) other images about myself, so many images I've built around myself; and the (intimate?) image about myself also. So I may gather a 'bundle of images'.

DB: Yes, I understand.

K: Partial images.

DB: Yes, but you are also saying that (wthin the human psyche?) there is nothing but this 'bundle of images...

K: Of course!

DB: ...but you know, the question is, how are we to se this as an actual (as a totally true?) fact?

K: Ah...

RS: But wait a minute, there is something but this 'bundle of images'; and I mean I'm sitting right here, now, seeing you and all the rest of it. Now I have the feeling that there's centre of consciousness which is within my body and what is associated with it, which has a centre and it's not 'you', and it's not David: it's 'me'. And associated with this centre of action, there is my body, sitting here, is a whole lot of memories an experiences and without those memories I wouldn't be able to speak, to talk, to recognize anything.

K: Of course, of course...

RS: So there seems to be some (intelligent ?) 'substance' to this image of myself. There may be lots of false images associated with it, but there seems to be a 'reality' which I feel it's not entirely illusory.

K: Sir, are you saying that basically you are totally different from the three of us?

RS: Well, I'm in a different place and I have a different body - in that sense I'm different.

K: Of course, I'll admit that ( physically) you're tall, I' short, I'm brown, you're black or you're white or you're pink or whatever .

RS: Now at another (mental) level I'm not basically different in the sense that we can all speak the same language and communicate, so there's something in common. And even at a purely physical level all of us have a lot in common with each other, the same kinds of enzymes, chemicals, and so on. And those hydrogen atoms, oxygen (and carbon) atoms - we have in common with everything else.

K: Yes. Now, is your (self-) consciousness different from the (self-consciousness of all the) rest? Your (personal) beliefs, your fears, your anxieties, depressions, faith, all that?

RS: Well, I would say that many of the contents of my consciousness or many of the beliefs, desires, etcetera, I have, other people also have. But I would say the particular combination of experiences, memories & desires I have are unique, as everyone has an unique combination of these different elements.

K: So is mine unique?

RS: Yes.

K: So is his?

RS: Exactly.

K: The 'illusion' (of one's isolated 'individuality'?) makes ( our self- centred consciousness?) common to all. It's no longer 'unique'.

RS: That's not immediately clear.

DB: Why isn't it clear? Everybody's unique, right?

RS: Yes, we're all unique.

K: I question that. Apart from our particular physical environment, linguistic differences and accidents of experience, basically, fundamentally, deep down, we suffer; we are frightened of death, we are anxious, we are agonizing about something or other, and conflict, that's the ground ( of the collective consciousness?) on which we all stand.

RS: So, you are saying that what we have in common is (more) essential and fundamental rather than the more superficial aspects , you see. Now, I've talked with people about this and they say, everybody agrees we all have these things in common but sorrow, suffering and so on are not so important, the really important point are the higher achievements of culture and things like that, as an example.

JH: Maybe the distinction is between the form and the content. Our contents are all different and they have similarities and differences, but maybe the form is the same, their structure.

RS: I can recognize that there is such a thing as common (consciousness of the whole ) humanity but I would regard that as an abstraction or a (holistic) projection rather than a reality. How do I know that is not an abstraction?

K: Because as you go around the world you see human beings in depression, loneliness, lack of affection, lack of care, attention, that's the basic human reactions, that is part of our ( traditional concept of ego-centric ?) consciousness.

RS: Yes...

K: So (inwardly) you are not basically different from me. Deep down, the content of the 'river' is the same water.

RS: Yes, well that is clearly true at some level. But I am not quite sure at what level (it is seen as absolutely true?) you see.

K: I am talking basically, deeply.

RS: But why stop there? I can see something in common with all other human beings, but I can also see by looking at animals something in common with them. We have a great deal in common with the animals.

K: Surely, surely.

RS: So why stop at human beings?

K: I don't.

RS: Why not say...

K: Because one feels it is the ground on which all human beings stand. Their relationship with nature, animals and so on, and the content of our consciousness is again the ground of humanity. Love is not English, American or Indian. Hate is not - agony is not yours or mine, it is agony. But we identify ourselves with ( our own existential) agony, it is my agony, not yours.

RS: We might go through it in very different ways though.

K: Different expressions, different reactions, but basically it is ( the same ) agony, of (the whole consciousness of humanity entangled in conflict?). Why do we separate ourselves from all this? So why can't we wipe out all that (self-divisive mentality?) ?

RS: I don't know. You tell me, why can't we?

K: Because I (may enjoy) identifying myself with my nation because that gives me a certain (inner) strength, a certain social status, certain material security. When I say, "I am British" - which is really ( a respectable form of) glorified tribalism, is (a potential?) cause of war. Why can't we wipe that out? It seems so (holistically?) reasonable.

JH: It seems 'reasonable' on a level like nationalism, many people already don't think they 'are' England.

K: Start from ( that obvious level of self-identification?)

JH: Okay. But then I have a patient and he does think that it is 'his' (hard earned 'trophy?) wife'.

K: Of course it is his wife.

JH: Well, isn't that the same ( self-centred) action that you are talking about?

K: Sir, just let's go into it slowly. Why do I want to identify myself with something greater like 'nationalism', like God?

JH: Because I am not ( feeling inwardly ) sufficient ?

K: Which means what?

JH: Insecure.

K: Insecure, insufficient, lonely, isolated, I have built a wall round myself. So all this is making me desperately lonely. And out of that 'unconscious' loneliness I identify with God, with the Nation, with Mussolini or with any (famous ) religious teacher.

JH: Or I get married, I have a child, I make a place for myself. And that's all also identification.

K: Yes. Why do we want to 'identify' with something (or other) ? The more basic question is ''Why do we want ( temporal) roots?''

JH: To ( have the feeling that we) 'belong' ?

K: To belong, in which is also implied ( the personal desire to?) to become. So this whole process of 'becoming (something') starts from childhood when I am asked to become, become, become. I am this but I must become that.

JH: Okay, because what I am is not ( feeling?) sufficient.

K: Why do we want to become? What is it that is becoming?

RS: Well the obvious reason for wanting to 'become' (something other than what we are?) is a feeling of insufficiency, inadequacy, in the state that we are. And one of the reasons for this is that we live in an imperfect world, our relationship with other people are imperfect. We are not content for a variety of reasons with the way we are. So the way out of that seems to become something else.

K: Yes. That means escaping from ( facing) 'what is' (within ourselves).
Take the usual experience. I am violent and I have invented 'non-violence'. And I am trying to become that. I'll take years to become that. In the meantime I am (still) violent. So I have never escaped from ( my heritage of) violence. It is just an invention.

RS: Well you are suggesting that the normal way of escaping, trying to become non-violent, is one way of doing it which doesn't work. Whereas if you do another method where you actually look at the violence in a different way you can actually become non-violent.

K: By seeing whether it is possible to be free of it completely.

RS: But isn't that a kind of 'escape' from it?

K: Being free of something is not ( considered ) an 'escape'. The avoidance, running away from 'what is' is an escape, but to say, look, this is what I am, let's look at it, let's observe what its content is. That is not an 'escape'.

RS: You are saying that rather than escaping from violence, which leaves violence intact and still there, and you try and distance yourself from it, you try to dissolve violence, or abolish it.

K: Not abolish it, 'dissolve' it. I don't want to be partially violent. Or partially free from it. I want to find out if it is possible to totally end it. That's not an escape, that's putting my teeth into it.

RS: Yes. But you have to believe it is possible in order to 'put your teeth into it'.

K: For me, I know one can live without violence. But that may be a biological freak and so on. But to discuss together, the four of us, and see if we could be free of violence completely. Inwardly (our residual heritage of ) violence is manifested in imitation, conformity, this constant (self-) comparing, that is part of hurt, part of violence. So can I live without comparing myself (subliminally ) with you who are bright, clever, and got a lot of publicity, when you say a word the whole world listens. And I can shout, nobody cares. So I want to be like you. So I am comparing constantly myself with something I think is greater.

JH: So this is where ( the desire for ) 'becoming' comes, from comparing ?

K: That's just it. So can I live without comparison?

JH: Doesn't that leave me in an insufficient state?

K: To live without comparison? Not (necessarily) By comparing myself with you who are bright, who are clever, I may begin to think I am dull. But if I don't compare , I am ( fully responsible for) what I am.

RS: Well you may not compare but I may compare. I may say, you are dull.

K: The other day, after one of the talks in England, a man came up to me and said, "Sir, you are a beautiful old man but you are stuck in a rut". I said, "Well, sir, perhaps, I don't know, we'll go into it". So I went up to my room and said, "Am I?", so I went into it very carefully, step by step, and found what does a 'stuck in a rut' mean, to be stuck in a groove, to move along a particular line. Maybe, so I watch it. So ( the non-personal) observation of a fact is entirely different from escaping or the suppression of it.

JH: So he says you are stuck in a rut, then you just observe it, you don't compare yourself (with others?)

K: Am I psychologically, inwardly, caught in a groove (repeating every year the same stuff ?) , like a tramway car? I am going to find out. I am going to be terribly attentive, sensitive & alert.

JH: Now this requires that you don't react in the first place by saying, "No, I couldn't possibly be stuck in a rut''

K: I wouldn't. You may be telling the ( objective) truth.
This leads to something else : is there a learning about oneself which is not a constant accumulation ( of facts ) about myself? (Eg;) I observe myself. And I have learnt from that observation something. And that something is being accumulated all the time by watching. I think that is not ( the holistic way of?) learning about yourself. ( Self-knowing) is like a river that is flowing, you have to follow it.

RS: But then what about this (more pragmatic) approach: somebody says I am stuck in a rut, I look at myself and think, yes, I am stuck in a rut; then I can respond by thinking, well, what's wrong with that, being stuck in a rut?

K: Sir, that's just ( being inwardly) blind.

RS: No, you accept the fact, but then you think, well, why should I do anything about it? What's wrong with that as an approach?

K: Like a man (inwardly ?) stuck as a 'Hindu', he is then ( potentially or unconsciously ?) contributing to war.

RS: Well, I may say, well I am stuck in a rut, but so is everybody, it is the nature of humanity to be stuck in ruts.

K: If that is the nature of humanity, let's change it, for God's sake !
And if you prefer that way of living, go ahead. But I don't want to live that way.

JH: Well the person who comes into (psycho)therapy usually comes in with both sides going on at the same time. He says that, I have this problem which I want to be free of, I don't want to be stuck in a rut; on the other hand when it gets down to really looking at that he doesn't want to look at it either because it becomes (disturbing &) uncomfortable.

K: Of course. To come back to your original question: the world is in disorder, human beings are in disorder, and we described what is disorder. And is there a possibility to live (inwardly) free from disorder? That is the real basic question.

JH: As long as I identify on a personal level with my job, or with my family and so on, there will be pain.

K: So is it possible to have without identification with that responsibility?

JH: If I am not identified will I even go to work?

K: But I am responsible for the lady whom I have married. Responsible in the sense that I have to look after her, care for her, and she has to care for me. Responsibility means order. But we have become (inwardly) totally irresponsible by isolating ourselves - British, French.

JH: We handle the problem of responsibility by developing a (temporal) rut that we can work in.

K: Yes. That's it. If I see the fact that responsibility is ( to keep everything in) order, I am responsible to keep this ( global) house clean, but as we all live on this earth it is our earth, not the British earth, or French earth and German earth, it is our earth to live on. And we have divided ourselves because in this division we think there is (more?) security.

JH: Well it isn't clear, we have got to go slowly because I think that my job is security, I think that my family is security.

K: You may lose it.

JH: That problem keeps coming up : I need to have some self respect.

K: What do you mean, by 'self respect'?

JH: What I am trying to say is that there is some place at which I put an identification.

K: Why should I want to identify with anything, sir? That makes immediate isolation.

JH: For stability's sake.

K: Does isolation bring about stability?

JH: It gives one a sense of something hard and firm.

K: Does it? There have been during the last five thousand years nearly five thousands wars. Is that stability?

JH: No.

K: What is wrong with us?

JH: Well, why don't we see this thing? You are saying that the root of the problem is that I continue to identify with one thing after another, if one identification doesn't work I just find something else. I don't stop identifying.

K: Yes, sir, which breeds isolation.

JH: But in your example about a person that is stuck in a rut, you say I don't have to identify, I can just step back and look at this thing and see if it is true.

K: Yes.

JH: So you are suggesting that there is ( within us ) 'something' that is free to look.

K: This leads to something else. Back to our main subject : why do I want to identify myself? Probably basically the desire to be secure, to be safe, to be protected. And that sense (of identity ) gives me strength.

RS: But this is a biological fact. It is not merely an illusion. We again, to come back to the animal kingdom, we see it there: deer go round in flocks, birds have flocks, bees have hives and they are identified with the hive in which they work.

K: But bees don't kill themselves, species don't kill themselves.

RS: Well they kill other bees that invade their hide. They don't commit suicide. They kill others.

K: Yes, I know that.

RS: So we see even in the animal kingdom this identification with the group, in the social animals, but many social animals, and we are social animals...

K: Just a minute. By identifying ourselves with India, or China, or Germany, is that giving us ( a total inner?) security ?

RS: To a limited extent it is. Identifying myself with my family it does give me a kind of security, it actually works. And that is a very good reason for doing it, for most people.

K: Stretch it further from the family, to the community, from the community to the nation and so on, that is a vast process of isolating. And I say, for god's sake this is so damn stupid.

RS: Well it is not entirely stupid because it works to a certain extent.

K: It may work, but it is impractical, it is ( leading on the global scale to ) destroying each other.

RS: But there is some aspect of it that does work, and some security that is genuine that these things confer.

K: Yes, sir. At a certain (materialistic) levels identification has a certain importance. But at a 'higher' level it becomes dangerous. That's all we are saying. Of course if you are my ( beloved) brother you will look after me.

DB: Well it is very hard to draw up a line, you see, that starts spreading out.

K: That's right, spreading out.

RS: But where do you draw the line, you see. If you say the nation state is wrong, then what is wrong with the (family?) tribe, or the caste, then you have got conflict between those.

K: I wouldn't draw the line. I say that as a human being I am responsible for what is happening in the world. And so what is happening in the world is this terrible division, so I won't be a Hindu, I won't be a Catholic, Protestant, nothing. A hundred, or a thousand ( non 'self-identified'?) people like that, would begin to 'do something'.

JH: So you are saying that the problem comes up because I mistake my local security, I think that it rests in some local identification.

K: Which is isolation. And therefore in isolation there is no ( authentic) security, therefore there is no (holistic) order.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 May 2018 #10
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 320 posts in this forum Offline


3RD K CONVERSATION WITH BOHM, HIDLEY & SHELDRAKE cca 1982 ('reader friendly' edited)

JH: We would like to talk about the question of whether there is a deep security, and whether the 'self' (centred consciousness?) can be dissolved. You have suggested that if that's possible, then the ( 'personal' ) problems that the individual brings to the office...

K: Sir, why do we seek (a 'psychological') security, apart from physical? Apart from terrestrial security, why do we want security?

JH: Well, we all may know moments of peace and happiness, and we want to stabilize that, hold that.

K: Then that becomes a (nostalgic?) memory, not actual security. A memory that one day we were happy, and I wish we could go back to it. Or you project a hope to achieve it someday. But why is it that human beings, probably throughout the world, seek security? What is the 'raison d'etre' of this demand for security? What makes people ask for security, psychologically?

JH: Well, ( because most of the time?) they're occupied with their problems. And there is the feeling that if I can solve these problems, if I can find out what the right answer is, if...

K: That's not ( bringing any ) security (right now) , surely. There is great uncertainty, great sense of emptiness in oneself, loneliness. Really, loneliness – feeling ( inwardly & outwardly?) isolated & lonely. And it's ( pretty) depressing - after all, ( the gnawing sense of one's existential?) loneliness is the essence of a (self-) isolated (consciousness?) , in which I have no relationship with anybody. Is that one of the ( hidden?) reasons why human beings seek this desire for (psychological comfort & ?) security?

JH: Yes, to fill that up.

K: Oh much deeper than that. To be secure in my ( endeavour of self-) fulfillment, to be free of fear, free of my agony. I want to be free of all those so that I can feel completely secure in peace and happiness. Is that what we want?

JH: Yes. And we want that to be stable over time.

K: Stable, permanent - if there is anything 'permanent' - is that the reason why we crave this for security?

JH: Yes.

K: That means to be free from fear and then I am totally secure. So, is it that human beings are incapable of solving their deep-rooted psychological fears. I am taking fear as an example- and be freeing from it is to feel so marvellously secure (inwardly) .

JH: You are saying that if we can solve our problems at a fundamental level.

K: Otherwise what's the point, how can I be totally secure? So, is it the physical (need for) security, of shelter, of food and clothes, spilling over into the psychological field? You understand what I mean?

JH: Is that where the psychological feeling of the need for security comes from?

K: Yes, partly. One must have 'food, clothes and shelter' . That's an absolute essential, otherwise you four wouldn't be sitting here. But in (our) search of that we also want to be equally secure 'psychologically' ( to reach a lasting condition of 'psychological' or 'spiritual' protection ?) .

JH: They seem to be equated.

K: Yes, but I'm questioning whether the psychological desire to be (permanently) secure prevents (even our ) physical security ?

JH: It seems like the psychological desire to be secure arises out of the necessity to function in the 'real world'

K: I want to be psychologically secure, so I am getting (strongly ) attached to , or I 'identify' myself ( with ...myself?) or with a family, community or nation, that very isolation is going to (slowly) destroy me. So why do we seek this?

JH: Okay, then you're saying that there is a mistake, which is that we identify ourselves, attach ourselves to something and seek security in that, and that that's something fundamentally wrong ?

K: Yes, no, not fundamental. I won't say it is right or wrong. I am asking why? It is fact which is happening right throughout the world, not just for a certain community, all human beings want to be so unshakably ( self-centredly ?) secure.

DB: Well, in the case of a young child, or a baby, he feels the need to be loved by his parents and it seems that at a certain stage the infant has the need for a kind of 'psychological' security, which he should grow out of perhaps, but since very often, he isn't properly taken care of by his parents he begins to feel lost, as you say, alone, isolated, and there arises a demand that he become inwardly secure.

K: A baby must be secure.

DB: Yes, psychologically as well as physically, wouldn't you say ?

K: Yes, there must be.

DB: Now at some stage you would say that it would change. I don't know what age.

K: Why. At a certain age, a small baby or a young child, it must be protected.

DB: In every way, it must not be shocked psychologically.

K: protect it with affection, taking it in your lap, you make him feel that he is loved, that he is cared for. That gives him a feeling, here is somebody who is looking after me, and there is ( an authentic feeling of) security here.

DB: Yes, and then he will grow up not requiring (anymore) that security ?

K: That's what I am questioning, as he grows up, and as he faces the (real) world, why does he crave for security?

DB: Well, I think very few children ever have that ( unconditional) love to begin with, you see.

K: Oh, that's it. So is that the problem?

DB: Well, that's one factor.

K: That we really (are not loved & ) don't love? And if one loves (has affection & love) , there is no need for (psychological) security. You don't even think about security. If I really have (inward access to?) this deep sense of (unconditional) love for another, what is the need for ( a self-centred psychological) security? It's my ( holistic ?) responsibility to see that you are (feeling) secure. So does that mean we don't ( have unconditional affection or?) 'love' another?

JH: Yes, it means that what we 'love' is you making me feel like I'm going to get that security which I crave.

K: Is fear the root of all this?

JH: We seem to have mentioned already several things that are the root of it : as the baby grows up and does not feel loved, he tries to return (instinctually) to that ( loving memory) or, as an adult, he's afraid because he's not feeling inwardly protected, and he tries to create for itself that same protection.

K: Or, sir, is it that unconsciously we (kind of?) know ( that our self (centred consciousness ) , the 'me', the 'ego', is really totally unstable.

JH: You are saying that in its nature it's totally unstable?

K: In its nature it is unstable. And therefore there is this ( deep existential) anxiety for security outside and inside.

JH: Why do you say it's totally unstable?

K: Isn't it? Isn't our ( self-) consciousness unstable?

JH: It seems to have two sides to it. One side says that if I could just get such and such thing , I would be stable.

K: But much more fundamentally, is not this the 'self (-identified' consciousness?) itself in a state of movement (becoming) , uncertainty, getting attached; ( with the collateral) fears involved in that attachment; all that? That's state of lack of stability. Therefore I am asking, is that the reason that human beings 'unconsciously', knowing ( or intuiting ?) the instability of the self, want security, God, the Saviour?

JH: Wanting something absolute?

K: Yes, that'll give it an inner sense of complete ( wholeness & ) contentment. ( However?) our (self-centred ) consciousness is ( generated by ) its ( active memory) content. Right?

JH: Yes.... ?

K: And its (fragmentary 'thought-desire' ?) 'content' is always in contradiction. I believe , and yet I'm frightened of ( what could happen if I'm ) not believing.

JH: That's why you're saying in essence it's unstable ?

K: So clearly unstable. I want this thing and some other desire comes along and says, ''don't have that, for God's sake ! '' - there is this contradiction, this duality, within all that exists in our consciousness: fear, pleasure, fear of death, you know all the ( desire ridden?) 'content' of our consciousness, all that. So ( the very basis of ) that (psychological structure) is unstable.

JH: Now sensing all of that, people generally say : this problem is too deep or too complex, there's no way to solve it (completely ?) , but we can maybe just make some adjustments.

K: Yes, yes. And in those ( self-) adjustments also there is lack of stability. So unconsciously there must be craving for security. So we invent ( a 'larger than life' image of?) God.

JH: We also keep inventing lots of other (lesser ) things we hope will give us that security.

K: We create (the image of) 'God', he's our creation. We are not the creation of God, I wish we were. We would be totally different. So there is this illusory (but hyper-active) desire for security.

JH: Now wait a minute, why do you say that it's illusory?

K: Because we 'invent' something (an illusory mental structure?) in which we hope we'll be secure.

JH: Oh, I see. Yes.

K: Now, if the (illusory?) content of our consciousness can be 'changed', would there be need for security?

JH: If we could eliminate all its (internal) contradictions?

K: Yes, contradictions.

JH: Then maybe we would have the security because our consciousness would be stable.

K: So that maybe it. We may not even call it 'security'. Personally I never thought about ( my own ?) 'security'. You might say, well, you are looked after, you are cared for by others and all the rest of it, therefore there is no need for you to think about security, but I don't want (this kind of) security. I need, of course, I need food, clothes and shelter, that's understood, somebody to (provide them when needed ?)

JH: And you're saying that (an authentic inner security) occurs when the contents of consciousness are no longer contradictory ?

K: It may not be what we know now as ( time-bound?) consciousness, it may be something totally different. ( But, in the meanwhile?) all that we know is fear, reward and pleasure, and ( the grim perspective of old age & ) death and constant conflict in relationship: I love you but...

JH: Within limits.

K: Within limits. I don't know if that's called 'love'. So there is the content of consciousness is all that; which is (I -me-mine?) . My consciousness is me. In this complex contradictory dualistic existence this very fact creates the demand for security.

JH: Yes...

K: So can we eliminate the self (- centredness?) ?

JH: Well, it seems like there's 'somebody' in here, who's going to juggle all these things and get rid of the contradictions.

K: But that means you are different from this; from your consciousness ?

JH: Right....

K: But 'you' are that! You are ( your drive for?) pleasure, you are your fears, you are your beliefs, all that you are.( Experiential clue : Don't please 'agree' with what I'm saying. It may be all 'tommyrot' ( 'copy-pasted') !)

JH: I think there are a lot of people who would not agree with that.

K: I know there're a lot of people wouldn't because they haven't gone into it. They just want to brush all this aside.

JH: Well, let's look at this. Is there a self that's going to be able to somehow 'iron out' these contradictions?

K: No!

RS: How do you know? I mean it seems to me that there is - well, it may be illusory - but it's very easy to think that one is separate from some of these problems and that there's something inside oneself which can make (the right) decisions.

K: Am I separate from my fear? Am I separate from the agony I go through? The depression?

RS: Well, there's something within one which can examine these things objectively and this indicates there is some kind of separation.

K: Because there is the 'observer' separate from the ( stuff which is being) 'observed'.

RS: Yes...

K: Is that so?

RS: Well, it seems to be so.

K: It 'seems' to be so!

RS: Now, this seems to be the (dualistic ) problem, that it does seem to be so, I mean, in my own experience, of course, and many other people's it does indeed seem that there is an observer observing things like fear and one's own reactions. And it comes out most clearly, I find, in insomnia, if one's trying to sleep there's one part of one that going on with silly worries and ridiculous thoughts round and round; there's another part of one that says, I really want to sleep, I wish I could stop all these silly thoughts. And there one has this actual experience of an apparent separation.

K: Of course, of course.

RS: So this isn't just a theory, it's an actual fact of experience that there is this kind of separation.

K: I agree, I agree. But why does that division exist? Who created the division?

RS: It may just be a fact.

K: Is that so? I want to examine it.

RS: Yes, so do I. I mean, isn't it a fact that our consciousness has 'levels', some of which can examine others, one at a time?

K: No. Would you kindly consider (it holistically?) , is 'my fear' different from 'me' (the central entity which projects itself in time) ? I may act upon my fear, but the ( cause of the?) fear is me.

RS: Well, we often...

K: You only invent the separation (between 'you' and 'your fear') where you want to act upon it. But otherwise I 'am' fear.

RS: The common and ordinary way of analyzing it would be to say, I feel afraid, as if the 'afraidness' was separate from the I. I want to get out of this state of 'feeling afraid', so I want to put the fear behind me and the I will pass beyond it . This is the normal way we think.

K: I know.

RS: So what's wrong with that?

K: You keep up this conflict.

DB: I think he is saying it ( the splitting between 'me' & 'my fear' ) may be inevitable.

K: I question it.

DB: Yes, well, then how do you propose to show it's not inevitable?

K: First of all (taking another example) at the moment of (getting angry) , there is no separation. Right?

RS: When you're very angry, what we normally say is that ''you lose control of yourself'' and the separation disappears, you become ( totally identified with ) the (reaction of) anger, yes.

K: At the moment when you are really angry, there is no separation. The separation only takes place after. "I have been angry." Right? Now, why does this ('post facto'?) separation take place?

RS: Through ( the buffering action of our past ?) memory.

K: Through memory, right. Because I have (the experience of having) been angry before. So the (memory of the ) past is recognising and evaluating (the incident) . So the ( memory of the ) past is ( acting as ) the 'observer'.

DB: That ( buffering interference?) may not be so obvious, you know. For example, I may have physical reactions that go 'out of control', like sometimes the hand or the body, and then I say I am observing those physical reactions going out of control and I would like to bring them back in line, right? And I think somebody might feel the same way (inwardly) that his mental reactions are 'going out of control' and that they have momentarily escaped his control and that he's trying to bring them back in line. You see, that's the way it may look or 'feel' to many people.

K: So, what?

DB: Well, then (your example ?) is not clear. Have we made it clear that that is not the case, you see.

K: Sir, I was trying to point out that when one is frightened, actually, there's no 'me' separate from fear. When there is a (thought-) time interval, there is the division (between the 'observer' and the fear being 'observed') . When (the process-supervising ) thought comes in, then begins the division. Because thought is ( the controlling/stabilising response of our past experience stored in ?) memory.

RS: Thought involves memory – yes.

K: Yes, involves memory and so on. So (the active ) memory of the 'past' is (identifying itself as ) the ( all-controlling) 'observer'; who says I am different from ( that stupid irrational ?) fear, so... I must control it.

JH: Let's go through this very slowly because the common experience is that the observer is the present (all the time) . It seems like he's saying, ''I'm here now and I know what am I going to do about this the next time it comes up''.

K: Yes. But the 'what am I going to do about it' is the ( buffering) response of the past, because you have already had that kind of (painful) experience. Sir, haven't you had a (major ) fear that has really shaken you ?

JH: Yes.

K: At that very second there is no division, you are entirely 'consumed' (engulfed?) by that. Now, then (the 'thinker' along with its analytical ) thinking comes along and says, ''I've been afraid or because of this and because of that, now I must defend myself, rationalize fear and so on''... It's so obvious, what are we discussing?

DB: You see, coming back again to the physical reaction (of anger or fear) which can also 'consume you' and at the next moment, you say, I didn't notice it at the time, ( or in holistic terms) thought comes in and says, that's only a (natural) physical reaction.

K: Yes.

DB: Now, what is the difference of these two cases, you see, that in the second case it would make sense to say, I know that I have reacted this way before, and I can take such an such action.

K: I don't quite follow this...

DB: Somebody can feel that, it's true I get overwhelmed by a 'fear' reaction and thought comes in (to buffer it?) . But in many areas that's a normal procedure for thought to come in if something really shattering happens, and then a moment later, you think, what was it? Right? Now, in some cases that would be correct, right?

K: Quite right.

DB: Now, why in this (psychological) case it (thought's buffering) is not (valid)  ?

K: Ah, I see what you mean. You meet a 'rattler' snake on a walk. Which I have done very often. You meet a rattler, he rattles and you jump. That is a physically self-protective intelligent response. That's not ( a thought created?) fear.

DB: Right. Not a 'psychological' fear. But a moment later I may discover it's not a rattler, it's another snake which is not so dangerous. And then thought comes in and it's perfectly all right. Right ?

K: Yes,

DB: But here, when I am getting angry or frightened...

K: Then thought comes in.

DB: And it's not all right.

K: Oh, I see what you are trying to get at. Why do I say it is not all right ? Because ( living in the shadow of the 'psychological' ) fear ( regarding what might happen ?) is blocking one's (rational) mind and thought and all the rest of it, one shrinks in that fear.

DB: Yes, I think I see that. In the case of physical danger, it would still come in rationally...

K: Yes. Here it becomes irrational. So (to make a very long story short?) I am asking, why doesn't one clear up this awful mess?

JH: What mess are you talking about ?

K: Look, sir, this is a 'messy' consciousness, contradictory, frightened, oh, so many fears and so on. Now, why can't we 'clear it up'?

JH: Well, it seems we are always trying to 'clear it up' after the fact.

K: I think the (major holistic ?) difficulty is that we don't recognize deeply this this 'messy consciousness' IS 'me'. And if it 'is' me, 'I' can't do anything! I don't know if you get the ( 'non-action' contemplative ?) point.

RS: You mean we think that there's a 'me' separate from this messy consciousness.

K: We (like to ) think we are separate. And therefore it is our (traditional) conditioning, to 'act upon' it. But I can't do that if the messy consciousness 'is' me. So the problem then arises, what is ( the inner ) action when there is realization of the fact that I can't act, because I 'am' that.

JH: Then what is action?

K: That is 'non-action'.

JH: Okay...

K: Ah, that's not just 'okay', ( in meditation?) that is (making a ) total difference.

JH: Yes, I think I understand. On the one hand there's the action of consciousness on itself which just perpetuates things. And seeing that, then it ceases to act.

RS: We do all feel there's something in us which is separate from the contents of this messy consciousness. We normally act in such a way as to change either the contents of the consciousness or our relation to the world, and so on. But we don't normally examine this apparent separation between the self, the me, and the contents of the messy consciousness. That's something we don't challenge. Now you're suggesting that in fact this separation which we can actually experience and do, most of us do experience, is in fact something we ought to challenge and look at and we ought to face the idea that we actually 'are' ( both the cause & the effect of this) messy consciousness and nothing other ?

K: Of course.(For the 'speaker') it's so obvious .

RS: Well, it's not only 'non-obvious' , but a very difficult thing to realize (outside the field of meditation?) , because one's very much in the habit of thinking one is separate from it.

K: So can we move away from our conditioning? Our conditioning is me. And ( if one realises) that I 'am' that, then there's (inwardly a state of ) 'non- action', which is ( opening the door to?) the most positive action.

JH: But the common way that this would be 'heard' (interpreted?) is that if I don't act on it it's just going to stay the way it is.

K: Ah!

DB: You were first raising the question of action, though; if that is the case, how is (a holistically friendly) action to take place?

K: When there is perception of 'that which is true', the (liberating action of ) truth is sufficient, it (the 'messiness' of our consciousness ?) is finished.

RS: Sir, are you suggesting that the realization of ( the truth regarding) this messiness itself in some way dissolves the messiness?

K: Yes. Not a separative (dualistic) realization that I am messy. The fact is ''my consciousness is messy'', full stop. And 'I' (the self-centred entity?) can't act upon it. Because acting (dualistically) upon it was a wastage of (our 'high grade intelligent') energy.

JH: Well, I think that's another aspect of this. In therapy or in our own lives we seem to have insights that are partial, that do clear up a particular problem and we can gain some clarity and order for a time. But then, the thing returns in some other form or in the same form. You're suggesting that the ( clearing up) 'thing' needs to be done across the board in some way.

K: Before the observer acts upon it, upon the messy consciousness, right? Say, I'll clear this up, give it time, you know all the rest of it. But that's a wastage of energy. When the ( truth of the ) fact (is seen:) that you 'are' that - you are not wasting ( intelligent ) energy (in pointless conflicts) . Which is (that the total action then is ) 'attention'. I don't know if you want to go into this.

RS: Please do, this is very interesting.

K: Would we agree that 'acting upon it' is a wastage of ( one's 'high-grade' intelligent?) energy in this constant conflict between 'me' and the 'not me'. Whereas ( the truth of the matter is seen :) this messy consciousness 'is' me. I have come to realize that through ( a non-dissipative quality of) attention. Not I have come to – sorry.

DB: Would you say that the (totality of the ) consciousness itself has come to realize it?

K: Yes.

DB: So, it's not 'me' realising it, right?

K: Yes. Which is the 'total attention' that one is giving to this consciousness. ( In a nutshell:) ) there is attention and inattention. Inattention is wastage of energy. Attention is energy. When there is observation that consciousness is messy, that fact can only exist when there is 'total attention'. And when there is total attention, the (old state of ) confusion doesn't exist any more. It's only 'inattention' ( the lack of holistic attention?) that creates the ( psychologically related?) problems.

RS: I don't understand entirely what you're saying. This 'total attention' that you're talking about, would only be able to have this effect if one was living completely in the present and devoid of memory.

K: Of course, of course, 'attention' is (like) that. If I attend to what you have said just now, devoid of ( the psychologically related) memory, which is attention, I listen to you not only with the sensory ear, but also with the other (mind's ?) ear, which is, I am giving my 'whole attention' to find out what you are saying; which is actually happening in the present. In this attention there is no centre.

RS: You mean there's no 'centre' in the attention because the attention is all there is, the thing attended to and the attention is all there is.

K: Ah, no, no. There is ( still a karmic load of ?) messiness ( to be cleared up?) because ( during the time-bound existence ) I have been inattentive. Right?

RS: Yes...

K: When there is the (totally insightful) observation of the fact that the observer 'is' the observed (as they both come from the same inner source?) that state of observation in which there is no observer as the ( all-controlling interference of the?) past, that is 'attention'. I don't know if you have gone into the question of 'meditation' here...

JH: That may be a relevant subject because it seems that ( the clearing up of the 'messiness' ) you were talking about may happen only partially.

K: Ah! It can't happen  because then you keep a partial 'mess' and a partial 'non- mess'. We're back again the same ( dualistic) position.

RS: But don't you think that this 'total attention' you're talking about is the sort of thing that many people experience occasionally in moments of great beauty, or occasionally a piece of music they're really enjoying, they lose themselves, and so on - do you think that many of us have had glimpses of this in these kinds of ( transpersonal) experiences?

K: When I see a ( Swiss?) mountain, the majesty and the dignity and the depth of it drives away my ( self-conscious?) 'self'. ( Same case with ) a child with a toy, the toy 'absorb's him. That means there is something outside ( of myself) which will make me ( feel inwardly loving & ) peaceful. Which means an outside agency will keep me quiet: God, prayer, looking up to something or other. But If I reject ( this hypothetical?) outside agency completely, nothing can absorb me. (Clue : if your (holistic presence) absorbs me, when you are gone I am back to myself).

JH: Yes.

K: So I discard any sense of external agency which will 'absorb me'. So I am left with ( the challenge of 'becoming a light for?) myself', that's my point.

JH: I see. So you're suggesting that when this happens partially it's because we're depending on something.

K: Yes, of course. Like a devout Hindu, Catholic or anybody, they depend on something. Therefore that dependence ( creates its strings of ) attachment.

JH: But it's also possible to listen to you saying this and have the idea of what you are talking about and try to do that.

K: Ah, 'you' can't do it! That means 'you' are acting again because you want something out of it. Here (in 'becoming a light for yourself' ?) it's not like that, you are enquiring into something which demands a great deal of (non-personal) thinking, a great deal of ''intelligence and attention''. Why is there this division, this ( global) 'messiness' in the world? Because our consciousness is messy and so the world is messy. So from that arises, is it possible to be free of the 'self' ( of our self-centredness?) ? Consciousness, the messy consciousness, is the self.

RS: It is not possible to be free from the contents of consciousness, different experiences, as long as my eyes are looking outwardly. Now what you were saying about the attention when one's looking at a mountain, for example, are you suggesting that if I have that same kind of attention to everything I experience, that then this is the...

K: You see, again 'you' experience... You 'are' the experience.

RS: Yes.

K: Right. That means, there is no (personal) experience.

RS: There's just 'attention', you mean ?

K: Experience involves a remembrance of (what was known or happened in the past ?) time. Therefore the experiencer 'is' (not fundamentally not separated from) the experienced. If 'I' seek enlightenment, or whatever you might call it, I am then trying to do all kinds of (well known tricks or?) 'things' to achieve that. But ( the starting truth is that ) I don't know what illumination is. I don't know, but I am going to find out if the mind is totally free (that is:) free from prejudice, from fear, all the rest of that messy business. So my ( first ) concern is not with 'illumination', but whether the (psychologically biased ?) 'content' of my consciousness can be cleansed - whatever word you use. That's my enquiry. And as long as 'I' am ( considering myself as an entity ) separate from my consciousness, I can 'experience' it, I can analyze it, I can tear it to pieces, act upon it – but this means a perpetual conflict between 'me' and 'my consciousness'. So, I wonder why do we accept the 'psychological' authority, 'spiritual' authority? Again we come back to ( the instinctual desire for?) security. I don't know what to do but you ( are supposed to?) know better than I do; you are my 'guru'. I refuse that position.

RS: But don't we arrive at the same set of problems if we start from responsibility; say I'm the father, I have this child and in order to feed the baby you become preoccupied with ( your & his material) security: job tenure, you know, protecting the house against marauders and so on.

K: Of course, of course.

RS: So, don't you get into the same lot of things about preoccupation with security starting not from authority but from responsibility for others, for children, for example.

K: Of course.

RS: So then what is the answer to that ? It's easy to say you should reject responsibility.

K: Of course, if I have money, if I earn money, job, so on, I have to look after myself, I have children and perhaps their children too. I am responsible for all that. Physically I am responsible. To give them food, to give the right amount of money, allow their children go to a proper school like my children, I am responsible for all that.

RS: But isn't that going to bring you back to the same position of insecurity and so on that you were trying to dissolve by this rejection of (psychological) authority?

K: I don't see why I need 'spiritual' or 'psychological' authority if I know how to read ( the book of ) myself, I don't need anybody to tell me. But we have never attempted deeply to read this book of myself. So, I come to you and say, please, help me to read it . And then the whole (initiative?) thing is lost.

JH: But I think what Rupert is asking is that if we start by assuming responsibility for other people, that entails...

K: What? My earning capacity.

JH: Which must be secure.

K: Yes, secure as much as possible. Not ( easy to be done) in countries where there's tremendous unemployment.

JH: So you're saying that that doesn't entail any psychological insecurity.

K: Of course not. But when I say, he's my servant, I'm going to keep him in that place, you follow?

JH: No. Tell me more.

K: I mean, I treat him as a servant. Which becomes (psychologically) irresponsible. Naturally.

JH: But if it's just a servant, he can come and go. But if it's a child he can't come and go.

K: He's part of my family.

DB: I think the question is something like this, that suppose you are responsible for a family and the conditions are difficult, you may not have a job and you may start to worry about it and ( as a result you may) become insecure even 'psychologically'.

K: Yes.

DB: Right?

K: I ( personally won't?) worry about it, ''there it is, I have no more money''. So, my friend, if you want to stay, share the little food I have, we'll share it.

DB: You're saying that even if you are unemployed and you are responsible for a family it will not disturb the (inward ) order of the mind, right?

K: Of course not.

DB: You will find an intelligent way to solve it ? deal with it.

DB: Yes.

RS: But this kind of worry as a result of ( a self assumed) responsibility is relative.

K: I don't call it 'worry'. I am responsible and therefore I look after as much as I can.

RS: What if you can't?

K: can't. Why should I worry and bother if it's a fact.

DB: You're saying that it's possible to be completely free of worry, for example, in the face of great difficulties ?

K: You see, that's what I am saying. Where there is (a non-personal integrated?) 'attention', there is no (personal ?) worry, because there is no centre from which you are 'attending'.

RS: There are still problems and there may still be responsibilities that one has.

K: Of course I have problems, so I ( do my best to?) resolve them.

RS: But if you can't resolve them ?

K: Then... I can't.

RS: If your family is starving.

K: I can't. Why should I worry about it?

RS: But if you're a poor Indian, unemployed, your family is starving, there's nothing, you've tried everything, you've failed. And you don't worry. Actually, surprisingly enough, a lot of poor Indians in just that situation don't 'worry', that's the most amazing thing about India. But then of course (western) people coming along looking from outside say, well, this is 'fatalism'.

K: Yes, that's right.

RS: And it's often regarded as the 'disease' of India, the very fact that so many people manage not to worry in those circumstances... to the degree that we would expect.

K: I'd like to ask you a (personal ) question. You've listened to all this: messy consciousness - does one realize it, and empty the content: fear, you know, the whole business? Does it interest you?

JH: Yes.

K: Totally?

JH: Yes.

K: That means what?

JH: It means you just listen.

K: No, it means ( a meditating ?) 'dialogue' between us. Penetrating deeper and deeper and deeper. Which means you must be free to examine. (namely:) free from your prejudices, from your previous (knowledgeable?) experience. Otherwise you can't investigate... 'investigate' means to explore, push, push, push it further and further. Now are we willing to do that, so that actually the 'self' (-centredness?) is not? This doesn't mean you neglect your wife, your children - you follow? Can I be (inwardly ) so totally free of the 'self' (-centred identification?) that I can intelligently deal with these problems?

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 25 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 May 2018 #11
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 320 posts in this forum Offline



K: What is ( wrong with self-analysis) ? And what is (the experiential advantage of a direct & non-dualistic inner?) observation? In analysis there is the analyzer and the analyzed. And so there is always that (illusory?) 'difference' maintained. Where there is 'difference' there must be conflict, division, and that's one of the factors that really is very destructive to our inner : this conflict, this division. And psychanalysis maintain this division. Whereas if one observes more closely, the 'analyzer' is (essentially not different from the inner content being) 'analyzed'. Again the same (ages old?) problem, ( our self-centred ) thought has divided the 'analyzer' ( the 'controller' ) and the (inner stuff being?) analyzed. The 'analyzer' (mental entity) is (impersonating the active memory of the?) past who has acquired a lot of knowledge, information, and ( for safety & stability purposes has?) separated himself, and is either correcting the (thoughts & feelings which are being ?) observed, the 'analyzed': and make them 'conform' (or fall in line with the accepted group mentality?) he is 'acting' upon it.

Whereas when the 'analyzer' (realises that it) is ( not separate from the thoughts & feelings being examined or?) ?) analyzed - if that ( experiential) truth is really understood very deeply, the 'psychological' (internal) conflicts end, because in that there is no division between the analyzer and the analyzed, there is only ( a holistic quality of intelligent?) observation. Which Dr Bohm and we discussed at considerable length (on & off?) in the last (20 +) years.
So if that ( fine point?) is clearly understood one can live the whole of one's life without conflict. That means the (thought's ) 'controller' is absent; which is a very 'dangerous' ( or 'slippery'?) question.
( In a nutshell:) I feel that 'inattention' - the lack of (an integrated holistic?) attention - is (creating the conditions for?) the whole process of (inner & outer ) conflict.

RS: Yes, I can see that if both sides ( of a marriage ?) saw this with the utmost clarity...

K: Yes. That means they are giving Intelligence to the whole problem.

RS: What happens if only one party in a conflict sees it with that utmost clarity?

K: Let's begin with that : you have given complete attention when she insults you, when she flatters you, when she bullies you or when she is attached to you, all that coming from her lack of attention. If you give complete attention and the wife doesn't, then what happens? Either you try to explain day after day, go into it with her patiently. After all, ( the holistic) attention implies also great deal of care, affection, love. It's not just (a dry) mental attention. It's attention with all your being. Then either she moves along with you, comes over to your side, or she holds on to her separative (self-) contradictory state. Then what happens? One is ( remaining?) 'stupid', the other is intelligent.

RS: But the conflict (may be going on?)

K: There is always the battle between the ignorant and the intelligent.

JH: A thing that seems to happen is that the one's intelligence makes room in which the other person who is caught in some attachment may have freedom to look.

K: But if the other ( person) refuses to look at it, then what is the relationship between the two people?

JH: ( Inwardly speaking?) there is none.

K: That's all. Will you have the care, affection, love, so that you ( holistically) understand ( the psychological roots of ?) my 'stupidity'? I may rebel against you, but ( subliminally?) you (might ) have 'sown the seed' somewhere in me. That does really happen, doesn't it, in life?

JH: But you have also said that you have seen it immediately and the other person may take a long time to come to 'seeing 'it. And it seems like in (the context of this holistic) attention that you're talking about, the (insightful) perception is immediate.

K: Of course.

JH: Well, that may be why the other person is having difficulty in 'seeing' it, is that they want it to be 'proved' to them.

K: For instance, you see ( that the 'time-thought' ) conditioning is destructive. And I don't. What is ( the quality of the ?) relationship between us two? It's very difficult to communicate with each other either verbally or with (tender loving?) care, it's very difficult.

JH: You won't know what I'm talking about.

K: And also I'm 'resisting' ( 'listening' to you) all the time. I'm defending myself.

JH: You're defending what you think you see.

K: What I think is 'right'. I have been brought up as a Hindu or a British or a German or a Russian, whatever it is, and I like ( relying on?) it. And I see the danger of letting that ( subliminal attachment ) go. I depend on public opinion, so I'm frightened to let go. So I stick to it. Then have we any (mutually creative?) relationship?

JH: I can tell you what I see ( as true?)

K: If you( would ) have ( an intelligent & compassionale?) Love for me, real, not just attachment, and sex and all that business, if you really care for me, you cannot lose the feeling of relationship. I don't know if I am conveying what I mean.

JH: In other words, I don't just say, well, I see it and you don't, and if you're not going to listen, the heck with you.

K: Sir, when there is ( this compassionate intelligence of ?) Love you have established a different kind of relationship, perhaps very profound . I may reject you, but you have that 'responsibility' of ( Universal) Love - not only to the particular person, but to the whole ( consciousness?) of humanity. What do you say (DB) about all this?

DB: Well, I think that this (intelligent loving) 'care' and 'attention' are the essential points. For example in the question of the 'observer and the observed' or of 'the analyzer and the analyzed' , the reason why that separation occurs is because there has not been enough (love in this ?) attention.

K: Attention, that's what I'm saying (in 'holistic shorthand' ?) .

DB: So one has to have that same attitude even in looking at one's own psychological problems.

JH: An attitude of 'care'?

DB: Care and attention to what's going on, you see, one starts to analyze by habit, and one might condemn that, for example, 'that would not be the right attitude'. But one has to give (a loving?) care and attention to exactly what is happening inwardly, just as in the outward relationship with people, right? And it's because that there was not this right kind of attention that that division arose in the first place, and was sustained, right?

RS: But it's possible to have perhaps this kind of attention towards people that we know: wives, children, friends, etcetera, but what about people we don't know? I mean, most of us have never met any Russians, for example, and we feel, the Russian ( cyber?) threat and all the rest of it. So how do we have ( this compassionate loving ) attention to 'imagined enemies' that we don't know?

K: What is an 'enemy'? Is there such thing as an enemy?

RS: Well, there are enemies in the sense that there are people who are also afraid of us, I mean, the Russians are afraid of us and we're afraid of them. Because they're afraid of us they're in a position of being our ( potential) enemies.

K: Because we are still thinking in terms of tribalism.

RS: Yes, certainly.

K: Supposing you and I move out of that (mainstream of tribal mentality?) . What's my relationship then with you? I'm not ( identifying myself as being ) a 'Russian' then. I'm a ( non-denominational?) 'human being' with all my psychological problems and you are another 'human being' with all your psychological problems. We are human beings, not ( colectivistic?) 'labels'.

DB: Of course the (traditionalistic ?) 'Russians' may reject this, you see, that is, suppose we're in this situation. Then what's the next step, right?

K: So what shall we do? You see, ( Consciousness-wise?) I represent all humanity. I 'am' all humanity. To me it's an actuality, not just an emotional or romantic idea. I feel I 'am' ( sharing the same ground-consciousness as ?) the rest of mankind. I suffer or I enjoy, I go through all the (everyday inner anxieties or ?) 'tortures' and so do you. So if you feel that you are (inwardly) the rest of mankind, there is a terrible responsibility involved in that. So when you meet a Russian or a German or a British or Argentine you treat them as 'human beings', not as 'labels'.

RS: Then does this simply mean that in this largely tribal society with governments and bombs and weapons of war, there'll just be a few ( holistically minded) individual scattered here and there who've dissolved tribalism in themselves?

K: Yes. If 'a hundred of us' all over the world really had (adopt?) a 'non-tribalistic' ( intelligent & selfless?) attitude towards life, we would be acting like a ( Beacon of spiritual ?) Light in the midst of Darkness. But (at this particular point in time -1982 ?) we don't ( bother to consider this holistic option ?) . So, this just becomes a (fashionable?) idealistic romantic idea and you drop it because everybody else pursues his/her own way.

RS: Yes...

K: Sir, I think we ought to differentiate between 'attention' and ( self-centred?) concentration. Concentration is focussing your energy on a certain point; and in attention, there is no (personal?) focussing on a certain point. It's attention.

JH: Concentration seems to have a (personal?) goal in mind.

K: A goal, motive; it's a restrictive process. Whereas if one gives complete attention to what is happening out of the window, that lizard which is going along the wall, with that same ( quality of holistic?) attention I can look at what I am doing.

RS: But then, if there's no 'controller' of the attention, the attention is simply a response to whatever the present circumstances are.

K: You insult me; Iff (?) I'm (totally?) attentive. There is no ( personal?) recording of that insult.

DB: Yes, that's it.

K: You flatter me: ''what a marvellous talk you gave the other day''. I've heard this so often repeated. And I'm bored with it, so, is it possible not to 'record', except where it is necessary? It's necessary to 'record' (the highway exits?) when you are driving. Record when you do your business and all the rest of it. But psychologically, what is the need to record?

RS: Isn't it inevitable? Doesn't our (sub-conscious) memory work automatically?

K: Our (subliminal) memory is rather selective.

JH: We seem to remember things that are important to us or that have some connection with who we think we are and what our goals are.

DB: It seems to me that when there is paying attention then in general attention determines what is to be recorded and what is not, our brain's 'recoding' is not 'automatic' any more.

K: It's not automatic any more. Quite right.

DB: But if an ( auto-pilot ) 'attention' comes from the past, from the concentration or from the analysis, then it will be 'automatic'.

K: Another (transcendental?) problem which we ought to discuss is religion, meditation, and if (within the human consciousness?) there is something 'sacred'. Is there anything 'sacred' in our (present?) life? Not thought creating something sacred, and then worshipping that 'sacred symbol'. Thought has created the (Holy ?) Image and then it worships it. I don't know if you see the ( spiritual) absurdity of it.

RS: Well, that's manifestly absurd, but the more sophisticated members of different religions would say that this ( highly symbolic) 'image' points to something beyond thought which is actually being worshipped.

K: Wait a minute, let's look at it (analytically?) We know that the symbol is not the Real, but why do we create the symbol? If there is 'something beyond', why do we need to create the intermediary?

RS: Well, I think the Jews were against all idolatry for exactly this reason, and also the Muslims, who don't have images in the mosques - they think the writing is what tells them about what lies beyond all symbols, you see.

K: Yes.

RS: Now you could say the writing simply becomes a symbol, but the words can help us. We're having a discussion, and these words that we're having, your words may help me, for example.
K: So; why do I have to have an 'intermediary' at all?

JH: Because I think I'm here and Truth over there and I don't have it. I need some way to get there.

K: You're not answering my question. Is it that you, the ( professional?) 'intermediary', understand Truth or whatever It is, and therefore you are telling me about it?

JH: Well, maybe I've seen something and I want to tell you about it.

K: Yes, tell me about it, but why do you make yourself the 'interpreter'? Why do you become the 'intermediary' between That ('something sacred') and me, who is ignorant, who is suffering? Why don't you deal with my ( inner condition of fragmentation & ) suffering rather than with That?

JH: I think that That will deal with your suffering. If I can get you to (have a glimpse of it?) ...

K: That has been the old trick of all the 'priests' in the world. We have had priests from time immemorial, right?

JH: Yes.

K: But you haven't released (me of) my sorrow. I am still suffering after a million years. Help me to get rid of that. Help me to be (inwardly) free (of it) then I'll find out. Is it that you want (a social) position, power, status, like the rest of the world? Now this is really quite serious.

DB: I think, if we try to give the priests the most favourable interpretation, that they may have considered to point to something beyond that, like we are now trying to point to this 'sacred' which we were talking about. Now would you say that that would that make no sense, you know, to have a symbolic image to point to the sacred ?

K: But, sir, why don't you help me to see what is happening (inwardly) with me?

DB: So, that's your point, don't point to the Sacred right away but look at this (sad inner reality ?) first ?

K: Help me to be free of it, then I'll walk.

DB: Yes, I understand that.

K: Nobody has gone into this like that. Always God, some Saviour, some Brahma, and so on, so on. And this is what we call (organised?) 'religion'. All the rituals are invented by thought, marvellous architecture by thought, all the things inside the churches, temples, mosques, are created by thought. And thought creates it, then thought worships it. But thought is not sacred.

JH: Yes, I see that. So you are saying, is it possible to put a stop to thought?

K: (Ending ?) thought. Is it possible?

DB: Right. Would you also add that 'time' is not sacred ? They always say only the eternal is sacred.

K: But to find out what is Eternity, ( the inner process of thought -) time must stop.

JH: But we get into a real subtle place here, because you have said things like, absolute attention dissolves the self. Then your (holistic concept of ) 'absolute attention' can become a thought.

K: The ( mental) idea of it, yes.

JH: So we may go the route of creating the idea. That seems to always be the danger.

K: You make a ( holistic?) statement: 'absolute attention'. I don't capture the depth of your meaning, I just make it into an idea. And then I pursue the (implementation of that?) idea.

JH: That seems to be the process.

K: That's what we do all the time.

RS: Yes.

K: So it ( the living spirit of it?) has gone. What you said had depth in it.

JH: But we don't even realize at the time that we're pursuing an idea.

K: Of course not, because I am used to this (intellectual capacity of ) reducing everything to abstract ideas. So could we realize that anything though does is not sacred?

RS: That seems self-evident to me. There's nothing sacred in itself in the words or the buildings or so on. But all these religions are supposed to point at something sacred beyond themselves.

K: Yes. And to help me to go beyond all this, I must start with my being free from my agony, understand my relationship with people. If there is ( darkness & ) confusion here, in my heart and my mind, what's the good of (thinking about ) the Other?
I am not 'materialistic', I am not anti the 'Other'. But I must start ( the inner journey) from where I am. To go very far, I must start very near : I must understand myself. ( And the experiential clue :) I 'am' the rest of humanity. I am not an (isolated) 'individual' (consciousness?) . The whole Book of Humanity is ( deeply encrypted?) in me ; I 'am' that book. So, if I know how to 'read it' from the beginning to the end, then I can I find if there is really something ( in myself) that is immense, sacred. But if you are all the time saying, look, there is That, and That will help you, I say, it hasn't helped me the average truth seeker ?) - on the contrary, You have only distracted me from (facing) 'what is'.
So, if I want to find out if there is anything sacred, I must start very near. The very near is me. Can I free myself from ( my 'self-centredness' which is generating?) fear and agony, sorrow, despair, all that? When there is ( this inner) freedom I can move, I can climb mountains.

RS: Sir, are you saying that the Sacred would become apparent if we dissolved fear and all these other things ?

K: Obviously, sir. That's ( the very purpose of the?) 'real' meditation, you see.

RS: Through (paying a non-divided ) attention to what is really happening in us.

K: That's it.

RS: And to what is really happening between us and other people and all the rest of it ?

K: In our (daily) relationships.

RS: Yes. Through attention to this, this action...

K: We have discussed too with Dr Bohm, some time ago, having a (liberating) 'insight' into the whole movement of the 'self' - a totally (impersonal & passionate?) perception of what you 'are', a total immediate perception of the whole ( self-centred) content of your consciousness, not take bit by bit by bit, that's endless.

JH: Oh, we're broken up so we look at each little piece.

K: Yes. And because we are (inwardly ) 'broken up' we can never see the whole. Obviously, that seems so ( holistically) 'logical'!

JH: Okay...

K: So, is it possible not to be broken up (inwardly?) ? What is to be 'broken up' ? This 'messy (self-) consciousness', which we talked about yesterday.
You see nobody wants to ( meditate & ) go so deeply into all this. One hasn't the time; one is committed to one's job, to one's profession, to one's whatever one is doing. And you say, please, this is too difficult or too abstract, not practical. That's the words they all use. As though all what you are now doing is so terribly practical. Our tribalism is it practical? Oh well, you know all about it.

So, sirs, let's move on from there (to Meditation) . Is 'silence ( & the peace?) of the mind' existing in this state of attention? Or is it something beyond attention?

DB: What would you mean by 'beyond attention'? Let's try to get into that.

K: Is attention a (self-centred) action of will? I 'will attend'.

JH: No, we said that's 'concentration'.

K: Sir, where there is ( the 'presence' of?) attention is there any kind of effort involved ? ( Experiential Clue:) The word 'diligent' is implied in attention; to be 'diligent' (earnest?) . Not 'negligent' (sloppy?) .

RS: What do you mean by 'diligent' ? You mean 'careful'?

K: Yes. Care. To be very ( accurate inwardly ) precise. Diligent.

DB: The literal meaning (of the word 'diligent') is 'taking pains'.

K: Taking pains, that's right. Which is to care, to have affection, to do everything correctly; orderly, but not repetitive. Does this ( holistic quality of) 'attention' demand the ( controlling ) action of thought?

RS: Well, it doesn't demand the action of analysis, and insofar as thought is analytical, it doesn't demand that. And it doesn't demand the action of 'will' insofar as will involves a separation, an attempt to, by one part of the mind, to force another part to do something else. It doesn't also imply any sense of 'going anywhere' or 'becoming anything' because becoming leads one out of the present.

K: That's right. You can't ( practice to?) become attentive.

RS: But in the act of attention...

K: See what is implied ? In ( the 'presence' of?) attention there is no time. Becoming implies time. Therefore it is not the result of thought.

RS: Yes.

K: Now: is that 'attention' (bringing the?) 'silence of the mind'? ( We are talking of having a healthy, sane mind: uncluttered, unattached, unanchored, free mind, which is the 'healthiest' mind.) Therefore I am asking, in that ( meditative quality of ?) 'attention', is the mind 'silent'? In it there is no movement of thought.

RS: Well, it sounds like it, yes. It sounds like a 'state of being' rather than a 'state of becoming' because it's not trying to go anywhere, or coming from anywhere.

K: When you say 'state of being', what does that mean?

RS: Well, 'being what it is'. It's not being something else.

K: Are you putting 'being' as a opposite to 'becoming'?

RS: By 'being what it is' I meant a state which is not in a process of going somewhere else in time.

K: Which means (a state of inner?° 'non-movement' ?

RS: I suppose so.

DB: You could say that it's non-movement, buth this doesn't mean it's static.

K: No, it's dynamic (alive?) , of course.

DB: But you see, it's a little difficult (to grasp the concept of 'non-movement')

K: Being (inwardly) without 'movement', means without thought, without time, which is the (mental) movement which we all know. But the 'other' (inward non-movement) has its own dynamism, its own (living) movement, but not the 'time & thought' movement. Is that what you call 'being'?

RS: I suppose it is.

K: Is that ( meditative state of ) being 'silent' - in the sense, without a single movement of thought ?

RS: Well, in that sense it must be 'silent' almost by definition.

K: Yes. So, has thought found its own place and therefore it's no longer moving, chattering, pushing around ? Then there is a great silence, then that which is Eternal is. You don't even have to enquire about it.

JH: Yes.

K: You hear X saying that. What ( experiential) value has it, what do you do with it? Has it any practical importance or none at all? What is a 'healthy' mind? A mind that's whole, healthy, sane, 'holistic'. All that means a healthy mind. That's what we started discussing. What is ( the action of ) a healthy mind in a world that is so neurotic. How are you going to tell people what is a healthy mind when nobody's going to pay attention ? They'll listen to the tape, (or watch it on U tube or on public ? ) television, and they'll agree (whole heartedly ) , but... they'll go on their own way. So what do we do?
First of all, do I have a healthy mind, a mind that's totally dispassionately unattached ?

JH: Are you suggesting that only then am I in a position to talk to anybody?

K: Obviously! Obviously. I may be ( happily?) married but why should I be ( emotionally?) attached to my wife? (Clue:) Love is not attachment. So, when a 'healthy' (holistically inclined ?) says, 'I love you' there is no ( personal) attachment. Is that possible?

RS: Sir, you make it sound so easy and so difficult at the same time because...

K: I don't see why it (should be ) difficult.

RS: Because I hear what you say, I think this is absolutely wonderful stuff. I want to have a 'healthy' mind, I want to be in a 'state of Being', and then I realize that I can't become that by an act of will or by desiring this state. It has to 'happen'. And it can't happen through any act of (personal) 'will'

K: No. So ?

RS: I have to 'let it happen', in some sense.

K: So we begin to enquire (see & discard what is 'false' ?) . Why am I not inwardly healthy? Am I attached to my house, to a person, or to an idea, to a faith, to a symbol, you follow? The whole cycle of (personal attachment) . To a nation, to my guru to my god, you follow? Can my mind be free of all that ? Of course it can.

RS: But not just by 'wanting to be free' of it.

K: No. But seeing the (sad) consequences of ( any psychological ) 'attachment' , by seeing what is involved in it: the pain, the pleasure, the agony, the fear, you follow, all that is involved in that. Such a mind is (holistically speaking?) an 'unhealthy' mind.

RS: Yes, one can see the movements (activities) of one's attachments, one can even see the destructive consequences of all this. But that doesn't in itself seem automatically to 'dissolve' it.

K: Of course not. So, it brings in quite a different question. Which is, do you hear it, merely with your sensory ears or do you 'really hear' it? Is it just casual intellectual hearing, or hearing at depth? If you hear it at the greatest depth, then it's part of you. I don't know if...

DB: Well, I think that generally one doesn't 'hear' at the greatest depth and something is preventing it, you see. All the ( cultural & personal) conditioning.

K: And also probably we don't want to 'hear' ( all the implications involved in ) it.

DB: Well, but the conditioning makes us 'not want' to hear it.

K: Of course, of course.

DB: We're unwilling to do so.

K: How can I say to my wife, ''I love you but I am not attached of you ''? She'll say, what the hell are you talking about? But if one sees the absolute necessity to have a healthy (holistic) mind, and the demand for it, not only in myself, but in my children, my society.

JH: But you certainly don't mean by that going around & demanding of other people that they become healthy.

K: No, no, no. I demand in myself. I ask why is not my mind healthy? Why is it ( frustrated & ) neurotic? Then I begin to enquire. I watch, I attend, I am (becoming totally ) 'diligent' in ( observing) what I am doing.

DB: You say that we must have to see the 'absolute necessity' of having a (holistically) healthy mind, but I think we've been culturally conditioned to the 'absolute necessity' of maintaining attachment. And that's what we feel, right?

RS: You see, there are many people who've seen there's something wrong with the ( present condion of the human) mind, and they feel that something could be done about it, and then take up some ( the largely advertised) system of meditation. Now, you're saying that all these kinds of meditation, concentrating on chakras and what not are all just the same kind of thing ?

K: I have played that trick long ago. And I see the ( time-binding?) absurdity of all that. That is not going to stop ( the self-centred movement of ) thought.

RS: Well, some of these methods are supposed to do just that. I don't know if they are working or not, you see. They've never done it for me, but I don't know if that's because I haven't done them right.

K: So instead of going through all that business, why don't you ( read the whole Book of Yourself' & ) find out. Let's find out what is thought, whether it can end, what is implied, you follow? 'Dig' (deeply) .

So, at the end of these four discussions, have you got healthy (holistic?) minds? Have you got a mind that is not (anymore) confused, struggling, demanding, asking? You follow, sir? It's like ( actually) seeing a ( dangerous ?) rattler and saying, ''I won't go near it''. Finished!

JH: It looks, seen from the inside like this (ending of thought?) is a tremendously deep problem that's very difficult to solve, and you're saying (looking at it) from the outside that it's just (as simple as ) seeing a ( dangerous) 'rattler' and you seem to be saying : ''there's nothing much to it, just don't go near it !''.

K: It is like that with me.

JH: Yes...

K: Because I don't want to achieve Nirvana or Heaven or anything. I say, 'look' - you follow?

JH: Well, then why it looks so deep, when in fact it isn't ?

K: Sir, because we have all ( become ) so very 'superficial' (& time-bound?) . That's my good house, good wife, good job, good relationship, pleade do not disturb anything, just keep things as they are.

JH: Well then you're saying we don't even want to look at it ?

K: Of course not.
( So, to wrap it all up?) a 'healthy' mind is a mind without any ( dualistic ) conflict. And then it is ( free to be ) a holistic mind and there's a possibility of 'That Which is Sacred' to Be. Otherwise all this is so childish.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 #12
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 320 posts in this forum Offline

A K dialogue with PROFESSOR J. NEEDLEMAN in CALIFORNIA, 1971 (reader-friendly edited)

Intelligence helping thought to find its right place

Needleman: There is much talk of a spiritual revolution among young people, particularly here in California. Do you see in this very mixed phenomenon any hope of a new flowering for modern civilization, a new possibility of growth?

Krishnamurti: As far as I have seen, I am afraid there is not a quality of seriousness in all this. I may be mistaken, because I see only these so-called young people in the distance, among the audience but they don't strike me as being very serious, mature, with great intent. I may be mistaken, naturally.

Needleman: Perhaps we can't very well expect young people to be serious.

Krishnamurti: That is why I don't think it is applicable to the young people. I don't know why one has made such an extraordinary thing out of young people, why it has become such an important thing. In a few years they will be the old people in their turn. For something new to take place there must be a nucleus of really devoted (to truth?) serious people, who would go through to the very end of it. After going through all these things, they say, "Here is something I am going to pursue". Or to discard the whole thing and start anew, and not go through all the trappings but start as though one knew absolutely nothing.

Needleman: To me, you are speaking (from) a state (of consiousness) which is itself very far along in understanding for a man. I feel very far from that myself, and I know my students do. And so they feel, rightly or wrongly, a need for help. Let me put it in a stupid way. You sort of 'smell' that you are (subliminlly?) deceiving yourself although you don't exactly know why...

Krishnamurti: ( Analytically speaking ? ) it is fairly simple : I find out what is the thing that brings deception. Obviously it is when I am greedy, when I want something, when I am dissatisfied. So instead of tackling my ( existential?) dissatisfaction or greed, I want something more.

Needleman: Yes...

Krishnamurti: So I have to understand ( the 'psychological' nature of my) greed. What am I greedy for?

Needleman: I think one is ( becoming psychologically?) greedy because one desires to be taken out of oneself, so that one doesn't see the poverty of oneself. But what I am trying to ask you is this : - the great spiritual traditions of the world always speak directly or indirectly of 'help' ( of a spiritual assistance for the truth seeker?) . They do say "The guru is yourself '', but at the same time there is help.

Krishnamurti: Sir, you know what that word 'guru' means?

Needleman: No, not exactly.

Krishnamurti: The one who points (the way) or who brings enlightenment, lifts your psychological burden. Now, the moment a guru says he knows (the way) what he knows is something (from the ) past, obviously. He is thinking of some ( spiritual) experience which he has had in the past , therefore it is not real ( actual?) .

Needleman: Well, I think that most of human knowledge is that. But I was reading a book the other day which spoke of something called 'Sat-San' - association with the wise.

Krishnamurti: No, (association ) with 'good' people. Being good you are wise. Not, being wise you are good.

Needleman: I am not trying to pin this down to something, but I find my students and I myself, when we read, when we hear you, we say, "Ah! I need no one, I need to be with no one", and there is also a tremendous potential for deception in this too.

Krishnamurti: Naturally, because you are being ( subliminally?) influenced by the Speaker.

Needleman: Yes. That is true...

Krishnamurti: Sir, look, let's be very simple. Suppose, if there were no book, no guru, no teacher, and nobody ( around) to help you, no ( magic?) drugs, no tranquilizers, no organized religions, what would you do?

Needleman: Perhaps there would be a moment of urgency there ?

Krishnamurti: That's just it. We haven't ( got) this ( sense of inner) urgency because we say, "Well, somebody is ( hopefully?) going to help me."

Needleman: But most people would be ( inwardly destabilised ) by that situation.

Krishnamurti: I am not at all sure. Because what have we done up to now? The people on whom we have relied, the ( organised?) religions, the ( standardised?) education, they have led us to this awful mess. We aren't free of sorrow, we aren't free of our inner ugliness, of our vanities.

Needleman: Can one say that of all of them? There are differences. For every thousand deceivers there is one Buddha.

Krishnamurti: But that is not my concern, sir, if it leads to such ( collective?) deception.

Needleman: Then let me ask you this : is there some hard work which is necessary for what we might call the ( awakening of intelligence or of the ? ) spirit? You speak against effort, but does not the growth and well-being of all sides of man demand some hard work of one sort or another?

Krishnamurti: I wonder what you mean by 'hard work' ?

Needleman: Going against ( the worldly?) desires.

Krishnamurti: You see, there we are! Our whole culture, is built around this 'going against', erecting a wall of resistance. So when we say 'hard work', what do we mean (to overcome?) ? Our (existential tendency for ?) laziness? Why have I to make effort to reach God, enlightenment, truth?

Needleman: There are many possible answers, but I can only answer for myself...

Krishnamurti: It may be just ( in?) there, only I don't know how to look (non-dualistically?) .

Needleman: But obviously there must be some (experiential) obstacles...

Krishnamurti: How to look (non-dualistically?) ! It (the living Truth?) may be just round the comer, under the flower, it may be anywhere. So first I have to learn to look (non-dualistically?) , not make an effort to look. I must find out what it means to look.

Needleman: Yes, but don't you admit that there may be a ( subliminal?) resistance to (that kind of direct ) looking?

Krishnamurti: You must find out what it means to 'look' before you make an effort to look. Right, sir?

Needleman: That would be, to me, a (good will?) effort. But this wish to 'do it' quickly, to get it all done is this not ( generating its own ) resistance?
So, isn't there something ( of a more subliminal nature?) in me that I have to study, that resists this ( non-dualistic?) looking thing you are speaking about? Is this not some ( inner) work, implied in what you are saying? Isn't it ( a spiritual?) work to ask the question so quietly, so subtly? It seems to me it is work to not listen to that part that wants to do it...

Krishnamurti: I am afraid it is all over the world the same. "Tell me how to get there quickly."

Needleman: And yet...don't you say it is ( happening ) in a moment ?

Krishnamurti: It is, obviously. But what is (the nature of our inner) laziness? Is it physical laziness, or is ( the self-centred) thought itself lazy?

Needleman: That I don't understand...

Krishnamurti: Let's find it out. I want that, but I shouldn't have it, I resist it. ( Overcoming?) this resistance is effort. What has made me lazy?

Needleman: The thought that I ought to be getting up.

Krishnamurti: That's it. So I really have to go into this whole question of thought. I generally do ( one or?) two hours of yoga every day, this morning I was tired; I had prepared the mat and everything to do yoga exercises and the body said "No, sorry". And I said, "All right" and went ( back) to bed. That is not laziness. The ( consciousness of the?) body said, "Leave me alone because I am tired." (On the other hand?) thought says, "You must get up and do the exercises because it is good for you, it has become a (good?) habit, you will get lazy, so...keep at it." Which means: thought is making me ( feel that I am?) lazy, not the body is making me lazy.

Needleman: I understand that. There is an effort (based on ) thought.

Krishnamurti: So no ( thought based?) effort! Isn't all ( our self-centred) thinking ( repetitive & ) mechanical? The 'non-mechanical' state is (born in ) the absence of thought.

Needleman: How can I find out (that most excellent inner condition ) ?

Krishnamurti: Do it now, it is simple enough. ( And the starting point is;) Thought ( thinking within the field of the 'known'?) is ( a) mechanical (& repetitive mental activity?) .

Needleman: Let's assume that.

Krishnamurti: Not 'assume'. Thought is a mechanical (mental activity?) - because it is repetitive, conforming, comparing.

Needleman: That part I see, constantly ( evaluating & ) comparing. But my experience is that not all thought is of the same quality. There are many qualities of thinking.

Krishnamurti: Are there?

Needleman: In my experience there are. There seems to be a thinking that is very shallow, very repetitive, very mechanical, it has a certain taste (of vulgarity?) to it. There seems to be another kind of thinking which is connected with my whole self, it resonates in another way.

Krishnamurti: Thought the response of ( my previously known?) memory.

Needleman: All right, this is an ( oversimplified?) definition...

Krishnamurti: No, no, I have to go to my house this evening - the memory, the distance, the design - all that is ( recorded in my?) memory, isn't it? I have been there before and so that ( factual) memory is well established and from that there is either an instant thought, or ( a train of?) thought which takes a little time. So I am asking myself: is all thought similar, mechanical, or is there a different quality of thinking which is non-mechanical, which is non-verbal?

Needleman: Yes, that's right.

Krishnamurti: Is there a thought if there are no words?

Needleman: There is ( a non-verbal?) understanding.

Krishnamurti: How does this ( insightful?) understanding take place? Does it happen when thought is functioning rapidly (streaming?) , or when thought is quiet?

Needleman: When thought is quiet, yes.

Krishnamurti: ( The insightful?) understanding has nothing to do with (the known based?) thinking . You may 'reason', use your logical thinking, till you say, "I don't understand it", then you become (inwardly) silent, and ( if an insight happens?) you say, "By Jove, I see it, I understand it." That ( 'jump'?) understanding is not a result of thought.

Needleman: You sometimes speak of an ( inward) energy which seems to be uncaused. We experience the energy of cause and effect, which shapes our lives, but what is this other energy's relationship to the energy we are familiar with? What is 'that' (causeless) energy?

Krishnamurti: What is (that causeless inner) energy? First of all: is (our total ) energy divisible? ( Scholastically?) it can be divided. Physical energy, cosmic energy, ( intelligent?) energy, it can all be divided. But it is all one energy, isn't it?

Needleman: Logically, I would say yes. But I don't 'understand' energy. I may experience something which I call ( total) 'energy', sometimes.

Krishnamurti: Why do we divide (our ) energy at all : sexual energy, physical energy, mental energy, psychological energy, cosmic energy, the businessman who goes to the office, with his energy, and so on ? Why do we divide human life as the business life, scientific life, the professor's life, and life of the housewife, why do we divide it all? What is the reason for this divisive (mentality?) ?

Needleman: There seem to be many parts of oneself which are actually (well compartmented & ) separate; and we divide life, it seems to me, because of that.

Krishnamurti: Why? Why has our ( self-centred?) mind fragmented the whole of life?

Needleman: I don't know the answer. I see the ocean and I see a tree: there is a division.

Krishnamurti: We are asking why the division exists, not only outwardly but in us.

Needleman: It is in us, that is the most interesting question.

Krishnamurti: Because it is in us we extend it outwards. Now why is there this division in me? The 'me' and the ( 'what is?) not me' Why this division?

Needleman: Maybe through the idea that there is something that I don't understand.

Krishnamurti: In me there is a division : the thinker and thought – right?

Needleman: I don't see that.

Krishnamurti: There is a thinker who says, "I must control my anger, I must not think this, I must think that". So there is a thinker who says, "I must", or "I must not". Look at those ( Malibu ) hills! Do you look at them with a (sense of ) division?

Needleman: No.

Krishnamurti: Why not?

Needleman: There wasn't the 'me' to do anything with it.

Krishnamurti: That's all. You can't do anything about it. ( But in-) here, with my thoughts, I think I can do something. I can't change 'what is' out there, but I (like to) think I can change 'what is' in me. Not knowing how to change the (what 'is' inwardly) I become lost in despair. I say, "I can't change", and therefore I have no energy to change.

Needleman: That's what one usually says.

Krishnamurti: So first, before I change 'what is', I must know who is the 'changer', who it is that changes.

Needleman: There are moments when one knows that, for a moment. Those moments are lost. There are moments when one knows who sees 'what is' in oneself.

Krishnamurti: No sir. Just to see 'what is' (non-dualistically) is enough.

Needleman: I agree with that.

Krishnamurti: Now, one can see 'what is' only when the 'observer' is not (around?) . When you looked at those hills the 'observer' was not (personally involved) .

Needleman: I agree, yes.

Krishnamurti: The 'observer' only came into being when you wanted to change (inwardly upgrade) 'what is'. Because you say: I don't like 'what is', it must be changed, so there is instantly a duality. Can the mind observe 'what is' without the (all controlling interference of the ) observer? It took place when you looked at those hills with that marvellous light on them.

Needleman: This truth is absolute (timeless?) truth. The moment one experiences it one says, "Yes!" But in the current experience one forgets this (ASAP?) .

Krishnamurti: Forget it, and (optionally ) pick it up again ?

Needleman: But in this discussion there is some ( actual ) help coming from this discussion. I know fairly well that it could not happen without the help that is between us. I could look forever at those hills and maybe have this non-judging, but it wouldn't be important to me; I wouldn't know that that is the way I must look for ( my spiritual?) salvation unless there was this. And it seems that this is the present human condition...

Krishnamurti: Sir, we looked at those hills, you couldn't change that, you just looked; and you looked inwardly and the battle began. For a moment you looked without that battle, without that strife, effort, and all the rest of it. Then you remembered the beauty of that moment, of that second, and you wanted to capture that beauty again. So what happens? It sets up another conflict: the thing you had and you would like to have again, and you don't know how to get it again. Whereas if you would say, "All right, it is over, finished", that moment of beauty is over.

Needleman: I still have ( lots?) to learn about this ( instant ending?)

Krishnamurti: What is there to learn ?

Needleman: I have to learn the futility of (giving continuity ) to this conflict.

Krishnamurti: Not if you see for yourself that that (timeless ) moment of beauty becomes a ( time-binding) memory, then the memory says, "It was so beautiful I must have it again." You are then concerned with the pursuit of pleasure. ( The temporal pursuit of a gatifying ) pleasure and ( the sense of timeless ) Beauty don't go together. So if you see that (fine point?) , it (the conflict of self-becoming) is finished. Like seeing a dangerous snake, you won't go near it again.

Needleman: (Laughs) Perhaps I haven't seen (what's really wrong with) it, because one keeps going back again and again.

Krishnamurti: This is the 'real thing'. If with that same quality of ( undivided) attention I want to see myself, there is a moment of perception which is as beautiful as that. Then what happens?

Needleman: Then I wish for it.

Krishnamurti: Then I want to cultivate it, I want to pursue it.

Needleman: And how to see (the psychological danger of) that?

Krishnamurti: Just to see ( the truth about what) is taking place is enough.

Needleman: That's what I forget!

Krishnamurti: It is not a question of 'forgetting'.

Needleman: Well, that is what I don't understand deeply enough. That just the seeing is enough.

Krishnamurti: Look, sir. When you see a (really dangerous) snake what takes place?

Needleman: I am afraid.

Krishnamurti: No. What takes place? You run, or you do (something to protect yourself) . Why? Because you know it is dangerous. You are aware of the danger of it. Or better take a cliff (hanger?) , an abyss. You know the danger of it. Nobody has to tell you. You see directly ( the danger of) what would happen.

Needleman: Right.

Krishnamurti: Now, if you see so directly that the beauty of that moment of perception cannot be repeated (cultivated?) , it is over. But thought says, "No, it's not over, the memory of it remains." So what are you doing now? You are pursuing the dead memory of it, not the living beauty of it - right? Now, if you see the truth of it, not just the verbal statement, the truth of it, it is finished.

Needleman: Then this (direct) 'seeing' is much rarer than we think...

Krishnamurti: . If I see the beauty of that minute, it is over. I don't ( have to?) pursue it. If I pursue it, it becomes a pleasure. Then if I can't get it (on a regular basis) , it brings despair, pain and all the rest of it. So I say, "All right, finished." Then what takes place?

Needleman: From my experience, I'm afraid that what takes place is that the 'monster' is born again. It has a thousand lives. (Laughter.)

Krishnamurti: When did that Beauty take place? When the mind was completely quiet. Wasn't it?

Needleman: Yes...

Krishnamurti: When you looked at that, your mind was quiet (& at peace with itself?) , it didn't say, "I will take a photograph of it, this, that, and the other" - you just looked. Thought wasn't in operation. Here thought comes immediately into operation. So one has to say, "Now can thought be quiet? How can one exercise thought when necessary, and not exercise it when it is not necessary?"

Needleman: Yes, that question is intensely interesting to me, sir.

Krishnamurti: Sir, why has thought become so extraordinarily important?

Needleman: It seems able to satisfy our desires; through thought we believe we can satisfy.

Krishnamurti: No, not just from satisfaction. Why has thought in all cultures with most people become of such vital concern?

Needleman: One usually identifies oneself with (the process of) thought, as one's thoughts. Is this what you mean?

Krishnamurti: Not quite. Apart from identification with the 'me' why is thought always active?

Needleman: Ah, I see...

Krishnamurti: Thought is always operating in (the field of our past) knowledge, isn't it? Thought is always operating in the field of the 'known'; it is always working in the ( memories of the?) past. So my life 'is' the past, because it is based on past knowledge, past experience, past memories, pleasure, pain, fear and so on, it is all the past. And the 'future' I project from the past, thought projects from the past. So thought is (constantly moving back & forth) 'fluctuating' between the past and the future. All the time it says; "I should do this; I should not do that; I should have behaved." Why is it doing all this?

Needleman: I don't know. Habit?

Krishnamurti: Habit. All right. Go on. Let's find out. Habit?

Needleman: Habit brings what I call pleasure.

Krishnamurti: Habit, pleasure, pain.

Needleman: To protect me. Pain, yes pain.

Krishnamurti: It is always working within that field. Why?

Needleman: Because it doesn't know any better ?

Krishnamurti: Can thought work in any other field except in the field of the known?

Needleman: No...

Krishnamurti: Obviously not. It can't work in something I don't know; it can only work in this field. Now why does it work in this? There it is, sir - why? It is the only thing I 'know'. In that there is security, there is protection, there is safety. That is all I know. So thought can only function in the field of the known. And when it gets tired of that, as it does, then it seeks something outside. Then what it seeks is still the known. Its gods, its visions, its spiritual states - all projected out of the known past into the future known. So thought always works in the field (of past memory) always working in a (self-created) prison, always within the limitations of a psychological 'barbed wire fence'. Thought has no ( inwardly legitimate) place when I say, "I really don't know." Right?

Needleman: For the moment...

Krishnamurti: When I say, "I don't know", which doesn't mean I am expecting to know, when I see ( the truth that inwardly?) I really don't know - what happens? The mind becomes completely humble. And that state of 'not knowing' is ( providing its own?) intelligence which can ( optionally?) think in the field of the known or be free to work somewhere else if it wants to.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 #13
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 320 posts in this forum Offline


Needleman: In your talks you have given a fresh meaning to the necessity for man to become his own authority. Yet cannot this necessity easily be turned into a form of humanistic psychology without reference to the sacred, transcendent dimension of human life on earth in the midst of a vast intelligent Cosmos? Must we not only try to see ourselves in the moment, but also as creatures of the Cosmos? What I am trying to ask about is this question of the 'cosmic' dimension (of human consciousness)

Krishnamurti: Is there a difference between the 'outer' space, which is limitless, and the (inner) space in us? Or is there no 'free inner) space in us at all and we only know the outer space? We know the (very busy inner ?) space within us as a ( the space between a ) centre and its circumference. This is what we generally have, and call that inner space. Now if within it there is an (identitary ?) centre, the space must always be (self-inclosed?), limited and therefore we divide the 'inner' space from the 'outer' space.

Needleman: Yes...

Krishnamurti: So the (inner) space within me is the space which the centre has created round itself.

Needleman: Yes, a centre of self- interest.

Krishnamurti: Not only centre of (self-) interest, it has its own ( mental?) space - the centre creates a ( self-protecting) space round itself. And that space is always limited.

Needleman: It is a defined space, yes, which is limited.

Krishnamurti: Now, when you use the words 'cosmic space'...

Needleman: I didn't use the words 'cosmic space', I said 'cosmic', the dimension of a Cosmic consciusness . I wasn't asking about outer space and trips to the planets.

Krishnamurti: So we are talking either of the ( inner) space between two thoughts - the (silent?) interval between two thoughts, or of the (self-protective mental) space which the 'centre' creates round itself. Now what is your question, sir? How to expand the existing inner space or how to enter a different dimension of ( consciousness' ?) space?

Needleman: In a different dimension of Reality?

Krishnamurti: First I must see very clearly the 'space' between two thoughts.

Needleman: The (silent?) interval.

Krishnamurti: This interval between two thoughts. What takes place in this 'interval'?

Needleman: Well, I confess I don't know because my thoughts 'overlap'. There are moments when this interval appears, and I see it, and there is freedom there for a moment.

Krishnamurti: Let's go into this a bit, shall we? There is space between two thoughts. And there is space which the centre creates round itself, which is the space of (self-) isolation.

Needleman: All right, yes. That is a cold word.

Krishnamurti: ( Our self-consciousness is?) cutting itself off when I consider myself as (all) important, with my ambition, with my frustrations, with my anger, with my sexuality, my growth...

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

Krishnamurti: It is ( an inner space of self-) isolation. My relation with you is the image of that isolation, which is that space. Now ( the 64,000 $ question ?) is : Is there an (inner) space of a totally different dimension? That is 'the' question ! So ( experientially-wise?) is it possible to be free of the ( identification with this thought controlling ?) centre, so that the centre doesn't ( have to) create ( a 'known'?) ) space round itself and build a wall ( of self-isonation) and call that ( 'intimate' inner ) space? Can that 'centre' cease to be? One's mind cannot go beyond this ( self-created ) limitation unless that centre goes.

Needleman: Yes, I see what you mean.

Krishnamurti: So, what is that (self-protective?) 'centre'? That centre is the 'me', the ( knowledgeable ?) 'observer', the ( opportunistic?) 'thinker', the ( consummate?) experiencer, and this centre is also ( subliminally separating itself from?)?) the 'observed'. So there is ( a buffering ?) 'space' between the observer and the observed - right sir?

Needleman: Yes, I see that.

Krishnamurti: And that space it tries to bridge over. It says, "This must be changed, that must not be, I must be better than that." That is the ( constantly interacting?) movement between the 'observer' and the (outer things which are being ) 'observed'.

Needleman: I can follow that, yes...

Krishnamurti: And hence ( a becoming ?) 'conflict' between the observer and the observed. Now (as a 'meditative' option ?) can the 'observer' (also known as?) the 'thinker', the 'knower', the 'experiencer' - can this ( mental) centre be still?

Needleman: Why should it wish to be still ?

Krishnamurti: If it is not 'still', one's available inner space is always ( self-) limited.

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

Krishnamurti: You can see it now (if you take the necessary quality time ?) to look at it ( and see that) where there is a ( self-conscious?) 'centre' it must have a ( buffering ?) space round itself.

Needleman: Yes, I follow...

Krishnamurti: And when it observes , it observes through ( the screen of its own mental ? ) space. When I observe those ( Malibu ?) mountains there is a space (a psychological 'distance'?) between me and the mountains. And when I observe myself ( inwardly) there is (also a distance ) between me and the things I observed in myself. The same thing happens when I observe my wife : I observe her from the centre's 'image' (or past memories?) about her, and she observes me with the image ( or personal memories?) which she has about me. So there is always an ongoing self- division and ( its resulting psychological distance ?) .

Needleman: Now, without changing the subject entirely, there is something ( in mankind's spiritual experience?) called the (sense of the ) 'Sacred'. Sacred teachings, sacred ideas, 'the' Sacred, - which seems to show me that this 'centre' and this '( self-dividing inner) 'space' you speak about is an illusion.

Krishnamurti: We will ( eventually?) find out what is Sacred. But one can only find it out when one's mind has immense (inner?) space. And when the ( subliminal identification with the ?) 'centre' is (suspended or ) not in operation, then there is a vast space. In that ( inwardly open?) space, which is an (intrinsical) part of any authentic Meditation, there is something immeasurably Sacred - which you'll never find out if there is the (self-conscious ?) 'centre' (is active) .
So our real ( experiential) concern is this: whether ( the psychological content of ) that 'centre' can be completely 'emptied' ? That centre is (the core of our everyday self-) consciousness. That centre 'is' the ( active memory ?) content of one's consciousness and there is no self- consciousness if there is no (active memory?) content. You must work this out ( as meditation homework?)

Needleman: Certainly what we ordinarily mean by it, yes...

Krishnamurti: There is no house if there are no walls and no roof . Without this ( self-limiting ?) content, where is ( the self- ) consciousness?

Needleman: I can follow a little bit of what you're saying , but what is the important thing that you're trying to convey here ?

Krishnamurti: I'll put that question after I have ( done my meditative homework and?) found out whether the mind can be empty of the content.

Needleman: All right...

Krishnamurti: Then there is 'something else' ( like a 'holistic consciousness'?) that will operate, which will function even within the field of the known. But without finding 'that' (experientially) ...

Needleman: What you just said is (making it more) clear.

Krishnamurti: So may I proceed a little bit? Let's begin. (A silent inner) 'space' is between two thoughts, between two periods (sequences of psychological ) time, because thought is ( projecting its own continuity in?) time. Yes?

Needleman: All right, yes...

Krishnamurti: Then there is the (buffering mental ?) space round the 'centre', and the space beyond the self, beyond the 'wall' of the centre. The 'space' (psychological distance ?) between the observer and the observed, the space between the observer and ( the image that thought has created of) my wife, and the (psychological distance created by the ) image which she has about me, the ( psychological?) space. You follow, sir?

Needleman: Yes.

Krishnamurti: All that is ( instinctively?) manufactured by the centre (of self-interest) . To speculate what is beyond all that it has no meaning to me personally, it's the philosopher's amusement.

Needleman: The 'philosopher's amusement', I agree...

Krishnamurti: I am not interested.

Needleman: I am not interested either (at my better moments) but nevertheless...

Krishnamurti: I am sorry, I forgot you are a (professional ) philosopher...

Needleman: No, why should you (bother to) remember that!

Krishnamurti: So my (first 'Meditation 101' ?) question is: can the centre be still, or can the (instinctual identification with that) centre fade away? Because if it doesn't fade away, or lie very quiet, then the ( active memory) 'content' of one's consciousness is going to create (a virtual image of the ) space within consciousness and call it the vast space. In this lies ( a potential for self-) deception ; so can that 'centre' be absorbed? Which means, can there be no (self) image, because it is the image that separates? That (thinking self-) image talks about love, but the love of the image is not Love. Therefore I must find out whether the centre can be completely absorbed, dissolved, or (stay put?) as a vague fragment in the distance. If there is no possibility of that, then I ( implicitly ) accept ( the self-created inner) prison.

Needleman: I agree. Now regarding ( the implementation of) this possibility that you are speaking about, without searching for it consciously, something suddenly shows me it is possible.

Krishnamurti: It is there! But my life ( experience) has shown me only that when I look at that mountain there is an image in me; when I look at my wife I see that there is an image in me. That is a fact.
It isn't that I have to wait for another ten years to find out (all about that) beastly little (self-) image! I know it is there, therefore I say: "Is it possible to look (inwardly & outwardly) without the (interference of my self-) image?

Needleman: I am beginning to see the answer to my question. I am beginning to see that there is no distinction between humanism and sacred teachings. There is just truth, or not truth.

Krishnamurti: That's all. False and true.

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

Krishnamurti: So, (in the context of the 'meditator-free' Meditation ?) the (subliminal identification with the ) content of one's consciousness makes up (the self-)consciousness, obviously, without this (residual) content there is no (ego-centric ) consciousness, that's an absolute fact.

Needleman: All right, yes...

Krishnamurti: Without the four walls and a roof there is no 'house'. Can the (newly awakened ? ) consciousness empty itself of its content? Not 'somebody else' do it.

Needleman: That is the ( 64,000 $) question, yes...

Krishnamurti: Can the consciousness empty itself of all this content? First see the (holistic ?) beauty of it, sir.

Needleman: I see it...

Krishnamurti: And it must empty itself without ( the 'center' making ) a (good will?) effort. The moment there is an effort, there is an observer who is making the effort to change the content, which is ( only creating a collateral conflict which is ?) part of ( the same self-) consciousness. I don't know if you see that?

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

Krishnamurti: It must be without an 'agent' who is operating on it, whether an outside agent, or an inner agent. Now can this be done without any effort, any directive, which says, "I will change the content"? This means the emptying of consciousness of all (self-centred desire ) 'to be' or 'not to be'...
Can the (meditating ?) mind, with all its (karmic residual?) content, empty itself and yet remain (a totally stable) mind, not just float about?

Needleman: There is kind of subtle...

Krishnamurti: I have just put the (64,000$) question. And my ( first honest) answer is: I really don't know.

Needleman: That is the actual truth.

Krishnamurti: But I am going to find out (ASAP?) . The (residual) content of my consciousness is my (personal) unhappiness, my misery, my struggle, my sorrow, the images which I have collected through life, the frustrations, the pleasures, the fear, my gods... Can all that (psychological content) be completely emptied? Not only at the superficial level but right through the 'unconscious'. If it is not possible, then I must live in an unending ( existential ?) sorrow. Therefore the (prospective meditating ) mind must find out how to empty itself of all the content of itself, and yet live in this world with a brain that functions efficiently. Now how is this (very tricky thing?) to be done?

Needleman: (How indeed?)

Krishnamurti: This is (the experiential purpose of) real meditation : To see whether the (holistic intelligence of the?) mind can see the ( subtle) relationship between the emptying of consciousness and the thing called Love; the love (energy of ? ) the unknown, ( the 'known', being the existing content of one's ) consciousness.

Needleman: There must be this relationship.

Krishnamurti: The two must be in harmony. The 'emptying' (of the psychological content of the 'known'?) and ( the intelligence of?) Love must be in harmony. And ( further down the line?) it may be only ( the Compassionate Intelligence of?) Love that is necessary and nothing else.

Needleman: The 'emptying' is just another word for ( the intelligent action of?) Love, is that what you are saying ?

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

Needleman: No, it couldn't be.

Krishnamurti: Don't ever (start by saying) say 'yes' or 'no'; find out! What is Love? I really don't know. But there is some (holistic) factor in this : whether the 'emptying' of consciousness with its content is (allowing the coming into being of ) Love, which is the Unknown? What is the relationship between the Unknown, which may be called love, and the content of consciousness, which is the 'known' ? ( Hint : I may be unconscious of all of it, but one can open it up and find out (experientially or ?) non-analytically) what is the (working) relationship between the known and the unknown? To move freely between the known and the unknown in harmony, is (the very action of) intelligence, isn't it?

Needleman: Absolutely.

Krishnamurti: So the (meditating) mind must find out how to empty its content. That is, have no (self-) image, therefore no 'observer'. Can there be no formation of (self-protective) images at all? You hurt me, or you give me pleasure and therefore I have an 'image' of you.

Needleman: Is it possible (for this to be done in real time?) ?

Krishnamurti: Of course it is. For starters?) Isn' it possible when you insult me to be completely watchful, attentive, so that it doesn't leave a (psychological) mark?

Needleman: I know what you mean...

Krishnamurti: So the ( holistically friendly?) mind can do it: which is, no creating (psychologically loaded ?) 'images' at all. If you don't form an image now, the past images have no place.

Needleman: I couldn't follow the logic step of that – it just sounds beyond my grasp - You said that if I don't form an image now...?

Krishnamurti: ... the past images have no place. If you form a (psychologically loaded?) image, then 'you' ( who created it?) , are (subliminally) related to it.

Needleman: You are ( subliminally?) connected to all your past images. That is right.

Krishnamurti: But if you don't form any?

Needleman: Then you are free from the ( karmic residues of the?) past.

Krishnamurti: See it! See it!

Needleman: Very clear.

Krishnamurti: So the mind can ( start ) emptying itself of ( all its past ) images by not forming an 'image' now. So there is ( a free inner) space, not ( the mental) space round the centre. And ( further down the line of meditation?) if one delves, goes into it much further, then there is something sacred, obviously, not invented by thought, which has nothing to do with any (organised ) religion.

Needleman: Very clear. I have another (bonus personal ?) question which I wanted to ask you. Aren't there some authenti spiritual traditions transmitted from generation to generation which are valuable and necessary, and without which we would lose even the little humanity that we now have?

Krishnamurti: Is Goodness a factor (that can be handed down to the next generations by our cultural ) traditions?

Needleman: No, but perhaps there are (some holistically friendly?) traditions.

Krishnamurti: A good tradition, among the Brahmin community in India used to be not to kill any human being or animal. They accepted it (as a way of life), and functioned (accordingly) . But we are asking : can ( the living spirit of?) Goodness blossom in the context of an organised tradition?

Needleman: Aren't there ( spiritual) traditions which are formed by an intelligence either single, or collective, which are helpful in better understanding the true human nature?

Krishnamurti: Is intelligence traditional?

Needleman: I know that this is a 'self-initiating' thing that you speak of but are there not men of great intelligence who can shape the external conditions for me, so that I will not have quite as difficult a time to come to (realising the same inner truths ) that you have seen?

Krishnamurti: That means what, sir? Suppose you are the great person of tremendous intelligence and you say, "My dear son, live this way." Or you convey it by your your atmosphere, your aura, and then I say, "I'll try it. He has got it, I haven't got it." Can my (aspiration for) goodness flower in your ( holy?) ambience? Can goodness grow under your ( enlightened) shadow?

Needleman: I didn't mean that. I was asking, are there ( better human) environments which can be conducive to liberation?

Krishnamurti: : So what does the man who is Intelligent, who is concerned with changing the environment, do for that man?

Needleman: Perhaps, in the first place, he is changing the environment for himself . But he also understands something about man in general. I am talking now about a great (Spiritual) Teacher who presents a way of life to us which we don't understand, which we haven't verified ourselves, but which somehow acts (subliminally) on something within me to 'bring me together' a little.

Krishnamurti: That is Sat-Sun – living in the company of the Good. It is nice to be in the company of the good because we won't then quarrel, we won't fight each other, we won't be violent; it is good.

Needleman: All right. But maybe being in the company of the good I'll understand myself better.

Krishnamurti: So you want the 'Company of the Good' in order to see yourself more clearly?

Needleman: Yes...

Krishnamurti: Which means you depend on the outer environment to see yourself ?

Needleman: Well perhaps in the beginning.

Krishnamurti: ( In terms of one's spiritual awakening?) the beginning is 'the first step and the last step'.

Needleman: I don't agree.

Krishnamurti: If I am 'good' I don't ( really) need them. But when I am not 'good' (or inwardly integrated?) and come into their presence, then I can see myself more clearly. Then they ( the 'good people's community & helping with the daily chores?) become important, not my 'goodness'. This happens every day (in the 'new age' communities) .

Needleman: But it may happen that I do need ( to live in the presence of) this ( enlightened) man, maybe from the beginning.

Krishnamurti: I am going to 'question' it ( from the enlightened person's point of view?). First of all, if I am 'good' I don't need them. I am (as time-free as ) like those hills and birds, I don't need them.

Needleman: Right. We can rule out that case .

Krishnamurti: When I am not good I (sincerely think that) need their (holistic) company, because in their company I can feel a breath of (spiritual) freshness.

Needleman: Or (in what ) bad (inner shape ?) I am.

Krishnamurti: (If?) I am comparing myself with them.

Needleman: No, not always. (In their enlightened presence?) I can expose the image I have of myself as a lie.

Krishnamurti: If I need them (for that purpose) I will for ever hang on to them. This has happened since human relationships began.

Needleman: Yes, but I may hang on to them only for a while and then I 'right'(en) it.

Krishnamurti: Therefore why don't you, the 'good' man, tell me: "Look, you don't need me. Begin watching yourself clearly right now ."

Needleman: Maybe if I told you that, you would take it utterly wrongly and miss the whole thing completely!

Krishnamurti: Then what shall I do? Go on hanging onto you, run after you?

Needleman: Not what shall you do (genrally) , but 'What would you actually do?'

Krishnamurti: What people generally do is run after him and hold on to his skirts.

Needleman: But that is perhaps because the teacher is not ( really awakened & ) intelligent.

Krishnamurti: No. He says, "Look, I can't teach you my friend, I have nothing to teach you. You can learn from yourself."

Needleman: Yes, all right. Suppose he says that.

Krishnamurti: Yes, he says ''learn from yourself''. That means you, being good, are inviting me to look at myself (and in order to help it happen ?) you are pushing me in a corner so that I can't escape.

Needleman: I see what you are saying.

Krishnamurti: That means what? ( My psychological condition is that?) I depend. He has told me one thing: "Don't depend on me or on anybody, your wife, husband, daughter, politician, don't depend." That's all (he had to tell me?) . He goes away. He leaves me with that. What shall I do?

Needleman: Find out if he is right.

Krishnamurti: But I do depend.

Needleman: That's what I meant...

Krishnamurti: So I have to find out, I have to see the truth and the false. I have to see it. That ( freedom fom psycho-dependency?) doesn't depend on anybody. Even the 'company of the good' doesn't teach me what is good and what is false, or true. I have to see it for myself.

Needleman: Absolutely.

Krishnamurti: So I don't (have to?) depend on anybody to find what is true and what is false.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Nov 2018 #14
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 320 posts in this forum Offline

A ( reader friendly edited?) K DISCUSSION WITH DAVID BOHM ON :


Krishnamurti: If a seed of truth is planted ( in the right soil ?) it must operate, it must grow, it must function, it has a life of its own.

Dr Bohm: Millions of people may have read or heard what you say, but it seems that a large number of them haven't understood. Do you feel that they are all going eventually to see it?

K: No, but the seed (of Truth ) is functioning, it's growing, it isn't dead. You can say something false and that ( seed of 'untruth'?) also operates.

Dr B: Yes, but as of now we have a struggle between these two and we cannot foresee the outcome of this struggle.

K: You plant in ( the shared human consciousness?) the seed that, "Truth is a pathless land". Also a (more traditionalistic) seed is planted in my consciousness that says, "There is a way to truth ( to happiness?) , follow me". One is false, one is true. They are both embedded in my consciousness. So there is a ( hidden conflict?) going on. Now, as both are operating, this causes more confusion and a great deal of ( existential anxiety or ?) 'suffering', if I am sensitive enough. And if I don't escape from it, what takes place?

Dr B: You will have the (necessary intelligent ) energy to see what is true ( & what is false?) ?

K: That's right.

Dr B: But for now let's take the people who (consciously or not?) 'escape' (facing this existential issue?) , who seem to be in a far larger number.

K: Quite right, millions are 'out'. But still, their (inner conflicts & ) struggles are going on.

Dr B: Yes, but it is creating confusion.

K: That is what they are all doing.

Dr B: Yes, but we don't know the outcome of that.

K: Oh yes, we do; dictatorship, deterioration.

Dr B: I know, it gets worse. So, you are saying that in the few people who face ( their existential ?) suffering, the ( holistically intelligent?) energy comes to perceive the truth, while in the ( consciousness ?) of those who escape from 'suffering', things are getting worse ?

K: And they rule the world.

Dr B: Now, what is the way out of this (psychological conundrum) ?

K: All one can do is to go on 'shouting'...

Dr B: Yes, but we don't know the outcome of the 'shouting'.

K: If you 'shout in order to get an outcome', it is not the right kind of 'shouting'. You talk, you point out. If nobody wants to pay attention it's their business, you just go on.
(But for those who do listen?) I want to go further. You see, there is a 'mystery' (of Truth?) that thought cannot touch.

Dr B: I think we could see it like this: if you look objectively into the field of thought and reason and so on, you finally see it has no clear foundation. Therefore you see, "What Is" must be beyond that. "What Is" is the mystery.

K: ( But supposing ) I live in the field of reality, and that is ( absorbing all) my life. There I am (self-) consciously aware, and I struggle and keep going in that field. And I can never touch the 'Other'. You say to me, "There is a 'mystery' (of Truth?) which passes all understanding", and to you it is an actuality, not a self-deception. And what you (K) say makes a tremendous impression on me, because of your ( moral) integrity. You point it out to me and somehow, I must get it. What is your responsibility to me? You say that the words cannot touch It, thought cannot touch It, no action can touch it, only the action of truth; perhaps it will give you a feeling of that. And I, because I am an (inwardly conflicted?) human being, would like to get some of that. But then you say, "Truth is a pathless land, don't follow anybody" - and I am left (on my own?) .

I am consciously aware of the ( intrinsical) limitations of ( my self-centred?) thought, of all the confusion, misery, and all the rest of it, but somehow I can't get out of it. Is your Compassion going to help me? You are compassionate, because part of that extraordinary mystery (of Truth?) is ( Love & ) Compassion. Will your Compassion help me? - obviously not. So, all you can say to me is: first put order into ( your existence in) the field of reality.

Dr B: And do not escape ( your existential?) suffering ?

K: If you actually put ( some holistic?) order into the 'field of reality' then ( hopefully?) something will take place. And also you say to me, this order must be done instantly (ASAP?)

Is that Mystery (of Truth?) something that everybody ( has a glimpse into ?) - in the sense that there is a mystery of life apart from my suffering, apart from my death, from my jealousy, my anxiety. Apart from all that, there is a feeling that there is a great Mystery in Life. Isn't it?

Dr B: In a sense... everybody (kind of ?) 'knows' it. Probably one is born with that sense (of life's sacredness ?) but it gradually gets dimmed through the ( hurts & frictions created by the personal & collective ?) conditioning.

K: And has he got the vitality, or the intensity, to put away all that? Do you see the (psychological ?) 'danger' of assuming that "God (or Truth) is ( always present ?) within you" ?

Dr B: There is some sort of intimation of this. I think probably children have it more strongly when they are young.

K: Do you think that 'modern' children have that?

Dr B: Probably much less. There are many causes. One is the lack of direct contact with nature; I think any contact with nature gives ( a glimpse inyo ) Life's mystery. If you look at the starry sky at night, for example.

K: But you see the (mediatised ) 'scientists' are explaining the ( creation of the ) stars. The Captain Cousteau explains the ( mysteries of the ) oceans; everything is being explained away .

Dr B: Yes, the general feeling is that eventually we could know everything.

K: ( But inwardly?) knowledge is becoming the curse. You see, ( the direct?) perception has nothing to do with knowledge. Truth and knowledge don't go together; knowledge cannot contain the immensity of this mystery.

Dr B: Yes, and that's the danger of our modern age, that it gives the appearance that we know more or less everything. At least that we have a general idea of the scheme, if not of the details.

K: May I ask, do you as a trained scientist get the feeling of this mystery.

Dr B: I think so, yes. But then...I've always had some of that, you see.

K: But in talking now, do you get more of the intensity of it? Not because I feel intense, but in talking about this 'something' we open a door.

Dr B: Yes, although my particular conditioning has a great deal in it to resist this notion of 'mystery', although I think that science is now going in a wrong direction.

K: But even the scientists admit that there is a mystery.

Dr B: Yes, to some extent. But the general view is that it could be eventually cleared up.

K: Cleared up in the sense of 'explained away'.

Dr B: That is the main point of distinguishing between 'truth' and 'reality', because anything in the field of reality can be explained, we can penetrate more deeply and broadly, there is limitless progress possible. But the 'essence' is not explained.

K: I'm asking you, in ( a serious) talk like this, do you have an intimation of that mystery ? Do you feel it's no longer an intimation but a truth?

Dr B: I think it's been a 'truth' for some time now.

K: You see there is something interesting ( experientially wise): the 'truth' of that mystery makes the mind completely empty, doesn't it ? It's completely silent. Or because it is silent, the truth of that mystery 'is'.
When the mind is completely silent because it has put order in ( the field of ) reality, the mind is just moving away from (the mental noise of) confusion. Now, not moving away from that realization but ( mindfully ?) staying with it, means negating the ( first level of silence?) which this order has produced.

Dr B: Why is it necessary to produce it first and then negate it?

K: To negate ( the 'silence' of disorder ?) is (the ) Silence (of Truth?) .

Dr B: This is why it has to take place in that sequence ?

K: Because when I remove disorder there is a certain (level of inner ) order, and as a result of that, my mind is quiet.

Dr B: You say that is not the true silence ?

K: No. And in the negation of that silence there is no movement ( of thought-desire?) towards a greater silence. Then this 'total (meditator-free ?) silence' opens the door to That.
(In a nutshell : ) When the (temporal ) mind, with all the ( mental) confusion, is 'as nothing' – ''not -a-thing'' - then perhaps there is the Other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Dec 2018 #15
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 320 posts in this forum Offline

K SMALL GROUP DIALOGUE OJAI CALIFORNIA ( reader-friendly edited ) cca 1977


KRISHNAMURTI: We were discussing how one can know what Krishnamurti is saying is true. He might be caught in his own conditioning, illusions and knowing them, and not being able to free himself from them, have put together a series of observations, words, and call them 'truth'. How do you know whether what he is saying is actual, truthful and lasting?
Dr Bohm said that when one has an insight, a direct perception into what is being said, then there is no doubt that it is the truth. Having that insight you can work it out logically to show that the perception is true. But is that perception only to be had at intervals and therefore (in the meanwhile the brain?) gathering a lot of debris - those things that block perception - or is one perception enough? Does it open the door so that there is (the clarity of?) insight all the time?

Q: Does that mean that you would never have any confusion?

K: Yes, we came to that point. One has a perception, an insight, and that insight has its own capacity for reason, logic and action. That action is complete, because the perception is complete for the moment. Will further action confuse perception? Or, having ( a totally insightful?) perception is there no further confusion?

Q: You also said that the (self-centred ) mind tries to find security in all this.

K: The ( self-centred) mind has always been seeking security ( in material things?) and when that security is threatened it tries to find ( a higher level of ?) security in insight, in direct perception.

Q: In the illusion of insight ?

K: Yes, but it makes the insight into security. The next question is: Must there be a constant 'breaking (up') of perception? That is, one day one sees very clearly, one has direct perception, then that fades away and there is confusion. Then again there is a perception and an action, followed by confusion and so on. Now would you say that when there is complete perception - not an illusory perception - there is no further ( mental?) confusion?

Q: It seems reasonable to say that.

K: That means from day to day there is no confusion at all.

Q: Do you mean after the real insight you could never deceive yourself?

K: No. You have a deep insight, complete, whole. Someone comes along and says: "Look, you are deceiving yourself". Do you instantly say, "No, I am not deceiving myself because my perception was complete"? Or do you listen and look at it all afresh? It doesn't mean that you are denying the complete perception, you are again watching if it is real or illusory.

Q: That is not necessarily an intellectual process?

K: I would say it is both intellectual as well as non-verbal.

Q: Is perception something that is always there and it is only that we...

K: That leads to dangerous ground. The ancient Hindus said that God is always there inside you - the abiding deep divinity, or soul, or Atman, and it is covered up. Remove the confusion, the debris and it is found inside. Most people believe that. I think that is a conclusion. You conclude that there is something divine inside, a soul, the Atman or whatever you like to call it. And from a conclusion you can never have a total, complete perception.

Q: But if you deny that, then what makes one step out of the stream (of collective consciousness) ? Does it mean that the stepping out is for certain individuals only?

K: This possibility exists for human beings.

Q: For the totality (of mankind?)

K: For human beings.

Q: Then there is some energy which...

K: Which is outside of them or which is in them.

Q: Yes. We don't know.

K: Therefore don't come to any conclusion. If from a conclusion you think you perceive, then that perception is conditioned, therefore it is not whole.

Q: Is there not the actual possibility of a deepening of ( one's inner) perception?

K: You can't 'deepen' insight. You can't deepen perception. You perceive the whole - that's all.

Q: What do you mean then by saying there was this mind into which you could continually go more deeply?

K: That is something else.

Q: Are you saying that perception, if it is partial, is not perception?

K: Of course, obviously not.

Q: You mentioned watchfulness even after a total perception.

K: A ( young?) man came up to me and said, "You are getting old, you are stuck in a groove." And I listened to it. For a couple of days I thought about it. I looked at it and said to myself, "He may be right." I wanted to examine it.

Q: I was going to ask: to be caught in habit even after a ( totally insightful) perception, could that not ever happen again, at certain levels?

K: There is partial perception and total perception - let's divide it into those two. When there is total perception there is no further confusion.

Q: You don't get ( anymore) caught in habits?

K: There is no further ( mental?) confusion.

Q: What if something happens to the brain physically?

K: Then of course it is gone.

Q: So there seems to be a ( psychosomatic) limitation to what you say, because one assumes that the brain remains healthy.

K: Of course, assuming that the whole organism is healthy. If there is an accident, your brain suffers concussion and something is injured, then it is finished (better luck next life?) .

Q: But that energy (allowing the total perception?) is still within you, isn't it?

K: One has to go into this question of what is ( required for a holistic?) perception. How do you come to it? That is very important, isn't it?
( For starters?) You cannot have (the integrated energy required for this) perception if your daily life is in disorder, confused, contradictory. That is obvious.

Q: Doesn't this perception mean that there is ( within us a potential of) constant renewal?

K: Is that energy outside, or inside? We said that this perception needs energy. That energy may be an external energy, a mechanical energy, or a non-mechanistic energy which may exist deeply inside you. Both are mental concepts, or 'conclusions' which one has either accepted (adopted) because tradition has said so, or one has come to that conclusion by oneself. Any form of conclusion is detrimental to ( the newness of holistic ?) perception. So what does ( a totally insightful) perception mean? Can I have perception if I am ( openly or subliminally?) attached to my position, to my wife, to my property?

Q: It colours the act of perceiving.

K: So we are saying that a total perception a total insight) can only take place when in your daily life there is no ( inner conflict or?) confusion.

Q: May we look more closely into that ?

K: If the windows are not clean my view is confused. If I am in fear my perception will be very partial. That is a fact.

Q: But don't you need perception to end fear?

K: Ah, but in investigating, observing, going into fear, understanding it profoundly, in delving into it, I ( may?) have ( a global ) perception ( of the mechanism of fear?) .

Q: Are you implying that there are certain things you can 'do' which will make for perceptions? Which means although you have fear and it distorts, the distortion is not so total that you cannot investigate it.

K: I realize I am distorting perception through fear.

Q: That's right, then I begin to look at fear.

K: Investigate it, look into it.

Q: In the beginning I am also distorting it.

K: Therefore I am watching every distortion. I am aware of every distortion that is going on.

Q: But you see, I think the ( experiential) difficulty lies there. How can I investigate when I am ( still) distorting?
K: Wait, just listen. I am afraid and I see fear has made me do something (tell a white lie?) which is a distortion.

Q: But before I can see that, the ( grip of) fear has to fade away.

K: No, I am observing fear. Take this ( psychological) fact: you are afraid (of something ) . When you are ( becoming) conscious of it, it means that you become aware of the fact that there is ( a lurking?) fear. And you observe also what that fear has done. And in looking very deeply into it you have an insight.

Q: I 'may' have an insight.

K: No, you will ( eventually?) have (a fear-liberating ) insight (into it?) , which is quite different.

Q: What you are saying is that this ( inner) confusion due to fear is not complete, that it is always open to mankind to have ( a total ) insight (into it) .

K: To one who is investigating, who is observing.

Q: If you try to investigate something else while you are afraid you get lost in fear. But it is still open to you to investigate fear.

K: Yes, quite right. ( Take another example?) one 'suffers' ( for whatever reasons ) and you see what it does. In observing it, in opening it up, in the very unrolling of it you have a certain (inner clarity of) insight. That is all we are saying. That insight may be partial. Therefore (for extra homework?) one has to be aware that it is partial. Its action is partial and it may appear complete, so watch it.

Q: Very often it looks as if it is totally impossible to have a total insight, since you say: "If you are distorting how will you look?" But you are also saying, that as a matter of fact, when you have a distortion, the one thing you can look at is the distortion itself.

K: That's right.

Q: That factually you have that capacity.

K: One has that capacity.

Q: Could one say that the (thoughtful brain affected by?) fear can look at itself?

K: One is afraid: in looking (non-personally?) at that fear - just watching it - you see what it does, what its action is.

Q: You mean by 'looking', being aware of it.

K: Without any choosing – just being (transpersonally?) aware, you see what fear does. In looking at it more extensively, deeply, widely, suddenly you have an insight into the whole structure of fear.

Q: But there is still the ( observer-observed ) question: in that moment of fear, I 'am' fear.

K: How you observe fear matters - whether you observe it as an 'observer', or the observer 'is' that. You perceive that the observer is the observed (but ) there is ( a residual) ?) distortion, confusion. And as you ( proceed to non-dualistically to ) examine that confusion, which is born of fear, in the very process of examination you have an insight. Do it, and you will see it - if you don't limit yourself. In saying, "I am too frightened, I can't look", you run away from it.

Q: So when you said that one can't see through the window because it is dirty, it distorts, the action of examining the distorting factor, is the cleansing of the window ?

K: How you observe (non-dualistically?) - that is the real thing. That is, ( a holistically integrated?) perception can only take place when there is no division between the 'observer' and the ( psychological fact which is being) observed. Therefore if you are watching (non-personally ) the movement of fear and in the very watching of it, there is an insight. I think that is clear.
And yet you see, Krishnamurti says: "I have never done (all) this."

Q: Never gone through all this? Then how do you know somebody else can?

K: Suppose you have not gone through all this (tedious process of self-introspection) , but you 'see it' instantly. Because you see it instantly your (holistically friendly) capacity to reason explains all this. Another person listens and says, "I'd like to get that, I don't have to go through that whole process."

Q: Are you saying that all we have been discussing just now is merely a (linear) pointer to something else? We don't have to go through all that ?

K: Yes. I want to get at that (effort-free action ?)

Q: In other words, (all that was discussed) helped to clear the ground (or sweeped the floor?) in some way?

K: Yes.

Q: It is not really the main point ?

K: No.

Q: Are you saying there is a ( holistic) short cut?

K: No, no 'short cut', but must you go ( diligently) through examining all one's fears, worries & attachment? Or can you clear up the whole thing instantly? Must one go through all this process?

Q: You previously said that you have never done this. And by having that immediate total perception you were able to see what those with the dirty windows can do to clean them. So, there is perhaps a more direct (non-linear approach) , an immediate way for those who haven't...

K: First put the question to yourself and see what comes out of it.
Is it possible through (an ASAP?) discovering that the observer 'is' (not separated from the inner things) observed and that there is no division, in the very process of (non-dualistic) investigation - in which we are observing without the observer and see the totality of it - to also free all the rest? ( Clue:) I think that is the only way.

Q: Could all that be part of one's conditioning if one were raised in a certain way, or went to a certain ( lame ?) school?

K: There may be deeper layers (of psychological conditioning) . You may not even be totally conscious of them, you may not be totally aware of the deeper fears, etc. You may (glibly?) say, ''Yes, I am all right, I have none of these things''.

Q: But if one went to a ( holistically friendly?) school, the kind of learning and investigation that would take place in such a school, would that clear the way towards the possibility?

K: Obviously. But what we are now talking about is: Must one go through all this process?

Q: Couldn't we remove from the problem the' personal' aspect? We are discussing what is open to man rather than to any individual.

K: Yes. Is it open to any human being without going through alI this ( linear?) process? Or can a ( holistically inclined?) human being see the whole thing at a glance? And that very glance is the complete, total perception.

Q: Which is what you mean when you say ''the first step is the last''.

K: Yes, (in terms of) total perception.

Q: Then what would one's responsibility be towards someone who is (living engulfed ) in sorrow?

K: The response to that (sorrow afflicted) human being is the response of compassion. That's all. Nothing else.

Q: If you see an injured bird it is very easy to deal with that because it really doesn't require very much of you. But when you come in contact with a human being, he has a much more complex set of needs.

K: What can you do actually? Somebody comes to you and says, "I am in deep sorrow". Do you talk to him out of compassion, or out of your own particular experience of sorrow which has conditioned (your thinking) , and you answer him according to your conditioning? Because a man who is suffering wants some sort of solace, someone on whose lap he can put his head. So what he is seeking is comfort and the avoidance of this terrible (existential) pain. Will you offer him any of those (cheap ) escapes? Whatever comes out of (the intelligence of) Compassion will help him.

Q: Are you saying that as far as sorrow is concerned you can't directly help anyone, but the (intelligent) energy of compassion itself may be of help?

K: That's right; there is no (personal) problem if you are compassionate. (The intelligence of?) compassion has no (personal) problems, therefore it is com-passionate (it has passion for all) .

Q: You are saying that total compassion is the highest intelligence?

K: Of course, compassion has its own intelligence and that intelligence acts. But if you have no compassion and no intelligence, then your conditioning makes you reply whatever he wants. To go back to the other question: Must a human being go through the whole process? Has no human being said, "I won't go through all this. I absolutely refuse to go through all this"?

Q: But on what basis does one 'refuse'? It wouldn't make sense to refuse to do what is necessary.

K: Of course. You see, (inwardly?) we are creatures of habit. Because my father is conditioned, generations after generations are conditioned I accept to operate within it. But if I (would) say, ''I won't ever operate in my conditioned responses'', then something does (may?) take place. I reject the whole thing. You see, a human being never said , "I will reject the whole thing". I want to investigate that.

Q: But isn't the key to this somewhere in (the time-binding nature of) desire? There is in all of us some sort of desire for continuity, for (a long term material) security.

K: That's right. Bourgeois implies continuity, security, it implies belonging to something - & all that (jazz?) .

Q: But if you are saying that Krishnamurti never had the need to say it, we can only conclude that you are some kind of (psychological) 'freak'.

K: Don't say Krishnamurti is a 'freak', but ask: "How does it happen?"
You are a human being, he is a human being: you want to find out.

Q: He is a human being that has never been through all that, and yet he points out.

K: No, he has never been through it, but don't you ask the question: "How does it happen (non-linearily?) , must I go through all this?" Do you ask that?

Q: Krishnaji, you are taking two widely separate things. One is the uncontaminated person, who never had to go through the process because he was never in the soup...

K: Leave out 'why' he didn't (have to?) go through it.

Q: But most other people, apparently, are in some form of (psychological) contamination, it may be fear, or something else. Therefore the person who has already got this 'sickness' - let's call it that - says "This man has never been sick for a day in his life." What good is it to examine that, because one is already 'sick' in some form. It is a fact - at least it is to me - that there is the sickness in some form or another. I don't think that is an assumption. I think that is a fact.

K: Can we put the whole thing ( in a holistically?) different way ? Do you seek the( spiritual) essence of excellence? Then everything falls away, doesn't it? Or do you seek excellence in a certain direction and never ( find the quality time to get to) the essence of excellence? As an artist I seek excellence in my painting and get caught in that. A scientist gets caught in something else. But an ordinary human being, not a specialist, just an average intelligent human being who does not take drugs, does not smoke, is fairly intelligent and decent, if he sought the essence of excellence, would this happen? The (holistic demand for the?) essence - how you demand it - brings the essence of it. (Hint:) You demand it passionately. You demand the highest intelligence, the highest excellence, the essence of it...

Q: Where does the demand come from?

K: Demand it! Don't say: "Where does it come from?" There may be a ( personal?) motive, but the very demand washes it all away. I wonder if I am conveying anything?

Q: Well, you are saying: ''Demand the essence of excellence''... of which we don't know anything …

K: I don't know what is beyond it, but ( for starters?) I want to be morally excellent.

Q: Does that mean ''goodness''?

K: I demand the ''excellence of goodness'', I demand the excellent flower of goodness. In that very demand there is a demand for the essence.

Q: Does ( the toally insightful?) perception come from this demand?

K: Yes, that's right.

Q: Could you go into what ( exactly) you call this 'demand'?

K: It is not a demand that means imploring, wanting - cut out all those...

Q: You are really saying that then the impossible is becoming possible to the average intelligent human being?

K: We are saying that it is possible for the average ( holistically inclined?) human being, who is fairly clean, who is fairly decent, fairly kind, who is not a (spiritually minded ?) 'bourgeois'. And to demand it does not mean begging or praying, getting something from somebody.

Q: The point is, we can easily confuse this demand with ( a sublimated form of ) desire. So, when people want to give up desire then there is a danger of giving up this demand as well.

K: Let's find a (better) word for it. Would the word "passion" be suitable? There is passion for this, passion for excellence.

Q: As you were just saying, people have had some 'vision', or a dream of something and that has developed a great energy. But you are saying it is not a dream, it is not a vision; but it is nevertheless some perception of this ( passion for) excellence ?

K: All those passions feed the ego, feed the me, make me important, consciously or unconsciously. We are cutting out all that. There is a young boy who has a passion to grow up into an extraordinary human being, into something original.

Q: He sees that it is possible.

K: Yes, that's right. It is possible. Is that what is missing in most human beings? Not passion, but the welling up of... I don't know how to put it. There is this passion in a human being who demands the supreme excellence, not in what he writes in his books, but the feeling of it. You know this, don't you? - that may shatter everything else. Again, that human being didn't demand it. He says: "I never even asked for it."

Q: Perhaps we are conditioned to mediocrity, not to make this demand. That is what you mean by 'mediocrity' ?

K: Yes, of course. Mediocrity is lack of great passion - not for Jesus, or for Marx or whatever it is.

Q: We are not only conditioned to mediocrity but to direction, so the demand is always to have some direction.

K: The demand has a direction, quite right.

Q: To have a demand without any direction...

K: That's right. I like the word "demand", because it is a ( transpersonal?) challenge.

Q: Doesn't a demand without direction imply that it is not in time?

K: Of course. It demands no direction, no time, no person. So does total insight bring this passion? Total insight 'is' the (flowering of this ?) passion (for spiritual excellence?) .

Q: They can't be separated.

K: Total insight is the (action of that) flame of passion which wipes away all confusion. It burns away everything else. Don't you then act as a magnet when you are passionate to create? Is it that there is ( in most of us?) this lack of fire? That may be the thing that is missing. If there is something missing I would ask for it.

Q:(So, the bottom line is that) have to ask for the unlimited, for the unconditioned.

K: And ( for extra homework?) what is the relationship between two human beings, when one is unconditioned and the other is not? There is no ( 2 way) relationship.

Q: How can you say that there is no relationship between the unconditioned and the conditioned human being?

K: There is no relationship from the conditioned to the unconditioned. But the unconditioned has a relationship to the other.

Q: But logically one could ask: Is there an essential difference between the unconditioned and the conditioned? Because if you say there is, then there is duality.

K: X is conditioned, Y is not conditioned. X thinks in terms of duality, his very conditioning is duality. But (his dualistic mentality?) duality has no relationship with Y, yet Y has no duality therefore there is a relationship. You also asked some other question: Essentially, deeply, is there a difference? Are they not both the same?

Q: Take ''The world is 'me' and 'me' is the world''. That is an absolute fact only to the unconditioned.

K: Oh, not at all. Be careful, it is so. It is an obvious fact.

Q: I may ( glibly?) say, "I am the world, the world is me", but then I revert to an action which is a contradiction to that. Therefore it is not an absolute fact for me. There may be moments when the 'fact' of it is seen by me.

K: Yes. Do you see very clearly that ''I am the world and the world is me'"?

Q: I feel it.

K: And ( later on?) I act contrary to that (spirit) . Which is, I may act personally, selfishly - (or upgrade it to 'us' & 'ours'?) . That is a contradiction to the (responsible truth of the ) fact that the world is me and I am the world. A person can say this merely as an intellectual conclusion, or a momentary feeling.

Q: It is not just an intellectual conclusion, but I accept that for you the position is totally different.

K: No, you don't even have to accept that. See the fact, which is, when one says, "I am the world and the world is me" there is no 'me' ( no hidden self interest?) . Can that (holistic) quality operate in all directions? It must operate in all directions. When you say, "I am the world and the world is me", and there is no me, there is no conditioning. I don't put the question: In that unconditioned state does the (self-centred) conditioned exist? When a human being says, "I am the world and the world is me", there is no I.

Q: Therefore there is no 'you' either ?

K: When there is no ( self-centred thinking in terms of?) 'I' there is no 'you'.

Q: One can see in what is going on in the world, that people are generally confused about this.

K: 'I' exist: there is 'you' and 'me'. And 'you' also think the same thing. So we keep this division everlastingly. But when you and I have profound insight that, "The world is me and I am the world", there is no 'me'.

Q: There is no me and no you. "No" means "everything".

K: The world of living - everything.

Q: Why do you have to say, "I am the world" first, and then deny this?

K: Because it is an actuality.
Q: But then you imply that the I is still there if I say, "I am the world".

K: That is merely a ( verbal) statement. It is an actual fact that I am the (total consciousness of the?) world.

Q: You mean to say I am generated by the (consciousness of the?) world, I am identified with everything.

K: Yes. I am the product of the (temporal) world

Q: You are really saying that one is the product of the whole of society.

K: Yes.

Q: But I am also of the essence of the whole of society.

K: Yes. I am really the essential result of all this.

Q: But there is still another unclarified question. Is the unconditioned mind also a product of all this? Then we come to a contradiction.

K: No, there is no contradiction. Without using the word "I" it can be said: the result of the world is this. The result of the world is that also. We are two human beings, which means the result has created the I and the you. When there is an insight into the result there is no "result".

Q: The result changes and vanishes when we see it.

K: That means there is no result. Therefore 'you' and 'I' don't exist (as self-isolated entities?) . That is an actual fact for a man who says, "I am not the result (of the world) ". You see what it means? There is no causation in the mind and therefore there is no effect. Therefore it is whole, and any action born of it is causeless and without effect.

Q: You have to make that clear, in the sense that you still use cause and effect concerning ordinary, mechanical things.
K: Quite. This human being, X, is a result. And Y is a result. X says I, and Y says I; therefore there is you and I. X says I see this and investigates, goes into it and he has an insight. In that insight the two 'results' (of the collective self-interest ?) cease. Therefore in that state there is no cause and no effect. That mind acts out of compassion. Therefore there is no ( karmic?) result.

Q: But in some sense it would look as if there were a result.

K: But ( the intelligence of ) compassion has no 'result'. A is suffering, he says to X, "Please help me to get out of my suffering." If X really has ( this intelligence of) compassion his words have no ( predictable?) 'result'.

Q: Something 'happens' (or not?) , but there is no ( ego-rewarding ?) result.

K: That's it.

Q: But I think people generally are seeking a result.

K: Yes. Let's put it another way. Does compassion have a result? When there is result there is cause. When ( your) compassion has a ( temporal?) cause then you are no longer compassionate.

Q: But compassion also acts.

K: Compassion is (pure) compassion, it doesn't act. If it acts because there is a cause and an effect, then it is not (universal) compassion: it wants a ( personal) result.

Q: What makes it want a result is the idea of separation. Somebody says, " There is a person suffering, I would like to produce the (desirable) result that he is not suffering. " But that is based on the idea that there is a 'me' (the wilful giver of compassion) and he (the beneficiary ) .

K: That's it.

Q: There is no 'he' and no 'I'. There is no room, no ( time or ) place to have this result.

K: It is a tremendous thing!
( To recap:) One has to look very, very carefully (at this statement) "The world is me and I am the world". When the 'me' and the 'you' exist (as self-centred entities ): both of us are there (in the Stream of collective Time) . The 'you' and the 'I' are the results of all man's misery, of selfishness, and so on - it is a result. When one looks into this 'result' (of time) , goes into it (meditatively & ) very, very deeply, the ( inner clarity of that ) 'insight' brings about a quality in which 'you' and 'I' - who are the result - don't exist (as isolated selves) . This is easy (& very convenient ) to agree to verbally, but when you see it deeply there is no you and no me. Therefore there is no result (of time) - which means Compassion. The person upon whom that compassion acts wants a (self-rewarding) result. We say, "Sorry, there is no result." But the man who suffers says, "Help me to get out of this", or, "Help me to bring back my son, my wife", or whatever it is. He is demanding a result. This (some)thing has no result. The result is the world.

Q: Does compassion affect the consciousness of man?

K: Yes. It affects the deep layers of human consciousness. To the man who sees this deeply with a profound insight, there is no 'you' or 'I'. Therefore that profound insight is (a pure act of) compassion - which is intelligence. And the intelligence says: If you want a (self-gratifying?) result I can't give it to you, I am not the product of a result. Compassion says: This state is not a result, therefore there is no cause.

Q: Does that mean there is no 'time' either?

K: No cause, no result, no time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 #16
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 320 posts in this forum Offline

Is there a ( time-free ) dimension of Consciousness ?
( A 'reader friendly' edited version of the last K dialogue (dec 1985 )

PJ: ( All man's 'psychologically' motivated ?) problems arise just because his brain (is constantly trying to improve or ?) change ‘what is’ into something different , and the 'movement' (the mental activity?) of the brain which wants to change ‘what is’ into something else, creates ( its own projection in ) time.

K: Could we say this very simply? All (physical) movement is ( taking place in a linear sequence of ? ) time. Now, ( besides this chronological time) there is also ( a subjective dimension of ?) 'psychological' time—the time of becoming something (different from what one is) ‘I am this, I will be that.’ And there is also this joint process of the human brain's evolution—both psychological and physical. Now, my question is: whether there is an (inner dimension of ) time, which doesn’t belong to these categories at all ?

PJ: That is why I said, Krishnaji, that the problem is that we take the content of the brain which is memory and feel that there is an entity which can change that content of the brain. The whole process of ( personal & collective thought engaged in a process of ?) becoming (better, safer & stronger is ?) creating 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 we apply the (same principle ?) of brain's evolution to the (psychological) content of the brain. My question is: Is there an evolution (of the human consciousness?) in time?

K: Evolution is ( a joint process of physical & psychological) time.

PJ: You see, we all know that (the psychological) becoming is illusion. That is very simple to understand. But there is something much more than that when you ask: Is there another (dimension of?) time which doesn’t belong to these two categories?

K: That’s my question.

PJ: Now, time and space are one; time and matter are one.

K: Time is ( enfolded in any material (movement) . Time is manifested energy. The ( unfolding of any material ?) manifestation is a process of time.

PJ: Time cannot exist without manifestation.

K: That’s what I want to inquire into : is there a time (- free dimension of man's consciousness?) which is not manifest?

PJ: If you suggest that this ' time of non-movement' is not the outcome of ( a physical) manifestation, why do you then use the word ‘time’?

K: I have ( found?) no other ( better suited ?) word for the moment...

SP: Are you saying that in the Ground from which all life's manifestation arise there is another time?

K: Probably. Love is not of time.

PJ: You see, forgive me for saying so, sir, the moment you use the word ‘love’, it is an absolute statement (which makes ) no discussion possible.

K: Wait, Pupul. That’s rather an unfair statement. We are trying to find out what (the time-free ?) eternity is, an inward (dimension of?) Reality which (does not belong to the material order?) of time. We know that what is mortal grows and dies, but we are asking whether there is a state ( a dimension of human consciousness?) which is not of time and which is beyond time. Do you understand?

PJ: I understand, sir...

K: Which means, is there ( beyond man's temporal consciousness?) a timeless activity which is infinite and measureless? But you see, (unfortunately?) we are using words to measure the Immeasurable, and our words have become (part of thought's process of ) time. Words have become (an integral part of our ) time (bound consciousness ) and with those words we are measuring a state (of mind?) which is not measurable, but 'That' which is not measurable is not of time.

PJ: OK, let us go (experientially) into it. We know ( the movement of thought creating its own thread of self-centred continuity in ? ) time as the past, as the present and as the future. In fact, we project ( our own psychological) future. Now, what is the nature of the (holistic) perception of that (time-free ) instant which is the only Reality?

K: Let us examine the ( time-gap between the ) seeing and the doing, the ‘I must do’. There is the ( time-bound) seeing which is (projecting its action into ?) the future—‘I must do’, ‘I will become’. Now, this ( psychological?) future is the (active memory of the?) past ( updating & ) modifying itself (at any point in time?) . That is ( the manifested dimension of ?) time. Now, there is also a 'timeless' (time-free?) action which is 'perception-action'. In this 'timeless action', there is no (separating time-) interval. Right?

PJ: Can't we examine this (timeless?) instant ?

K: Yes. The (temporal dimension of the ) present, the ‘now’, is (containing both ) the past and the future. The present contains that.

PJ: But a (totally insightful) perception in the present negates both the past and the future.

K: That’s what I am saying. But (this time-free?) perception requires a state without the past. ( The holistic) perception is timeless. That’s it.
( Suppose, for an in-class example that ?) I perceive ( the fact that being inwardly ?) full of ( cultural?) prejudices, knowledge, conclusions & other 'beliefs', with that ( background) I look at ( what is happening in the ) present (moment) . And this is modified by the challenge—I might alter certain ( personal assumptions & ) beliefs but I still remain in the same field (of the 'known') . The present is modified, and so the 'future' is the modification.

PJ: Yes, but isn't there a point of perception... ?

K: There is no point of perception here.

PJ: But when you speak of a time(-free dimension) which does not belong to these two—the past and the future—obviously the essential element of such perception is the (full awareness of the ) ‘now’.

K: Yes, and this (holistic) 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’ is ( the choiceless awareness of) all (the thought created ?) time: past time, future time and the present time.

PJ: You see, we can ( remember our ) past experiences in time, and we can also experience the 'future time' which we are projecting, but what is the experiencing of ‘all time’?

K: You can’t experience it (in the dualistic 'observer-observed ' mode). 'Experience' implies an experiencer who is experiencing. This 'experiencer' (entity ?) is of time.

PJ: Therefore when you say that the ‘now’ contains the past and the future, what does it exactly mean? How do you contact it? What is this (time-free ) ‘now’?

K: I’ll tell you what the ‘now’ is. Does one actually experience this, does one actually see the whole implication of that? Do you have an insight into that?

SP: Normally we don’t get ( this time-free) insight.

PJ: Krishnaji is asking whether there is a 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: At least to me, ( the holistically friendly ) perception where the revelation of this insight into this can come about only in the present. Now, how do I come to this ( timeless) ‘now’ of Existence?

K: 'You' cannot come to it.

PJ: Yes. 'You' cannot come to it—then, what ?

K: See what has happened, Pupul : you can’t experience it, but your brain is conditioned to experience. Your brain is conditioned to (recognise & experience anything aided by its past?) knowledge, it is conditioned to measurement in words. But 'this' ( time-free Now ?) cannot be approached (in) that ( knowledgeable?) way. And this is where the 'religious' minds meet - because they have wiped away the theories, they have wiped away ideas and concepts and they deal (live!) with the actual state, And this is where the 'religious' inquiry begins. But if you are inquiring into ( the validity of various ) theories and, so, you will (indulge in) playing around with it infinitely.

PJ: Is it possible to probe into this ( time-free dimension) ?

K: Yes, it is possible. By keeping in mind that the words are not the 'thing'. You can’t measure this with words.

PJ: So, the moment ( the attempt to experience it intellectually through?) words cease...

K: ...(but the inward challenge of ?) the 'question ' remains.

PJ: This sounds quite ( paradoxical?)  : the 'question' ( the inward questioning?) remains, but the 'questioners' do not remain...

K: Yes. The question remains and the questioners don’t exist.

AC: What does ( the truth content of the?) question operate upon?

K: I said: ( The totally insightful?) Perception means that there is no 'perceiver'. See what the implication of that is. The ( self-conscious?) 'perceiver' is ( the thought's continuity thread of the ) past ( modifying itself in the present) and ( projecting itself into?) the future. But the ( though-free?) perception is now. Therefore it is timeless just as its action is timeless.

PJ: Therefore, in that ('thought & time' -free?) perception, the past and the future are totally annihilated.

K: Do you see what is happening in the (time -free ) Now? Listening is not of time. If I listen ( non-dualistically?) , it is ( happening in the timeless?) Now. Do you understand ?

AC: I don’t...

K: Look, sir, ( supposing ?) I tell you ''Love is not of time''. How do you listen to that? First you hear the words—those words have a certain meaning and (cvasi-instantly ?) those words are interpreted according to your ( cultural) background, according to your intellectual capacity, your emotional capacity, your feeling of affection, and so on. But can you listen to the (inward?) Truth of it?

AC: I don’t think I can listen (so profoundly?) . I am listening to the words. How can you separate the words from the rest of it?

K: Oh yes, you can. Don’t you understand the simple truth of it? ''Love is not of time''.

AC: Sir, my 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: How do you listen? Without translating everything into memory.
I say that in a dialogue with Krishnaji you can listen without thought operating and, yet, comprehend fully 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, then, what is your comprehension of the statement ‘Love is not of time’?

PJ: There is no ( intellectual) comprehension. You take it as a perfume...

K: I can’t explain it to you (verbally) but one can have a dialogue (with the inward truth of?) that. Do you understand the beauty, the depth of it? Have a dialogue regarding that.

SP: I can understand that love is not attachment, and that where jealousy is, love is not.

K: That’s analysing.

SP: I know that. But, in spite of all this 'dialogue', this (timeless?) state of love which is not of time...

PJ: Sunanda, you can never use ( the intellectual can-opener of) words to 'open up' this statement. Forgive me for saying it.

K: You are using your ( subliminally self-centred) intellect. You are not using a totally different capacity. An ( uneducated ?) man who has not passed exams and secured professorships, will understand ( the inward truth of?) a simple statement like this. At least... I think he will.

AC: Sir, may I come back? How can there be an inquiry into this (non-dualistic ) state of (timeless?) perception?

K: I will show it to you. (Suppose I'm telling you) ‘Love is not of time’. To me that’s a tremendous fact; it is the ( ultimate?) truth. And you say, ‘I really don’t understand you’. And I tell you, ‘You won’t understand it the way 'you' want (or expect?) to understand it, because you want to understand ( by recognising?) it ( verbally) through the intellectual process -through argumentations, through a constant back and forth of words'. I say that you won’t understand it that way. You might say that that is the only instrument you have and I reply, ‘Look, there is a totally different instrument. I will tell you what that instrument is if you can put aside the (un-conscious identification with?) this enormous weight of ( pseudo-) knowledge which is of time’.

AC: Do you put aside your 'intellectual instrument', or your knowledge?

K: No, of course not. I said ( 'psychological' ? ) knowledge. This 'knowledge' is ( the result of all our survival- based ?) evolution. . Is there a ( transpersonal ?) comprehension, an insight, an immediate perception of the (inward truth of that statement ) without the word, without analysis, without bringing all your knowledge into it?

AC: I understand that, sir.

K: So, if you understand ( see the truth of?) that, there is a (timeless inner) state where words have lost their (conventional) meaning, but that there is pure perception of something, ( and then, as meditation homework?) you will probe into that 'perception'. .

PJ: Can you discuss that?

K: You can’t 'discuss' it.

AC: Yes. You cannot, for how does one inquire without the word? You see, this state, to me, is the end of inquiry, not the beginning of inquiry.

K: All right, if it is the end of (the verbal) inquiry, you stop there? The brain—does it see ( the inward implications of ?) this? Then that’s finished. Do you follow?

AC: Yes, I follow.

K: Do you get it?

AC: Yes...

K: Do you (really?) get it ( to the insight-triggering point where?) the brain says, ‘Yes, that’s 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: Sir, as long as there is ( an awakening?) of ( a holistically friendly ?) energy, there is no further question.

K: I agree.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 16 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)